Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 19:37:20 -0700
From: Kenneth Johnson <poochiegraig-AT-home.com>
Subject: Re: rene and philosophy



rene wrote:

>In GA45, as in other lectures, the regular course is interrupted by
>a repetiton of the last hour. What's so remarkable with these
>doubles, is that in them Heidegger doesn't refer directly to the previous
>exposition, falling back to its concepts, developping them further, as we
>the others,
>the philosophers, would do. If I would write a book, it would grow
>steadily, that is
>I would have the illusion it did, because what is growing like that cannot
>be thinking, but is history.
>
>But Heidegger. Every repetition is completely new, original thinking,
>no falling back to earlier versions. Directly from the fountain (_his_
>fountain: he said that the question of the sense/Sinn was his question,
>and only his)
>
>Nietzsche similar. Introducing european nihilism in the book WtP,
>he writes: it cannot not come: necessity itself is at work here.
>How can he say that? Because Nietzsche has thought himself
>into the whole of what is. And because it is 'nothing' that surrounds
>the ring of the whole.

I'm writing this part after making the comments following, because it
occurred me on reread of this that what holds for the micro stacatto (with
the readers completion of microphrasic thots) below, also applies to these
macro paragraphic thots above. When an aware reader gets to the end of the
above 3 paragraphs, the inexplicit disunities composing them suddenly at
the end become explicit unities. But this is not automatic. It requires the
reader first to sense and then to assemble this unity on his own. This is
far superior to having the writer add in several segues and extra verbs,
nouns, adjectives etc. needed for those of a lesser astuteness in the
subject, as say for someone outside 'the field'.


>By chance, I read this summer in Stendhal: 'On style'
>(Le style, c'est l'homme)  Stendhal was Nietzsche's first man
>till he discovered Dostoevsky and his god-man. (Demons)

probly no doubt this was the origin of n's beginning creations of his
images on the critical aspect of style to thought, to the thinker of them -
-


>The staccato, although probably irritating the most,

hmmmm, not to me!!

but maybe we have two different contextual senses in mind for what we mean
by stacatto.  What i hear as stacatto in your style is an _effect_ (a
machinic effect) within the outcome of economy, an economy that _is_
economic because your style here forces the reader to complete the logical
conclusion of your thought.line(s) without you having to add several more
interspersed explanatory summa words.

this is a kind of writing i admire highly, as it requires a composer with a
bit more 'sensitivity' to the ambient air currents in judging the potential
audience - their general competence of the views on the broader longhand
subject at hand (i.e. the particular "field of inquiry") toward and for
which you render newer thots in shorthand - and you do so well at this
shorthand because you know, or have a sense for, your audience, one smooth
enough to allow even those mediumly read in the field to finish (to
explicitize) the implicit given surrounds of your thotlines easily (or
efficiently).

perhaps it also is to do with, that i know english is not native to you and
so this may have something inexplicit to do with my eye's stand-in ear-work
in picking up these stacatto rhythms that - -

or wait, hmmm, maybe it has also and even more to do with your lack of
segues, as this "reader is required to fill in the unsaid" style make these
superfluous

or at one last hmmm, as i ponder on down this line an inch more, the image
of its internal machinery begins to focus rather more sharply when I
connect this style to Homer's time when rhythm in speech was critical for
any complex abstractive type thinking to progress (or pro.cess), because
most communication then twixt man and man was oral, and so to enable their
remembering (re-membering long thoughts back together after an absence of
their old images of some complex thought/story that was itself organic)
required a poetic-toned rhythm - -

and, or so - perhaps all my squirlyqueing above is in the end just to
simply say, that you are aiodic in your written english voice, and that's
why we can understand, stand under, it so clearly -

and it just happens to render itself in stacatto

or maybe not,

kenneth







     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---