File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2001/heidegger.0111, message 91


From: "Michael Staples" <michael-AT-intersubjectivestudies.com>
Subject: RE: Sensuous Metaphor
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 08:33:38 -0800


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.


Re: Sensuous Metaphor
  -----Original Message-----
  From: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
[mailto:owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of Michael
Pennamacoor
  Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 8:48 PM
  To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
  Subject: Re: Sensuous Metaphor


  John Foster presented us with the following recently:

  >Music and art in general have these virtual powers of placing into
  >parenthesis all forms of objectivity; thus the power of the interaction
  >enabling secondary illusions as 'sensuous metaphor', and 'harmonic
space'....
  >
  >Music therefore is a form of symboling which borrows from natural forms.

  I'm wondering, (maybe not) on the contrary whether music enables us to
think the ("natural") world, to sing it, to at-tune to it. Tuning, ringing,
vibing, etc are not overwhelmingly metaphorical in musical-cum-acoustical
language; they arise from the very substantiality of music itself, as do the
sometimes dialogical (canonic polyphony, antiphonal passages,
jazzy-conversational, etc), sometimes monological, 'lines' and 'threads' and
'passages' and 'movements', etc, in the speech of musical composition.
Weaves spun in time: of time, perhaps?

  Perhaps the 'literal' is a special form of the metaphorical? In the same
sense that 'false' speech (speech that does not speak under the auspices of
being) is a special kind of 'true' speech (that does speak being); that
false speech belongs to true speech [in Parmenides]?

  just a thought... [but, of what kind?]

  MichaelP

  [Michael Staples]

  The thing here is that as long as we continue to bring terms like
"metaphor" into the forground of the discussion, we cannot help but bring
its meanings along with it. The issue here is not how to attempt to weave a
set of new meanings for words like metaphor and symbol. The issue is how to
extract ourselves from the baggage these words impose upon us. This is why
H. goes to such lengths to create new words, no? So, when you are talking
about how the literal does this with regard to the metaphorical doing
that...implicitly, you are still moving within the assumptions of the
division of language into literal v. metaphorical meanings. Why not drop it
and spend the time trying to rethink altogether the original phenomenon this
lingo points to?

  Michael S.

HTML VERSION:

Re: Sensuous Metaphor
 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu [mailto:owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of Michael Pennamacoor
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 8:48 PM
To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Subject: Re: Sensuous Metaphor

John Foster presented us with the following recently:

>Music and art in general have these virtual powers of placing into
>parenthesis all forms of objectivity; thus the power of the interaction
>enabling secondary illusions as 'sensuous metaphor', and 'harmonic space'....
>
>Music therefore is a form of symboling which borrows from natural forms.

I'm wondering, (maybe not) on the contrary whether music enables us to think the ("natural") world, to sing it, to at-tune to it. Tuning, ringing, vibing, etc are not overwhelmingly metaphorical in musical-cum-acoustical language; they arise from the very substantiality of music itself, as do the sometimes dialogical (canonic polyphony, antiphonal passages, jazzy-conversational, etc), sometimes monological, 'lines' and 'threads' and 'passages' and 'movements', etc, in the speech of musical composition. Weaves spun in time: of time, perhaps?

Perhaps the 'literal' is a special form of the metaphorical? In the same sense that 'false' speech (speech that does not speak under the auspices of being) is a special kind of 'true' speech (that does speak being); that false speech belongs to true speech [in Parmenides]?

just a thought... [but, of what kind?]

MichaelP

[Michael Staples] 
 
The thing here is that as long as we continue to bring terms like "metaphor" into the forground of the discussion, we cannot help but bring its meanings along with it. The issue here is not how to attempt to weave a set of new meanings for words like metaphor and symbol. The issue is how to extract ourselves from the baggage these words impose upon us. This is why H. goes to such lengths to create new words, no? So, when you are talking about how the literal does this with regard to the metaphorical doing that...implicitly, you are still moving within the assumptions of the division of language into literal v. metaphorical meanings. Why not drop it and spend the time trying to rethink altogether the original phenomenon this lingo points to?
 
Michael S.
--- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005