Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 21:28:15 +0100
From: artefact-AT-t-online.de (Michael Eldred)
Subject: Re: Sensuous Metaphor


Cologne 18-Nov-2001

Aristotelos alias <Gulio-AT-sympatico.ca> schrieb Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:28:02
-0800:

> I don't know this thread goes on forever. It's the black and white,
> on/off and we have a byte thing over and over again. Language barely
> allows an expression that goes down the middle or that mixes kinds
> even, like an oxymoron, like hybrids or any kind of porous border. I
> take it that a symbol does that if it means a mixture of clarity and
> obscurity which gives it it's truth quality in Heidegger's sense if
> this means the untruth of truth. just a thought,Gulio sleeping

You're really pitching high here, Aristotelos. Aiming at the best?

What you want to mix here, truth and untruth, is parasitical on what it
wants to leave behind and simply introduces a dichotomy, just like back
at the first beginning when philosophers dichotomized and multiplied
being (e.g. Empedocles' dual principles of friendship and enmity, wet
and dry, warm and cold).

Before starting to concoct mixtures it is important to get the simple
ingredients well thought. Here they are truth and untruth, truth and
determinate negation (of truth). So what is the phenomenon of truth?

In Greek, the question is the other way round: Truth is _alaetheia_, the
determinate negation and overcoming of _laethae_, which is primary.
Truth can only be arrived at by robbing phenomena of their hiddenness,
thus bringing them to light. That is not a black-and-white, binary
endeavour, but requires following the multiplicity of often polyvalent
and polysemic signs. Nevertheless, the aim is not to remain stumbling
around in the obscurity of semi-darkness, but to strive to bring things
to disclosure as far as we are able.

Philosophy is not 'love of wisdom'. _philein_ can mean 'to love', but
more originarily (e.g. in Homeros) it means 'to appropriate, to make
one's own'. Philosophy is thus the orientation toward and striving to
appropriate knowledge, knowledge being what has been disclosed,
decrypted, brought out of hiding (cf. Wolfgang Schadewaldt "Die Anfaenge
der Philosophie bei den Griechen" stw Frankfurt/M. 1995 S.13).

Michael
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-  artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_-_-_- artefact-AT-webcom.com
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_


>      ----- Original Message -----
>      From: Michael Staples
>      To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>      Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 8:33 AM
>      Subject: 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 ---