Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 00:31:53 -0800
From: Kenneth Johnson <beeso-AT-pop.charter.net>
Subject: Re: 'art of gloss glossing the gloss


>On Monday, March 10, 2003, at 07:54  AM, allen scult wrote:
>
>> Rick and Malcolm,
>>
>> I think you're both underestimating the power of language in the
>> "hands" of
>> an enspirited writer, like Nietzsche, for example.  When I read
>> Nietzsche
>> sometimes I have the sense of  a pure ( or near pure) showing of being
>> (probably, as you say, in one of its more limited aspects, but who am
>> I to say?).
>> I think this is how revelation takes place: in a saying which finds
>> itself surprised
>> at the near perfect words which flowed from the already said, into the
>> never having been said.
>> That's how it felt, I think, to the writer of some of the most moving
>> revelations in Exodus,
>> of Nietzsche etc.  And if they could do it . . .
>>
>> Allen ( hoping for the best)


Hello Malcolm, you responded:

>Yes, I know what you mean, good writing can be truly beautiful in that
>moving revelatory sense. Nietzsche certainly wrote in an explicitly
>revelatory style, and Heidegger did the same after he found his own
>voice through the Kehre. Unfortunately my personal difficulty with this
>notion of 'revelation' is that I inherently do not trust it...


hmmmmm, well i suppose if there is no trust then one would be led to assess
a the writerly Nietzsche in terms of suspicion, but revelation is as
revelation does and Nietzsche's revelations do reveal some thot-things as
being a few miles higher up the trustsome mountain than all revelators
hitherto. It doesn't seem possible, from the clarity of the constitution of
the every-thing lying in state around us, to not feel something quite
profound and portentous in his extraordinary revelation of Will to Power
for example. It is certainly the absolute limit of that will-to-power
created sense-frame around us now and beyond which we cannot see or sense
further at this moment, despite the 6 billion will to power born mystic's
'verbal' claims to the contrary - - - as at least a few of those few
remaining non-mystified find trust easy in the crystalline-ness of N's
opposing unmisted clarity -


>Whose sense of revelation is it? The authors? Mine? Is it supposed to
>be a revelatory connection to a 'universal' truth that everyone should
>be able to see if only they had the clarity of mind? If so, who can
>guarantee that a sense of revelation is nothing other than one's own
>affect rather than a connection with ... what?

uhh, the answer is: the sense of the revelation is the authors, but it may,
on reading and grasping the forces behind the revelation, become yours too,
but it can't be yours unless your perspective (not your 'truth', truth's
are created by and for the weak mystics)

 those revealed by N are not just that of the author as author, tho that's
important too, but the sense of a grasp, one that, at least for us, reveals
power as the most funda.mental position we can grasp and this is the base
for what it is possible for a five sensed animal that can talk to know.
power is the ONLY thing we really know, the rest constructs itself on that
base, including the universe.



>
>Who on earth can speak for god?

everybody, it seems, even me, all depends on how wide the net the god word
is stretched to cover, what essential preordinic needs one needs to fill
for it to be useful to them, then for maintenance after that, tis easy,
merely a matter of one odd artificially inseminated ritual rhythmic chant
after another - like smokerings in the dark

>
>I don't trust exodus as a whole, or most of the old and new testaments
>apart from the gospels. Too much vengeance, bigotry and righteous
>violence, all apparently guaranteed by the absolute authority of a
>jealous god and his ordained prophets. All I see in the bible and other
>religious texts is a text. The adherents to these texts claim that they
>reveal ideas that are universal and not of human origin and they are
>welcome to their views until they try to enforce them on me. For me the
>bible and other religious works are exceedingly influential and
>important historical landmarks of human morality. If I can't bring
>myself to believe in their 'revelatory' power and the personalised
>notion of god as author that entails, that doesn't stop me from trying
>to read them philosophically. Personally I think the christian doctrine
>of divine love and pacifism is a superb statement of morals. I just
>think Jesus speaks for himself.
>
>But the same goes for any notion of 'revelation' you might ascribe to
>other authors of texts. Nietzsche also still has something to say and
>you might feel that he reveals the world in new ways for you, but he's
>still revealing nothing other than what's already in front of you,
>which is your own existence. And there's absolutely no guarantee that I
>or anyone else will agree with your own revelatory vision of 'what is',
>especially if you're going to claim that you have a mainline to god
>and/or the universal truth of being.


well, maybe he truly is revealing what's already in front of you, but it's
more than just your own existence which this revealing is for and which
touchs on the constitution of existence itself as the outside, as the
universal subject, and which can itself only be touched by - - -

the revelation of revelation itself? the act behind the act?

>
>I'm sorry if I'm a wet blanket on the fire of your revelatory
>desires... but you don't have to agree with me. Or perhaps you can
>agree but still revel in Nietzsche's prose as he reveals nothing other
>than his own truths. The world can still be mysterious and wonderful
>without believing in the authoritative revelations of leaders in
>thinking. Call me a radical protestant agnostic if you like, but I have
>great difficulty in accepting the 'leadership principle' in either
>politics, theology or philosophy.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Malcolm


cheers,
kenneth




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