Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:42:58 -0500
From: allen scult <allen.scult-AT-drake.edu>
Subject: different silences, corrected version


My apologies.  The way my last post came onto the page made no sense. 
Herewith, the same thought with significant corrections in the 
transmission:




>>I want to speak of difference and eventually, ontological difference (later
>>post), partly because it crops up over and over and partly because it is
>>simply, although with extreme difficulty, the only thing for philosophy to
>>think (IMHO). I am guided by the notion that it is impossible (analytically)
>>to speak about difference as such and directly because it is not a thing (a
>>being), that it is 'silent' (in the sense that things (beings) can be called
>>into presence (can be made to speak, so to speak) through words and other
>>ikons. Now in attempting to employ the ikon of silence, I should like to
>>playfully think through something of difference through considering two
>>different occasions of silence, in this case, exhibited, auditioned in a
>>current film.
>>
>>To bring us into focus and provide an entrance I shall quote from Heidegger:
>>
>>[Firstly he quotes Holderlin, Bread and Wine, in Poems and Fragments {trans.
>>Michael Hamburger}]
>>
>>"Why are they silent, too, the theatres ancient and hallowed?
>>Why not now does the dance celebrate, consecrate joy?"
>>
>>He comments:
>>
>>"The word is withheld from the former place of the gods' appearance, the
>>word as it once was word. How was it then? The approach of the god took
>>place in Saying itself. Saying was in itself the allowing to appear of that
>>which the saying ones saw because it had already looked at them...
>>
>>"The poetic word of this kind remains an enigma. Its saying has long
>>returned to silence. May we dare think about this enigma?"
>
>
>Hi Michael,
>
>I finally saw, but especially heard 8 Mile last night, but before I 
>get distracted by it, I want to say something about the above.  What 
>is the enigma?  Although actually "is" cannot possible be the right 
>word for enigma.  If the enigma "were" (is)  then it would NOT be an 
>enigma.  So calling it (the word)  the enigma at the very least 
>casts doubt on the existence of "the word"  as something in 
>particular. You can't really pin it down, because it (the word) 
>sounds/speaks/is heard differently at different times.
>
>>
>>[Heidegger, Words, in On The Way To Language]
>>
>>I think this supplies a signpost towards thinking the following brief
>>analysis of one aspect of a commercial movie: 8 Mile, featuring Eminem in
>>his first explicit acting role (as Rabbit, the fledgling rapper). To me, the
>>film is characterised and sandwiched, flanked, by two occasions of concrete
>>silence, or rather, silent vocalisations, or the vocalisations of silence.
>>These silences are different, although they appear to be (and especially
>>within the remit of the film itself) identical (although occurring to two
>>different protagonists at different times, notably, the beginning and the
>>end in film time), and are referred to within the film as the vocalists
>>"freezing up". The occasions for these silences are effectively Wars of the
>>Words, rapping battles between antagonistic warriors within a theatrical and
>>highly charged public site. The film begins and ends with such silences,
>>structuring the rest of the film's narrative sequences, whereupon, through
>>trials and tribulations, of waverings between a set of either/ors, Rabbit
>>transits between his initial silence to his terminal and triumphant
>>articulation at the expense of the other warrior's silence, and, in the end,
>>choosing a neither/nor ("I just gotta do my own thing" or something like
>>that). To me the film brilliantly describes and displays a trajectory
>>between just these two moments (and the masterpiece of a single by Eminem,
>>Lose Yourself, is the everpresent silent soundtrack to this film, only
>>played out in the final credit sequence, and suggests a moment of
>>overdetermination).
>>
>>THE FIRST SILENCE
>>Rabbit enters the stage of an agonistic struggle, both aggressive and
>>humourous, between two protagonists, he white and green, the other, black,
>>popular and well placed. The black guy goes first before an audience of
>>largely black males and does well in front of his peers, against a beat, for
>>45 seconds. The microphone/batton is handed to Rabbit, and the beat is
>>repeated for a further 45 seconds: but Rabbit, looking kool, bounces a bit
>>on his toes, but sings, speaks not a syllable. The noise of the jeering
>>crowd does not drown the silence of Rabbit but accentuates it in a seeming
>>frenzy of public humiliation, and the film does not suggest anything else.
>>But, having watched the film several times, I beg to differ (!)
>>
>>THE SECOND SILENCE
>>After having suffered a sequence of dilemmas and clashes (the eithers and
>>the ors presented in concrete scenes as a film can only do), Rabbit tries
>>again at the War of the Words, and succeeds beautifully with the first two
>>battles, only to be entered in the final against one (nasty) Papa Doc (who
>>belongs to a rival rapping gang and was last year's champ). In the break
>>before the final contest, Rabbit realises that Papa Doc is going to use his
>>rap to further humiliate Rabbit as an example of failed poor white trash
>>(rap supposed to be a black thing...), so when Papa Doc gets Rabbit to go
>>first, Rabbit produces an amazing version of what Papa Doc was going to
>>produce, and so beats him to the beat so successfully that Papa Doc cannot
>>say a thing since it's been said so much better already: he has nothing to
>>say, and his silence is the silence of saying nothing; his plan has failed
>>because it was a plan, whereas Rabbit seized the moment.
>>
>>THE DIFFERENCE
>>The entire film to me is present in Rabbit seizing the moment (the second
>>silence); its initial phase is that of the preparatory tense (first) silence
>>of having the whole world to say and not being able to say it, waiting,
>>another battle (either/or, the rest of the narrative) being necessary before
>>the silence could be broken. Rabbit's silence is the silence that is equally
>>displayed in spaghetti westerns, a positive silence, a gathering of will, a
>>gathering of language which necessarily embraces its own silence, like
>>music, for it to be at all.
>>
>>Papa Doc's silence is that of having nothing (left) to say, being dissipated
>>in the plan to humiliate Rabbit (who has turned it brilliantly against him
>>by simply going along with it, humiliating himself with tremendous irony and
>>humour. He is tongue-tied, caught by Rabbit's seized moment (in which he
>>loses himself to language and lets it speak...).
>>
>>Although they both apparently freeze up, Rabbit does it for the full 45
>>seconds, whereas Papa Doc retires before the end of his period. Nuff said.
>>
>
>
>For the sake of difference, Michael, let me see this differently, 
>perhaps even critically in a way which maybe was known to the 
>film-maker and/or to Eminem, or perhaps not.  The silence of both 
>represents a refusal of the moment to be what, in the eyes/ears of 
>convention/ audience, you should want to be.  It's almost 
>unimportant, now that I think of it, whether anyone knew what he was 
>doing.  The important thing is the refusal, and the silence it 
>leaves everyone with.  It's a silence of indeterminateness, leaving 
>a space where there isn't supposed to be one.  A surprise encounter 
>with a heretofore unknown possibility.
>
>You don't see much of that around here!
>
>Best( or as good as this one's gonna get)
>
>Allen
>


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