From: cskoog-AT-jps.net
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 00:59:51 -0700
Subject: Re: PLC: Re: Literature and Space : Enlightenment vs Romantic



>Reg wrote
>
> 	A less standard version would be more equivocal about the hegemony of time over space in Hegel and his dialectic.  For
> one, space has a certain priority in the dialectic; it shows up (both in "Sense Certainty" in the Phenomenology and in
> the Encyclopedia) before time. In another sense, history, which one could call 'material temporality', comes to an end
> in Hegel -- it is sublated; spirit returns to itself from out of its alienated objectification in nature.  Seen from the
> point of view of Hegel's system as a whole this return is a return to itself as it always has been, but now not as it
> originally was in its prehistorical abstractness or as it was in its historical alienation, but as the totality of
> nature and history, of space and time.  That is, in the end Hegel can't be said to be more temporal that spatial -- the
> absolute is the sublation of this opposition.  Hegel's description of the dialectic at the end is as a "restlessness" of
> spirit, as pure movement which is, strictly speaking, the  sublation or 'synthesis' of space and time.
>

Whew! I'm amazed I can still understand this stuff. Hegel was ever perfecting a 
a pitch where the baby, the bathwater, and he were all transported, and thus 
remained together. No wonder the 19th century Japanese philosophers cashed 
in all their John Stuart Mill chips for the Hegelian denomination. But I think 
you're right, Hegel's way of being neither here nor there actually 
instrumentalizes the 'nor' in order to get the here and there into common 
presence, an 'ontotheological' (agreeing with Heidegger) principle of Identity, 
more Atman than Sunyata, and not REALLY temporal. But he and Kant both 
straddled the summit, Kant disguising temporality while Hegel embraced it as a 
disguise. Perhaps he WAS an 'illegitimate' child of the Enlightenment!

But I'm not sure this moves the issue any further, except that by invoking the 
principle of identity, terms of order reliant on conceivable co-incidence would 
depend on time to behave like space.

> I think the 'essence' of music is not the shaping of sound, i.e.,
> harmony, but the shaping of time.  

me too, but perhaps we can get farther beginning without exclusion.

> I love him, but Bach was more of an architect, Mozart more of a musician.

Yes, but (oh-oh, will sparks fly from this?): I'd say Bach reached for structure, 
Mozart for form, and Schubert for music. But perhaps any thread exploring 
musicological extension and duration should hatch quite incrementally: how 
long can we talk around this so we don't get stuck with baggage at the 
beginning?

bye,

Cliff Skoog - http://tyrone.differnet.com/experience/


Cliff Skoog - http://tyrone.differnet.com/experience/


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