Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 06:51:48 +0000
Subject: Re: 'art of gloss
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3130123909_275647_MIME_Part
Recently Malcom wrote:
> On Saturday, March 8, 2003, at 05:31 AM, rick issan wrote:
>> Are not glosses always at the mercy of paying mere
>> lip service or limited to a too particular mode of
>> speech, either the political or the idiosyncratic?
> Not necessarily, a gloss can be a break in a text that attempts to add
> to or interpret what's being said. I guess it's colloquially used in a
> negative sense as in a glib misinterpretation or ingenuous dismissal
> but no, glosses are the stuff of glossaries which I think can be
> particularly helpful... or not as the case may be. But then maybe all
> textual interpretation is a gloss in the sense that it's always an
> insertion in a line of argumentation that is as old as the tradition
> you engage with?
[mP]: when I began, a few posts ago, to play with the notion of glossing as
a way of talking about how being can not be talked about (directly) {note:
of course, we can actually talk about anything -- including being -- but I
am speaking in a Parmenidean mode -- where he says that speech about
non-being is impossible, not that men do not speak about non-being, but that
it is nonsense that results}, I meant it in all its common and not-so-common
resonances. E.g., a gloss can be a cover (as in the paint) that covers-up
something in a nice shiny (new-looking) coat, opaque to what lies under the
coat but maintaining the contours and shape of what it cloaks; in a related
sense, a gloss can be an interpretive fashioning of a dismissive lip- or
tongue-serving quip or such, but can also be a non-saying of what it
glosses, of what is otherwise said, by saying something else that again,
covers the 'original' saying; yet again, a gloss is the inevitable delaying,
deferring, holding-back that eventualises in everyday speech with respect to
what ethnomethodologists have called 'indexical expressions' -- expressions
whose meaning depends completely upon the circumstances of their utterance
{e.g., if someone says "come here!", the (meaning of) "here" spoken of
depends on the who, where and when the participants are speaking} -- in such
glossing practices, one, as it were, hangs out until the revelation of what
is being glossed slips suddenly or gradually into view {in the example, when
and where, the "here" is resolved as being this or that "here"}; in such
cases the glossing occurs as the unavoidable delaying that keeps the speech
flowing whilst biding time for the gloss to slip and display what is being
glossed {this often occurs through the 'tactic' of accepting the gloss, thus
glossing the gloss}. In accepting all the above resonances of glossing (in
their differences and hanging-together) it seems to me that glossing is one
of the essential structures of language itself, whether common-colloquial or
philosophic; Heraclitus' 'being is cryptic' (itself a gloss, in my quippy
translation :-)) is something of a guide in this...
>
>> The difference between gloss and revelation should
>> be in the range of essential relevance, the former
>> as linear limited, the latter as becoming ergodic.
Of course, the discussion was revolving around the business of the
hiding/showing of being in the attempt to speak about being (being: a topic)
and from being (being: a resource), and, whether being is equally revealed
in speaking about beings. My point is that being is glossed in both kinds of
attempt to bespeak it and any other being(s)... in this, glossing (hiding,
covering, delaying, shining-up, etc) is the very be-ing of being; perhaps
being is revealed in/as the glossing of the gloss...?
> Are you pointing
> here to the difference between writing and discussing about being,
> which is necessarily a textual enterprise, and the 'revelation' of
> being? So on the one hand we would have the act of speaking about
> something and on the other there would be that something itself... in
> this case it's being as such.
[...]
>So yeah,
> talking or philosophising about it is something other than a meditative
> silent disclosure of being.
I suppose I (perhaps not Rick) am saying that speaking of being as a topic
(subjecting 'it' to the rigours of rational articulate speech, e.g.) -- the
attempt of ontology, the entire philosophical enterprise that Heidegger
terms 'ontotheology' -- reveals being as hidden; the presencing of what
presents (presence) itself is transformed, coded into yet another present
being, however omnipresent, overpowering, fundamental, etc; being be-comes
beingness. Being is glossed when spoken of (or not!), but, but, it is
[underlined] glossed... and is as [underlined] glossed, is glossing... thus
revealed as [underlined] hidden (revealed, that is, if attention is focussed
rather more upon the glossing itself rather than the gloss {cover-up}).
enough already... [a gloss for tiredness :-)]
michaelP
--MS_Mac_OE_3130123909_275647_MIME_Part
HTML VERSION:
> On Saturday, March 8, 2003, at 05:31 AM, rick issan wrote:[mP]: when I began, a few posts ago, to play with the notion of glossing as a way of talking about how being can not be talked about (directly) {note: of course, we can actually talk about anything -- including being -- but I am speaking in a Parmenidean mode -- where he says that speech about non-being is impossible, not that men do not speak about non-being, but that it is nonsense that results}, I meant it in all its common and not-so-common resonances. E.g., a gloss can be a cover (as in the paint) that covers-up something in a nice shiny (new-looking) coat, opaque to what lies under the coat but maintaining the contours and shape of what it cloaks; in a related sense, a gloss can be an interpretive fashioning of a dismissive lip- or tongue-serving quip or such, but can also be a non-saying of what it glosses, of what is otherwise said, by saying something else that again, covers the 'original' saying; yet again, a gloss is the inevitable delaying, deferring, holding-back that eventualises in everyday speech with respect to what ethnomethodologists have called 'indexical expressions' -- expressions whose meaning depends completely upon the circumstances of their utterance {e.g., if someone says "come here!", the (meaning of) "here" spoken of depends on the who, where and when the participants are speaking} -- in such glossing practices, one, as it were, hangs out until the revelation of what is being glossed slips suddenly or gradually into view {in the example, when and where, the "here" is resolved as being this or that "here"}; in such cases the glossing occurs as the unavoidable delaying that keeps the speech flowing whilst biding time for the gloss to slip and display what is being glossed {this often occurs through the 'tactic' of accepting the gloss, thus glossing the gloss}. In accepting all the above resonances of glossing (in their differences and hanging-together) it seems to me that glossing is one of the essential structures of language itself, whether common-colloquial or philosophic; Heraclitus' 'being is cryptic' (itself a gloss, in my quippy translation :-)) is something of a guide in this...
>> Are not glosses always at the mercy of paying mere
>> lip service or limited to a too particular mode of
>> speech, either the political or the idiosyncratic?
> Not necessarily, a gloss can be a break in a text that attempts to add
> to or interpret what's being said. I guess it's colloquially used in a
> negative sense as in a glib misinterpretation or ingenuous dismissal
> but no, glosses are the stuff of glossaries which I think can be
> particularly helpful... or not as the case may be. But then maybe all
> textual interpretation is a gloss in the sense that it's always an
> insertion in a line of argumentation that is as old as the tradition
> you engage with?
>Of course, the discussion was revolving around the business of the hiding/showing of being in the attempt to speak about being (being: a topic) and from being (being: a resource), and, whether being is equally revealed in speaking about beings. My point is that being is glossed in both kinds of attempt to bespeak it and any other being(s)... in this, glossing (hiding, covering, delaying, shining-up, etc) is the very be-ing of being; perhaps being is revealed in/as the glossing of the gloss...?
>> The difference between gloss and revelation should
>> be in the range of essential relevance, the former
>> as linear limited, the latter as becoming ergodic.
I suppose I (perhaps not Rick) am saying that speaking of being as a topic (subjecting 'it' to the rigours of rational articulate speech, e.g.) -- the attempt of ontology, the entire philosophical enterprise that Heidegger terms 'ontotheology' -- reveals being as hidden; the presencing of what presents (presence) itself is transformed, coded into yet another present being, however omnipresent, overpowering, fundamental, etc; being be-comes beingness. Being is glossed when spoken of (or not!), but, but, it is [underlined] glossed... and is as [underlined] glossed, is glossing... thus revealed as [underlined] hidden (revealed, that is, if attention is focussed rather more upon the glossing itself rather than the gloss {cover-up}).
> Are you pointing
> here to the difference between writing and discussing about being,
> which is necessarily a textual enterprise, and the 'revelation' of
> being? So on the one hand we would have the act of speaking about
> something and on the other there would be that something itself... in
> this case it's being as such.
[...]
>So yeah,
> talking or philosophising about it is something other than a meditative
> silent disclosure of being.
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005