Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:48:42 EST
Subject: Re: 'art of gloss
--part1_bf.2f3cae6e.2b9e0dda_boundary
In a message dated 10/03/2003 06:53:05 GMT Standard Time,
michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk writes:
> Subj:Re: 'art of gloss
> Date:10/03/2003 06:53:05 GMT Standard Time
> From: michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk (michaelP)
> Sender: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu">heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu</A>
> To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>
> >> Michael writes in his neat Elf-speak script, his nib dipped into the
>> azure-tinted tears of laughter of long dead Greek thinkers:
>>
>>
> [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 , 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.
>
>
You are introducing a concept of "Being" which was foreign to Parmenides, for
he did not say that that: "speech about non-being is impossible" he referred
to "that It is" and > " that It is not." This is yet another example of
> the Heideggerian practice of putting words into the mouths of
> grave-spinning dead Greeks who can't protest back. In the words of a long
> dead British comedian: Oh! You are naughty [nudge,nudge] But I like you!"
> Your employment of the term "non-being" automatically suggests that there
> is something that exists called "being." and that is plainly not the
> case, for what exists is [as Parmenides says] ]"What is."
>
> What is: is what something is being at a given moment in time, not
something not being something at any given or not given moment of time. In
other words you've got your ontological braces fastened to your
flocculational flyhole and your cognitive dog-collar facing backwards to the
Mecca of Marburg. ;-)
Here is the relevant text from his poem:
> 4, 5) Come now, I will tell thee -- and do thou hearken to my saying and
> carry it away -- the only two ways of search that can be thought of. The
> first, namely, that It is, and that it is impossible for it not to be, is
> the way of belief, for truth is its companion. The other, namely, that It
> is not, and that it must needs not be, -- that, I tell thee, is a path that
> none can learn of at all. For thou canst not know what is not -- that is
> impossible -- nor utter it; for it is the same thing that can be thought
> and that can be. R. P. 114. (6) It needs must be that what can be spoken
> and thought is; for it is possible for it to be, and it is not possible for
> what is nothing to be. This is what I bid thee ponder. I hold thee back
> from this first way of inquiry, and from this other also, upon which
> mortals knowing naught wander two-faced; for helplessness guides the
> wandering thought in their breasts, so that they are borne along stupefied
> like men deaf and blind. Undiscerning crowds, who hold that it is and is
> not the same and not the same, and all things travel in opposite
> directions! R.P. 115. (7) For this shall never be proved, that the things
> that are not are; and do thou restrain thy thought from this way of
> inquiry. R. P. 116.
>
> Jud:
Following from this we can see that according to Parmenides strictly
speaking "Being" should not even be talked about for "Being" is not for it is
the Be-er that
> is the Be-er and not the "Being" of the Be-er. That is not to say that I
> wish you to stop writing about "Being" of course. Some people like Whoopy
> Goldberg for their entertainment - others Laurel & Hardy or Charlie Chaplin
> - I like reading Heidegger for my amusement, for like the Scottish poet
> McGonagall, he is so bad - he is fun to read. :-) Anyway I am becoming
> very proficient in Elf-speak and have written to the producers of the
> Harry Potter Films for a speaking-part as a Heideggerian Hobgoblin. ;-)
>
> regards,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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
>
> ----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
> Return-Path: <owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
> Received: from rly-xm01.mx.aol.com (rly-xm01.mail.aol.com [172.20.83.102])
> by air-xm01.mail.aol.com (v90_r2.5) with ESMTP id MAILINXM11-0310015305;
> Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:53:05 -0500
> Received: from mail.virginia.edu (mail.virginia.edu [128.143.2.9]) by
> rly-xm01.mx.aol.com (v92.16) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXM12-5e83e6c36391c9;
> Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:52:42 -0500
> Received: from lists.village.virginia.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa21960;
> 10 Mar 2003 1:52 EST
> Received: (from domo-AT-localhost)
> by lists.village.Virginia.EDU (8.9.3/8.9.0) id BAA00958
> for heidegger-outgoing; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:52:08 -0500 (EST)
> X-Authentication-Warning: lists.village.Virginia.EDU: domo set sender to
> owner-heidegger-AT-localhost using -f
> Received: from smtp4.global.net.uk (smtp4.global.net.uk [80.189.92.92])
> by lists.village.Virginia.EDU (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id BAA00954
> for <heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:52:02
> -0500 (EST)
> Received: from gr.189.15.64.dial.global.net.uk ([80.189.15.64])
> by smtp4.global.net.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1)
> id 18sH8h-000Hz7-00
> for heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 06:51:59
> +0000
> User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022
> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 06:51:48 +0000
> Subject: Re: 'art of gloss
> From: michaelP <michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk>
> To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> MMDF-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at
> mail.virginia.edu
> Message-ID: <BA91E641.758%michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk>
> In-Reply-To: <DE08E678-518B-11D7-8DBC-000502D5E778-AT-central.murdoch.edu.au>
> Mime-version: 1.0
> Content-type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="MS_Mac_OE_3130123909_275647_MIME_Part"
> Sender: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>
>
Cheers,
Jud.
<A HREF="http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/ ">http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/</A>
Jud Evans - ANALYTICAL INDICANT THEORY.
<A HREF="http://uncouplingthecopula.freewebspace.com">http://uncouplingthecopula.freewebspace.com
</A>
--part1_bf.2f3cae6e.2b9e0dda_boundary
HTML VERSION:
Subj:Re: 'art of gloss
Date:10/03/2003 06:53:05 GMT Standard Time
From: michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk (michaelP)
Sender: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Reply-to: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Michael writes in his neat=20Elf-speak script, his nib dipped into the azure-tinted tears of laughter of long dead Greek thinkers:
" that It is not." This is yet another example of the Heideggerian practice of putting words into the mouths of grave-spinning dead Greeks who can't protest back. In the words of a long dead British comedian: Oh! You are naughty [nudge,nudge] But I like you!" Your employment of the term "non-being" automatically suggests that there is something that exists called "being." and that is plainly not the case, for what exists is [as Parmenides says] ]"What is."hat is: is what something is being at a given moment in time, not something not being something at any given or=20not given moment of time. In other words you've got your ontological braces=20fastened to your flocculational flyhole and your cognitive dog-collar facing backwards to the Mecca of Marburg. ;-)
W
4, 5) Come now, I will tell thee -- and do thou hearken to my saying and carry it away --=20the only two ways of search that can be thought of. The first, namely, that=20It is, and that it is impossible for it not to be, is the way of belief, for truth is its companion. The other, namely, that It is not, and that it must needs not be, -- that, I tell thee, is a path that none can learn of at all. For thou canst not know what is not -- that is impossible -- nor utter it; for it is the same thing that can be thought and that can be. R. P. 114. (6) It needs must be that what can be spoken and thought is; for it is possible for it to be, and it is not possible for what is nothing to be. This is what I bid thee ponder. I hold thee back from this first=20way of inquiry, and from this other also, upon which mortals knowing naught=20wander two-faced; for helplessness guides the wandering thought in their breasts, so that they are borne along stupefied like men deaf and blind. Undiscerning crowds, who hold that it is and is not the same and not the same, and all things travel in opposite directions! R.P. 115. (7) For this shall never be proved, that the things that are not are; and do thou restrain thy thought from this way of inquiry. R. P. 116.
Jud:
is the Be-er and not the "Being" of the Be-er. That is not to say that I wish you to stop writing about "Being" of course.Some people like Whoopy Goldberg for their entertainment - others Laurel & Hardy or Charlie Chaplin - I like reading Heidegger for my amusement, for like the Scottish poet McGonagall, he is so bad - he is fun to read. :-) Anyway I am becoming very proficient in Elf-speak and have written to the producers of the Harry Potter Films for a speaking-part as a Heideggerian Hobgoblin. ;-)
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=20accepting 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.
> 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...=20in
> 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