Iain and Michael,
I have been following most of the exchange about Oedipus with
considerable interest, and also agee with Michael that Iain's post is
something of a breakthrough--especially with the way in which he turns
back to the beginning of Being and Time. Iain's mention of patricide as the
transgression behind the plague and his mention of Oedipus's hubris
reminded me that
these observations about the play sometimes overlook the ways in which
promising binds Oedipus to a course of action (exile, etc) before he
knows that his words judge and punish himself. I wonder what you think
about the idea that the speech acts of Oedipus are determining, that is,
his flaw is in not-knowing how to speak, or more specificaly, his flaw is
in the (naive?) manner in which he proclaims, promises, or makes
law--an act often associated with the father and sometimes said to be
constituitive of the father. The apotheosis of Oedipus interests me in
this regard: since Nietzsche observed in The Geneaology of Morals that
promising is a way of "breeding a certain species of animal" by making it
regular, reliable, calculable and constant. In an apotheosis is it fair
to say that a mortal becomes immortal? or perhaps that in teaching Theseus
how to speak(if that is what happens), Oedipus shows how mortals can
avoid becoming (reduced to?) beasts in need of the regularity and
reliabilty achieved through the discipline of the promise?
I am not sure this is going anywhere that may contribute to your
discussion. So make of it what you will. I am, however, looking forward to
following, what seems to me, to be very fine thinking by Michael and
Iain. Take care. Pat
Patrick M. Murphy
Department of English
SUNY Oswego
Oswego, NY 13126
pmurphy@xxxxxxxxxx
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
I have been following most of the exchange about Oedipus with
considerable interest, and also agee with Michael that Iain's post is
something of a breakthrough--especially with the way in which he turns
back to the beginning of Being and Time. Iain's mention of patricide as the
transgression behind the plague and his mention of Oedipus's hubris
reminded me that
these observations about the play sometimes overlook the ways in which
promising binds Oedipus to a course of action (exile, etc) before he
knows that his words judge and punish himself. I wonder what you think
about the idea that the speech acts of Oedipus are determining, that is,
his flaw is in not-knowing how to speak, or more specificaly, his flaw is
in the (naive?) manner in which he proclaims, promises, or makes
law--an act often associated with the father and sometimes said to be
constituitive of the father. The apotheosis of Oedipus interests me in
this regard: since Nietzsche observed in The Geneaology of Morals that
promising is a way of "breeding a certain species of animal" by making it
regular, reliable, calculable and constant. In an apotheosis is it fair
to say that a mortal becomes immortal? or perhaps that in teaching Theseus
how to speak(if that is what happens), Oedipus shows how mortals can
avoid becoming (reduced to?) beasts in need of the regularity and
reliabilty achieved through the discipline of the promise?
I am not sure this is going anywhere that may contribute to your
discussion. So make of it what you will. I am, however, looking forward to
following, what seems to me, to be very fine thinking by Michael and
Iain. Take care. Pat
Patrick M. Murphy
Department of English
SUNY Oswego
Oswego, NY 13126
pmurphy@xxxxxxxxxx
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---