This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C829DE.764CC3C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Re: Sensuous MetaphorI don't know this thread goes on forever. It's the =
black and white, on/off and we have a byte thing over and over again. =
Language barely allows an expression that goes down the middle or that =
mixes kinds even, like an oxymoron, like hybrids or any kind of porous =
border. I take it that a symbol does that if it means a mixture of =
clarity and obscurity which gives it it's truth quality in Heidegger's =
sense if this means the untruth of truth.
just a thought,
Gulio sleeping
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Michael Staples=20
To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 8:33 AM
Subject: RE: Sensuous Metaphor
=20
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx =
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Michael =
Pennamacoor
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 8:48 PM
To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Sensuous Metaphor
John Foster presented us with the following recently:
>Music and art in general have these virtual powers of placing into=20
>parenthesis all forms of objectivity; thus the power of the =
interaction=20
>enabling secondary illusions as 'sensuous metaphor', and 'harmonic =
space'....
>=20
>Music therefore is a form of symboling which borrows from natural =
forms.
I'm wondering, (maybe not) on the contrary whether music enables us =
to think the ("natural") world, to sing it, to at-tune to it. Tuning, =
ringing, vibing, etc are not overwhelmingly metaphorical in =
musical-cum-acoustical language; they arise from the very substantiality =
of music itself, as do the sometimes dialogical (canonic polyphony, =
antiphonal passages, jazzy-conversational, etc), sometimes monological, =
'lines' and 'threads' and 'passages' and 'movements', etc, in the speech =
of musical composition. Weaves spun in time: of time, perhaps?
Perhaps the 'literal' is a special form of the metaphorical? In the =
same sense that 'false' speech (speech that does not speak under the =
auspices of being) is a special kind of 'true' speech (that does speak =
being); that false speech belongs to true speech [in Parmenides]?
just a thought... [but, of what kind?]
MichaelP
[Michael Staples]=20
=20
The thing here is that as long as we continue to bring terms like =
"metaphor" into the forground of the discussion, we cannot help but =
bring its meanings along with it. The issue here is not how to attempt =
to weave a set of new meanings for words like metaphor and symbol. The =
issue is how to extract ourselves from the baggage these words impose =
upon us. This is why H. goes to such lengths to create new words, no? =
So, when you are talking about how the literal does this with regard to =
the metaphorical doing that...implicitly, you are still moving within =
the assumptions of the division of language into literal v. metaphorical =
meanings. Why not drop it and spend the time trying to rethink =
altogether the original phenomenon this lingo points to?
=20
Michael S.
------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C829DE.764CC3C0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Re: Sensuous Metaphor</TITLE>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.3315.2870" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I don't know this thread goes on =
forever. It's the=20
black and white, on/off and we have a byte thing over and over again. =
Language=20
barely allows an expression that goes down the middle or that mixes =
kinds even,=20
like an oxymoron, like hybrids or any kind of porous border. I take it =
that a=20
symbol does that if it means a mixture of clarity and obscurity which =
gives it=20
it's truth quality in Heidegger's sense if this means the untruth of=20
truth.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>just a thought,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Gulio sleeping</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A href=3D"mailto:michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"=20
title=3Dmichael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Michael Staples</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
href=3D"mailto:heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"=20
=
title=3Dheidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=
inia.edu</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, November 18, 2001 =
8:33=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: Sensuous =
Metaphor</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV align=3Dleft class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> <A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>owner-heidegge=
r@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>=20
[<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>mailto:owner-h=
eidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>]<B>On=20
Behalf Of </B>Michael Pennamacoor<BR><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, November =
17,=20
2001 8:48 PM<BR><B>To:</B> <A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>heidegger@xxxxxxxxxx=
age.virginia.edu</A><BR><B>Subject:</B>=20
Re: Sensuous Metaphor<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>John Foster presented us with the following =
recently:<BR><BR>>Music=20
and art in general have these virtual powers of placing into=20
<BR>>parenthesis all forms of objectivity; thus the power of the=20
interaction <BR>>enabling secondary illusions as 'sensuous =
metaphor', and=20
'harmonic space'....<BR>> <BR>>Music therefore is a form of =
symboling=20
which borrows from natural forms.<BR><BR>I'm wondering, (maybe not) =
on the=20
contrary whether music enables us to think the ("natural") world, to =
sing=20
it, to at-tune to it. Tuning, ringing, vibing, etc are <B>not</B>=20
overwhelmingly metaphorical in musical-cum-acoustical language; they =
arise=20
from the very substantiality of music itself, as do the sometimes =
dialogical=20
(canonic polyphony, antiphonal passages, jazzy-conversational, etc), =
sometimes monological, 'lines' and 'threads' and 'passages' and =
'movements',=20
etc, in the speech of musical composition. Weaves spun in time: of =
time,=20
perhaps?<BR><BR>Perhaps the 'literal' is a special form of the =
metaphorical?=20
In the same sense that 'false' speech (speech that does not speak =
under the=20
auspices of being) is a special kind of 'true' speech (that does =
speak=20
being); that false speech belongs to true speech [in=20
Parmenides]?<BR><BR>just a thought... [but, of what=20
kind?]<BR><BR>MichaelP<BR><BR><SPAN class=3D470402716-18112001><FONT =
color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2>[Michael =
Staples] </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D470402716-18112001></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D470402716-18112001><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>The thing here is that as long as we continue to bring =
terms=20
like "metaphor" into the forground of the discussion, we cannot help =
but=20
bring its</FONT> <FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial =
size=3D2>meanings along=20
with it. The issue here is not how to attempt to weave a set =
of new=20
meanings for words like metaphor and symbol. The issue is how to =
extract=20
ourselves from the baggage these words impose upon us. This is why =
H. goes=20
to such lengths to create new words, no? So, when you are talking =
about how=20
the literal does this with regard to the metaphorical doing=20
that...implicitly, you are still moving within the assumptions of =
the=20
division of language into literal v. metaphorical meanings. Why not =
drop it=20
and spend the time trying to rethink altogether the original =
phenomenon this=20
lingo points to?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D470402716-18112001><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D470402716-18112001><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>Michael =
S.</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C829DE.764CC3C0--
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C829DE.764CC3C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Re: Sensuous MetaphorI don't know this thread goes on forever. It's the =
black and white, on/off and we have a byte thing over and over again. =
Language barely allows an expression that goes down the middle or that =
mixes kinds even, like an oxymoron, like hybrids or any kind of porous =
border. I take it that a symbol does that if it means a mixture of =
clarity and obscurity which gives it it's truth quality in Heidegger's =
sense if this means the untruth of truth.
just a thought,
Gulio sleeping
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Michael Staples=20
To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 8:33 AM
Subject: RE: Sensuous Metaphor
=20
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx =
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Michael =
Pennamacoor
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 8:48 PM
To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Sensuous Metaphor
John Foster presented us with the following recently:
>Music and art in general have these virtual powers of placing into=20
>parenthesis all forms of objectivity; thus the power of the =
interaction=20
>enabling secondary illusions as 'sensuous metaphor', and 'harmonic =
space'....
>=20
>Music therefore is a form of symboling which borrows from natural =
forms.
I'm wondering, (maybe not) on the contrary whether music enables us =
to think the ("natural") world, to sing it, to at-tune to it. Tuning, =
ringing, vibing, etc are not overwhelmingly metaphorical in =
musical-cum-acoustical language; they arise from the very substantiality =
of music itself, as do the sometimes dialogical (canonic polyphony, =
antiphonal passages, jazzy-conversational, etc), sometimes monological, =
'lines' and 'threads' and 'passages' and 'movements', etc, in the speech =
of musical composition. Weaves spun in time: of time, perhaps?
Perhaps the 'literal' is a special form of the metaphorical? In the =
same sense that 'false' speech (speech that does not speak under the =
auspices of being) is a special kind of 'true' speech (that does speak =
being); that false speech belongs to true speech [in Parmenides]?
just a thought... [but, of what kind?]
MichaelP
[Michael Staples]=20
=20
The thing here is that as long as we continue to bring terms like =
"metaphor" into the forground of the discussion, we cannot help but =
bring its meanings along with it. The issue here is not how to attempt =
to weave a set of new meanings for words like metaphor and symbol. The =
issue is how to extract ourselves from the baggage these words impose =
upon us. This is why H. goes to such lengths to create new words, no? =
So, when you are talking about how the literal does this with regard to =
the metaphorical doing that...implicitly, you are still moving within =
the assumptions of the division of language into literal v. metaphorical =
meanings. Why not drop it and spend the time trying to rethink =
altogether the original phenomenon this lingo points to?
=20
Michael S.
------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C829DE.764CC3C0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Re: Sensuous Metaphor</TITLE>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.3315.2870" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I don't know this thread goes on =
forever. It's the=20
black and white, on/off and we have a byte thing over and over again. =
Language=20
barely allows an expression that goes down the middle or that mixes =
kinds even,=20
like an oxymoron, like hybrids or any kind of porous border. I take it =
that a=20
symbol does that if it means a mixture of clarity and obscurity which =
gives it=20
it's truth quality in Heidegger's sense if this means the untruth of=20
truth.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>just a thought,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Gulio sleeping</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A href=3D"mailto:michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"=20
title=3Dmichael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Michael Staples</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
href=3D"mailto:heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"=20
=
title=3Dheidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=
inia.edu</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, November 18, 2001 =
8:33=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: Sensuous =
Metaphor</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV align=3Dleft class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> <A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>owner-heidegge=
r@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>=20
[<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>mailto:owner-h=
eidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>]<B>On=20
Behalf Of </B>Michael Pennamacoor<BR><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, November =
17,=20
2001 8:48 PM<BR><B>To:</B> <A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>heidegger@xxxxxxxxxx=
age.virginia.edu</A><BR><B>Subject:</B>=20
Re: Sensuous Metaphor<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>John Foster presented us with the following =
recently:<BR><BR>>Music=20
and art in general have these virtual powers of placing into=20
<BR>>parenthesis all forms of objectivity; thus the power of the=20
interaction <BR>>enabling secondary illusions as 'sensuous =
metaphor', and=20
'harmonic space'....<BR>> <BR>>Music therefore is a form of =
symboling=20
which borrows from natural forms.<BR><BR>I'm wondering, (maybe not) =
on the=20
contrary whether music enables us to think the ("natural") world, to =
sing=20
it, to at-tune to it. Tuning, ringing, vibing, etc are <B>not</B>=20
overwhelmingly metaphorical in musical-cum-acoustical language; they =
arise=20
from the very substantiality of music itself, as do the sometimes =
dialogical=20
(canonic polyphony, antiphonal passages, jazzy-conversational, etc), =
sometimes monological, 'lines' and 'threads' and 'passages' and =
'movements',=20
etc, in the speech of musical composition. Weaves spun in time: of =
time,=20
perhaps?<BR><BR>Perhaps the 'literal' is a special form of the =
metaphorical?=20
In the same sense that 'false' speech (speech that does not speak =
under the=20
auspices of being) is a special kind of 'true' speech (that does =
speak=20
being); that false speech belongs to true speech [in=20
Parmenides]?<BR><BR>just a thought... [but, of what=20
kind?]<BR><BR>MichaelP<BR><BR><SPAN class=3D470402716-18112001><FONT =
color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2>[Michael =
Staples] </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D470402716-18112001></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D470402716-18112001><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>The thing here is that as long as we continue to bring =
terms=20
like "metaphor" into the forground of the discussion, we cannot help =
but=20
bring its</FONT> <FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial =
size=3D2>meanings along=20
with it. The issue here is not how to attempt to weave a set =
of new=20
meanings for words like metaphor and symbol. The issue is how to =
extract=20
ourselves from the baggage these words impose upon us. This is why =
H. goes=20
to such lengths to create new words, no? So, when you are talking =
about how=20
the literal does this with regard to the metaphorical doing=20
that...implicitly, you are still moving within the assumptions of =
the=20
division of language into literal v. metaphorical meanings. Why not =
drop it=20
and spend the time trying to rethink altogether the original =
phenomenon this=20
lingo points to?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D470402716-18112001><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D470402716-18112001><FONT color=3D#0000ff =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>Michael =
S.</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C829DE.764CC3C0--
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---