GR 156-170, colors, compounds

[alice wellintown]

Reminds me of Joesph Brodsky's Watermark.
>From Publishers Weekly
As much a brooding self-portrait as a lyric description of Venice,
poet Brodsky's quirky, impressionistic essay describes his 17-year
romance with a city of dreamlike beauty that banishes nightmares.
Praising Venice and its architecture as a triumph of the visual, the
Nobel laureate uses his visits there as a touchstone to meditate on
life's unpredictability, the appetite for beauty, death, myth and
modern art "whose poverty alone makes it prophetic." Waxing
confessional, he declares, "I am not a moral man. . . . I am but a
nervous man . . . but I am observant" and offers autobiographical
asides about his youthful lust for an Italian communist scholar and a
1977 meeting in Venice with Susan Sontag. In his wayward forays amid
canals, streets and cathedrals barnacled with saints, the eternal
Venice shimmers through the fog, battered yet resplendent.
Copyright 1992 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to
an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.



On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Speaking of Being vs. Becoming....remember pp. 586--587 in AtD wherein we
> read of 'the grammatical tyrannies of becoming......
> and then 'we define a smallest picture element, a dot of color which becomes
> the basic unit of reality....
>
> and speaking of color, we come to these pages after p. 580 wherein we were
> given "a Pentecostal story" of Jesus putting all the clothes
> into the red dye, but then, magically, pulling them out as 'the prefect
> color the fabric was supposed to be".....
>
> From: Bled Welder <bledwelder at hotmail.com>
> To: michael.lee.bailey at gmail.com; pynchon-l at waste.org
> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 10:35 PM
> Subject: RE: GR 156-170, colors, compounds
>
> Are you asking psilo-me, or I mean, psilo-asking me?  I admit I enjoyed
> Heidegger's later thought on Being way back in the day, but I never thought
> there was any particular point to it.  I remember knowing as a matter of
> fact that one could bypass Heidegger's whole deconstruction of
> representational thinking, the big ****up of Western thought since Plato,
> right, by simply eating lsd.  Heidegger had to crawl his way back through
> 2500 years of philosophy to get to the pre-Socratics thought on Being to get
> to thinking about Being, all I did was drop six hits of white blotter...
>
> I always wondered that, what his thoughts on Being had anything to do with
> Nazism.  And thinking about it now, I don't remember if his bizarre "error
> in Being" statement was about an error in his judgment about the Nazis, or
> Being's judgment about Nazis, whatever.
>
> Seems like Heidegger would be good for fiction writers though, with his
> angst, and authenticity, etc., all the stuff most people are okay with until
> he went off into the deep end with pure Being.
>
> Good question though, why does anybody adhere to a philosophy.  Presumably
> because they're convinced by the arguments, but it's prolly much more than
> that right?  If you're a Nazi already, you ****ing love thinking Being!
>
>
>> Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 23:09:32 -0500
>> Subject: Re: GR 156-170, colors, compounds
>> From: michael.lee.bailey at gmail.com
>> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
>>
>> ...not that there's any real point in harshing on old Heidegger.
>>
>> I mean, the philosophic tradition is a long conversation and (from an
>> outsider view) pretty inbred. So that he's replying to Kant and Hegel
>> (who was also replying to like Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas and such)
>> and maybe Marx and probably Sartre and a bunch of other wordy,
>> cerebral types, distinguishing his viewpoints from theirs, taking
>> stances that don't make all that much sense unless you're aware of the
>> issues and terms that led up to them.
>>
>> And the people who work in that line spend a lot of time refuting the
>> last guy, so they probably aren't that worried about Heidegger's
>> theories being wrong because the way they get a reputation is refuting
>> them anyway...just as he got his reputation by saying basically "all
>> those older guys were wrong about even the most basic things, and
>> here's how it really is" (sometimes I do that myself...but I get more
>> of a kick out of other activities, in general)
>>
>> And certainly nobody is perfect. I like to think that I'd resign from
>> the phone company if they started firing all the Germans or something,
>> but gee, I like working there and so forth.
>>
>> and furthermore...old Jahn who did a lot for the sport of gymnastics
>> had some nasty bookburning antisemitic etc tendencies around the
>> edges, but people still use other contributions that he made
>>
>> nonetheless, Heidegger wanted to redefine Being -- what is it about
>> his definition that makes it psilo-fabulous?
>
>