FT24010: Images in Step

     Heidegger describes artworks much like things we observe in any other situation. Particularly they 'appear' to us and their actuality merge with our thought of it. He also describes how artwork can be different from normal experience in that the context of the artwork can be severed from it's actual context. This poses a puzzle for the observer to parse together what something is outside of the context we would normally observe things in our day to day observations.

    Heidegger address the puzzle of the observer of art but not that of the creator of art in this paradox. Heidegger seems to diminish the actual role of the artist as some sort of channel for art to express itself. However when an still life is set up before painting, the idea of the object is considered. The ability for the viewer to distinguish the foreground from the background is an important step.

    In a forest there is an anarchic array of trunks of trees which over take the field of vision. To experience the entire tree that is above ground we have to move our head and cannot receive the image in one instance. This is why many landscapes are of fields flanked by tree lines. It's easier to perceive out of context when there is a clearing or reduction of things. While we are in the woods we are percieving without confusion. A painting of the deep woods would be disorienting to the observer in a way that it isn't when there is context surrounding it.

    Heidegger's observation that the reduction of context of a perceived object in art may not be as special as he describes it. His description seems to be pure Art peering through observation is at work in this case. This simplification is done by the Artist to be sure and not some outside abstraction. Yet this simplification may open itself to open interpretations.

    Aristotle was keen in logic to reduce words to the conventions we recognize in in algebraic equations. X's and Y's stand for something distinct and lack alternative interpretations. It is known that language and words opens itself to ambiguities that can complicate communication of distinct ideas. The simplification of the still life or the landscape isn't to reduce ambiguity but mainly to have clear recognizable objects. Without this simplification there would be no interpretation rather than many because nothing is clear. However, few would admit art's simplification is to plot objects on an x and y axis. 

    In this way art more readily codifies observation in language. Yet what can be said with visual language is more vague than even a word that can mean more than one thing. Heidegger is preoccupied with truth being what is revealed by an object. Truth of an art work is not the understanding of it as a linguistic entrapment of observation. The understanding of an individual work of art is it's truth and not the entire field of art itself. Heidegger's paradox of art still persists in how we derive meaning from something out of context. Our role as this discussion making is distinct from our role of observers of reality. Yet this idea of 'World' Heidegger uses is used for the revealing of truth which reality and art both do. In both cases we are still building our World and inhabiting it. 

note: Heidegger's views on art captured from his writing "The Origin of the Work of Art"

FT24009: Contraries, Movement, History, Recognition

    Aristotle's mind thought in contraries and being moving from one to another is a process of becoming from potentiality. Virtue was a process of arriving at the perfect point such as a healthy weight contrasted to being overweight or underweight. The people who are virtuous are distinct from those who are not. Everything is connected and in some coherent thing and even if you chopped something from it, it would be a piece of that thing rather than a mixture of other things underlying it. Being is granted and doesn't wear a mask and trying to find mysteries behind the thing other then what is is would go against what the thing is. 

    Hegel's dialectical method from basic perception to absolute knowing invokes the Aristotelian contraries but since it's a historical development it is about arriving at an end point that cannot be overshot. In Hegel's system someone can lack absolute knowing but cannot have a gross amount of absolute knowing. The Stoics mused about whether it's possible for a wise man to lose his wisdom and agree that wisdom is obtained and cannot be lost since that would be foolish and contrary to wisdom. But virtue must mean more than having and lacking for it to be meaningful. 

    Virtue is a quality of a person and not measurable. This means it cannot be measured like the distance between two cities. Having and lacking is the most simplistic of measurements as it either is or isn't. The boolean values of a program are not truth or false as qualities but something arbitrarily assigned to make a program work. Why does assigning true and false to something amount to a simplistic measurement? In the stack of logic values can be true or false like was said earlier to get a result of the program we want. There is no requirement for us to actually assume these values to be the case. We could internally feel otherwise and only assign truth to get our desired result. We could think nothing of it and run the program thousands of times.

    Hegel's arrival at absolute truth come about from a large body of thought. Aristotle's thought begins where Hegel has stopped. Aristotle's world is already absolute and his task as a thinker is to extend the actuality to the world. The difference of thought is seen in the two thinker's ethics. Aristotle's ethics is personal and how we fit in with society while Hegel see's this as regular work-a-day petty matters which are in the shadow of a state that decides what is ethical. Hegel puts emphasis the finding and defining what is ethical while for Aristotle what is ethical is already written in the logos of the world and noticeable when we deviate from it. To define what is ethical would mean one does not know what it is to begin with and likely not a mind that obtains it. What is most virtuous is what is least moved.

FT24008: Dwelling and Retreating

     Heidegger muses about bridge building in his concept of dwelling. Dwelling is not so much at living space that meets the basics needs but almost a stepping point from our creaturely habits to the world around us. One such point Heidegger brings up is where we build bridges and they are placed in special spots for us. They allow us to come and go and return to our places we dwell. Bridges are placed in just the same care as we place our homes and have a similar correspondence to our being as he explains in his writing, "Building Dwelling Thinking."

    All of this happening depends on our intention to dwell in the place. When we are overly occupied with other matters such as our work life we begin to dwell less. Dwelling less means our existence yields itself to being arbitrarily chosen. Reality matches less with our being or represents the fleeing of meaning from ourselves.

    In extreme instances we have no opportunity to dwell. Xenophon writes in his retreating from the Persian army this very thing. As he retreats he finds abandoned cities no longer dwelled in. He's rushing ahead of the army pursuing them. There's only enough time to describe the structures briefly before he has to rush out and keep going. Staying in these places longer would cause their capture and execution. They cannot dwell there and the buildings only serve as a momentary amusement in his escape of his hangman. 

    Dwelling in this case requires us to have the mindset to settle down and not chase after fleeting adventures or escape perils. This severs our connection to reality because we cannot build it ourselves. If we are lost in the woods at night the stars cannot give us much more than a momentary delight because they do not light our path and we can only see points of light in the dark. We can only feel part of them only when we know where are because we need to ask nothing of them.

    Only when we settle ourselves can we be comfortable in being and the world we are in. Otherwise we are waiting for something to appear or hoping what we experience will soon change to something else. Our want for change in our world also corresponds to ourself and we become formless and become creatures that escape ourselves. We only have discrete moments to exist.