Read somewhat hastily in my Hofstra office, OPM 76 continues the exploration of the 'story' of Heraclitus, the legend recounted by Aristotle. In my commentary I mention that the key to this meditation is the raising of the question concerning the so-called 'extra-ordinary' appearing in the 'ordinary' or 'mundane.' But what is this 'extra-ordinary' event? Why is the prompting of thinking in the mundane something deemed to be so special? Of course, the way to pursue this question is to take up the story itself, which is what I am doing, and that is, to ask why Heraclitus' visitors were so confused to find him in his home warming his hands by the fire? Heidegger asks this very question, saying that this ordinary event could happen anywhere and it seemed they had wasted their time in finding Heraclitus in this position. Until he says, "here too the gods are present," which is where the story turns, at least for Heidegger, because it points to the interruption of ordinary by the extraordinary, the 'presence' of the gods. For me, this is certainly a way to take up the question. But I am equally interested in Aristotle's use of the story as an interruption of his work, and I say as much in OPM 76. For me, Aristotle's recounting of the story indicates another possibility for taking up philosophy through the recounting of legends, or just telling stories of the 'ordinary' lives of philosophers. The embodied lived experience of the philosopher may reveal something as significant and compelling as the profound words they write. Of course, if this is the case it only begs the question about my own writing, specifically, the poetic phenomenological writing of Being and Learning?
February 13, 2014 was the 10th anniversary of the original experiment that produced 363 phenomenological mediations, published as 'Being and Learning' (Brill: 2012). Each day between Feb 2014-15, I returned to the original meditations, and my commentary is documented here. And then, again, on February 15, 2024, on the 20th anniversary of the first days of the original experiment, I revisit and comment on a daily basis, once again.
3.0 - the 2.0 commentary foreshadows the turn I'm taking in 3.0, which is a bit more narrative based. If the mundane is the highlight of Aristotle's story of Heraclitus receiving visitors, then this Aristotle's way of communicating the so-called mundane quality of everyday life as charged with the aura of originality. I wrote about this in yesterday's 3.0 commentary. Today I would emphasize the potential implication: what is learned in the initial encounter, in the aesthetic experience with the significant object, is that there exists significance in the world apart from my construction of it. Poetic praxis, even when it emerges spontaneously from improvisation, is inspired, and occurs after the initial experience that brings awareness to aura of significance, which can be described as emanating or resonating. Hence why the subject who has been captivated by music is a "resonant subject." It occurs to me that Maxine Greene's notion of "wide awakeness" is pertinent here as the result of the aesthetic experience. The learner becomes attuned to or wide awake to significance, and this attunement enables them to perceive significance in the ordinary, and, further, to potentially add to that significance in the world. This is my take on Arendt's "repair and renewal" of the world. And also what I take from Heraclitus telling his visitors "the gods are present here too." What a remarkable thing to say! Especially because the presence of the gods was limited to designated sacred spaces: temples. And this is why the OPM from this day begins be asking about the dwelling of the Sage: " What kind of dwelling is the dwelling of the Sage, and why is it the comportment of the evocative speaker?" (B&L, 110). In the OPM I describe the "dwelling" as a modality or comportment, the manner of the Sage. But I don't emphasize how this modality is mediated by the abode or place, i.e, the actual home place of the Sage. Again, as I wrote yesterday, bell hooks inspired me to take up the revelation of significance in the home. Another example is Benjamin's essay on unpacking his library, which reveals to him the "fata" (fate) of the book. And of course this is the piece that has inspired me to affirm the book as a potential significant object. The book's "fate" denotes its singularity - each copy is significant despite it's being a copy. But "fate" also denotes the independence of the book from the author, what Blanchot calls the "solitude" of the work of art. There is a sense in which the modality of the Sage is characterized by solitude, a freedom-from the norms and conventions of society. And this is why Heraclitus' visitor's become conscious of their "strangeness" when they arrive. As the OPM from this day explores, it is not only that they are not friends but strangers to Heraclitus, but that they are estranged from themselves when the encounter Heraclitus. And this estrangement is the result of Heraclitus revealing something extraordinary in the ordinary, the presence of the gods in his home. "He appears to them as Sage, as one who is evocative, within the mundane. The mundane is thus the sheltering of the extraordinary. The mundane conserves the extraordinary, that which evokes wonder."(B&L, 113)
ReplyDelete