Monthly Archives: November 2023

Ecstasy

We make out of the quarrel with others, rhetoric, but of the quarrel with ourselves, poetry. Unlike the rhetoricians, who get a confident voice from remembering the crowd they have won or may win, we sing amid our uncertainty; and, smitten even in the presence of the most high beauty by the knowledge of our solitude, our rhythm shudders. I think, too, that no fine poet, no matter how disordered his life, has ever, even in his mere life, had pleasure for his end. Johnson and Dowson, friends of my youth, were dissipated men, the one a drunkard, the other a drunkard and mad about women, and yet they had the gravity of men who had found life out and were awakening from the dream; and both, one in life and art and one in art and less in life, had a continual preoccupation with religion. Nor has any poet I have read of or heard of or met with been a sentimentalist. The other self, the anti-self or the antithetical self, as one may choose to name it, comes but to those who are no longer deceived, whose passion is reality. The sentimentalists are practical men who believe in money, in position, in a marriage bell, and whose understanding of happiness is to be so busy whether at work or at play, that all is forgotten but the momentary aim. They find their pleasure in a cup that is filled from Lethe’s wharf, and for the awakening, for the vision, for the revelation of reality, tradition offers us a different word—ecstasy. An old artist wrote to me of his wanderings by the quays of New York, and how he found there a woman nursing a sick child, and drew her story from her. She spoke, too, of other children who had died: a long tragic story. “I wanted to paint her,” he wrote, “if I denied myself any of the pain I could not believe in my own ecstasy.” We must not make a false faith by hiding from our thoughts the causes of doubt, for faith is the highest achievement of the human intellect, the only gift man can make to God, and therefore it must be offered in sincerity. Neither must we create, by hiding ugliness, a false beauty as our offering to the world. He only can create the greatest imaginable beauty who has endured all imaginable pangs, for only when we have seen and foreseen what we dread shall we be rewarded by that dazzling unforeseen wing-footed wanderer. We could not find him if he were not in some sense of our being and yet of our being but as water with fire, a noise with silence. He is of all things not impossible the most difficult, for that only which comes easily can never be a portion of our being, “Soon got, soon gone,” as the proverb says. I shall find the dark grow luminous, the void fruitful when I understand I have nothing, that the ringers in the tower have appointed for the hymen of the soul a passing bell.

The last knowledge has often come most quickly to turbulent men, and for a season brought new turbulence. When life puts away her conjuring tricks one by one, those that deceive us longest may well be the wine-cup and the sensual kiss, for our Chambers of Commerce and of Commons have not the divine architecture of the body, nor has their frenzy been ripened by the sun. The poet, because he may not stand within the sacred house but lives amid the whirlwinds that beset its threshold, may find his pardon.

  • Yeats, Per Amica Silentia Lunae

Robert Johnson

Bob Dylan:

Before I left that day, John Hammon gave me that Robert Johnson record. No one had ever heard any Robert Johnson songs, but they had them all in the vault. They issued that record called King of the Delta Blues and he gave me one of the first copies of it. That was early 61 … Well, the Robert Johnson at that time was astounding. What was astounding was the sheer songwriting. I hadn’t heard that before. I hadn’t heard twelve-bar blues songs that could be identifiable in their own genres. And so many different rhythms that he set up just with his one guitar. I was pretty overwhelmed, actually.

Keith Richards:

Brian Jones had the first album, and that’s where I first heard it. I’d just met Brian, and I went around to his apartment – crash pad, actually, all he had in it was a chair, a record player, and a few records. One of which was Robert Johnson. He put it on, and it was just – you know – astounding stuff… When I first heard it, I said to Brian, Who’s that? Robert Johnson, he said. Yeah, but who’s the other guy playing with him? Because I was hearing two guitars, and it took me a long time to realize he was actually doing it all by himself. The guitar playing – it was almost like listening to Bach. You know, you think you’re getting a handle on playing the blues, and then you hear Robert Johnson – some of the rhythms he’s doing and playing and singing at the same time, you think, This guy must have three brains! You want to know how good the blues can get? Well, this is it.

Eric Clapton:

Robert Johnson to me is the most important blues musician who ever lived. He was true, absolutely, to his own vision, and as deep as I have gotten into the music over the last 30 years, I have never found anything more deeply soulful than Robert Johnson. His music remains the most powerful cry that I think you can find in the human voice … it seemed to echo something I had always felt.

Susan Taubes: ‘I thought the idea of a dybbuk or a ghost becoming incarnated in a woman would be an interesting book to write.’

https://mps.lib.harvard.edu/sds/audio/496643577

Dans le vrai

Belief in ‘the indestructible’ is not intellectual. It is expressed in
action. ‘Belief means freeing the indestructible in oneself, or
rather: freeing oneself, or rather: being indestructible, or rather:
being.’ It bridges the gulf between consciousness and being. And it
enables Kafka effortlessly to surmount a problem that worries
many people who reflect on religion, namely the fact that the
majority of people feel no need to reflect on religion. William
James in The Varieties of Religious Experience borrows from a
Catholic writer the division of humanity into the once-born and
the twice-born. The latter are the minority who feel anxiety about
their relation to something beyond themselves. The former are
unreflective, uncomplicated, and largely content to get on with
their lives. For Kafka, both classes of people arrive by different
routes at the same goal, that of being; the twice-born like himself
have a very much longer and more arduous journey, the others can
be ‘dans le vrai’ already.

— Ritchie Robertson, Kafka: A Very Short Introduction

Unhidden

Who then is this man of the cave allegory? Not man in general and as such, but that particular being which comports itself to beings as the unhidden, and thereby becomes unhidden to itself. But the unhiddenness of beings, in which this being stands and holds itself, happens in the projective perceiving of being, or in Platonic terms, in the ideas. This projective perceiving occurs as liberation of its essence to itself. Man is that being which understands being and exists on the basis of this understanding, i.e. among other things, comports itself to beings as the unhidden. ‘Exist’ [Existieren] and ‘being-there’ [Dasein] are not used here in a vague faded sense, to mean happening [Vorkommen] and being present, but in a quite definite and adequately grounded sense; ex-sistere, ex-sistens: to stand out into the unhiddenness of beings, to be given over [ausgesetzt] to beings in their totality, thus to the confrontation between itself and beings, not closed in upon itself like plants, nor restricted like animals in their environment, nor simply occurring like a stone. […] Only by entering into the dangerous region of philosophy is it possible for man to realize his nature as transcending himself into the unhiddenness of beings. Man apart from philosophy is something else.

Understanding the cave allegory means grasping the history of human essence, which means grasping oneself in one’s ownmost history. This demands, when we begin to philosophize at any rate, putting out of action diverse concepts and non-concepts of man, irrespective of their obviousness or currency. At the same time it means understanding what the clarification of the essence of ἀλήθεια implies for knowledge of human essence.

The proposition that man is the being who exists in the perceiving of being has its own truth, which is quite distinctive and different from such truths as 2 + 1 = 3, that the weather is good, or that the essence of a table consists in its being an object of use. The truth of the statement about the essence of man can never be scientifically proven. It cannot be established by reference to facts, nor can it be derived from principles in a formal-logical manner. This is not a deficiency, especially when one realizes that what is essential always remains unprovable, or more precisely, lies outside the sphere of provability and unprovability. What is provable (in the sense of formal-logical reckoning, detached from the fundamental decision and stance of human existence) is already dubious in respect of essentiality. Nor is the proposition about man’s essence a matter of ‘belief’, i.e. something to be accepted simply on authority. If one took it thus, one would not understand it at all. The truth of this statement (precisely because it says something philosophical) can only be philosophically (as I say) enkindled and appropriated, that is, only when the questioning that understands being in the questionability of beings in the whole takes its standpoint from a fundamental decision, from a fundamental stance towards being and towards its limit in nothingness.

  • Heidegger, The Essence of Truth (tr. Sadler)

In God and time

From Spinoza I learned that we have two ways of considering things: the way we see them in God, as eternal; and the way we know them in space and time, limited, finite, as if cut off from God. But truly to love someone means seeing them simultaneously in God and in time. The tenderness and shadow of their existing here and now – the amber and crystal of their being in God.

— Agamben (via here)