Richibi’s Weblog

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Beethoven piano sonata no 32, opus 111‏


when I was a young boy my sister returned
from school with a catechism the nuns had
given her, if there’s anything you’d like to
know, she said, the answer will be in here,
touting it triumphantly

we all laughed at her of course, being a
family of sceptics

but in the following sonata, Beethoven’s
transcendent no 32, opus 111, I believe
that’s exactly what you get, that catechism,
something with all the answers

there are only two movements in the 32nd,
an oddity to say the least, it will end not on
a joyous note, as was the traditional manner,
but on a much more contemplative one

midway I never manage not to break down

the first movement is fast, chaotic, succinct,
the following one tentative, orderly, expansive,
exploratory as opposed to rash, humble as
opposed to demanding

dichotomies, in other words, abound the
more profoundly you let the pattern sink
into you, the more you spend time with
the music

for me it is man, woman, it is chaos, grace,
right, wrong, evil, good, sin, retribution,
war, peace, intolerance, mercy, love

it is also the very steps of our passage
through those life choices

when life has been for me too much of a
struggle this sonata has come along, in
those most private and most vulnerable
moments, invariably to hold my hand,
thanks be duly to Beethoven, philosopher,
poet, mystic, guardian angel, sage

if there’s anything you’d like to know, I
affectionately quote, and presently
ardently remind you, the answer will
be in this cathechism

if you can keep your eye off the pianist,
who is evidently, and indeed enviably,
in its throes

we’ll want to see more of Yeol Eum Son

Richard

Advertisements

Nemo – “Ennead I” by Plotinus (15)‏

 
 
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 00:40:39 +0000
To: Richibi’s Weblog
From: comment-reply@wordpress.com
Subject: [New comment] “Ennead I” by Plotinus
 

Richard,

You wrote, ” the possibility of a firm, which is to say, rational, understanding of the substance of our world, something you ardently affirm, but I, and the “demented” Nietzsche, incidentally, equally fervently mistrust, even deem fundamentally impossible

If it is impossible to have a rational understanding of the world, of which Nietzsche is a part, then it is impossible to know what Nietzsche believes or “fervently mistrust”. Do you realize that your statements are contradicting your philosophy?

I find your accusation of Plato irrational and groundless. How is belief in an objective Absolute Truth murderous? On the contrary, I think it is life-saving. For instance, it is wiser to accept that the Law of Gravity exists, then to disregard it and suffer the consequences of a bad fall. If anything, I think a philosophy that only acknowledges the existence of oneself and disregards all others is more likely to cause it’s adherents to commit murder, because other human beings are no more than phantoms in his sight.

As for Fido being an artist, just give him a pint of paint, and you’ll find that he does indeed paint pictures. Some people call it “modern art”. What’s the difference between a plagiarist and an artist who imitates Providence but does not acknowledge the source of his inspiration?

Nemo

(P.S. I have not responded to your comments about Christianity, though I disagree with them, because I think it is beyond the scope of this discussion)

 

you argue, Nemo, that one cannot “have a
rational understanding of the world, of which
Nietzsche is a part“, and profess to
simultaneously “know what Nietzsche
believes or “fervently mistrust[s]
 
but I do not profess to “know what Nietzsche
believes or “fervently mistrust[s]”, nor did I
profess to “have a rational understanding of
the world“, in the sense that I have all the
answers, I am only expressing opinions,
as informed as I can make them, an
interpretation, as indeed I believe
you yourself are
 
therefore there is no contradiction in my
opinion, the one you most vehemently
seem to wish to reject, I do not profess
certainty
 
which might be what you are about to
do 
 
 
but further
 
the pursuit of an Absolute, an immutable
standard, has too often, and therefore
probably inherently, fallen prey to its
dogma, crucifying, metaphorically of
course but also otherwise, and often,
opponents
 
I’m afraid of pehaps sensing that most
nefarious side in your often less than
patient comments
 
the Absolute imposed by the Catholic
Church threw the Western World into
the Dark Ages for an unbelievable
1500 years, before we came out of
our, indeed, Platonic cave 
 
I have no use for the Absolute as an
abstraction, the Absolute can only
be the sum of all the opinions of
those who have, have had, will have,
a notion about It, nothing otherwise 
 
but an opinion seems to be the way
in which we find our path
 
that seems to me closer to our answer
 
 
and a free, respectful always, exchange
of opinions, no matter how entrenched,
seems to me the only manner in which
to move forward, after all, how long was
the earth believed to be flat before
someone had the nerve, the verve, and
the determination, to wonder about it  
 
in a world where everyone’s view is
considered, a less certain world, we
would be less willing to die, or kill, 
for any of our arbitrary ideas
 
incidentally, these are the teachings of
Jesus, remember, turn the other cheek

 
read also Martha Nussbaum here, ever
profoundly pertinently  
 
 
what else, Nemo, is, meanwhile, “beyond
the scope of this discussion”  
 
or should we merely agree now to having
disagreed
 
 
let me say that it has been for me a
delightful conversation that I would
not want to see end, I think we could 
have a lot to learn from each other, but
perhaps I’ve touched, however
unintentionally, a nerve, for which I
wholeheartedly apologize
 
 
best wishes, of course, ever
 
and cheers, no matter what
 

Richard