Washington D.C.

A beautiful glimpse in Washington D.C., New Year's Eve, National Gallery of Art: It seems as if the landscape has grown only in order to accommodate Ginevra di Benci, painted by da Vinci (the only da Vinci in the U.S.). Check in comparison another, totally different relation between background and foreground in El Greco's Laocoon:



The background, so at least it seemed to my staring eyes, is being formed at the very moment of the composition, in order to integrate, or rather not to integrate the foreground. This was one interest and focus during our visit today. We were disappointed not to find the Cézanne room but four out of his six paintings, which were supposed to be on display, scattered in this impressive museum, the National Gallery of Art. And there were many surprises, pearls that emerged unexpectedly, like Correggio's Mystic Marriage of St. Catherine:





Happy New Year, dear friends.
PS: I also like the American Landmark Theaters. We watched Cronenberg's "A Dangerous Method" (to be screened in German cinemas under the misleading title: "Eine dunkle Begierde", whereas not the desire is here at stake, but the method). I would prefer a more "European" direction though, with more content on the dialogue and the hot debates between Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, beyond what we read in wikipedia. The film was fine nonetheless.
Back to Plato and Aristotle and my seminar on the concept of pleasure. I could not have wished a better start for 2012!

Chora in Plato's Timaeus

I am excited about the meeting we are organizing together with Jonathan (Beere), which will take place on September 19 and 20. This is one way in which Berlin undertakes dialogue, discusses and reconsiders debates, and promotes present and future research; this is one way in which Berlin realizes an ideal of dialogue under the aegis of TOPOI Excellence Cluster.

Here is the official announcement of our goals: The aim is to discuss some prominent and some new answers to the question: How should we understand the third entity which Timaeus introduces and labels receptacle or ‘chora’? This Platonic notion has been a bone of contention in both ancient and modern debates. Admittedly there have been some valuable contributions in Plato research. Nonetheless the problem of how we can work against the very influential Aristotelian exegesis has not been adequately focussed on.

Speakers:

Jonathan Beere
The Explanatory Role of Chora

Sarah Broadie
The Receptacle: an Ontological or a Cosmological Requirement?

George Karamanolis
The Reception of the Receptacle: Platonists on the Chora

Edward N. Lee
Mother CHORA and Her Children

Georgia Mouroutsou
Reading Plato Backwards: from Timaeus 52d to 48e.


Commentators:

Andreas Anagnostopoulos
Jenny Bryan
Pieter Sjoerd Hasper
Christopher Noble
Jacob Rosen


For further details you may consult: www.topoi.org/event/platos-chora/
If you wish to ask more about, or attend our workshop on chora, feel free to contact me.

Terrence Malick screened in Berlin

Just a few words: Watch the film "The Tree of Life". It is a gem. Malick is not going downhill, not in the least. The film would not be worse without the bridge at the very end, but never mind. More I shall be able to say after surviving the summer semester with the Philebus, Aristotle, Alcinous and other pure pleasures.

Tristan-und-Isolde

Tristan
…Stürb’ ich nun ihr (der Liebe),
Der so gern ich sterbe,
Wie könnte die Liebe
Mit mir sterben,
Die ewig lebende
Mit mir enden?
Doch stürbe nie seine Liebe,
Wie stürbe dann Tristan
Seiner Liebe?
Isolde
Doch unsere Liebe,
Heißt sie nicht Tristan
und – Isolde?
Dies süße Wörtlein: und,
Was es bindet,
Der Liebe Bund,
Wenn Tristan stürb’,
Zerstört’ es nicht der Tod?

Anfang April bin ich zur Oper gegangen und habe die letzte Aufführung von Tristan und Isolde an der Deutschen Oper Berlin miterlebt. Obgleich die Regie sehr kritisch beurteilt wurde, und der weltberühmte, britische Regisseur, Graham Vick, nach der Premiere sogar ausgebuht wurde, war ich begeistert, wenn auch zu Anfang zugegebenermaßen in Erstaunen versetzt. Das Theater ist mir vertrauter als die Oper. Bis jetzt habe ich die Theater-Regie eher mit der Gestaltung des Raumes verbunden und die Gestaltung der Zeit als die Aufgabe der Film-Regie betrachtet. Am 3. April wurde ich aber tiefst überrascht und sollte zum ersten mal die Sauberkeit meiner gerade erwähnten “Arbeitsverteilung” in Frage stellen: Graham Vick hat es meines Erachtens geschafft, “Zeit” auf der Bühne zu gestalten: das war menschliche Zeitlichkeit, Lebenszeit, ohne Zeitpfeil dennoch, weil der Tod sowohl rechts als auch links lag. Er hat weder gelauert; noch ist er plötzlich aufgetreten, sondern war die ganze Zeit, die durch die Musik ermessen wurde, da. Und mitten in dieser, menschlichen Zeitlichkeit klingen die Worte der zwei Liebenden, die die Präsenz von einander eine Ewigkeit lang “haben” wollen. Was für ein Besitz ist das? Was für eine Präsenz und was für eine Ewigkeit?
Sehr selten haben wir das Glück, ein klassisches Stück mitzuerleben, das auf eine ebenfalls grandiose Weise übertragen oder aufgeführt wird. Wie oft erlebt man Regisseure beim Scheitern, die großen Wert darauf gelegt haben, ihre Aufführung sehr stark auszuprägen und die geehrten Stücke zu aktualisieren!
Es ist eine unermesslich schwere Last auf den Schultern der Regisseure, ein autoritatives Kunstwerk zu interpretieren. Die interpretierende Haltung, die ich am meisten ehre, nenne ich “mimetisch”, wobei das Mimetische nicht als bloß passiv, sondern einerseits außerordentlich aufnehmend andererseits innovativ (um)gestaltend verstanden werden sollte. Nach meinen bisherigen Erfahrungen gelingt es meistens, wenn der Regisseur einen Weg entdeckt, um sich auf der Ebene des Allgemeinen zu bewegen.
Wie Graham Vick.
Bei diesem Tristan habe ich am seltenen Glück einer solchen “mimetischen Aneignung” teilgenommen.
P.S.: Es gab gewisse Momente bei der Regie, die ich nicht vertragen konnte und hier auf sich beruhen lasse, weil die Errungenschaft von keinem negativen Detail überschattet werden darf oder kann.

Japan's Stroke of Fate

What should I write? That I am doing quite fine and coping with Middle Platonism and I finally found my appropriate start with this era? And that the work on Alcinous is developing well? And that I am happy that I will soon experience „Tristan und Isolde“ in Berlin's Deutsche Oper?
The entire world catches its breath because of Japan’s stroke of fate. Last summer I encountered the hospitality of Japanese people and enjoyed the chats with Japanese Plato scholars. Professor Noburu Notomi confirms that he and his family, and most colleagues are safe. They are hoping to hear good news from the ones who had bad luck and were at the wrong place at the wrong time. We are all hoping for good news.
The situation at the nuclear plants keeps on escalating, as you all know.
What can I say and how can I write? An opinionated and demanding Greek „kid“ would stare at its dear, present Divine, and would speak as follows: „I wish to have some arguments for divine providence: here and now. Right away. It is high time that you steer again.“
For my part, I will remain silent in my blog for a while, as I find this is the only appropriate thing to do.

Plato and Friends, and Aristotle

In this winter term, I am attending Jonathan Beere's lecture on Aristotle's Natural Philosophy. He just went through the second book of the Physics. I had some difficulties to cope with Aristotle against my Plato-background (the Timaeus and above all Laws X). But the initial awkwardness has given way to my admiration. And the more I understand the second book, the more I appreciate what but mostly how Aristotle learned from Plato.
The following is mere fiction, needless to say. My blog is the appropriate place also for sharing such "amazing" pleasure, which is "not to be repented of" (a playful combination of ἀμήχανος ἡδονή, PA I5, and ἀμεταμέλητος ἡδονή, Tim. 59d2):

A bunch of people, among them Plato and other friends, have been listening attentively to Aristotle's lecture. Plato had an aversion to partisans and had only friends instead. At the end, Plato addresses Aristotle with the following words:

It was lovely to follow your lecture. We did not want to interrupt you for many reasons. One of them was that it is only now, after you elucidated how necessity appears in nature, that we are able to say something. Your argument is complete. And how you have learnt from my writing! But now I have to distance myself from my admiration! You know how vehemently I could critisize you, had I intended to. I could just draw upon my tenth book of the Laws and characterize you a materialist: the simple bodies without soul?! But no, no, you know I want to receive your argument and understand you in your difference. You want to put the matter-form dualism to the fore whereas I highlight the body-soul dualism by the end of my career. Go for it! You know we are open-minded here. And how I can tell that the understanding of my philosophy will suffer because of your decisions and distinctions! But how could I blame you for this? To come to think of it, I even like improving my opponents. But what about you? I could turn you into an opponent only because of our most intimate agreement. But no, let me do it my own way. Let us start with a couple of basic agreements: We are both against reductionism, right? We are also both against disjunctions: Oh, how you have learnt from me!
You are my friend. But more than friendship I appreciate accuracy. D'accord, you are right, of course truth is even prior, but let us stick to accuracy for now. You recall that even my cave dwellers raise claim on truth and being. Dear me, we do not have to worry about this science-fiction scenario; for this chat accuracy is sufficient. You have always accused me of not expressing myself adequately, right? But I didn't take it personally. You even sometimes dared to call me "the Eternal Female" that is out of grasp for anyone. Admittedly I took this personally, dear fellow, but as long as we at least agree that I am not a Sceptic nor a sophist, I can live with that! Let me cut the long story short: I enjoyed your lecture but I have to confess, I am still at sea. Let me go to the gist. I would like to raise one single question: Where from does the distinction "proteron-husteron" come into nature if not from your anthropocentrism? At least we positioned soul into the center of the universe and not human beings. And do not tell me God is in the center and you have two kinds of final cause, which you always have up your sleeve. Do I recall rightly? Didn't you appeal to this distinction somewhere in your lecture? If you ask me, theocentricism is the other side of the coin, a single coin.

Well, I can easily foretell that you are going to provoke puzzlement but also serious philosophical aporia to generations of students and scholars. They will debate on your missing accuracy. But spell it out please. Put your cards on the table for me, and I promise not to pin your secrets down, nor to publish any notes on these Unwritten Doctrines of yours. You do not like secrets, which is another convergence. I brought you up in my Academy, remember? Now I shall remain silent and lend you my ears, my dearest fellow.

...Not to be continued.

PS: Just for the record: Second sunny day in a row in Berlin. A third one will persuade me that winter is calling it a day!
PPS: Last but not least, greetings Michael.