>A thing there was that mattered; a thing, **wreathed about with chatter, defaced, obscured in her own life, let drop every day in corruption, lies, chatter**. This he had preserved. Death was defiance. Death was an attempt to communicate, people feeling the impossibility of reaching the centre which, mystically, evaded them; closeness drew apart; rapture faded; one was alone. There was an embrace in death.

From *Mrs. Dalloway*

>When words have lost their grounding, they become idle talk, which Heidegger suggests is to some extent an unavoidable social phenomenon. Words **become so familiar that they become alien**. In order for words to remain meaningful, we must **preserve a certain amount of discomfort** about them. Dasein's homelessness confers a special status upon it. The **alienating experience of idle talk** is also a precondition for Dasein's conscious efforts to ground itself. The combination of being at home and not being at home is what makes Dasein's experience authentic, for it **forces it to situate itself within Being** as a whole. Heidegger intimates that an intangible voice of Being pulls Dasein beyond its immediate environs, forcing it to continuously transform the home that it is in. Dasein is always also more than it is. This is why the inauthentic social world that Heidegger somewhat disparagingly refers to as **das Man** becomes not just the enemy of authenticity, but also its **driving force**.

From Froese, *Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Daoist Thought-Crossing Paths In-Between*.



Clarissa Dalloway's Heidegerrian Dread

>If I fall through a cloud, I will exist without comparison. I will clamber in the spaces between, among the quicksands and the rocks. I will glow, not from praise, but from my own oblivion. For I would sooner fail than not be among the greatest. **For failure is merely the practice of persistence.**

Keats on failure

>“All visible objects, man, **are** **but as pasteboard masks**. But in each event—in the living act, the undoubted deed— there, some unknown but still reasoning thing puts forth the mouldings of its features from behind the unreasoning mask. If man will strike, strike through the mask! How can the prisoner reach outside except by thrusting through the wall? To me, **the white whale is that wall**, shoved near to me. Sometimes I think there's naught beyond. But 'tis enough. He tasks me; he heaps me; I see in him outrageous strength, with an inscrutable malice sinewing it. That inscrutable thing is chiefly what I hate; and be the white whale agent, or be the white whale principal, I will wreak that hate upon him. **Talk not to me of blasphemy, man; I'd strike the sun if it insulted me.**"

From *Moby Dick*

Ahab is Melville's Satan, but he differs from Milton's Satan in that he doesn't rebel against God, but rather is determined to find out whether there is a God against whom to rebel. He is pursuing the final, ultimate truth about the way things are--and hates that the universe may very well be inscrutable to the last.

He puts forth a worldview in which the universe is a set of deep meanings we can strike through to with the strength of our autonomous will. 

Kin Home
Vantage
Anova





Captain Ahab's worldview, the inscrutable thing and the unreasonable mask

To His Coy Mistress

BY ANDREW MARVELL

Had we but world enough and time,
This coyness, lady, were no crime.
We would sit down, and think which way
To walk, and pass our long love’s day.
Thou by the Indian Ganges’ side
Shouldst **rubies** find; I by the tide
- Rubies were thought to help preserve virginity.
    
Of **Humber** would **complain**. I would
- the **Humber River** flows through Marvell's native town of Hull (i.e., on the other side of the world from the Ganges)
- "**complain**" implies plaintive lyrics of unavailing love.
    
Love you ten years before the flood,
And you should, if you please, refuse
Till the **conversion of the Jews**.
- this would occur at the end of recorded history, according to the Christian tradition.
    
My vegetable love should **grow**
- I.e., characterized by growth;
- in context, increasing **without conscious nurturing**.
Vaster than empires and more slow;
An hundred years should go to praise
Thine eyes, and on thy forehead gaze;
Two hundred to adore each breast,
But thirty thousand to the rest;
An age at least to every part,
And the last age should show your heart.
For, lady, you deserve this state,
Nor would I love at **lower rate**.
- I.e., at any **smaller amounts of time** ("lower rate") than what I've just mentioned.
    
But at my back I always hear
Time’s wingèd chariot hurrying near;
And yonder all before us lie
Deserts of vast eternity.
Thy beauty shall no more be found;
Nor, in thy marble vault, shall sound
My echoing song; then worms shall try
That long-preserved virginity,
And your **quaint** honour turn to dust,
- Has several meanings, including fine, elegant, fastidious, oversubtle, and out of date.
- also, with a pun on the Middle English noun queynte, or **female genitals**.
    
And into ashes all my lust;
The grave’s a fine and private place,
But none, I think, do there embrace.
       Now therefore, while the youthful hue
Sits on thy skin like morning dew,
And while thy willing soul **transpires**
- **transpires** = breathes out = still alive.
    
At every pore with instant fires,
Now let us sport us while we may,
And now, like amorous birds of prey,
Rather at once our time devour
Than languish in his **slow-chapped** power.
- slow-chapped = slowly devouring.
    
Let us roll all our strength and all
**Our sweetness up into one ball**,
And tear our pleasures with rough strife
Through the iron gates of life:
- The obscure “iron gates” suggests that the "ball" of line 42 has become a **missile from a siege gun,** battering its way into a citadel.
- One manuscript has "iron grates."
    
Thus, though we cannot make our sun
**Stand still**, yet we will make him run.
- An allusion to the **power of Zeus**, the chief Greek god, who, to prolong his night with the mortal Alcmena, **ordered the sun not to shine**
- see Joshua 10.12-13.

Words
- unavailing — achieving little or nothing, ineffective.
- **_unavailing_** _love_.
- emend — to make corrections to a text.
    

  

Andrew Marvell, "To His Coy Mistress"


This is Thomas Sheehan's Heideggerian reading of Prufrock, focused on the speaker's flight from the groundlessness of his engagement with meaning and the meaning of his own death. It's Prufrock's experience of Heidegger's existential dread and his flight from it. Prufrock tries to continue living in the everyday ways that **paper over mortality** and the final absurdity of living  ("I have measured out my life with coffee spoons"). 

The poem concludes with virtual identification of speaker with the reader ("Till human voices wake us, and *we* drown"). Prufrock takes flight into a world of **erotic fantasy**, even though that “life” will prove to be only a suffocating **death-in-life**.

What is the **alternative** to Prufrock’s flight?

It's to let onself be **held out into the no-thing** for a cold, focused moment. To hang suspended, with nothing to hold on to, **over the abyss of the utter absurdity** that gapes at the heart of your life.
To **live into the experience** with faint hope and trembling courage.
Tthis would be to **understand what is at stake** in the seemingly innocent act of making sense of things.

You can **take responsibility** for yourself and your life. You can wake up to that absurdity and live through it, **despite the ultimate futility** of it all. Accept the absurdity as your **personal condition**.

The experience of mortality throws you back upon yourself as a **mortal engagement-with-meaning**. This is the **possibility of your own impossibility**. This is a **_push-back_** from death, which is what mortality is and what the absurd does.

This is **the same** for the feckless Prufrock and the person of resolve as each **faces their facticity**. What distinguishes the two is their decision about **living with that awareness**.

But now you have a choice: flee your experience of your groundlessness, or make your awareness your own as you return to the everyday business of living as the **author of your own life**.

*Annotated text below.*

The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock 

By T. S. Eliot

*S’io credesse che mia risposta fosse  
A persona che mai tornasse al mondo,  
Questa fiamma staria senza piu scosse.  
Ma percioche giammai di questo fondo  
Non torno vivo alcun, s’i’odo il vero,  
Senza tema d’infamia ti rispondo.*

**Dante addresses Guido da Montefeltro in hell, the standard-bearer of bad faith. 
*I beg you now, tell me who you are –
Be not harder than others have been to you – 
That your name may still endure within the world*.**

**Guido responds** to Dante in the epigram above:
If I thought my answer were given_
To one who might ever return to the world,_
This flame would flicker no longer (= I would say no more).
But since from this abyss no one
Has ever returned alive (if what I hear is true),
Without fear of shame_ **_I will answer you_**

“_Let us go then,_ **_you and I_**”
- The poem then progresses to your own side-by-side journey with him.
- He’s telling him because he knows that Dante is never going to leave hell.
- This is you telling yourself about yourself.

*Let us go then, you and I,  
When the evening is spread out against the sky  
Like a patient etherized upon a table;  
Let us go, through certain half-deserted streets,  
The muttering retreats  
Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels  
And sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells:  
Streets that follow like a tedious argument  
Of insidious intent  
To lead you to an overwhelming question ...  
Oh, do not ask, “What is it?”  
Let us go and make our visit.  
  
In the room the women come and go  
Talking of Michelangelo.*  

*The yellow fog that rubs its back upon the window-panes,  
The yellow smoke that rubs its muzzle on the window-panes,  
Licked its tongue into the corners of the evening,  
Lingered upon the pools that stand in drains,  
Let fall upon its back the soot that falls from chimneys,  
Slipped by the terrace, made a sudden leap,  
And seeing that it was a soft October night,  
Curled once about the house, and fell asleep.*  

*And indeed there will be time*  

* Cf. Andrew Marvell, "To His Coy Mistress," line 1 (p. 478).

*For the yellow smoke that slides along the street,  
Rubbing its back upon the window-panes;  
There will be time, there will be time  
To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet;  
There will be time to murder and create,  
And time for all the works and days of hands  
That lift and drop a question on your plate;  
Time for you and time for me,  
And time yet for a hundred indecisions,  
And for a hundred visions and revisions,  
Before the taking of a toast and tea.*  

*In the room the women come and go  
Talking of Michelangelo.*  

*And indeed there will be time  
To wonder, “Do I dare?” and, “Do I dare?”  
Time to turn back and descend the stair,  
With a bald spot in the middle of my hair —  
(They will say: “How his hair is growing thin!”)  
My morning coat, my collar mounting firmly to the chin,  
My necktie rich and modest, but asserted by a simple pin —  
(They will say: “But how his arms and legs are thin!”)*  

*Do I dare  
Disturb the universe?  
In a minute there is time  
For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.*


*For I have known them all already, known them all:  
Have known the evenings, mornings, afternoons,  
I have measured out my life with coffee spoons;  
I know the voices dying with a dying fall* 
- * Cf. Shakespeare, Twelfth Night 1.1.1-4:
- "If music be the food of love, play on. . . . That strain again, it had a **dying fall**."
*Beneath the music from a farther room.  
               So how should I presume?*  

*And I have known the eyes already, known them all—  
The eyes that fix you in a formulated phrase,  
And when I am formulated, sprawling on a pin,  
When I am pinned and wriggling on the wall,  
Then how should I begin  
To spit out all the butt-ends of my days and ways?  
               And how should I presume?*  

*And I have known the arms already, known them all—  
Arms that are braceleted and white and bare  
(But in the lamplight, downed with light brown hair!)  
Is it perfume from a dress  
That makes me so digress?  
Arms that lie along a table, or wrap about a shawl.  
               And should I then presume?  
               And how should I begin?*  

*Shall I say, I have gone at dusk through narrow streets  
And watched the smoke that rises from the pipes  
Of lonely men in shirt-sleeves, leaning out of windows? ...*  
  
*I should have been a pair of ragged claws  
Scuttling across the floors of silent seas.* 
  
*And the afternoon, the evening, sleeps so peacefully!  
Smoothed by long fingers,  
Asleep ... tired ... or it malingers,  
Stretched on the floor, here beside you and me.  
Should I, after tea and cakes and ices,  
Have the strength to force the moment to its crisis?  
But though I have wept and fasted, wept and prayed,  
Though I have seen my head (grown slightly bald) brought in upon a platter, 
I am no prophet — and here’s no great matter;*  
* The head of John the Baptist was presented to Salome on a plate at her request (Mark 6.17—20, Matthew 14.3-11).
*I have seen the moment of my greatness flicker,  
And I have seen the eternal Footman hold my coat, and snicker,  
And in short, I was afraid.*  
* Prufrock has a **riveting vision of his mortality**—the Eternal Footman—but with his decisive “No!” he takes flight.

*And would it have been worth it, after all,  
After the cups, the marmalade, the tea,  
Among the porcelain, among some talk of you and me,  
Would it have been worth while,  
To have bitten off the matter with a smile,  
To have squeezed the universe into a ball* 
* *Cf. "To His Coy Mistress," lines 41-44.*
*To roll it towards some overwhelming question,  
To say: “I am Lazarus, come from the dead,  
Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all”—  
If one, settling a pillow by her head  
               Should say: “That is not what I meant at all;  
               That is not it, at all.”*  

*And would it have been worth it, after all,  
Would it have been worth while,  
After the sunsets and the dooryards and the sprinkled streets,  
After the novels, after the teacups, after the skirts that trail along the floor— 
And this, and so much more?—  
It is impossible to say just what I mean!  
But as if a magic lantern threw the nerves in patterns on a screen:  
Would it have been worth while  
If one, settling a pillow or throwing off a shawl,  
And turning toward the window, should say:  
               “That is not it at all,  
               That is not what I meant, at all.”*  

*No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be;*  
- Prufrock **flees from the** groundlessness of his engagement with meaning, **retreats** from this awareness of facticity .
- Tries to continue his life in the everyday ways that **paper over mortality** and the final absurdity of living.

*Am an attendant lord, one that will do  
To swell a progress, start a scene or two,  
Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool,  
Deferential, glad to be of use,  
Politic, cautious, and meticulous;  
Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;  
At times, indeed, almost ridiculous—  
Almost, at times, the Fool.*  

*I grow old ... I grow old ...  
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.*  

*Shall I part my hair behind?   Do I dare to eat a peach?  
I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.  
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.*  

*I do not think that they will sing to me.*  

*I have seen them riding seaward on the waves  
Combing the white hair of the waves blown back  
When the wind blows the water white and black.  
We have lingered in the chambers of the sea  
By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown  
Till human voices wake us, and we drown.*




Eliot's "Prufrock",  A Heideggerian Reading



我们对于一棵古松的三种态度

朱光潜

一切事物都有几种看法。你说一件事物是美的或是丑的，这也只是一种看法。换一个看法，你说它是真的或是假的；再换一种看法，你说它是善的或是恶的。同是一件事物，看法有多种，所看出来的现象也就有多种。

比如园里那一棵古松，无论是你是我或是任何人一看到它，都说它是古松。但是你从正面看，我从侧面看，你以幼年人的心境去看，我以中年人的心境去看，这些情境和性格的差异都能影响到所看到的古松的面目。古松虽只是一件事物，你所看到的和我所看到的古松却是两件事。假如你和我各把所得的古松的印象画成一幅画或是写成一首诗，我们俩艺术手腕尽管不分上下，你的诗和画与我的诗和画相比较，却有许多重要的异点。这是什么缘故呢?这就由于知觉不完全是客观的，各人所见到的物的形象都带有几分主观的色彩。

假如你是一位木商，我是一位植物学家，另外一位朋友是画家，三人同时来看这棵古松。我们三人可以说同时都“知觉”到这一棵树，可是三人所“知觉”到的却是三种不同的东西。你脱离不了你的木商的心习，你所知觉到的只是一棵做某事用值几多钱的木料。我也脱离不了我的植物学家的心习，我所知觉到的只是一棵叶为针状、果为球状、四季常青的显花植物。我们的朋友——画家——什么事都不管，只管审美，他所知觉到的只是一棵苍翠劲拔的古树。我们三人的反应态度也不一致。你心里盘算它是宜于架屋或是制器，思量怎样去买它，砍它，运它。我把它归到某类某科里去，注意它和其他松树的异点，思量它何以活得这样老。我们的朋友却不这样东想西想，他只在聚精会神地观赏它的苍翠的颜色，它的盘屈如龙蛇的线纹以及它的昂然高举、不受屈挠的气概。

从此可知这棵古松并不是一件固定的东西，它的形象随观者的性格和情趣而变化。各人所见到的古松的形象都是各人自己性格和情趣的返照。古松的形象一半是天生的，一半也是人为的。极平常的知觉都带有几分创造性；极客观的东西之中都有几分主观的成分。

美也是如此。有审美的眼睛才能见到美。这棵古松对于我们画画的朋友是美的，因为他去看它时就抱了美感的态度。你和我如果也想见到它的美，你须得把你那种木商的实用的态度丢开，我须得把植物学家的科学的态度丢开，专持美感的态度去看它。  
这三种态度有什么分别呢?

先说实用的态度。做人的第一件大事就是维持生活。既要生活，就要讲究如何利用环境。“环境”包含我自己以外的一切人和物在内，这些人和物有些对于我的生活有益，有些对于我的生活有害，有些对于我不关痛痒。我对于他们于是有爱恶的情感，有趋就或逃避的意志和活动。这就是实用的态度。实用的态度起于实用的知觉，实用的知觉起于经验。小孩子初出世，第一次遇见火就伸手去抓，被它烧痛了，以后他再遇见火，便认识它是什么东西，便明了它是烧痛手指的，火对于他于是有意义。事物本来都是很混乱的，人为便利实用起见，才像被火烧过的小孩子根据经验把四围事物分类立名，说天天吃的东西叫做“饭”，天天穿的东西叫做“衣”，某种人是朋友，某种人是仇敌，于是事物才有所谓“意义”。意义大半都起于实用。在许多人看，衣除了是穿的，饭除了是吃的，女人除了是生小孩的一类意义之外，便寻不出其他意义。所谓“知觉”，就是感官接触某种人或物时心里明了他的意义。明了他的意义起初都只是明了他的实用。明了实用之后，才可以对他起反应动作，或是爱他，或是恶他，或是求他，或是拒他，木商看古松的态度便是如此。

科学的态度则不然。它纯粹是客观的、理论的。所谓客观的态度就是把自己的成见和情感完全丢开，专以“无所为而为”的精神去探求真理。理论是和实用相对的。理论本来可以见诸实用，但是科学家的直接目的却不在于实用。科学家见到一个美人，不说我要去向她求婚，她可以替我生儿子，只说我看她这人很有趣味，我要来研究她的生理构造，分析她的心理组织。科学家见到一堆粪，不说它的气味太坏，我要掩鼻走开，只说这堆粪是一个病人排泄的，我要分析它的化学成分，看看有没有病菌在里面。科学家自然也有见到美人就求婚，见到粪就掩鼻走开的时候，但是那时候他已经由科学家还到实际人的地位了。科学的态度之中很少有情感和意志，它的最重要的心理活动是抽象的思考。科学家要在这个混乱的世界中寻出事物的关系和条理，纳个物于概念，从原理演个例，分出某者为因，某者为果，某者为特征，某者为偶然性。植物学家看古松的态度便是如此。

木商由古松而想到架屋、制器、赚钱等等，植物学家由古松而想到根茎花叶、日光水分等等，他们的意识都不能停止在古松本身上面。不过把古松当作一块踏脚石，由它跳到和它有关系的种种事物上面去。所以在实用的态度中和科学的态度中，所得到的事物的意象都不是独立的、绝缘的，观者的注意力都不是专注在所观事物本身上面的。注意力的集中，意象的孤立绝缘，便是美感的态度的最大特点。比如我们的画画的朋友看古松，他把全副精神都注在松的本身上面，古松对于他便成了一个独立自足的世界。他忘记他的妻子在家里等柴烧饭，他忘记松树在植物教科书里叫做显花植物，总而言之，古松完全占领住他的意识，古松  
以外的世界他都视而不见、听而不闻了。他只把古松摆在心眼面前当做一幅画去玩味。他不计较实用，所以心中没有意志和欲念他不推求关系、条理、因果等等，所以不用抽象的思考。这种脱净了意志和抽象思考的心理活动叫做“直觉”，直觉所见到的孤立绝缘的意象叫做“形象”。美感经验就是形象的直觉，美就是事物呈现形象于直觉时的特质。

实用的态度以善为最高目的，科学的态度以真为最高目的，美感的态度以美为最高目的。在实用态度中，我们的注意力偏在事物对于人的利害，心理活动偏重意志；在科学的态度中，我们的注意力偏在事物间的互相关系，心理活动偏重抽象的思考；在美感的态度中，我们的注意力专在事物本身的形象，心理活动偏重直觉。真善美都是人所定的价值，不是事物所本有的特质。离开人的观点而言，事物都混然无别，善恶、真伪、美丑就漫无意义。真善美都含有若干主观的成分。

就“用”字的狭义说，美是最没有用处的。科学家的目的虽只在辨别真伪，他所得的结果却可效用于人类社会。美的事物如诗文、图画、雕刻、音乐等等都是寒不可以为衣，饥不可以为食的。从实用的观点看，许多艺术家都是太不切实用的人物。然则我们又何必来讲美呢?人性本来是多方的，需要也是多方的。真善美三者俱备才可以算完全的人。人性中本有饮食欲，渴而无所饮，饥而无所食，固然是一种缺乏；人性中本有求知欲而没有科学的活动，本有美的嗜好而没有美感的活动，也未始不是一种缺乏。真和美的需要也是人生中的一种饥渴——精神上的饥渴。疾病衰老的身体才没有口腹的饥渴。同理，你遇到一个没有精神上的饥渴的人或民族，你可以断定他的心灵已到了疾病衰老的状态。

人所以异于其他动物的就是于饮食男女之外还有更高尚的企求，美就是其中之一。是壶就可以贮茶，何必又求它形式、花样、颜色都要好看呢?吃饱了饭就可以睡觉，何必又呕心血去做诗、画画、奏乐呢? “生命”是与“活动”同义的，活动愈自由生命也就愈有意义。人的实用的活动全是有所为而为，是受环境需要限制的；人的美感的活动全是无所为而为，是环境不需要他活动而他自己愿去活动的。在有所为而为的活动中，人是环境需要的奴隶；在无所为而为的活动中，人是自己心灵的主宰。这是单就人说，就物说呢，在实用的和科学的世界中，事物都借着和其他事物发生关系而得到意义，到了孤立绝缘时就都没有意义；但是在美感世界中它却能孤立绝缘，却能在本身现出价值。照这样看，我们可以说，美是事物的最有价值的一面，美感的经验是人生中最有价值的一面。

许多轰轰烈烈的英雄和美人都过去了，许多轰轰烈烈的成功和失败也都过去了，只有艺术作品真正是不朽的。数千年前的《采采卷耳》和《孔雀东南飞》的作者还能在我们心里点燃很强烈的火焰，虽然在当时他们不过是大皇帝脚下的不知名的小百姓。秦始皇并吞六国，统一车书，曹孟德带八十万人马下江东，舳舻千里，旌旗蔽空，这些惊心动魄的成败对于你有什么意义?对于我有什么意义?但是长城和《短歌行》对于我们还是很亲切的，还可以使我们心领神会这些骸骨不存的精神气魄。这几段墙在，这几句诗在，他们永远对于人是亲切的。由此类推，在几千年或是几万年以后看现在纷纷扰扰的“帝国主义”、“反帝国主义”、“主席”、“代表”、“电影明星”之类对于人有什么意义?我们这个时代是否也有类似长城和《短歌行》的纪念坊留给后人，让他们觉得我们也还是很亲切的么?悠悠的过去只是一片漆黑的天空，我们所以还能认识出来这漆黑的天空者，全赖思想家和艺术家所散布的几点星光。朋友，让我们珍重这几点星光!让我们也努力散布几点星光去照耀那和过去一般漆黑的未来!

(摘选自《谈美》)

朱光潜《我们对于一棵古松的三种态度朱光潜》

### Nature's "gleaming"

Nature is the **unceasing emerging, lingering, passing away of all beings and things**. 

There is an essential joy that comes with our releasement to and harmonizing with the Being-way. 

![](golden-heidegger.png)

>Nature (Being) shows itself as the gleaming “whole” that allows all beings to be and may be likened to a “shining wreath” that “wreathes everything that appears.” As this radiant “orb of the wholeness of the whole,” Nature (Being) is the “divine,” the holy.
### The distinction between Nature and the landscape

Nature does not just shine, it *gleams*. But the landscape is *not nature itself.* 

>These images of the landscape are resplendent, but Heidegger cautions us: “Yet the landscape is **not yet nature itself**. 
>
>Landscape, gathered around human beings and inclined toward them, indeed **lets appear nature in an initial gleaming**” (206). 
>
>Note the distinction: the “landscape” (Landschaft) is not “nature itself” (Natur selbst). What Heidegger is articulating here should be very familiar to us; it is another saying of the **“ontological difference” between beings and Being itself**!

>he readily admitted in later reflections that all previous Western philosophy had recognized and thematized in one way or another a “difference,” but he insisted that this was **no more than a derivative “difference,” a difference in the realm of “beings,” and not the primordial and fundamental Differenz** (Unterschied, Unter-Schied) between Being – the **temporal letting, giving, granting way itself** – and beings, that is, all that issues forth from out of the Being-way.

>Nature, “in an initial gleaming,” lets shine forth everything that belongs to the landscape.

>“The landscape with the multiplicity of its images can let appear ‘simple nature’ only because the landscape gleams from out of nature, which, as the ‘simple,’ is of divine essence”

>The untold abundance of luminous “images” of the landscape show themselves to us; they shine forth to us; they open to us and address us – but that *wherein and whereby* everything is manifest to us is Nature (Being). Furthermore, this **allowing, letting, giving, granting of beings** that is Nature (Being) is itself manifest to us in a unique way – it is precisely the higher revealing (appearing, manifesting) that is glimpsed and named by Hölderlin in the poem.

>Nature itself offers the evidence of – shows to us – this more elemental temporality in the way, for example, that buds appear on trees in the dead of winter in recollection of summer and in anticipation of spring. The “gleaming” of Nature itself (Being itself) “reveals” this to us: “The gleaming of nature is a revealing in which ever already the whole of the year shines throughout and thus constantly anticipates the individual times of the year.”

>“The ‘bright image’ is the shining look of the autumnally completed year. Yet the whole of this completion ‘lives’ as one single image that is formed, that is, shows itself to non-sensuous seeing as ‘golden splendor,’ which hovers about everything and thus appears as ‘the whole meaning’” (207).  ...his meaning appears to be that Nature (the One, the Simple, Being), which unfolds the landscape (all beings), manifests itself to us in a special manner that is different from the way that discrete things are manifest to us. Nature (Being) shows itself to us, but not as a being, not as something in the landscape. Therefore, we “see” Nature (Being) differently from the way we “see” things. Not an ordinary seeing or perception, but **a special “seeing” that glimpses the “whole” process of the unfolding of all things – the very presencing itself of everything**. Presencing itself (Nature, Being) is a “golden splendor” that suffuses, bathes (“hovers about”) everything that is.

From Richard M Capobianco, *Heidegger's Way of Being*, Chapter 2. 'On Hölderlin On “Nature’s Gleaming”'.


### See also
Holderlin, “The Merry Life”
Holderlin, “The Stroll”
Holderlin, "Contentment"



Heidegger on "nature's gleaming"

![](muller-ontological-difference.png)
This last part is the "classical and onto-theological difference between non-divine being and divine being"



Heidegger's "Ontological Difference"

<Verse>

The View

When into the distance passes the dwelling life of people, 
Where into the distance glimmers the time of the vines, 
Comes also the empty fields of summer, 
And the forest with its dark image appears.

That nature completes the image of the seasons, 
That nature stays, as the seasons glide along in haste, 
Is from fulfillment; then high heaven gleams 
Upon the people, as trees are wreathed with blooms.
</Verse>

According to Heidegger, this poem is Hölderlin’s final gift to us:

>It opens to those who hear a view into the being Dasein of the poet, who speaks from out of **the silent brightness of the dark night of his spirit** that has come to rest. 
>
>>The poem is a lasting gift wherein the poet’s glimpse of the essence shelters in the simple word the “whole meaning” of everything that appears, in order to entrust it to our language as “the view” for all who see. (208)

>The first stanza speaks to the **temporality of Nature** itself wherein and whereby all things, including ourselves, sojourn. The second stanza brings his fundamental message home: “That nature stays, as the seasons glide along in haste.” 
>
>**All that is given comes and goes, arrives and departs, but the giving itself (Nature, Being) “stays,”** that is, remains one, whole, simple, complete. 
>
>**All things flow from out of “fulfill- ment” (Nature-physis), and from out of Nature (“high heaven”) there “gleams,” there pours forth, upon us, “people dwelling,” a wholesomeness that makes us whole and brings us into the fullness of our essencing.**
>
>For the later Heidegger especially, the gleaming, glistening, glimmering, glittering, glowing that is the **manifestness of Being to humans** – the phos at the very core of phainesthai – calls forth from us **wonder and astonishment and great joy**; brightens, lightens, and opens us; **inclines our thinking towards thanking;** and humbles us into **recognizing the limit of all our saying, language, meaning** – or as the poet expressed this, cited so approvingly by Heidegger at the close of his commentary:
>
>>Yet so very simple the images, so very holy these, that one is really often fearful of describing these.

From Richard M Capobianco, *Heidegger's Way of Being*, Chapter 2. 'On Hölderlin On “Nature’s Gleaming”'.

Heidegger's reading of Holderlin's "The View"

***Abstract***. In this post, I aim (1) to provide a clear statement of the central question of Martin Heidegger’s *Being and Time*, as well as (2) a cogent, if brief, sketch of those concepts which constitute the core of his ontological analytic of ex-sistence, among them discursiveness, the clearing, logos, and thrownness. Furthermore, I hope to (3) articulate the way in which Heidegger’s concept of a kinetic, ex-sistential subject that is always engaged with meaning simultaneously responds to and overcomes the rigid dualism of Cartesian metaphysics.

***Heidegger’s question, Heidegger’s answer***. If one were to ask just what it was that Martin Heidegger was after in *Being and Time*, to reply merely that Heidegger’s aim was to “seek out an understanding of the essence of being,” or to say that his intention was to “carry out an investigation of being itself,” would be to state the goal of his project in such inadequate and ambiguous terms as to inevitably fail to satisfy even the most casual inquirer. A more satisfactory formulation of the question which lies at the heart of the Heideggerian project—one which hints at an understanding of the “being of things” as the *intelligibility* of things—may be stated as follows: Heidegger’s aim in *Being and Time* was to place *meaningfulness* itself under investigation in pursuit of that which *makes meaningfulness possible* at all.

***Heidegger’s purpose***. Our inquisitive interlocutor may very naturally want next to know the reason why Heidegger chose to dedicate himself to *this* particular philosophical question instead of any of the other questions he might have pursued. Heidegger believed that the philosophical tradition had for millennia crucially overlooked the question of being, and in doing so had remained blind to the fundamental “Factum” that makes the entire project of philosophical inquiry (or, for that matter, inquiry of any kind) possible in the first place. To Heidegger, the philosophical enterprise’s exaltation of *theoretical* understanding had since antiquity led it to neglect—or rather, to take for granted without truly understanding—the fact that there is something fundamental which *underlies* theoretical understanding, something which both *enables* and *requires* human beings to make meaningful sense of things in the world.

***Heidegger’s real purpose***. Having thusly stated the motivation for Heidegger’s undertaking, I hasten to add that his project was not embarked upon solely for the sake of the philosophical tradition as such. The real, final purpose which propelled the Heidegerrian enterprise was that of inspiring authentic self-transformation in those who might understand and embrace his conception of human being (hereafter also written as “ex-sistence,” following Thomas Sheehan). By uncovering our previously overlooked nature as beings whose ex-sistence consists of having to always be *choosing* and *living ahead* into possibilities—the ultimate and always-present possibility being the possibility of death—Heidegger aimed to awaken his reader to the radical finitude that lay at the core of ex-sistence and compel her to take her own mortality as the basis from which to live an authentic life. This distinct mode of ex-sisting in full awareness of and resonance with the inescapable fact of one’s mortality is what Heidegger called “authenticity.”

***The Cartesian viewpoint***. A useful starting point from which to approach Heidegger’s analysis of ex-sistence is his rejection of the rigidly dualistic subject/object divide as proposed by René Descartes. Heidegger’s explication of ex-sistence is situated in critical opposition to the classical Cartesian dichotomy between the subject as knower and object as the known. With “cogito sum,” Descartes took as the starting point for his metaphysics an initially-given, thinking subject that is radically divorced from the external world. The Cartesian subject, immediately accessible to itself, is the only thing about whose existence it can be certain. From there, the subject tries to know objects “out there” in the external world by “taking a look” at them in their objective presence, perhaps rendering them intelligible by "reading off" their essences via a sort of epistemological X-ray vision.

***The Cartesian oversight***. According to Heidegger, Descartes’ taking the pronoun “I” of the subject as given and immediate led him to overlook the significance of the verb “am” in the famous Cartesian formulation “I think, therefore I am.” Heidegger claimed that a proper investigation of the “*am*” of “I am” is necessary to uncover the fundamental structure of ex-sistence, and that this structure must already be operative before the “think” of “I think” is *even possible*. The statement “I am” *presupposes* an intuitive understanding of what it means for  a person—oneself—to *exist*, but Descartes failed to inquire into what it is that accounts for this understanding. Descartes’ dualism *did* involve a “turn to the subject,” but it crucially neglected to ask about the *being of that subject*. Heidegger’s goal is thus to *correct* and *complete* the “turn to the subject” inadequately carried out by Descartes. Heidegger seeks to encounter and uncover those ontological foundations that were overlooked by Descartes, and his investigation starts with our everyday ex-sistence—our “normal” mode of ex-sisting—in which we are always (whether we are aware of it or not) relating to our own ex-sistence.
  
***There is no “inside.”*** Heidegger’s surpassing of the Cartesian subject/object divide involves a rejection of the notion that there is an “inner” subject which “bumps into” objects that are objectively present in the external world. According to the problematic Cartesian view, objects in the world are nakedly and unintelligibly “just there” until the subject clothes them in meaningfulness. To Heidegger, our primary epistemic contact with things is with things as **already** meaningful, as things which are **from the get-go** laden with meaning. We are not bombarded by “pure” sights or sounds or by “raw data” which first stream in through our sense organs and then get resolved into meaningfulness by our “inner” subject. We do not first encounter objectively present things, but rather we encounter things as **meaningful**. Indeed, the first thing which we encounter in the world is not “things” or “objects” but **meaningfulness**. Heidegger will show that our encountering things as immediately and meaningfully present, as always pre-loaded and freighted with meaning, is a necessary fact which follows from the structure of ex-sistence. We encounter things as immediately meaningful even when we are in a state of bewildered incomprehension. Even in this extreme case, things still appear to us as meaningful because we still encounter them as baffling **in a particular way**, as things that need to be made sense of **for a particular purpose**. In no case do we encounter things as nakedly “out there,” idly waiting for us to assign meanings to them. In this sense, the **being** of things is not their ontological realness but rather their **meaningful presence** to us, their **intelligibility**. We are always standing in relation to things in terms of their significance to us. I am not an “internal” subject who comes to understand the being of things by “just looking” at them, but rather am an embodied ex-sistence which dwells (i.e. is always actively making sense of things) in the world. The world, understood in the proper Heideggerian sense, is not some container for holding objectively present things, but is rather the meaningful context within which we always encounter things—it is the realm of potential meanings that those things can have for us, and we are, as ex-sistence, inescapably embedded in it.
  
***Ex-sistence engages with meaning discursively***. Ex-sistence engages with the world of intelligibility discursively—that is, via a kinetic movement of “ahead-and-return.” The “thrownness” or “thrown-aheadness” of ex-sistence refers to the fact that we, as ex-sistence, are always stretched-ahead of ourselves as possibility among possibilities. In the practical realm, this means that I always ex-sist in worlds of meaning which are structured according to my purposes (e.g. needing to make a cup of coffee or pitch a tent). Meaningful engagement with this world entails a kind of “running back and forth” between *things* and their *possible meanings*, or between *tools* and the *tasks* for which they might be suitable. In my ahead-and-return engagement with meaning, I might be asking questions such as “Is this kettle suitable for boiling this water?” or “Is this rock suitable for hammering these tent pegs?” Thus, the fact that we are always living ahead in possibilities implies that we are always in touch with a range of needs and purposes. Our needs and purposes are meaning-giving in the sense that when we “return” discursively to things, we encounter them as suitable-for or not-suitable-for the satisfaction of those needs and purposes.

***Intelligibility is a structural element of ex-sistence, not a property of objects***. The discursive “ahead-and-return” engagement with meaning just described which renders intelligibility possible is what Heidegger called *logos-1*. Below, I will elaborate upon this discursive process of meaning-making which lies at the heart of ex-sistence.


***The hierarchy of logos-1, logos-2, and logos-3***. Heidegger distinguishes between three different forms of meaningfulness, *logos-1*, *logos-2*, and *logos-3*, in order to clarify the meaning of *logos* (which had been muddied by numerous philosophical interpretations of the word) as well as to highlight the ontological priority of *logos-1*.

***Logos-3: meaningfulness as making assertions about things***. Assertions are statements about things that can be true or false. At first blush, assertion-making may seem to be constitutive of meaning-making. For example, one might venture that I understand the apple juice in my hand as something that can quench my thirst just by making the assertion, “I can drink this apple juice,” or that I understand a kettle as suitable for boiling water when I say, “This kettle will work for boiling water.” The term logos-3 refers to this assertion-making form of meaning-making. When our assertions are “correct,” the statements we make agree with the state of affairs that the assertion refers to. However, to take assertions as the locus of meaning-making would be a colossal oversight, as it would overlook everything that makes things intelligible to me even before I can make judgments about them. Therefore, *logos-3* depends on *logos-2*, which is the letting of things be *seen-as-something*, as not covered-up.

***Logos-2: meaningfulness as the meaning-giving act of taking-something-as***. Logos-2 is the opened-up-ness of things as knowable and meaningful. In order to make any assertions about a glass of apple juice or a kettle, I must first allow the apple juice or the kettle to be intelligible or “uncovered,” available to me as something that I can encounter and thereby make sense of. However, to halt our inquiry into what allows us to make sense of things with logos-2 would still be premature, as we would be overlooking the *common background* against which things manifest as meaningful. We still would not understand *what accounts for* the intelligibility of things as meaningful. Put another way, underlying *logos-2* is that always-operative structure which accounts for the intelligibility of things in the first place: *logos-1*.

***Logos-1: the “clearing” as the space which makes all meaning-making possible***. We now return to *logos-1*, understanding it as the *source of* and *pre-condition for* all human meaning-making. *Logos-1* can be described metaphorically as the space or “clearing” which we ourselves *are* that makes possible ex-sistence’s engagement with meaning.

***The labor of the concept***. Only God can have immediate, noumenal knowledge of things-in-themselves. God does not need to “make sense” of anything because God already knows everything. As human ex-sistence, our engagement with meaning is *interpretive*—it is *hermeneutic*. The *disjunction* that we experience between things and their meanings requires us to always be doing the interpretive work of relating things to our possibilities and concerns. This discursive work of interpretation is what Hegel called the “labor of the concept.” Heidegger points out that the act of bringing forth the meaning of something (i.e. of understanding something in terms of one of its possible uses or meanings) is a kind of creation, a kind of *making* which requires a held-open space in which to take place.

***I am my openness***. The metaphorical use of the term “open” in describing the clearing as “held open” points to the *possibility and necessity of intelligibility* that is ex-sistence. The clearing is the “realm of disclosedness” in which the understandability of things occurs in the first place. The clearing is that always-already opened-up “space” that allows us to make sense of things, and as such is the ex-sistential precondition for all other forms of meaning-making (*logos-2* and *logos-3*). This “space” is a sign of our finitude, our still-to-be-accomplished-ness in contrast to a hypothetical perfect self-coincidence. As ex-sistence, we *are* that held-open space, that gap in which the discursive relations between things and their meanings or tools and their tasks are formed and re-formed. Ex-sistence as constant and necessary interpretive sense-making *just is* the holding-open of the clearing in which that discursive meaning-making labor happens. Our “essence” as human beings is that we are constitutionally ahead of ourselves, we are possibility amidst possibilities. To be my own openness is to be the discursive understanding of the being of things (either practical or theoretical) and of my own ex-sistence. Ultimately, Heidegger describes authentic human ex-sistence as the on-going decision to become myself-as-radically-finite-becoming.

***We are structured as logos***. Our openness refers to the fact that we are structurally an open region of possible meaningfulness. We are structured as logos, and as such we are the ontic condition of ontology—the ontic condition that lets things be discovered as meaningful. In other words, we are a priori a discursive understanding of the being of things. Put yet another way, we are *onto-logical* beings—those beings who understand the being of things. Here, *onto-* means “of or relating to things”, and *-logical* means “of or referring to interpreting the meaning of…” . Hence, to be onto-logical means "to be ever making sense of things." This is the *answer* to the question Heidegger poses in *Being and Time* of what accounts for our ability to make sense of things: **we are the structural possibility of making sense of things and of ourselves**. 

***I am thrown into a world of meaningfulness***. It is not the case that I first exist, and then only later find myself  “in” a world of meaning. My ability to engage with meaning is made possible by the fact that I am always ex-sisting as a world of meaning. Ex-sistence as being-in-the-world does not just “sit there,” sometimes establishing relationships to things and sometimes not. I am a “hermenute,” a being that is *always* engaging with meaning and relating to its own ex-sistence. Therefore, meaning-making is *what I am*, not some add-on feature to a  “plain-old existence.” I am a priori thrust into ex-sisting, “delivered over” to my ex-sistence and *required* to ex-sist. To cease to be thrown-open ex-sistence is to cease to have any further possibility of meaning-making—in other words, to be dead. This is what is meant by my “thrown-ness.” I am thrown into the realm of possible needs and purposes, and I have no choice but to always be engaged with the world of meaning.

***Heidegger’s fundamental ontology underlies all science and ontology***. The concepts sketched above comprise part of Heidegger’s ontological analysis of ex-sistence which he called “fundamental ontology.” Fundamental ontology describes the primordial ex-sistential foundation which gives rise to all science and ontology. Without fundamental ontology, science and ontology fails to grasp the meaning of being as the pre-theoretical condition that makes meaningfulness possible. Heidegger’s dramatic claim is that until his explication of fundamental ontology, all science and ontology had presupposed the intelligibility of being while simultaneously overlooking and failing to understand it, and thus had been “naive and blind.”

***Conclusion***. I hope to have concisely stated the fundamental question that Martin Heidegger asks in *Being and Time*, and to have provided a cogent sketch of some of those concepts which are central to his answer to that question. I have outlined the motivations behind the Heideggerian enterprise, and in my explication of Heidegger’s fundamental ontology hope to have illuminated its significance to the philosophical tradition as a challenge to the rigid subject/object dualism of Cartesian metaphysics.



Heidegger’s Overcoming of Cartesian Metaphysics

<Verse>

Autumn 

Nature’s gleaming is higher revealing,
Where with many joys the day draws to an end,
It is the year that completes itself in resplendence,
Where fruit come together with beaming radiance.

Earth’s orb is thus adorned, and rarely clamours
Sound through the open field, the sun warms
The day of autumn mildly, the fields lie
As a great wide view, the breezes blow

Through boughs and branches, rustling gladly,
When then already to emptiness the fields give way.
The whole meaning of this bright image lives
As an image, golden splendour hovering all about.
</Verse>

See commentary in "Heidegger on Nature"

Holderlin, "Autumn"


>I now wish that I had spent somewhat more of my life with verse. This is not because I fear having missed out on truths that are incapable of statement in prose. There are no such truths; there is nothing about death that Swinburne and Landor knew but Epicurus and Heidegger failed to grasp. Rather, it is because **I would have lived more fully if I had been able to rattle off more old chestnuts – just as I would have if I had made more close friends.**
>
  I found comfort in those slow meanders and those stuttering embers. I suspect that no comparable effect could have been produced by prose. Not just imagery, but also rhyme and rhythm were needed to do the job**. In lines such as these, all three conspire to produce a degree of compression, and thus of  impact**, that only verse can achieve. Compared to the shaped charges contrived by versifiers, **even the best prose is scattershot**.
>
>Cultures with richer vocabularies are **more fully human** — farther removed from the beasts — than those with poorer ones; **individual men and women are more fully human when their memories are amply stocked with verses**.



More [here](https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/articles/68949/the-fire-of-life).

Richard Rorty's Dying Reflections

![](proserpine.png)
*Dante Gabriel Rossetti*, Proserpine

Proserpine is the Latin spelling of Persephone, a **goddess married to Hades, god of the underworld**. According to some accounts, she had a garden of **ever blooming flowers** (poppies) in the underworld.


Victorian Crisis of Faith
convey Proserpine's feelings challenging Christianity and asserting his values of paganism and masochism.

The Crisis of Faith was the response to new scientific evidence that contradicted the long-accepted claims of the Church of England. It resulted in a growing sense of secularism and a sense of vulnerability by the people. The question of what happens after death was one of the church's biggest defenses to this growing secularity, as faith guaranteed immortality after death


The text is reproduced below:

<Verse>

The Garden of Proserpine

Here, where the world is quiet;
 Here, where all trouble seems
Dead winds' and spent waves' riot
 In doubtful dreams of dreams;
I watch the green field growing
For reaping folk and sowing,
For harvest-time and mowing,
 A sleepy world of streams.

I am tired of tears and laughter,
 And men that laugh and weep;
Of what may come hereafter
 For men that sow to reap:
I am weary of days and hours,
Blown buds of barren flowers,
Desires and dreams and powers
 And everything but sleep.

Here life has death for neighbour,
 And far from eye or ear
Wan waves and wet winds labour,
 Weak ships and spirits steer;
They drive adrift, and whither
They wot not who make thither;
But no such winds blow hither,
 And no such things grow here.

No growth of moor or coppice,
 No heather-flower or vine,
But bloomless buds of poppies,
 Green grapes of Proserpine,
Pale beds of blowing rushes
Where no leaf blooms or blushes
Save this whereout she crushes
 For dead men deadly wine.

Pale, without name or number,
 In fruitless fields of corn,
They bow themselves and slumber
 All night till light is born;
And like a soul belated,
In hell and heaven unmated,
By cloud and mist abated
 Comes out of darkness morn.

Though one were strong as seven,
 He too with death shall dwell,
Nor wake with wings in heaven,
 Nor weep for pains in hell;
Though one were fair as roses,
His beauty clouds and closes;
And well though love reposes,
 In the end it is not well.

Pale, beyond porch and portal,
 Crowned with calm leaves, she stands
Who gathers all things mortal
 With cold immortal hands;
Her languid lips are sweeter
Than love's who fears to greet her
To men that mix and meet her
 From many times and lands.

She waits for each and other,
 She waits for all men born;
Forgets the earth her mother,
 The life of fruits and corn;
And spring and seed and swallow
Take wing for her and follow
Where summer song rings hollow
 And flowers are put to scorn.

There go the loves that wither,
 The old loves with wearier wings;
And all dead years draw thither,
 And all disastrous things;
Dead dreams of days forsaken,
Blind buds that snows have shaken,
Wild leaves that winds have taken,
 Red strays of ruined springs.

We are not sure of sorrow,
 And joy was never sure;
To-day will die to-morrow;
 Time stoops to no man's lure;
And love, grown faint and fretful,
With lips but half regretful
Sighs, and with eyes forgetful
 Weeps that no loves endure.

From too much love of living,
 From hope and fear set free,
We thank with brief thanksgiving
 Whatever gods may be
That no life lives for ever;
That dead men rise up never;
That even the weariest river
 Winds somewhere safe to sea.

Then star nor sun shall waken,
 Nor any change of light:
Nor sound of waters shaken,
 Nor any sound or sight:
Nor wintry leaves nor vernal,
Nor days nor things diurnal;
Only the sleep eternal
 In an eternal night.
</Verse>

Swinburne, "The Garden of Proserpine"

Perspehone has a double function as **chthonic and vegetation goddess**. She returns from the underworld each spring and thus was also a symbol of immortality.

>When Persephone would return to the underworld, Demeter's despair at losing her daughter would cause the **vegetation and flora of the world to wither**, signifying the Autumn and Winter seasons. When Persephone's time is over and she would be reunited with her mother, Demeter's joyousness would cause the vegetation of the earth to bloom and blossom which signifies the Spring and Summer seasons. 
>
>This also explains why Persephone is associated with Spring: her **re-emergence from the underworld signifies the onset of Spring**. Therefore, not only does Persephone and Demeter's annual reunion symbolize the **changing seasons and the beginning of a new cycle of growth for the crops,** it also symbolizes death and the regeneration of life.

More [here](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/persephone).

![](rape-of-persphone.png)
 *Roman marble sarcophagus from the first quarter of the third century AD, in which Charlemagne was probably interred on 28 January 814 in Aachen cathedral*

*Chthonic -- concerning, belonging to, or inhabiting the underworld*

>When Persephone was picking flowers in a field, Hades **emerged on his chariot from a crack on the earth**, and carried off the unwilling Persephone; only Hecate and Helios witnessed the abduction, and later told Demeter.

More [here](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Rape_of_Persephone).

>When Hades, the King of the Underworld, wished to make Persephone his wife, he abducted her from a field while she was picking flowers, with Zeus' leave. Demeter searched everywhere to find her missing daughter to no avail until she was informed that Hades had taken her to the Underworld. In response, Demeter neglected her duties as goddess of agriculture, plunging the earth into a deadly famine where nothing would grow, causing mortals to die. Zeus ordered Hades to return Persephone to her mother to avert the disaster. However, because Persephone had eaten food from the Underworld, she could not stay with Demeter forever but had to divide the year between her mother and her husband, explaining the seasonal cycle, as Demeter does not let plants grow while Persephone is gone.

More [here](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Demeter).

![](persephone-pomegranate.png)
Dante Gabriel Rossetti, *Proserpine*

![](abduction-persephone.png)
Peter Paul Rubens' _The Rape of Proserpina_, 1636-1637

![](persphone-picking-flowers.png)
JW Waterhouse, *Narcissus* (1912)

Depiction of the story in the [Homeric *Hymn to Demeter*](https://uh.edu/~cldue/texts/demeter.html):
<Verse>
She [Persephone] was having a good time, along with the daughters of Okeanos, who wear their girdles slung low.

            She was picking flowers: roses, crocus, and beautiful violets.

            Up and down the soft meadow. Iris blossoms too she picked, and hyacinth.

            And the narcissus, which was grown as a lure for the flower-faced girl

            by Gaia [Earth]. All according to the plans of Zeus. She [Gaia] was doing a favor for the one who receives many guests [Hadês].

 It [the narcissus] was a wondrous thing in its splendor. To look at it gives a sense of holy awe

            to the immortal gods as well as mortal humans.

            It has a hundred heads growing from the root up.

            Its sweet fragrance spread over the wide skies up above.

            And the earth below smiled back in all its radiance. So too the churning mass of the salty sea.

 She [Persephone] was filled with a sense of wonder, and she reached out with both hands

            to take hold of the pretty plaything.
            And the earth, full of roads leading every which way, opened up under her.

            It happened on the Plain of Nysa. There it was that the Lord who receives many guests made his lunge.

            He was riding on a chariot drawn by immortal horses. The son of Kronos. The one known by many names.

            He seized her against her will, put her on his golden chariot,

And drove away as she wept.
</Verse>

The Abduction of Persephone

<Verse>

On His Seventy-fifth Birthday

I strove with none; for none was worth my strife,
Nature I loved, and next to Nature, Art;

I warmed both hands before the fire of life,
It sinks, and I am ready to depart.
</Verse>


This is one of Rorty's favorites.

Walter Savage Landor, "On His Seventy-fifth Birthday"

> Many years had elapsed during which nothing of Combray, save what was comprised in the theatre and the drama of my going to bed there, had any existence for me, when one day in winter, on my return home, my mother, seeing that I was cold, offered me some tea, a thing I did not ordinarily take. I declined at first, and then, for no particular reason, changed my mind. She sent for one of those squat, plump little cakes called “petites madeleines,” which look as though they had been moulded in the fluted valve of a scallop shell. And soon, mechanically, dispirited after a dreary day with the prospect of a depressing morrow, I raised to my lips a spoonful of the tea in which I had soaked a morsel of the cake. No sooner had the warm liquid mixed with the crumbs touched my palate than a shudder ran through me and I stopped, intent upon the extraordinary thing that was happening to me. An **exquisite pleasure had invaded my senses**, something isolated, detached, with no suggestion of its origin. And at once **the vicissitudes of life had become indifferent to me, its disasters innocuous, its brevity illusory** — this new sensation having had on me the effect which love has of filling me with a precious essence; or rather this essence was not in me — **it was me**. I had ceased now to feel mediocre, contingent, mortal. Whence could it have come to me, this all-powerful joy? I sensed that it was connected with the taste of the tea and the cake, but that it infinitely transcended those savours, could, no, indeed, be of the same nature. Whence did it come? What did it mean? How could I seize and apprehend it?


 Marcel's Madeline

From Benjamin Barber, *Strong Democracy*, pp. 125

>Markets are many things, but they are never free. The sociological critique of market liberalism is too well known to require rehearsing here, but this passage from John Ruskin suggests the tone of all subsequent critiques:
>
>"In the community regulated only by laws of demand and supply, but protected from open violence, the persons who become rich are, generally speaking, **in­dustrious, resolute, proud, covetous, prompt, methodical, sensible, unimaginative, insensitive, and ignorant**. 
>
>The persons who remain poor are the **entirely fool­ish, the entirely wise**, the idle, the reckless, the humble, the thoughtful, the dull, the imaginative, the sensitive, the well-informed, the improvident, the irregularly and impulsively wicked, the clumsy knave, the open thief, and **the entirely mer­ciful, just, and Godly person**." (Unto This Last, ed. L. J. Hubenka [Lincoln: Univer­sity of Nebraska Press, 1967], pp. 74-75)

John Ruskin on who succeeds in capitalist societies


> I cannot, however, help noticing how extraordinary it is, and how this epoch of ours differs from all bygone epochs in having **no philosophical nor religious worshippers of the ragged godship of poverty**....And no less distinct than the honour which those curious Greek people pay to their conceited poor is the **disrespectful manner in which they speak of the rich**.

>Wherever you see want, or misery, or degradation, in this world about you, there, be sure, either industry has been wanting, or industry has been in error. It is not accident, it is not Heaven-commanded calamity, it is not the original and inevitable evil of man's nature, which fill your streets with lamentation, and your graves with prey. It is only that, **when there should have been providence, there has been waste; when there should have been labour, there has been lasciviousness**; and, wilfulness, when there should have been subordination.

Proverbs 13:23: "Much food is in the tillage of the poor: but **there is that is destroyed for want of judgment**."

Proverbs 31:15-28 -- The perfect mistress of a household

> She riseth also while it is yet night, And giveth meat to her household, And a portion to her maidens. **She considereth a field, and buyeth it**: With the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard. She girdeth her loins with strength, And strengtheneth her arms. She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: **Her candle goeth not out by night**. She layeth her hands to the spindle, And her hands hold the distaff. She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; Yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy. She is not afraid of the snow for her household: For all her household are clothed with scarlet. She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; Her clothing is silk and purple. Her husband is known in the gates, When he sitteth among the elders of the land. She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; And delivereth girdles unto the merchant. **Strength and honour are her clothing; And she shall rejoice in time to come. She openeth her mouth with wisdom; And in her tongue is the law of kindness**. She looketh well to the ways of her household, **And eateth not the bread of idleness. Her children arise up, and call her blessed; Her husband also, and he praiseth her**.

John Ruskin, "The Political Economy of Art"

>I know of no greater absurdity than that of most metaphysical systems which declare **evil to be something negative**; whereas it is precisely that **which is positive and makes itself felt**. 
>
>On the other hand, that which is good, in other words, **all happiness and satisfaction, is negative, that is, the mere elimination of a desire and the ending of a pain.**

>Whoever lives two or three generations feels like the spectator who, during the fair, sees the performances of all kinds of jugglers and, if he remains seated in the booth, sees them repeated two or three times. As the tricks were meant only for one performance, they no longer make any impression after the illusion and novelty have vanished.

>We can also regard our life as a **uselessly disturbing episode in the blissful repose of nothingness**. At all events even the man who has fared tolerably well becomes more clearly aware, the longer he lives, that life on the whole is a disappointment, nay a cheat, in other words, bears the character of a great mystification or even a fraud.

>**mental pain is conditioned by knowledge; and that it increases with the degree of knowledge** can easily be seen. We can, therefore, figuratively express the whole relationship by saying that **the will is the string, its thwarting or checking the vibration thereof, knowledge the sounding board, and pain the tone**.


>Life is a task to be worked off.


>such a view of the world as the successful work of an all-wise, all-benevolent, and moreover almighty Being is too flagrantly contradicted by the **misery and wretchedness that fill the world on the one hand**, and by the obvious imperfection and even burlesque distortion of the most perfect of its phenomena on the other

>In fact, the conviction that the world, and thus also man, is **something that really ought not to be** is calculated to fill us with forbearance towards one another; for what can we expect from beings in such a predicament? 
>
>In fact, from this point of view, it might occur to us that the really proper address between one man and another should be, instead of Sir, Monsieur, and so on, Leidensgefährte, socii malorum, compagnon de misères, **my fellow sufferer**.
>
 However strange this may sound, it accords with the facts, puts the other man in the most correct light, and reminds us of that most necessary thing, **tolerance, patience, forbearance, and love of one’s neighbor, which everyone needs and each of us, therefore, owes to another.**


Schopenhauer, "On the Suffering of the World"

![](parable-of-talents.png)
The teachings of Jesus: the *Parable of the Talents*, as etched by Jan Luyken.


Matthew 25

>14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. 15And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. 16Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents. 17And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two. 18But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money. 19After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. 20And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more. 21His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 22He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them. 23His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 24Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, **I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: 25and I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth**: lo, there thou hast that is thine. 26His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: 27thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury**. 28Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. 29For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. 30And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.**

Interpretation
>Traditionally, the parable of the talents has been seen as an exhortation to Jesus' disciples to use their God-given gifts in the service of God, and to take risks for the sake of the [Kingdom of God](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Kingdom_of_God "Kingdom of God"). These gifts have been seen to include personal abilities ("talents" in the everyday sense), as well as personal wealth. Failure to use one's gifts, the parable suggests, will result in negative judgment.
>
>From a psychological point of view, the failure is the immediate result of the **failure of feeling God's love**. The first two servants are able to see **God in a positive perception, as understanding, generous, and kind, while the third servant sees God as harsh, demanding, and critical**.[](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Parable_of_the_Talents#cite_note-18)

The Parable of the Talents

Proust was retroactively classified as [Enneagram Type 4](https://www.enneagraminstitute.com/type-4). 

My favorites of his responses to his [famous questionnaire](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Proust_Questionnaire) below:

"Your favourite virtue"
>The need to be loved; more precisely, the need to be caressed and spoiled much more than the need to be admired.	

Your favourite qualities in a man	
>Feminine charm.

"Your favourite qualities in a woman"
>Manly virtues, and the union of friendship.

"Your idea of happiness"
>I am afraid it be not great enough, I dare not speak it, I am afraid of destroying it by speaking it.	

This one is a very Type 4 response.

"If not yourself, who would you be?"
>Myself, as the people whom I admire would like me to be.

A great answer.

"Your favourite occupation"
>Loving.

From Enneagram Type 4 description:
>While it is true that Fours often feel different from others, they do not really want to be alone. They may feel socially awkward or self-conscious, but they deeply wish to connect with people who understand them and their feelings. The “romantics” of the Enneagram, they **long for someone to come into their lives and appreciate the secret self** that they have privately nurtured and hidden from the world. If, over time, such validation remains out of reach, Fours begin to build their identity around **_how unlike everyone else they are_**. The outsider therefore comforts herself by becoming an insistent individualist: **everything must be done on her own, in her own way, on her own terms**. Fours’ mantra becomes “I am myself. Nobody understands me. I am different and special,” while they **secretly wish they could enjoy the easiness and confidence** that others seem to enjoy.

The Proust Questionnaire

<Verse>

Patmos

The god
Is near, and hard to grasp.
But where there is danger,
A rescuing element grows as well.
Eagles live in the darkness,
And the sons of the Alps
Cross over the abyss without fear
On lightly-built bridges.
Therefore, since the summits
Of Time are heaped about,
And dear friends live near,
Growing weak on the separate mountains—
Then give us calm waters;
Give us wings, and loyal minds
To cross over and return.

Thus I spoke, when faster
Than I could imagine a spirit
Led me forth from my own home
To a place I thought I’d never go.
The shaded forests and yearning 
Brooks of my native country
Were glowing in the twilight.
I couldn’t recognize the lands
I passed through, but then suddenly 
In fresh splendor, mysterious
In the golden haze, quickly emerging 
In the steps of the sun,
Fragrant with a thousand peaks,
Asia rose before me.

Dazzled I searched for something 
Familiar, since the broad streets 
Were unknown to me: where the gold-bejeweled 
Patoklos comes rushing down from Tmolus, 
Where Taurus and Messogis stand, 
And the gardens are full of lowers, 
Like a quiet ire. Up above 
In the light the silver snow 
Thrives, and ivy grows from ancient 
Times on the inaccessible walls, 
Like a witness to immortal life, 
While the solemn, 
God-built palaces 
Are borne by living columns 
Of cypress and laurel.

But around Asia’s gates 
Unshaded sea-paths rush 
Back and forth 
Around the unpredictable sea, 
Though sailors know where 
The islands are.
And when I heard 
That one of these close by
Was Patmos, 
I wanted very much 
To put in there, to enter 
The dark sea-cave. For unlike 
Cyprus, rich with springs, 
Or any of the others, Patmos Isn’t splendidly situated,
But it’s nevertheless hospitable 
In a more modest home. 
And if a stranger 
Should come to her, 
Shipwrecked or homesick

Or grieving for a departed friend, 
She’ll gladly listen, and her 
Offspring as well, the voices 
In the hot grove, so that where sands blow 
And heat cracks the tops of the fields, 
They hear him, these voices,
And echo the man’s grief.
Thus she once looked after
The prophet that was loved by God, 
Who in his holy youth

Had walked together inseparably 
With the Son of the Highest, because 
The Storm-Bearer loved the simplicity of his disciple. 
Thus that attentive man observed the countenance 
Of the god directly, there at the mystery of the wine, 
Where they sat together at the hour of the banquet, 
When the Lord with his great spirit quietly foresaw 
His own death, and forespoke it and also 
His final act of love, for he always had words 
Of kindness to speak, even then in his prescience, 
To soften the raging of the world. 
For all is good. Then he died. Much 
Could be said about it. At the end 
His friends recognized how joyous 
He appeared, and how victorious,
And yet the men grieved, now that evening 
Had come, and were taken by surprise, 
Since they were full of great intentions, 
And loved living in the light,

And didn’t want to leave the countenance 
Of the Lord, which had become their home. 
It penetrated them like fire into hot iron, 
And the one they - love walked beside them 
Like a shadow. Therefore he sent 
The Spirit upon them, 
And the house shook, 
And God’s thunder rolled 
Over their expectant heads, while 
They were gathered with heavy hearts, 
Like heroes under sentence of death,

When he again appeared to them 
At his departure. For now 
The majestic day of the sun 
Was extinguished, as he cast
The shining scepter from himself,
Suffering like a god, but knowing
He would come again at the right time. 
It would have been wrong 
To cut off disloyally his work 
With humans, since now it pleased 
Him to live on in loving night,
And keep his innocent eyes 
Fixed upon depths of wisdom. 
Living images flourish deep In the mountains as well,

Yet it is fearful how God randomly 
Scatters the living, and how very far. 
And how fearsome it was to leave 
The sight of dear friends and walk off 
Alone far over the mountains, where 
The divine spirit was twice 
Recognized, in unity.
It hadn’t been prophesied to them: 
In fact it seized them right by the hair 
Just at the moment when the fugitive 
God looked back, 
And they called out to him 
To stop, and they reached their hands to 
One another as if bound by a golden rope, 
And called it bad—

But when he dies—he whom beauty 
Loved most of all, so that a miracle 
Surrounded him, and he became 
Chosen by the gods—
And when those who lived together
Thereafter in his memory, became
Perplexed and no longer understood
One another; and when floods carry off
The sand and willows and temples, 
And when the fame of the demi-god 
And his disciples is blown away 
And even the Highest turns aside his 
Countenance, so that nothing 
Immortal can be seen either
In heaven or upon the green earth— 
What does all this mean?

It is the action of the winnower, when he 
Shovels the wheat and casts it up into the clear air 
And swings it across the threshing floor. 
The chaff falls to his feet, but 
The grain emerges finally. 
It’s not bad if some of it gets lost, 
Or if the sounds of his living speech fade away. 
For the work of the gods resembles our own: 
The Highest doesn’t want it 
Accomplished all at once. 
As mineshafts yield iron, 
And Etna its glowing resins, 
Similarly I’d have sufficient richness 
To shape a picture of him and see 
What the Christ was like.

But if somebody spurred himself on 
Along the road and, speaking sadly, 
Fell upon me and surprised me, so that 
Like a servant I’d make an image of the god— 
Once I saw the lords of heaven visibly angered, not 
That I wanted to become something different,
But that I wanted to learn something more. 
The lords are kind, but while they reign 
They hate falsehood most, when humans become 
Inhuman. For not they, but undying Fate 
It is that rules, and their activity 
Spins itself out and quickly reaches an end. 
When the heavenly procession proceeds higher 
Then the joyful Son of the Highest 
Is called like the sun by the strong,

As a watchword, like a staf of song
That points downwards, 
For nothing is ordinary. 
It awakens the dead, 
Who aren’t yet corrupted. 
And many are waiting whose eyes are 
Still too shy to see the light directly. 
They wouldn’t do well in the sharp 
Radiance: a golden bridle
Holds back their courage. 
But when quiet radiance falls 
From the holy scripture, 
With the world forgotten and their eyes 
Wide open, then they may enjoy that grace, 
And study the light in stillness.

And if the gods love me, 
As I now believe, 
Then how much more 
Do they love yourself. 
For I know that the will 
Of the eternal Father 
Concerns you greatly. 
Under a thundering sky his sign is silent. 
And there is one who stands
Beneath it all his life. 
For Christ still lives. 
But the heroes, all his sons have come, 
And the holy scriptures concerning him, 
While earth’s deeds clarify the lightning, 
Like a footrace that can’t be stopped. 
But he is there too, aware of his own works 
From the very beginning.

Honoring the gods hasn’t been
Seen for far too long. 
They practically have to 
Guide our fingers as we write, 
And with embarrassment the energy 
Is torn from our hearts.
For every heavenly being expects a sacriice,
And when this is neglected, 
No good can come of it. Without awareness 
We’ve worshipped our Mother the Earth, and the 
Light of the sun as well, but what our Father 
Who reigns over everything wants most 
Is that the established word be carefully attended, and 
that which endures be interpreted well. 
German song must accord with this.
</Verse>

Jesus is the "storm bearer" who visits John which is a direct merging of the role of Jesus with the role of Zeus. 

The speaker suggests that the visitation is because the simplicity of the disciple's faith is admired.


See also [Heidegger's *The Question Concerning Technology*](https://www.english.hawaii.edu/criticalink/heidegger/index.html)

Holderlin, "Patmos"

*This is the reading list for a 2020 Religious Studies class I wanted to take with Thomas Sheehan back at Stanford.*

This course explores the question, “What may we call ‘holy’ in the modern era?” by focusing mostly on three key writers and thinkers, who – in various ways, and in different times, and while engaging each other’s work – raised this question: Friedrich Hölderlin, Martin Heidegger, and Paul Celan. Inspired by the work of such scholars as Robert André and Charles Bambach, we will consider ‘the holy’ by imagining the three as engaging in a ‘conversation’ around notions central to them such as ‘dwelling’, ‘home’, ‘encounter’, and more.     

Given the scope of the questions we would like to pursue and their various reverberations and implications, we will also refer to (yet not directly read) some central ‘continental’ thinkers such as Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Buber, Rosenzweig, Benjamin, and Arendt; to thinkers who belong to contemporary ‘continental philosophy of religion’ (Marion, Courtine, Caputo, and Vattimo, among others), as well as some of the work of Jacques Derrida. Given the richness of the syllabus, we will not be able to discuss their work in detail, however.

All the readings, German and English, will be posted on Canvas.

Robert André, Gespräche von Text zu Text. Celan - Heidegger - Hölderlin (Topos Poietikos 3; Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 2003)*  

Martin Bambach, Poetic Measure of Justice: Holderlin-Heidegger-Celan (SUNY series in Contemporary Continental Philosophy; New York, NY: State University of New York Press, 2014)

## Course Outline


### Part One



General Introduction: Hölderlin, Heidegger, and Celan. Upon a brief introduction of the participants, we will continue the session in lecture style, offering a general presentation of the lives of the three; and key questions the seminar will raise.

Hölderlin, “Brod und Wein”; Heidegger, “Einleitung zu ‘Was ist Metaphysik?” (GA 9: 365-383; Celan, “Psalm”


‘Existence’: Hölderlin: „Hälfte des Lebens“; Heidegger, „Was ist Metaphysik?“(GA 9: 103-122); Celan: „Corona“.

‚Art I‘: Paul Celan: “Der Meridian”
		 
‚Art‘ II: Martin Heidegger: “Hölderlin und das Wesen der Dichtung.”


### Part Two


The Holy: Hölderlin, „Wie wenn am Feiertag“ Celan, Heidegger’s essay on that poem in GA 4: 49-	78; Paul Celan, „Zürich, zum Storchen,“ and „Psalm,“ (2) and (3) 


‚Dwelling‘: Hölderlin: „In lieblicher Bläue“; Heidegger: „ . . . dichterisch wohnet der Mensch“ (GA 7: 191–208) and “Was heißt Denken?” (GA 7: 128-143); Celan: „Todesfuge,“ „Engführung“


‚Home‘: Hölderlin: „Heimkunft“; Heidegger: „Heimkunft/An die Verwandten“ (GA 4: 9-32); Celan: „Die Silbe Schmerz“


‚Remembrance‘: Hölderlin: „Andenken“; Heidegger,. „Andenken“ (GA 4: 79-151); Celan: „Andenken,“ “Bremen” speech, „Denk Dir“


‚Encounter‘: Heidegger: on Mitsein (SZ 113-130); Celan: “Todtnauberg,” „Tübingen, Jänner“

 
‘Journey’: Hölderlin’s translation of Pindar’s „Zehnte Pythische Ode“; Paul Celan: “Ilana” cycle



Modern Notions of ‘The Holy’ - Hölderlin, Heidegger, Celan

Voltaire is advocating **philosophical skepticism**.

Pangloss embodies the optimistic notion that **ultimate reality can be known by reason**, and Martin embodies the pessimistic notion that **ultimate reality defies a rational accounting** and can be known only through a **manichaeistic mythology**.

Cacambo embodies the notion that **one cannot know whether or not ultimate reality can be proved by reason**.

*From the text:*
>"I do not know," answered the worthy man, "and I have not known the name of any Mufti, nor of any Vizier. I am entirely ignorant of the event you mention; I presume in general that they who meddle with the administration of public affairs die sometimes miserably, and that they deserve it; but I never trouble my head about what is transacting at Constantinople; **I content myself with sending there for sale the fruits of the garden which I cultivate.**"
>...
>"I have only twenty acres," replied the old man; "I and my children cultivate them; our labour preserves us from three great evils—**weariness, vice, and want**."

>"Let us work," said Martin, "without disputing; it is the only way to render life tolerable."

>"All that is very well," answered Candide, "but let us **cultivate our garden**."

From [SEP entry on Voltaire](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voltaire/)
> His famous conclusion in _Candide_, for example, that optimism was a philosophical chimera produced when **dialectical reason remains detached from brute empirical facts** owed a great debt to his Newtonian convictions. 
> 
> His alternative offered in the same text of a **life devoted to simple tasks with clear, tangible, and most importantly useful ends** was also derived from the utilitarian discourse that Newtonians also used to justify their science.

Voltaire, *Candide*

>To be a mass tourist, for me, is to become a pure late-date American: alien, ignorant, greedy for something you cannot ever have, disappointed in a way you can never admit. It is to spoil, by way of sheer ontology, the very unspoiledness you are there to experience, It is to impose yourself on places that in all non-economic ways would be better, realer, without you. It is, in lines and gridlock and transaction after transaction, to confront a dimension of yourself that is as inescapable as it is painful: As a tourist, you become economically significant but existentially loathsome, **an insect on a dead thing**.

From *Consider the Lobster*

An insect on a dead thing

Montaigne's main idea here is that a display of courageous resistance can shake us out of our anger more effectively than pleas for mercy and acts of supplication.

The main idea stated at the outset:
>The most usual way of appeasing the indignation of such as we have any way offended, when we see them in possession of the power of revenge, and find that we absolutely lie at their mercy, is by **submission**, to move them to commiseration and pity; and yet **bravery, constancy, and resolution**, however quite contrary means, have sometimes served to produce the same effect.

A funny sketch reminiscent of a story from an ancient Chinese history text:
>...the ladies and gentlewomen only who were in the town with the duke might go out without violation of their honour, on foot, and with so much only as they could carry about them. 
>
>Whereupon they, out of magnanimity of heart, presently **contrived to carry out, upon their shoulders, their husbands and children, and the duke himself**; a sight at which the emperor was so pleased, that, ravished with the generosity of the action, he **wept for joy, and immediately extinguishing in his heart the mortal and capital hatred he had conceived against this duke**, he from that time forward treated him and his with all humanity.

Montaigne points out that this isn't to be taken as an absolute rule:
>Man (in good earnest) is a marvellous **vain, fickle, and unstable subject**, and on whom it is very hard to form any certain and uniform judgment.

See [Montaigne, "That Men By Various Ways Arrive At The Same End"](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3600/3600-h/3600-h.htm#link2HCH0001).


Montaigne, "That Men By Various Ways Arrive At The Same End"

*Below is Lenny Rachitsky's framework for increasing a product's retention.*

### How to measure retention
**Measure 1**: Percentage of active users that are **no-longer active** a month later?

**Measure 2**: <def>Cohort retention</def>: What percentage of **new users** are **still active** X months/weeks/days later?
- i.e. how many of your users **stick around long-term**.

### Seven strategies to increase retention
1. Improve your **product** — deliver more value for users
	* Solve problems 10x better, make what users are trying to do 10x easier
	* Solve more problems
	* Make product cheaper
	* Faster, more reliable
 
2. Improve your **onboarding** — connect more users to existing value
	- "The real levers to improve retention dramatically are in the **experience for new users**" --Andrew Chen
	- manually onboard new users
	- Build onboarding around the features that loyal users frequently use
	- Provide useful defaults to pull your users through the first mile and make them stick with the product
	- Simple shimmer effects can make people click on buttons
 
3. Make it **stickier** — make the value hard to give up
	- build habits
	- create a loyalty program
	* sign annual plans
	* integrate more deeply into users' lives
 
4. **Catch users** before they leave — give them an excuse to stay
	- let users pause their subscription
	- give user 2 weeks off or something
	- ask why they're leaving offer a solution 
	- remind users of the value they'll use
	- try to predict churn
![](churn-chart.png)
 
5. **Remind users** of your value — deliver value more often
	- 1:1 outreach to every customer, every month
 
6. **Bring back users** after they’ve gone — remind them what they’re missing
 
7. **Change** your users — target a more suitable audience
	- be crisp with who your product is for and stop marketing to everyone else

*See ["How to increase your product's retention"](https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/how-to-increase-your-products-retention) by Lenny Rachitsky for the complete post, all credit for this content goes to author of that post.*

Increasing product retention

### Bandwidth Allocation Models
- Open loop: reserve bandwidth **before use**
- Closed loop: use **feedback** to adjust rates
- Does host enforce allocation, or does network enforce it?

### TCP uses additive-increase/multiplicative decrease
>The additive-increase/multiplicative-decrease (AIMD) algorithm is a feedback control algorithm best known for its use in TCP congestion control. 
>
>AIMD combines **linear growth of the congestion window** when there is no congestion with an **exponential reduction when congestion is detected**. 
>
>Multiple flows using AIMD congestion control will eventually **converge to an equal usage** of a shared link. 
>
>The related schemes of multiplicative-increase/multiplicative-decrease (MIMD) and additive-increase/additive-decrease (AIAD) **do not reach stability**.[1](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Additive_increase/multiplicative_decrease)

The intuition is that all network participants approach the bandwidth efficient frontier at equal rates, but when the network becomes congested, those with **larger allocations lose more bandwidth than those with smaller allocations**, since the amount we decrease an actor's bandwidth is proportional to their allocation.

Utilization **sawtooths along the efficient frontier** towards the efficient point where bandwidth is fully utilized and shared fairly among participants.

AIMD only requires binary feedback from the network. 

### Feedback signals
**Packet loss** is a signal from the network that it's congested. It's **hard to get wrong**, but we hear about congestion late, since the network is already congested to the point where packets are dropped.

Using **packet delay** as a congestion has the advantage that we hear about congestion early, but we need to infer congestion from delay times.

**Router indications** of congestion mean we hear congestion early, but it requires router support.

[This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFyGWEJqU-c) lecture video is useful.

Additive increase  multiplicative decrease (AIMD) feedback control

*Below is Lenny Rachitsky's framework for setting goals in organizations and choosing a North Star Metric to track goals.*

### Goals are how we accomplish our strategy
- **Mission**: What are you **trying to achieve**?
- **Vision**: What does the **world look like** when you achieve it?
- **Strategy**: How do you **plan to get there**?
- **Goals**: **Metrics** that let us know when we're there
- **Roadmap**: **When we aim to hit those metrics**, and what we'll do next

#### Unwrapping the silver burrito
We all picture our favorite burrito when we see a plump, foil-wrapped burrito on a Chipotle billboard. Without clear goals, we all picture achieving our own ***personal* goals** when we see a project.

Goals help teams "**unwrap the silver burrito**" and make sure **everyone is seeing how a project contributes to the same goal** when we look at a project.

### What makes a good goal?
- **Simple**: Obvious what it means and how it's measured.
- **Concrete**: Obvious if it's been achieved or not.
- **Worthwhile**: Achieving it matters to the business.
- **Quick feedback loop**: Changes in the product can quickly be seen in the metric.

### 1. Choose your North Star Metric (NSM)

>Which metric, if it were to increase today, would **most accelerate my business’ flywheel**?

#### Six categories of NSM

1. **Revenue**
	- e.g. ARR, GMV
	- **Amount of money** being generated
	- 50% of companies
	- Pitfalls: Spiky so hard to operationalize, can lead to bad decision making (being afraid to lower pricing in the short term), can be uninspiring to team.

2. **Customer growth**
	* e.g. paid users, marketshare
	* Number of **paying users**
	* 35% of companies
	* Also common among freemium B2B and consumer subscription

4. **Consumption growth**
	- e.g. messages sent, nights booked
	- The **intensity of usage** of your product
	- 30% of companies
	- Common among **marketplaces and platforms**, since they make money from usage (Airbnb, Uber, Cameo)
	- Common among **user-generated content** subscription-based products (Twitch, Loom)
		- Sharing and consumption drives growth flywheel

5. **Engagement growth**
	- e.g. MAU, DAU
	- Number of **active users**
	- 30% of companies
	- Common among **freemium team-based B2B products**, since they hook free users who invite their peers (Asana, Slack, Dropbox)
	- Common among **consumer subscription products** since if users are engaged, they'll upgrade to paid
	- Common among **ad-driven businesses** since they make money via engagement (Facebook, Pinterest, Snap)

6. **Growth efficiency**
	- e.g. LTV/CAC, margins
	- The **efficiency** of spending vs. making money
	- 10% of companies
	- Common among **paid-growth driven** businesses, either ones that ship physical products (margins) or that invest their budget into **performance marketing**

7. **User experience**
	- e.g. NPS
	- The measure of how **enjoyable and easy to use** customers find the product experience, overall
	- 10% of companies
	- Common among products that differentiate on experience like Superman, Robinhood

### 2. Determine your levers
These are your **growth model**. They add up to 100% of what drives the business.
- Airbnb: Site visits, conversion, cancellation rate (demand side). There's still more on the supply side.

### 3. Find the **bottleneck** metric
>Ask yourself: what’s the one thing that, if moved, would unlock the most growth?

Find the **best concrete metric** to track that lever.

### 4. What does that metric needs to be at such that you're on track for long-term success?

### 5. Determine what impact your team can realistically deliver with current resources

### 6. Check: Is your goal video-game hard? Is it concrete?
Should be hard enough to **motivate you to continue**, not so hard that you give up. Like a video game level.

Concreteness check:
>**What would be true** in the world if you succeeded? What **qualitative signals** would you like to see

### 7. Put it on a dashboard

### 8. Set a cadence for checking on metric with team

### 9. Revisit the goal often
**Ask yourself**: Is it still the thing most crucial for long term success? Is my team actually able to move the goal towards completion?

*See ["Setting Goals"](https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/setting-goals-issue-23) and  ["Choosing your North Star Metric"](https://future.com/north-star-metrics/) by Lenny Rachitsky for the complete posts, all credit for this content goes to author of those posts.*

Organizational goal setting

### Overflow in flow layout
In flow layout, overflow does not affect the layout, and contents can overrun container bounds.

### Gotchas with `overflow:scroll`
`overflow: scroll`  adds scrollbars that are always-visible on Windows and Linux, but MacOS with a trackpad, they're hidden and only visible when you're scrolling. If you connect a wired mouse, they'll become always-visible. You can **disable scrollbar-hiding** to see what your app will look like for users on other platforms.

### `overflow: hidden` hygiene
Whenever you use `overflow: hidden` in your codebase, always add a comment explaining why you added it, since it's quite difficult to tell why it's there just from looking at the CSS. This will prevent you from removing it during a refactor and unknowingly breaking your layout.

### Scroll containers
`overflow: scroll`, `overflow: auto`, or `overflow: hidden` all turn the element to which it's applied into a **scroll container**. 

>A **scroll container** is created by applying `overflow: scroll` to a container, or `overflow: auto` when there is enough content to cause overflow.
>
>The scroll container allows the user to scroll through parts of the overflow region that would otherwise be clipped and hidden from view. The visible part of the scroll container is referred to as the scrollport.[1](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/Scroll_container)

`overflow: hidden` also creates a scroll container in the way that `overflow: scroll` does, except the scrollbar is removed. The element's contents are still technically scrollable, though. 

This means that interactive links, buttons, and inputs will become visible when focused (e.g. via tabbing).

Scroll containers will only scroll when their **contents overflow their boundaries**.

### `overflow: clip`
`overflow: clip` is similar to `overflow: hidden`, except that a scroll container **isn't created**.

>**You can `clip` in one direction while keeping your content `visible` in another direction**.[2](https://kilianvalkhof.com/2022/css-html/do-you-know-about-overflow-clip/)

This is a new property, so there are some quirks across browsers. If the container has a `border-radius` set, this will force the clipping to happen in both directions on Chrome.

### Horizontal overflow
If you want inline elements that overflow their container to scroll horizontally, you'll need`white-space: nowrap`. This will prevent a row of inline elements from wrapping around so that an `overflow: auto` applied to the same container will allow horizontal scrolling.

For an `position: absolute` element to actually be cut off by an `overflow: hidden` applied to its parent container, the parent container must actually contain it (i.e. it must have `position: relative` applied).

Similarly, `overflow: auto` applied to an absolutely-positioned child inside a relatively-positioned parent will allow the child to be scrolled into view if it's cut off.

Remember, `position: fixed` children are *not* contained by a `position: relative` parent. They're contained by the initial containing block.

>The containing block in which the root element (`<html>`) resides is a rectangle called the initial containing block. It has the dimensions of the viewport (for continuous media) or the page area (for paged media).[3](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Containing_block)

Since `position: fixed` elements aren't contained by anything other the initial containing block, they can't be hidden with `overflow: hidden`.

*Some of this content is based on Josh Comeau's excellent [CSS resources](https://css-for-js.dev/).*

Overflow in CSS

The line wrap algorithm wraps at **soft wrap opportunities**--breaking characters like **spaces and dashes**. `&nbsp;` is a non-breaking space that can't be used to line break.

### `overflow-wrap`
`overflow-wrap: break-word` gives the browser permission to **break after any character**.
`hyphens: auto` adds hyphens at work break points.
- It only works if the `lang` attribute is set on the `<html>` tag.

### `text-overflow: ellipsis` 
**Overflow management** occurs after the line-breaking algorithm runs.
- Truncating content requires **disabling line-wrapping** with `white-space: nowrap`.

This snippet produces ellipsis after 250px.
`white-space: nowrap;`
`overflow: hidden;`
`text-overflow: ellipsis` 
`max-width: 250px;`

### Multi-line ellipsis
The following snippet will ellipse a paragraph on the third line.
`display: -webkit-box;`
`-webkit-box-orient: vertical;`
`-webkit-line-clamp: 3;`
`overflow: hidden;`

Someday this will be replaced by `line-clamp`, but it's not quite ready yet.

### Additional notes

[React Wrap Balancer](https://react-wrap-balancer.vercel.app/) is a "Simple React Component That Makes Titles More Readable", worth checking out.

*Some of this content is based on Josh Comeau's excellent [CSS resources](https://css-for-js.dev/).*

The line wrap algorithm in CSS

![](scenery-album-cover.png)

A fantastic jazz album throughout. Ryo Fukui's work was made popular only after his with the advent of streaming services, apparently.

>[Ryo Fukui](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Ryo_Fukui "Ryo Fukui"), a now deceased jazz pianist who, in life, struggled to achieve recognition outside of Japan, experienced a monumental rise in popularity thanks to streaming platforms like [YouTube Music](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/YouTube_Music "YouTube Music"), [Spotify](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Spotify "Spotify"), and others. His most notable work, 1976's "[Scenery](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Scenery_(Ryo_Fukui_album) "Scenery (Ryo Fukui album)")" is now the most widely consumed Japanese Jazz album on YouTube, having accrued nearly 10 million views as of July 2020. This has led to his albums being reprinted for commercial sale, some of which even using the original studio tapes from 1976, and [mastered in half speed](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Half-speed_mastering "Half-speed mastering").[1](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Japanese_jazz)

Scenery by Ryo Fukui

#### How do you know when you're ready to raise?
- You've achieved **$1M ARR** 
- You're **growing faster than your peers**
- You can show you've convinced a slice of your market that your product is **valuable enough to pay for** and that the user base is growing

#### How to prepare
First, gather the following information:
- growth rates
- revenue numbers
- customer testimonials
- user feedback
- achievements

Then prepare these materials:
1.  Prepare a **short blurb** about your business, including a couple of **headline numbers** that indicate the business is doing well
2.  A short **teaser deck** (3-7 slides)
3.  A longer **presentation deck** (12-15 slides)
4.  A **2-3 year forecast** with assumed fundraise secured
5.  Optional: **Metrics deck or a data room**. Sometimes you will get asked for this at Series A, sometimes not. It helps if you ask your prospective VCs in the first meeting whether they’ll ask for it.

#### How long should it take?
It should take **2-4 months** from starting preparation to term-sheet.

>“If you can’t tell a **credible and compelling story** about your vision and how your plans will capitalize on **broader societal, market, cultural, economic or other trends**, you’re dead in the water. I believe my own secret to fundraising success was that I always spoke to the **broader changes I saw happening in the world** and my conviction about the opportunities they presented.” — Eoghan McCabe, co-founder of Intercom

#### Creating leverage
First, **don't be desperate for money**. Have at least 8 months of runway. If you  have less, consider raising a bridge round from inside investors.

**Maintain customer traction** during the raise. Investors ask for updated numbers as you get close to the end, you'll have less leverage if traction dwindles.

Put together a list of 50-60 funds you want to talk to and meet with all of them **within a 2-3 week period**. That's **4-5 pitches a day**. This no VC has time advantage relative to another to gather information and do diligence.

Get a strong intro, the best being from a **successful founder from within that fund’s existing portfolio**.

If you're meeting with an associate, ask if **they have autonomy to make investments** or if there’s a partner at the fund they recommend you start building a relationship with.


>The world of venture capital actually closely mimics enterprise sales in this manner. **Once your 'inside sponsor' has gotten over the line**, then you are actually on the same team. — Delian Asparouhov, Founders Fund

#### Information to gather
At the end of each meeting you should be **asking your prospective partner**:
1.  **What kind of diligence** do they need to get through to build confidence?
2.  What is their **next step** in moving this process forward?
3.  **When** might that next step happen?
4.  **What parts of the business resonate** with them?

#### What does success look like?
You just need 5 VCs still interested in investing after the diligence phase is over. 

Expect to fail with 90% of the funds on your list.  Partners only **1-3 early-stage investments per year**, and the success of these investments impact their career success, so they're naturally picky.

*These are notes on Marc McCabe's post "A playbook for fundraising" in Lenny's Newsletter, all credit goes to the author.*

First-time fundraising advice

>A small but growing literature studies how **pollution makes it harder to think**, in both academic and non-academic settings. Ebenstein et al. (2016) find that an increase in fine particulate pollution **reduces scores on high-stakes tests in Israel** (with a standard deviation increase in fine particulates lowering scores by 1.7% of a standard deviation), while Roth (2021) finds that particulate matter in classrooms **reduces the scores of London-area university students**. Zhang et al. (2018), examining a nationally representative survey in China, find a statistically significant effect on **test scores of verbal ability**.
>
>Some evidence also suggests that pollution may not merely dim our mental acuity, but also lead to altered decision-making, sometimes in quite unexpected contexts. Several studies (Huang et al. 2020, Dong et al. 2021, Meyer and Pagel 2017) find that higher air pollution is associated with an **increase in behavioural biases among investors and analysts** in the financial sector, which appear to be linked to constrained attention and affect alterations. These findings potentially extend to a myriad of high-stakes situations and skilled service professions. Perhaps even more troubling is the possible link between air pollution and criminal activity. Herrnstadt et al. (2021) find that **higher particulate matter concentrations lead to increases in violent crime** across areas of Chicago (a one standard deviation increase in particulate matter raises violent crime by 2.9%); Burkhardt et al. (2019) estimate that a 10% reduction in daily PM2.5 and ozone in the US could save $1.4 billion in crime costs per year. Across the pond, Bondy et al. (2020) find that increases in the Air Quality Index (a measure of pollution) are **associated with increased crime** in London.[1](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/07/damage-from-air-pollutants-you-won-t-hear-about-from-your-doctor/)

Air pollution impairs cognitive ability

## Images are replaced elements
Images in HTML are rather unusual. They're **inline** elements, but they can be given a `height`, whereas most inline element's can't be given a height.

They're also **replaced elements**, where the `<img>` tag is replaced with a foreign object (the image itself).

>In CSS, a **replaced element** is an element whose representation is outside the scope of CSS; they're **external objects** whose representation is independent of the CSS formatting model.
>
>Put in simpler terms, they're elements whose **contents are not affected by the current document's styles**. The position of the replaced element can be affected using CSS, but not the contents of the replaced element itself.[1](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Replaced_element)

Typical replaced elements: `<iframe>`, `<video>`, `embed`, `img`.

## Choosing fit priorities with `object-fit`

There are **three priorities** deciding how to display an image: and we can only choose two.
1. Preserving the **aspect ratio**
2. Being able to see all the **image data**
3. Filling the **available space**

`object-fit` allows us to choose which two to prioritize. 
- **`fill`** is the default value, it will **distort the image** to have it fit precisely within its container.
- **`contain`** will **preserve the aspect ratio** to make the image fit completely within its container, usually leaving empty space on the top or sides.
- **`cover`** will **completely fill the container** while preserving the aspect ratio, resulting in part of the image being cut off. This is the one I usually use.
- **`none`** allows the image to **remain at its natural size**, but it crops whatever doesn't fit into the `<img>` DOM node. This often results in only the top-left corner of a huge image showing up.

>The **`object-fit`** [CSS](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS) property sets how the content of a [replaced element](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Replaced_element), such as an [`<img>`](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/img) or [`<video>`](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/video), should be resized to fit its container.[2](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/object-fit)

## Adjusting the anchor point with `object-position`
`object-position` allows us to choose where the **anchor point** of the image is when we use `object-fit: cover` to cover the container, but cut off some of the image. 
![[Pasted image 20221218234535.png]]
It takes, a horizontal and vertical offset, with the default value being `50% 50%`.

We can even use keywords to choose where to anchor the image, for example `object-position: left top;`.

*Some of this content is based on Josh Comeau's excellent [CSS resources](https://css-for-js.dev/).*

Using `object-fit` to position images in CSS


## Rules of thumb
The alt text **depends on the context** the image is used in, not just the contents of the image.

The goal with alternative text should be to **convey the semantic meaning** of the image to the user.
- i.e. What's the **purpose** of this image, and if I can click on it, what happens?

Alt text **should not** include additional contextual information.

**Decorative images** don't need alt text.
- can specify `alt=""` to indicate that screen readers can ignore it.

## Using `img` tag vs `background-image` property
Use `img` tag for **semantically-meaningful** images.

Use `background-image` css property for **purely aesthetic** background images.  `background-image` can't be given alt text.

## Further reading
- How to judge if an image is decorative. “[Your Image Is Probably Not Decorative](https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2021/06/img-alt-attribute-alternate-description-decorative/)”
- [How To Design Great Alt Text](https://www.deque.com/blog/great-alt-text-introduction/) by Deque
- [Alternative Text](https://webaim.org/techniques/alttext) by WebA

*Some of this content is based on Josh Comeau's excellent [CSS resources](https://css-for-js.dev/).*




What counts as "good" `alt` text?

### Thelonious Monk's [Solo Monk](http://www.amazon.com/Solo-Monk-Thelonious/dp/B0000AVHBN/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1210685354&sr=1-1/marginalrevol-20) 

Tyler says this is perhaps his favorite album. I wasn't sure why on the first listen. It sounded clunky and "plonky" to me and wasn't able to listen all the way through in the first sitting. Then I read that he was known for this style:

>What’s interesting about him, from the little I’ve read, is that he really wanted to have chops on the level of the virtuosos of his time and he obviously hasn’t got them, and yet he’s great to the point where you wouldn’t want him to have chops because it would ruin it. There’s a **child-like quality** to his music, it’s not childish or immature, but there’s something gleeful. It just screams, “I’m Thelonious Monk and I don’t give a fuck.” There’s so much conviction there.[1](https://www.factmag.com/2013/09/22/on-record-clark-on-why-thelonious-monks-solo-monk-is-the-perfect-walking-home-drunk-record/
)

### Late Miles Davis I: [Live at Fillmore](http://www.amazon.com/Black-Beauty-Miles-Davis-Fillmore/dp/B00138CU6K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dmusic&qid=1210684940&sr=8-1/marginalrevol-20) 

Lots of extremely funky and out-there synth and guitar solos. Stacatto spatterings of notes, squeals and screetches. Basically a long free jazz jam session. It's quite hard to describe these sounds, so I'll include some gems from the [Pitchfork review](https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/2197-live-at-the-fillmore-east-march-7-1970-its-about-that-time/). 

> ...transformed into a **three-headed monster** by a band that obviously couldn't sit still on a bet. 
>
>On this date, Shorter meets his maker, **full of fire and machine gun lines** on soprano and tenor sax...
>
>"Directions" (it appears twice, since these two discs document both an early and a late show) starts off innocently enough, with a low, humming growl from Holland, but **quickly develops into the Apocalypse**. There are moments when the music seems to cross over into the avant-**garde and free jazz realms**, especially whenever Shorter is playing a solo. 
>
>Then, out of nowhere, everything gets funky. Holland lays down some **serious dirty pimp low end**, filtered through that infamous "ring modulation" to give it the extra **ass-mangling** quality so desired in serious jazz performance. After a bit, Shorter drops another **trip-bop bomb**, and then the quiet comes back. Davis takes it out with a few **quick, muted jabs**, while the beat simmers below.[](https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/2197-live-at-the-fillmore-east-march-7-1970-its-about-that-time/)

How is this Tyler's favorite jazz?

### Late Miles Davis II: [In a Silent Way](http://www.amazon.com/Silent-Way-Miles-Davis/dp/B00006GO9Q/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1210685006&sr=8-1/marginalrevol-20)
Absolutely loved this one. Just two long and pensive tracks.

### Ornette Coleman’s [Free Jazz](http://www.amazon.com/Collective-Improvisation-Ornette-Coleman-Quartet/dp/B000002I55/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1210685144&sr=1-1/marginalrevol-20)

Made it 7 minutes in. Sounds like a noisy practice room.

Cecil Taylor

[The Blakey/Monk album](http://www.amazon.com/Blakeys-Jazz-Messengers-Thelonious-Monk/dp/B00000HZF0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1210685098&sr=1-2/marginalrevol-20)


Stan Kenton

He added these to his post on David Remnick's list of the [100 best jazz albums](https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/05/the-100-best-ja.html).

Tyler Cowen's Favorite Jazz Albums

## What's it for?

Without `downlevelIteration` enabled, a `for / of` loop on any object is downleveled to a traditional `for` loop.

This usually works, but there are edge cases in which it fails.

E.g. certain strings, such as emoji (😜), have a `.length` of 2 (or even more!), but should iterate as 1 unit in a `for-of` loop.

When `downlevelIteration` is enabled, TypeScript will use a helper function that checks for a `Symbol.iterator` implementation (either native or polyfill). If this implementation is missing, you’ll fall back to index-based iteration.[1](https://mariusschulz.com/blog/downlevel-iteration-for-es3-es5-in-typescript)

### What's `Symbol.iterator`?

Whenever an object **needs to be iterated** (such as at the beginning of a `for...of` loop), its `@@iterator` method is called with no arguments, and the returned **iterator** is used to obtain the values to be iterated. [2]( https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Symbol/iterator)

Recently Published