The following idea is cited approving in a book I just read

enter image description here

  • Derrida, Heidegger, Blanchot, by Timothy Clark

But on an earlier page the same author says

enter image description here

In what way can a poem be "nothing but its own evocation" but not an incarnation? The two words are close, if not identical in every sense. However in practice I can't see the difference.

It may be germane to add that Heidegger claims that poetry (which is a bringing into being) should be interpreted with a mind to dispose of that interpretation; I think I even read the claim that his desire for interpretation (close reading etc.) contradicts his aesthetics!

For the sake of preserving what has been put into the poem, the elucidation of the poem must strive to make itself superfluous. The last, but also the most difficult step of every interpretation [Auslegung], consists in its disappearing, along with its elucidations, before the pure presence of the poem. The poem, which then stands in its own right, itself throws light directly on the other poems.

  • Elucidations of Holderin's poetry, cited in The Philosophy of Improvisation By Gary Peter

Can what is being said here be pinned down?

  • one reason could be that it evokes through a rejection of its meaning. but when could that be properly called "poetry" – user6917 Aug 3 '16 at 8:15
  • Enactment, here, seems to be opposed to Representation; representations refer, which is why, I suppose Enactment being an opposite, refers without a reference. – Mozibur Ullah Aug 3 '16 at 11:17

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy