Yes.

By the time of the publishing of the Origin of the Work of Art, Heidegger's thought development brought him to the conclusion that we are the in between.

We are, but not in the sense that we actually are agents experiencing the work of art, in fact it seems crazy to Heidegger to talk about "imagination" or any other products of sensory experience. So how do we exactly make the work of art, well, intilligible?

I agree.

We are not agents experiencing a work of art.

We are the experience of the work.

We are the in between.

And for Heidegger, being is that on the basis of which beings render intelligible the entities encountered within the world they are in.

That the art is rendered intelligible is the revelation of being. The how of the rendering is of little interest to Heidegger. It is the rendering itself that is the revelation.

I suspect Heidegger would gladly leave the how of the rendering to cognitive science.

I also suspect that would be true of most artists.

I agree with you, Arne, but I think that the how of this case is entirely left to ontic sciences because maybe it would not really fit Heidegger's theory. The point is this rendering, the appropriating event, but 1) bodily senses are strangely left out and 2) the works of art mentioned in the book seem to have a resemblance to tools in how we approach them -they have this referential character that allows them to be-in-the-world (otherwise they would be mere objects?)

I hope this makes sense (I am Greek).

It makes sense and I agree.

We all have our strengths and weaknesses.

Heidegger was educated as a mathematician and a physicist.

The person who fills in the sensory gap you have identified is Maurice Merleau-Ponty.

His magnum opus is the Phenomenology of Perception.

Not only does the Phenomenology of Perception fill in the gap you have identified, it was written for that very purpose.

I have not read it.

It is on my reading list.

If you would wish to read it together, I can move it to the top of my list.

If you have not already figured it out, I am a Heideggerian and my failure to read Mr. Merleau-Ponty has been bothering me for quite some time.

Not only does the Phenomenology of Perception fill in the gap you have identified, it was written for that very purpose. I have not read it. It is on my reading list. If you would wish to read it together, I can move it to the top of my list. — Arne

I'm working on a dissertation heavily focused on Merleau-Ponty. If you find sufficient interest in a reading group I would be happy to lead it or at least contribute regularly. The only thing that would make me hesitate is not wishing to detract from the Heidegger and Wittgenstein reading groups.

I'm working on a dissertation heavily focused on Merleau-Ponty. — John Doe

The cavalry has arrived.

The only thing that would make me hesitate is not wishing to detract from the Heidegger and Wittgenstein reading groups. — John Doe

Got it.

I am confident I know Heidegger well enough.

And my reading of Merleau-Ponty is long overdue.

Should it develop, I am confident we can work it out.

Should it develop, I am confident we can work it out. — Arne

Sounds good. Give it a think and let me know. I'll try to respond to the thread (problem of sensation) more substantively tomorrow.

Yes, I am partly aware of Merleau-Ponty's theory, actually there is a book called "Heidegger's neglect of the body" that deals with just that (the problem of the body and its senses)
I' m ready for the study group, just started reading Phenomenology of Perception after seeing your messages.

We are not agents experiencing a work of art.

We are the experience of the work. — Arne

Then that must therefore hold true for experience generally - of life generally.

Then that must therefore hold true for experience generally - of life generally. — raza

That could be.

But the subject matter of the book is the Origin of the Work of Art.

In addition, I will reiterate that Heidegger was educated in mathematics and physics and his philosophy from beginning to end is markedly void of explanations regarding perceptions.

And his use of the term "in-between" was nothing he expounded upon in any systematic way. It was simply a term he began to use more in his later thoughts.

So even though I agree with the idea you advance, "that must therefore hold true" strikes me as too strong a claim.

We are not agents experiencing a work of art.

We are the experience of the work. — Arne
Then that must therefore hold true for experience generally - of life generally. — raza

Are you familiar with the Phenomenology of Perception by Merleau-Ponty. Not only does it fill in the huge perceptions gaps in Heidegger's philosophy, it was written for that purpose. Please advise if you would be interested in a reading/discussion group on Phenomenology of Perception.

So even though I agree with the idea you advance, "that must therefore hold true" strikes me as too strong a claim — Arne

You are agreeing with what is a too strong a claim?

Are you familiar with the Phenomenology of Perception by Merleau-Ponty. — Arne

I'm familiar with the fact that "my" perceptions of experience always include the subject of which "my" refers.

It is an impossibility that I stand outside of experience to observe it. In other words, I must be the experience which arises.

The goal of art is to induce emotions in the audience. This can be love, hate, awe, disgust, etc. With that in mind, when the brain creates memory, in our day to day life, sensory input is given an emotional tag by aspects of the limbic system, as it is written to the cerebral matter. Our memories have both sensory content plus emotional tagging. Because of this duality, we can trigger our memory from either side; content side or emotional side.

For example, if I feel the emotion of hunger, images of food; content, will appear in my mind. If I think of my favorite food; content, I can start to feel hunger; emotion.

Art tries to induce emotion, while the emotions induced, will trigger memory content, already in the brain of the audience, that is connected to this emotion. It can be different for each person, unless they are told what to think.

For example, the golden calf of the bible, was a work of art, made of gold, that may have been expertly crafted. This art object may have induced feelings of awe, respect, beauty, value, etc.. This complex emotional induction will then induce memory content with these tags in the audience. One possible way to express all these mixed feelings, would be a personal image of the divine; god, already stored in the brain. This was later called idol worship, if one was unconscious of the induction affect since it involved unconscious projection.

It is fun and educational to play with art idols, but it is not OK to worship it, since worship reflects a high degree of unconsciousness. Nowadays, fake news appears to be using the art affect, so emotions will be induced. News art may indica emotions like hate Trump, fear global warming, desire world peace, etc.,These induced emotions will reverberate in the minds of the audience and trigger personal memories. The unconscious person can't see that their own shadow is being triggered and made conscious, but think this is part of the other person; projected tarnished golden calf affect.

have you read the book? I would like to read the book. I am unable to find an electronic copy. I guess I can go to the library.

you may be right. Have you read the book? I would like to read the book. I have been unable to find an electronic copy. I may have to go to the library.

I have not read the book and there is nothing anyone has said that supports you use of the words "therefore" followed by "must". But there have been no premises advanced upon which to even claim "therefore." Perhaps you brought them with you?

If you want to read Merleau-Ponty on art, I suggest his essay "Eye and Mind", which I think you should be able to find online. It's an absolutely breathtaking piece of writing, dealing mostly with painting and Cezanne in particular, and is probably a more accessible starting point than the POP (which is itself an extraordinary book).

Eye and Mind — StreetlightX

thanks. Just found it. Will read it today. But I have been reading Heidegger for years and his failure to address the body is a gaping hole in his ontology and as a result POP has been near the top of my list for quite some time. The fact that it is difficult reading is why I was hoping to drum up interest in a group reading. Perhaps you would be interested in joining the group or providing input/guidance? If you had some advice on how to lay out a reading schedule or any sort of other logistic advice, I would greatly appreciate if you sent me a message.

you may be right. Have you read the book? I would like to read the book. I have been unable to find an electronic copy. I may have to go to the library. — Arne

I won't be reading the book. The evidence of my claim is just too obvious. The only question left, with regard to "life", or, in other words, this experience, is .........Why life? Why experience?

The "how" stretches into infinity so that is out.

If you have no interest in the Origin of the Work of Art, then why are here? How would you even know if your apparently obvious claims have anything to do with the Origin of the Work of Art if you have not even read the book? I am simply suggesting that whether your claim (obvious or otherwise) is supported or not supported by the Origin of the Work of Art in any significant way cannot be known without reading the book. The apparent obviousness of your claim is hardly a justification for choosing not read any book?

I think you'll find the POP alot less difficult than it's reputation might suggest. It's certainly far easier reading than Heidegger, and while a light knowledge of Husserl and Kant are useful, it can be read on its own terms quite nicely. My biggest suggestion would be to make sure you read the (recent) Donald Landes translation (if you're going to read it in English), and not the previous one by I-forgot-who. Also that, if one isn't interested in phenomenological 'method', the preface can be skipped entirely (but I suspect you would be interested!). I won't join in on a reading group I'm afraid - I've got reading up to my ears to do and it's a bit too much of a time investment unfortunately.

If you have no interest in the Origin of the Work of Art, then why are here? — Arne

I entered here when I read this. This reflects my thoughts on every experience.

We are not agents experiencing a work of art.

We are the experience of the work.

We are the in between. — Arne

understood. And you may be right. I just do not want anyone to suggest that Arne thinks Heidegger would support your claim. As I have already noted, I have not yet read the Origin of the Work of Art and Heidegger's characterization of us as the "in-between" came later in his thought development and he did not explicate the term. Personally, I am excited by the possibility that the book might support your position. I am surprised that you are not. Good luck.

thank you.

you may be right. Have you read the book? I would like to read the book. I have been unable to find an electronic copy. I may have to go to the library. — Arne

https://library.memoryoftheworld.org/#text=phenomenology+of+perception&property=title

The "in-between" refers to the collective group of a historical people and, of course, the artist dissolves in his/her work of art. So it' s really hard to identify which person Heidegger is making this claim for, it probably goes to communalities that share the same historical world (it certainly doesn't refer to subjective experience).

Also, *unpopular opinion*: I haven't found anything Nazi-related during my reading of Heidegger, except for this mentioned above. This grouped "return to Being" through art looks kind of similar to the "Nazi political regime as a work of art". I'd really like to hear your opinion on this -controversial, I know- claim.