04/09/2018
Andrew Hui on aphorism
Dr Andrew Hui is an Assistant Professor of Literature at Yale-NUS College. He received his PhD from Princeton University in the Department of Comparative Literature and is a graduate of St John’s College, Annapolis. From 2009-2012, he was a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford University, where he taught in the Introduction to Humanities Program. He has […]
| 00:00:00.000 |
This is KZSU, Stanford.
|
| 00:00:02.240 |
Welcome to entitled opinions.
|
| 00:00:06.880 |
My name is Robert Harrison, and we're coming to you
|
| 00:00:09.640 |
from the Stanford campus.
|
| 00:00:11.080 |
When virtuous slept, she wakes up all the more refreshed.
|
| 00:00:24.720 |
Is that a proverb, a maxim, or an aphorism?
|
| 00:00:28.680 |
Who knows, but you've heard it before?
|
| 00:00:31.720 |
And it means that entitled opinions
|
| 00:00:33.520 |
is back on air after a long hiatus.
|
| 00:00:37.040 |
Our show today is about the aphorism.
|
| 00:00:40.240 |
You want aphorisms?
|
| 00:00:41.720 |
We have aphorisms.
|
| 00:00:43.880 |
Let's start with this one.
|
| 00:00:46.120 |
Life maintains itself through expenditures
|
| 00:00:48.960 |
that increase rather than deplete the reserves of vitality.
|
| 00:00:53.640 |
Life is in excess, the self-extecy of matter.
|
| 00:00:58.480 |
Mm-hmm.
|
| 00:01:00.200 |
Just as humanity begins where there is already an ancestor,
|
| 00:01:04.160 |
so language begins where it has already begun.
|
| 00:01:07.200 |
Nothing in the universe be at the newborn infant,
|
| 00:01:14.160 |
or the universe itself is without age.
|
| 00:01:17.640 |
If a phenomenon does not age, it is not of this world,
|
| 00:01:21.960 |
and if it is not of this world, it is not a phenomenon.
|
| 00:01:28.120 |
Nature is not our slave.
|
| 00:01:30.760 |
It does not need our acknowledgement.
|
| 00:01:33.520 |
By the same token, it is not our master,
|
| 00:01:36.560 |
and cannot acknowledge our humanity.
|
| 00:01:38.880 |
And finally, just because you're dead,
|
| 00:01:43.520 |
it doesn't mean you can't hear.
|
| 00:01:46.080 |
That's right.
|
| 00:01:46.800 |
They're out there listening to entitled opinions
|
| 00:01:50.000 |
beyond the grave, the dead ones.
|
| 00:01:52.600 |
They need this show as much as you do.
|
| 00:01:54.600 |
(upbeat music)
|
| 00:01:57.180 |
The dead dig guitar solos, too.
|
| 00:02:16.180 |
(upbeat music)
|
| 00:02:20.180 |
A truly dead language is one that has no dead language
|
| 00:02:23.180 |
at its core.
|
| 00:02:24.180 |
(upbeat music)
|
| 00:02:26.760 |
Just for the record, all those aphorisms are by yours truly.
|
| 00:02:34.460 |
That's right.
|
| 00:02:35.580 |
I called them from various books I've written.
|
| 00:02:38.620 |
They were not originally intended as aphorisms,
|
| 00:02:41.740 |
but if you isolate sentences from their discursive context,
|
| 00:02:45.700 |
as I just did, they may take on a new aphoristic life
|
| 00:02:49.780 |
of their own.
|
| 00:02:51.700 |
In fact, most aphorisms, as we'll learn today,
|
| 00:02:54.700 |
arose through such a process of culling and compiling.
|
| 00:02:59.700 |
And who knows?
|
| 00:03:00.860 |
Maybe one day some fan of entitled opinions
|
| 00:03:03.900 |
might be inspired to cull and compile,
|
| 00:03:06.700 |
some of the more pithy pronouncements buried
|
| 00:03:08.900 |
in the great haystacks of these radio shows.
|
| 00:03:12.100 |
The dicta of entitled opinions
|
| 00:03:14.940 |
that would make for a lasting life's blast.
|
| 00:03:17.740 |
(upbeat music)
|
| 00:03:20.320 |
(upbeat music)
|
| 00:03:45.460 |
(upbeat music)
|
| 00:03:56.060 |
I have with me in the studio an old friend of the show,
|
| 00:04:00.820 |
Professor Andrew Huey.
|
| 00:04:03.220 |
He joined me back in 2012 for a conversation
|
| 00:04:06.940 |
about pet truck and pet truckism.
|
| 00:04:09.180 |
At the time, he was a teaching fellow
|
| 00:04:11.940 |
in Stanford's introduction to the humanities program.
|
| 00:04:15.780 |
That same year, 2012, he received an offer from Yale to become an assistant professor of literature at Yale NSU College
|
| 00:04:24.620 |
in Singapore, where he now teaches.
|
| 00:04:28.020 |
His first book, The Poetics of Ruins and Renaissance Literature,
|
| 00:04:31.460 |
was published by Fordham University Press in 2016.
|
| 00:04:36.260 |
His second book called The Theory of the aphorism from Confucius to Twitter
|
| 00:04:42.500 |
will be published by Princeton University Press in 2019.
|
| 00:04:46.780 |
And it's that fascinating second book of his,
|
| 00:04:50.940 |
about the aphorism that we're going to be talking about today.
|
| 00:04:54.620 |
So let me welcome Andrew Huey back to his favorite podcast,
|
| 00:04:58.220 |
Andrew, thanks for joining us again on entitled opinions.
|
| 00:05:01.300 |
- Hi Robert, it's great to be back.
|
| 00:05:03.820 |
- Yes, you came here from Singapore,
|
| 00:05:08.420 |
actually you were down in LA for the comparative literature
|
| 00:05:10.940 |
and the annual conference and then yesterday you gave a lecture here on,
|
| 00:05:14.380 |
well it was about the Jesuits and Confucianism and the--
|
| 00:05:19.740 |
- Just how to reach in China and so forth.
|
| 00:05:22.340 |
- And that's a whole other topic that is not either the one of your first book nor of this one
|
| 00:05:26.860 |
that we're going to talk about today, but--
|
| 00:05:28.340 |
- I think about many things.
|
| 00:05:29.540 |
- Yeah, so a future show for that one.
|
| 00:05:32.340 |
So the last time you were on the show,
|
| 00:05:34.740 |
we were talking about your book about Ruins and Renaissance Literature.
|
| 00:05:39.940 |
And I gather that from Ruins you started thinking about fragments,
|
| 00:05:44.420 |
and that fragments got you thinking about aphorisms,
|
| 00:05:47.500 |
which are in some way related to fragments, at least as far as your concern.
|
| 00:05:52.220 |
So let me read something that you write in the introduction to your book,
|
| 00:05:57.140 |
quoting you, "Though an aphorism by definition is succinct,
|
| 00:06:01.100 |
it almost always proliferates into an innumerable series of iterations.
|
| 00:06:07.540 |
By nature the aphorism, like the hedgehog, is a solitary animal,
|
| 00:06:12.540 |
striving to cut out all verbiage, it's not so secret wish,
|
| 00:06:16.940 |
is to annihilate its neighbor so that its singular potency would reign supreme.
|
| 00:06:23.780 |
Yet aphorisms also have a herd mentality,
|
| 00:06:27.140 |
indeed from the wisdom literature of the Sumerians and Egyptians onward,
|
| 00:06:31.740 |
they find strength in the social collective of anthologies.
|
| 00:06:36.340 |
So we might want to start with that quote there,
|
| 00:06:39.860 |
and maybe you can unpack this strange by valence in paradox.
|
| 00:06:45.340 |
Right, so if not a paradox, it's by valence that it duality.
|
| 00:06:49.340 |
Yeah, it duality a form.
|
| 00:06:50.740 |
If I understand you properly, the aphorism wants to gather within itself
|
| 00:06:56.340 |
and achieve its own sort of autonomy as a verbal unit.
|
| 00:07:02.460 |
Yet at the same time it opens itself up to dissemination and networks and so forth.
|
| 00:07:09.980 |
Sure. Well again, thank you so much for having me back.
|
| 00:07:12.900 |
It's always a joy to be back at the farm and to see my old mentors and colleagues.
|
| 00:07:20.220 |
Yeah, so let me just for a moment step back and kind of explain to you
|
| 00:07:25.700 |
and the listeners what was kind of underlying my thinking here, as you said.
|
| 00:07:30.780 |
So the aphorism has a bivalent or ambiguous or binary existence or nature.
|
| 00:07:38.180 |
And I got to think about this because there's this very famous fragment from
|
| 00:07:43.060 |
Arquilicus ancient Greek poet and your listeners will know this.
|
| 00:07:48.300 |
And it goes, the fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.
|
| 00:07:53.780 |
Of course this has been rendered into a famous essay by Isaiah Berlin.
|
| 00:07:58.380 |
But I think what's interesting about this quotation and how, as an aphorism,
|
| 00:08:03.900 |
it really reflects on its own nature because the hedgehog is the aphorism itself.
|
| 00:08:10.180 |
Right? And Friedrich Schlegel, the 18th century German romantic philosopher,
|
| 00:08:15.700 |
has a definition of the aphorism that is basically playing with this idea of the hedgehog
|
| 00:08:22.300 |
and the multitude of foxes.
|
| 00:08:23.540 |
And his formulation goes something like this and it's rather elegant.
|
| 00:08:27.900 |
A fragment ought to be entirely isolated from the surrounding world like a little work of art
|
| 00:08:33.820 |
and complete in itself like a hedgehog.
|
| 00:08:37.020 |
Right? So that's where he's playing with.
|
| 00:08:38.540 |
So my interpretation of both the Greek poet and the German philosopher is that, look,
|
| 00:08:45.740 |
the aphorism as a singular body, where it seeks to distill, condense, and reduce, right?
|
| 00:08:53.100 |
The multitudinous phenomenon of the world, or it seeks to kind of minimize the clutter,
|
| 00:09:01.660 |
tries to clear up the clutter of thinking.
|
| 00:09:03.860 |
Yeah, declutter.
|
| 00:09:04.540 |
Right? declutter.
|
| 00:09:05.660 |
But we have never known an aphorist that's famous for just one aphorism.
|
| 00:09:11.460 |
Right?
|
| 00:09:12.300 |
aphorisms tend to proliferate.
|
| 00:09:14.540 |
Right?
|
| 00:09:14.940 |
Jesus said a lot of stuff, Confucius, Buddha, right?
|
| 00:09:17.820 |
Or even the Hochov-Kov, or Lectemberk, when it comes to modern authors.
|
| 00:09:22.980 |
They had notebooks and notebooks filled with them, and they often had trouble finishing them.
|
| 00:09:28.100 |
So simply put, I find it really ironic that though a singular aphorism might be a
|
| 00:09:33.580 |
hegemonic hedgehog, as it were, a collection of aphorisms like its anthology, right?
|
| 00:09:41.300 |
It tends to morph into this multitude of cunning little foxes, right?
|
| 00:09:45.420 |
Right?
|
| 00:09:46.420 |
Right.
|
| 00:09:47.420 |
So there's a singularity and there's a multiplicity.
|
| 00:09:48.820 |
For me, parallels the poetic anthologies, or the consunietis in the Italian tradition.
|
| 00:09:55.940 |
Remember, our last show was on Petra or Confucius, and you could say, could you not
|
| 00:10:02.660 |
that the lyric poem strives for the same sort of self-defining, self-inclosed autonomy of
|
| 00:10:12.100 |
the complete speech act contained within its bounds, if it's a sonnet and 14 lines,
|
| 00:10:16.500 |
and then you put them together in a collection, and it becomes now a consunietis, where
|
| 00:10:25.780 |
in case of Petra, for example, it's 365 poems.
|
| 00:10:29.060 |
Each one is interrelated, but each one is presumably also autonomous.
|
| 00:10:32.420 |
Right.
|
| 00:10:33.420 |
It has its own poetic unity.
|
| 00:10:35.660 |
So you see the aphorism as aiming for the same sort of on the one hand, self-concentration,
|
| 00:10:45.580 |
and also then interrelation with the others.
|
| 00:10:48.900 |
Yes and no.
|
| 00:10:49.900 |
I mean, let's go back to, let's go back to Petra for a moment.
|
| 00:10:54.380 |
You quoted the Italian name for the and it's consunieti, right?
|
| 00:10:59.020 |
But in Latin, as you know, it's Varum Vogarium fragmenta, right?
|
| 00:11:03.900 |
So I'm interested in what anthology of fragments are.
|
| 00:11:07.140 |
Well, it's also called the D'Eme's Spanish say, right?
|
| 00:11:10.860 |
So again, you have this idea of collecting the fragments of the past into the unity of the
|
| 00:11:18.700 |
poetic body, right?
|
| 00:11:20.700 |
There is the tormented scattered consciousness of the lyric self, Petra, the poet as a persona,
|
| 00:11:31.340 |
but then in a way, Petra, the philologist, right, is also that collects the poetic fragments
|
| 00:11:38.220 |
of his past and makes it into a body of work.
|
| 00:11:41.340 |
Now, that's true for a self-conscious author like Petra and, you know, I replied to your
|
| 00:11:47.180 |
question as saying that, yes and no, because for so many of the ancient authors in the
|
| 00:11:53.580 |
wisdom tradition, for example, Confucius, Buddha, or Jesus, they never set down to write
|
| 00:12:00.380 |
their own aphorisms.
|
| 00:12:02.420 |
They were preserved by their disciples, and I think that's very interesting, right?
|
| 00:12:10.180 |
Why their disciples wanted to gather them and edit them and what?
|
| 00:12:16.140 |
Basically, the ideological foundations of so many of these schools are founded on the
|
| 00:12:22.420 |
dicta, right, of the wise teachers.
|
| 00:12:27.980 |
Did you say then that there's a distinction between the author of aphorisms and an
|
| 00:12:32.660 |
aphorist?
|
| 00:12:35.300 |
In the sense that Buddha, Jesus, Confucius, you say, I take you to be saying that they did
|
| 00:12:43.380 |
not set out to write aphorisms or to speak aphorisms, it turns out that the way their
|
| 00:12:51.420 |
sayings and their preaching was received by the disciples and then compiled and disseminated
|
| 00:12:56.100 |
turn them into aphorists, but they were authors of the aphorisms, but they were not aphorists.
|
| 00:13:03.060 |
I would say they're the authority of their aphorisms.
|
| 00:13:08.140 |
There are teachers, but their goal in life is not to be literary artist, like aphorists,
|
| 00:13:14.940 |
for example, like La Hochua Coe, or, you know, many of the others that we can both think
|
| 00:13:20.460 |
of, but they're teaching their wisdom or best conveyed through aphorisms, right?
|
| 00:13:28.780 |
So their primary aim is not to craft exquisite and polished aphorisms, but it ended up
|
| 00:13:36.180 |
being that way because of the tradition of transmission.
|
| 00:13:42.420 |
So your book has, what I think, six or seven chapters.
|
| 00:13:45.780 |
So you start with Confucius and then Heraclitus is another major one, Jesus, and then
|
| 00:13:52.860 |
you go into the modern period, I guess, with the Resmiths and Francis Bacon.
|
| 00:13:57.580 |
Pascale.
|
| 00:13:58.580 |
Nietzsche.
|
| 00:13:59.580 |
Yeah.
|
| 00:14:00.580 |
So Confucius, where you know a lot more about that tradition than I do, is the body
|
| 00:14:06.300 |
of Scripture, they're largely aphoristic?
|
| 00:14:10.820 |
They're aphoristic in the sense that they're non-systematic, non-argumative treatises,
|
| 00:14:17.260 |
right?
|
| 00:14:18.260 |
Other early Chinese philosophers, for example, is like Menchis, right?
|
| 00:14:22.500 |
They write in, what is, you know, more or less kind of argumentative structure, right?
|
| 00:14:28.020 |
But interestingly, Confucius as the founder of, you know, the Chinese intellectual tradition,
|
| 00:14:34.580 |
his saying, "Survive in these pithy dicta."
|
| 00:14:38.060 |
And what's interesting about the analex is that they're basically textual recordings of
|
| 00:14:45.340 |
original oral scenes of instruction, right?
|
| 00:14:49.180 |
So Confucius says this to this particular disciple, right?
|
| 00:14:54.220 |
So on the one hand, you have, it's a transcript of that original moment, but then the way
|
| 00:15:01.260 |
Confucius, as the authoritative figure, is transformed into what is called Confucius-Nizom,
|
| 00:15:09.020 |
right?
|
| 00:15:10.020 |
The school of commentary that surrounds each singular utterance, right?
|
| 00:15:17.740 |
So you can't have the aphorism without its armature, without the apparatus of commentary,
|
| 00:15:25.740 |
right?
|
| 00:15:26.740 |
And the same people who wrote these commentaries are the ones who gathered and annotated
|
| 00:15:31.620 |
them.
|
| 00:15:32.620 |
And, you know, virtually all pre-modern printing of Confucius analex, you never just get the aphorisms
|
| 00:15:41.340 |
themselves.
|
| 00:15:42.340 |
They're surrounded by this body of commentary, much like the Hebrew Bible.
|
| 00:15:46.340 |
Right.
|
| 00:15:47.340 |
And in your book, you think that this commentary tradition is crucial to the, well, the
|
| 00:15:53.420 |
full dissemination of the aphoristic.
|
| 00:15:56.780 |
Yeah, I mean, with the ancient figures, I'm really fascinated by Mox Weber, he was very
|
| 00:16:04.020 |
interested in early Chinese thinking and produced a couple books about it.
|
| 00:16:08.460 |
And as a sociologist, what he's interested is the transformation of charismatic authority
|
| 00:16:15.580 |
into bureaucratic institutions.
|
| 00:16:18.740 |
And I take it what he means by that is first you have this really charismatic but anti-establishment
|
| 00:16:26.540 |
firebrand like Jesus the Buddha, right?
|
| 00:16:29.660 |
They're trying to overturn some paradigm, right?
|
| 00:16:34.460 |
But then once you overturn them, how do you build, how do you sustain this charisma?
|
| 00:16:40.340 |
And his idea is that it sustains through later derivative epigony figures like the scribes
|
| 00:16:48.420 |
and the clerics who ironically make this anti-establishment charismatic teaching, make
|
| 00:16:54.900 |
it congeal into something that's institutional and doctrinal.
|
| 00:16:59.460 |
And I think that's really interesting, right?
|
| 00:17:02.020 |
How you maintain charisma but then I think charisma is something that burns out very quickly,
|
| 00:17:07.540 |
right?
|
| 00:17:08.540 |
It kind of consumes itself but then in the process of congealing and making it institutional,
|
| 00:17:15.940 |
it becomes calcified.
|
| 00:17:18.540 |
So you claim that the Afro-Ris genre has to be thought in relation to philosophy because
|
| 00:17:27.380 |
it's in an uneasy relationship to say the least.
|
| 00:17:31.300 |
That's right.
|
| 00:17:32.300 |
You say that it both proceeds, vise with and supersedes, the philosophical tradition.
|
| 00:17:39.860 |
And therefore, and what I like about your concept of the aphroism is that it is a thinking,
|
| 00:17:45.900 |
a community of unidive speech that some kind of thought has been condensed in the aphroism.
|
| 00:17:50.740 |
In that sense, it's not just a proverb or a maximic or some kind of prescription or injunction.
|
| 00:18:01.180 |
However, and while I can see in the case of Confucius that he was a philosopher,
|
| 00:18:09.620 |
A. Lee's and empedically's and Heraclitus clearly, these are aristocratic philosophers
|
| 00:18:18.020 |
and same with Pascal and others.
|
| 00:18:20.020 |
Now, but you're talking about Jesus and the Buddha, do you take Jesus also to be in some
|
| 00:18:25.460 |
kind of implicit dialogue with any kind of philosophical tradition or does he stand outside
|
| 00:18:30.940 |
of that?
|
| 00:18:31.940 |
I think he's in implicit dialogue with the teachings of the prophets.
|
| 00:18:38.100 |
Yeah.
|
| 00:18:39.100 |
I think the authors of the canonical Gospels, they're implicit dialogue with the ancient
|
| 00:18:47.060 |
sub-piential tradition in the ancient Mediterranean.
|
| 00:18:52.260 |
That's why the beginning of John in the beginning was the word.
|
| 00:18:56.980 |
That's very Hellenic.
|
| 00:18:58.460 |
So Logos.
|
| 00:18:59.780 |
So Heraclitus in Jesus share within them this concern with what Logos is, what discourse,
|
| 00:19:10.220 |
argument, word.
|
| 00:19:12.100 |
Going back to the early point, yeah, I mean, the theory of the aphroism I have in this book
|
| 00:19:17.700 |
in one sentence is that aphroisms come before against an after philosophy.
|
| 00:19:23.860 |
So that's the theory.
|
| 00:19:24.940 |
Now, how do I find empirical evidence to back up this theory?
|
| 00:19:30.300 |
Look, Heraclitus comes before and against Plato and Aristotle.
|
| 00:19:34.860 |
Pascal comes after and against Descartes, Nietzsche after and against Kant and Hegel.
|
| 00:19:41.780 |
So this is in a way that dialectics of doing philosophy.
|
| 00:19:45.420 |
First, you have the system builders, like Kant and Hegel with their critiques and their
|
| 00:19:51.100 |
phenomenologies and even showmen how.
|
| 00:19:54.700 |
And then you have these people coming in trying to blow it all up, right?
|
| 00:19:58.100 |
And they blow it up through these aphroisms and so these aphroisms in a way are the dynamites.
|
| 00:20:04.300 |
Well, except that in the case of Heraclitus, he proceeds Plato and Aristotle.
|
| 00:20:10.060 |
Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
|
| 00:20:11.060 |
I mean, he doesn't blow them up.
|
| 00:20:13.740 |
Aphroisms are before, before against an after philosophy.
|
| 00:20:17.060 |
So Heraclitus comes before Plato and Aristotle.
|
| 00:20:21.500 |
And what's really interesting is that Plato was very hostile to Heraclitus.
|
| 00:20:27.460 |
There is this passage in Theatatus, which is a platonic dialogue.
|
| 00:20:32.340 |
And do you mind if I just read this because I think it's really interesting and it really
|
| 00:20:35.660 |
captures what I'm trying to figure out that is the relationship between philosophy and
|
| 00:20:40.780 |
literature, which I'm sure your listeners are all interested in.
|
| 00:20:45.060 |
So, okay, this is what someone in Plato's Theatatus says.
|
| 00:20:49.500 |
If you ask any of them the Heraclitus a question, he will pull out some little enigmatic
|
| 00:20:54.260 |
phrase from his quiver and shoot it off at you.
|
| 00:20:57.260 |
And if you try to make him give an account and the Greek here is a low-gone, of what he
|
| 00:21:01.860 |
has said, you'll only get hit by another full of strange turns of language.
|
| 00:21:07.020 |
Again, full of strange turns of language.
|
| 00:21:09.700 |
You'll never reach any conclusion with them ever.
|
| 00:21:12.500 |
Indeed, they'll never reach any conclusion with each other either.
|
| 00:21:16.380 |
And so they're very careful not to allow anything to be stable, either in an argument
|
| 00:21:21.820 |
or in their own souls.
|
| 00:21:23.820 |
What I take this to mean is that Socrates and Plato are really frustrated by Heraclitus
|
| 00:21:30.180 |
because even though he seems to be doing some sort of speculative thinking, the way he
|
| 00:21:37.260 |
does it is resolutely monologic and they're in the discontinuous unit.
|
| 00:21:43.860 |
What platonic dialogue demands is the art of dialectic.
|
| 00:21:50.740 |
A continuous probing dialogue with two people, trying to arrive at some certainty, whether
|
| 00:21:59.620 |
it be the platonic forms or eternal beauty.
|
| 00:22:03.580 |
Here he's saying, "One of Heraclitus's most famous saying is you could never step into
|
| 00:22:10.340 |
the same river twice."
|
| 00:22:11.340 |
So it's precisely this Heraclitus flocks that the "circuodic method" as well as the
|
| 00:22:18.740 |
platonic theory of the forms is resolutely against.
|
| 00:22:23.900 |
Let's look at some of those other aphorisms of Heraclitus because he's really well known
|
| 00:22:30.860 |
for being the most...
|
| 00:22:33.860 |
He's here.
|
| 00:22:34.860 |
Or "racular."
|
| 00:22:35.860 |
Yeah, he's...
|
| 00:22:36.860 |
Yep.
|
| 00:22:37.860 |
And in the Greek context, we have to go back to Delphi because many of the pronouncements
|
| 00:22:43.300 |
at Delphi have an effort to quality.
|
| 00:22:46.300 |
So what do we have here?
|
| 00:22:49.500 |
So the name of the bow, Beos, is life, Beos, but its work is death.
|
| 00:22:55.900 |
Yeah, what the hell does that mean?
|
| 00:22:59.420 |
Well, yeah, you can think about it ponder, that's exactly what Heraclitus wants to do.
|
| 00:23:03.780 |
I can understand Plato's frustration because I find aphorists sometimes to be impenetrable.
|
| 00:23:10.180 |
Not impenetrable, I think.
|
| 00:23:11.620 |
Self-referential.
|
| 00:23:13.300 |
Self-referential.
|
| 00:23:15.260 |
Grandstanding deliberately in a way that the...
|
| 00:23:17.660 |
Okay, are you smart enough to figure me out now?
|
| 00:23:20.220 |
You've worked...
|
| 00:23:21.220 |
I quoted a number of my own kind of things where paradox is, if you're going to be a really
|
| 00:23:26.660 |
good aphorist, you have to exploit the logic of paradox.
|
| 00:23:33.540 |
So the Lord whose oracle is the one in Delphi neither speaks nor hides but gives signs.
|
| 00:23:42.100 |
Now let's dwell on that one for a moment because we talked about the oracle and here
|
| 00:23:47.860 |
he's referring to the fact that neither speaks openly.
|
| 00:23:54.060 |
So, it's not apophantic nor does it hide but give signs.
|
| 00:24:00.700 |
This seems to be auto-referential in a certain way.
|
| 00:24:03.060 |
Absolutely.
|
| 00:24:04.060 |
That's exactly how his aphorism is work now.
|
| 00:24:06.860 |
Yeah, I mean Robert, I think you're right to suggest that Heraclitus' Pong Sei, as it
|
| 00:24:13.300 |
were, is in the milieu of the divinatory and oracular practices in Ancient Greece and also
|
| 00:24:20.740 |
in the ancient Mediterranean.
|
| 00:24:23.340 |
I see him as a pivotal figure that transitions from these oracular announcements that
|
| 00:24:29.340 |
are produced by gods to one of clear rational thinking done by philosophers like Plato.
|
| 00:24:38.900 |
Right, so far.
|
| 00:24:40.940 |
Right, the so far.
|
| 00:24:42.660 |
But I think at this cultural moment we can't get to systematic philosophy except through
|
| 00:24:49.940 |
first thinking in, not necessarily fragments but certainly pithy sayings and I think and
|
| 00:24:56.740 |
that is the crucial transition for me.
|
| 00:24:59.660 |
And I think Heraclitus is self-consciously obscure because he wants to go to his readers or
|
| 00:25:11.820 |
listeners into thinking.
|
| 00:25:14.060 |
He's not dogmatic.
|
| 00:25:15.620 |
It's hard to pin him down and that's precisely what I like about him.
|
| 00:25:19.340 |
He gives us this hermoononic opening, this aperture for us to begin the process of thinking
|
| 00:25:27.860 |
itself.
|
| 00:25:28.860 |
He's not dogmatic, he's not authoritarian.
|
| 00:25:30.860 |
Right.
|
| 00:25:31.860 |
No, that's definitely correct.
|
| 00:25:34.060 |
And I think his language is also obscure because he thinks the nature of the world itself
|
| 00:25:40.940 |
is obscure.
|
| 00:25:42.540 |
And so he wants his philosophy, he wants his language to mirror the ambiguity, the chaos,
|
| 00:25:50.260 |
the paradox of the world, which is why there is this kind of semantic pun right of
|
| 00:25:57.060 |
bow and life.
|
| 00:25:58.380 |
He's trying to figure out what the relationship, right of language within each other and
|
| 00:26:04.180 |
language to its referent.
|
| 00:26:07.020 |
And now when we turn to the second one, the Lord whose oracle is the one in Delphi, neither
|
| 00:26:12.500 |
speaks nor hides but gives signs.
|
| 00:26:15.660 |
Let's just look at the subject for a moment.
|
| 00:26:17.820 |
The Lord whose oracle is the one in Delphi.
|
| 00:26:20.860 |
Now this is what classical scholars called the Epi-Coric name for the God and what Epi-Coric
|
| 00:26:27.540 |
means is that this is a local regional cult rather than what classical scholars called the
|
| 00:26:35.260 |
Hanhellenic God, a universal Olympian one.
|
| 00:26:39.380 |
But even the very subject itself is a parryphrases, right?
|
| 00:26:45.340 |
He could have just said Apollo, neither speaks nor hides but give signs.
|
| 00:26:49.740 |
And so in a way he conceals the local name of Apollo.
|
| 00:26:54.100 |
Well, he's giving signs.
|
| 00:26:55.900 |
Right, exactly.
|
| 00:26:56.900 |
He's giving signs.
|
| 00:26:57.900 |
Because I mean for a thinker who's as interested in paradoxes and big uities and etymology,
|
| 00:27:03.740 |
he kind of says, "The God who was born in de-loss neither speaks nor hides but gives signs."
|
| 00:27:09.780 |
But that would be contrary to the meaning because what de-loss means is phenomenon, right?
|
| 00:27:15.180 |
To shine, to appear.
|
| 00:27:17.020 |
Right.
|
| 00:27:18.020 |
Well here is he then saying the Lord whose oracle is the one in Delphi, he's distinguishing
|
| 00:27:24.980 |
between the oracle and the God.
|
| 00:27:28.660 |
In other words, he's breaking up the identity between those two.
|
| 00:27:32.220 |
I don't think so.
|
| 00:27:33.220 |
I think the Lord is speaking through oracles.
|
| 00:27:36.020 |
We're living in the post-homeric age where gods don't speak to us one to one.
|
| 00:27:40.300 |
There has to be some sort of medium.
|
| 00:27:41.940 |
That's why there are the cult of the priests.
|
| 00:27:44.740 |
And so, yeah, I get that.
|
| 00:27:47.780 |
What I'm saying is that there seems to be this self-reflexive reference to a mediation.
|
| 00:27:53.900 |
Right.
|
| 00:27:54.900 |
The voice of the God through the oracle in Delphi.
|
| 00:27:59.100 |
Therefore, this is what he's giving signs, I could say that what you get from the
|
| 00:28:04.220 |
Delphi oracle is the signs.
|
| 00:28:05.940 |
You're not really getting the gods' direct speech.
|
| 00:28:09.260 |
That's right.
|
| 00:28:10.260 |
Yeah, I agree with that.
|
| 00:28:11.260 |
And I think that's deliberate because part of the business of oracles is interpretation.
|
| 00:28:17.580 |
You have to figure out that's the reception of the oracle.
|
| 00:28:21.180 |
Right.
|
| 00:28:22.180 |
I mean, if you invade the Persians a great empire would fall, right?
|
| 00:28:26.540 |
That's one oracle.
|
| 00:28:28.260 |
And it's up to you to interpret, well, which empire is going to fall?
|
| 00:28:31.780 |
Yours or your enemies?
|
| 00:28:33.820 |
Right.
|
| 00:28:34.820 |
And so, this sort of hermeneutics, this interpretation, I would say, is already on the way to
|
| 00:28:39.720 |
speculative thinking and by extension philosophy because the burden of meaning is dependent
|
| 00:28:47.820 |
on us and not just some divine authority.
|
| 00:28:51.020 |
So here, it's, again, this divine revelation, but Heraclitus wants us to think for ourselves.
|
| 00:28:56.620 |
He wants a human logos.
|
| 00:28:58.620 |
Right.
|
| 00:28:59.620 |
Well, yes.
|
| 00:29:02.260 |
But this idea that the Vatican sofos, Heraclitus is actually positioning himself as someone
|
| 00:29:13.700 |
through whom the god is speaking because he's speaking in the same way as the Delphi oracle.
|
| 00:29:20.020 |
And even if it's not completely explicit, it seems to be implied because the philosopher
|
| 00:29:26.060 |
or in ancient Greece was the spokes, there was a presumption that that was the highest ideal
|
| 00:29:32.100 |
of the philosopher was to be the messenger of the gods, to interpret the interpreter of
|
| 00:29:37.220 |
the gods, the one who's, through whose words you could bring forth this higher stage of wisdom.
|
| 00:29:45.500 |
And even Plato did not veer from that ambition.
|
| 00:29:49.300 |
He also, I think there's a kind of theophony expectation that there's a theophony taking
|
| 00:29:54.300 |
place within the discourse itself, the logo.
|
| 00:29:59.420 |
But in a different kind of logos.
|
| 00:30:02.220 |
I actually have a different way of looking at the development of Greek philosophy.
|
| 00:30:08.260 |
I think Heraclitus is trying to do it the other way around.
|
| 00:30:12.980 |
He wants to take interpretation from the divine Roman turn it into the philosophical
|
| 00:30:18.740 |
one because he says thinking is common to all, right? Everybody has logos but the stupid people
|
| 00:30:25.300 |
just don't recognize that and they don't do anything with it.
|
| 00:30:29.060 |
Well, he says it's a little more specific if I remember correctly because he says that
|
| 00:30:33.540 |
each person when he goes, he or she goes to sleep, goes into his own private world.
|
| 00:30:40.500 |
But that in the logos is common to all.
|
| 00:30:43.660 |
So when you wake up and you're in the public world, the logos is something that I have to
|
| 00:30:49.620 |
go through the logos in order to speak to you because I cannot speak to you in my idiosyncratic
|
| 00:30:54.860 |
dream language.
|
| 00:30:55.860 |
Just what Wittgenstein says is that there is no session as a private language.
|
| 00:30:59.220 |
So that's where I sympathize with the character and the Theatitas who says, okay, now we're
|
| 00:31:04.700 |
in the sphere of the logos.
|
| 00:31:06.300 |
You have to tell me what you mean and don't hide your meaning or don't pretend that
|
| 00:31:13.180 |
you have a higher wisdom that I can't understand because we're committed to yours of the
|
| 00:31:18.620 |
logos.
|
| 00:31:19.620 |
It's like when I was a graduate student in Cornell, when everyone in my department was trying
|
| 00:31:25.060 |
their hardest to be a very dramatic deconstructionist that the whole point was to say something
|
| 00:31:32.740 |
without ever being clear about what's being said because if you were ever God forbid
|
| 00:31:38.540 |
communicated clearly, then it would be a profanation of the higher.
|
| 00:31:44.140 |
Yeah, no, I mean, point taken and look, Robert, the classical tradition is with you
|
| 00:31:50.540 |
in that they agree that Heraclitus is obscure.
|
| 00:31:54.060 |
And Greek philosophy does not culminate with Heraclitus.
|
| 00:31:59.540 |
And my whole point is that yes, it anticipates philosophical thinking, but it is not
|
| 00:32:04.720 |
philosophy as you and I conceive it to be.
|
| 00:32:09.280 |
We can also talk about Plato and Socrates and their relationship to the gods.
|
| 00:32:15.000 |
And that's very, very complicated, but I will just say that very interestingly in the
|
| 00:32:19.760 |
apology, what gets Socratic philosophy started?
|
| 00:32:24.520 |
What's the catalyst is him trying to decipher the oracle in Delphi which says, no man
|
| 00:32:30.040 |
is wiser than Socrates.
|
| 00:32:32.960 |
But that's in a way, I mean, this is a long word, but there's no better word for it, but
|
| 00:32:38.160 |
it's a secular reading of this Vatican voice.
|
| 00:32:42.440 |
And so he does his own dialectic, which is based on what is common to everybody, human
|
| 00:32:49.560 |
logo rather than divine prayers or incantations.
|
| 00:32:55.400 |
Yeah, no, I get it.
|
| 00:32:57.000 |
And I'm glad we're clarifying it because I know where basically my tendencies lie towards
|
| 00:33:03.800 |
that logos in the full day.
|
| 00:33:06.000 |
But that said, I mean, Heraclitus and the other, the other
|
| 00:33:09.660 |
softness like, you know, an axamander, the protagonist, Pythagoras, they were really
|
| 00:33:17.640 |
constitutive to philosophical thinking because all of Aristotle's treatises, whether
|
| 00:33:23.800 |
it be the physics or the metaphysics begins with, oh, these are what other people have
|
| 00:33:28.640 |
said, let's try to test it out, let's try to test them out.
|
| 00:33:32.280 |
And then so they're seen as the foundation, which, okay, you might disagree with you that
|
| 00:33:36.240 |
want to topple, but still, you need to.
|
| 00:33:37.640 |
No, no, I don't want to topple or disagree.
|
| 00:33:39.040 |
I just want to say that and I do want to give credit to your credit is to, I mean,
|
| 00:33:44.000 |
axamanders fragments that, but you've written about beautifully.
|
| 00:33:47.840 |
Yeah, from when things have their origin there, they must pass away according to the order
|
| 00:33:51.960 |
of necessity and pay penalty for having come into beautiful stuff.
|
| 00:33:55.680 |
But the, and also Heraclitus and the other, and the self, the unexamined life is not worth
|
| 00:34:01.400 |
living, these kinds of, yeah.
|
| 00:34:04.200 |
And also, you have these really Vatican pronouncements from the orchos and divination, but
|
| 00:34:12.080 |
inscribed on the walls outside are things that are very clear, you know, to what every
|
| 00:34:17.320 |
student of philosophy, you know, is, know thyself, know yourself, and now they sell
|
| 00:34:22.800 |
time, right?
|
| 00:34:24.040 |
And following that is nothing in excess.
|
| 00:34:27.520 |
Now, know thyself that already is an invitation to discovering what, what the self is, right?
|
| 00:34:34.120 |
Whether there's a continuity of the self, right, what the principle of individualization
|
| 00:34:39.880 |
is, and what the promise of self knowledge and its own good, does that liberate us from
|
| 00:34:47.240 |
the dogmas or the bondage of authority or the past?
|
| 00:34:51.080 |
So let me ask a question that will get us now back to the Gospels.
|
| 00:34:55.800 |
Okay, great.
|
| 00:34:56.800 |
But within the domain of Greek, the wisdom tradition, if I think of the corpus of Plato,
|
| 00:35:06.320 |
I don't have any aphorisms that jump out as being the repositories of whatever Plato's
|
| 00:35:15.720 |
wisdom amounted to.
|
| 00:35:16.720 |
I mean, you have a few things like the unexamine life, it's not worth living.
|
| 00:35:21.720 |
What is most, let's say, present in the legacy are the myths, his stories, not even
|
| 00:35:32.200 |
his reasoning and rasiosenation and his philosophical arguments that are conducted in the
|
| 00:35:36.840 |
dialogues.
|
| 00:35:37.840 |
It's the allegory of the cave.
|
| 00:35:40.040 |
It's the myth of the winged chariots in the feedress.
|
| 00:35:43.760 |
Or the soul with its own wings or the myth of Ur and the end of the public.
|
| 00:35:53.760 |
Or the music making Socrates, right, at the end of the apology.
|
| 00:35:59.120 |
So had Plato not been an ingenious myth maker and used the power of myth to make a myth
|
| 00:36:04.800 |
of philosophy, I don't think he would have been such a great philosopher.
|
| 00:36:08.480 |
Yeah, I agree with the end of the story.
|
| 00:36:10.080 |
And very nine ago has been beautiful.
|
| 00:36:15.320 |
Right, exactly.
|
| 00:36:16.320 |
And we've had a show on every note where we talk about that.
|
| 00:36:17.480 |
And so now when we go to the Gospels, it's true that many of the sayings of Jesus, the aphorisms
|
| 00:36:24.520 |
are very present as something that we associate with Jesus.
|
| 00:36:30.400 |
Render under Caesar is what is Caesar's unto God, what is God, or the kingdom of God
|
| 00:36:36.720 |
is within you.
|
| 00:36:37.720 |
Yet at the same time, what seems to have had the most purchase in the everyday practice
|
| 00:36:46.440 |
and appropriation of the Gospels are the narratives, the stories.
|
| 00:36:53.120 |
It can be the parables, well, the parables, the miracles as well as the the Nativity stories,
|
| 00:37:02.240 |
the passion cycle, the passion cycle, the resurrection.
|
| 00:37:06.040 |
It's true that you get a beautiful aphorism from the angel when the Marys go after and
|
| 00:37:12.720 |
find that an Easter morning and the tomb is empty.
|
| 00:37:16.600 |
And the angel says, why do you seek the living among the dead?
|
| 00:37:22.280 |
That's beautiful aphorism.
|
| 00:37:25.080 |
It is aphoristic or he'd known as he is not here.
|
| 00:37:28.040 |
So yet at the same time, it's the stories that seem to have more power when it comes to
|
| 00:37:33.960 |
the popular imagination rather than the dicta.
|
| 00:37:38.480 |
Sure, but I see a kinship between parables and aphorisms because both demand interpretation.
|
| 00:37:51.040 |
That's the burden placed on the believer and in a way as the journey of faith.
|
| 00:37:56.640 |
Right?
|
| 00:37:57.640 |
In a way, Jesus asked all of us to be literary critics, literary critics of his own stories.
|
| 00:38:03.600 |
And the disciples themselves are really baffled why he speaks in parables, right?
|
| 00:38:08.640 |
He says, well, there are those who will not understand.
|
| 00:38:16.040 |
And he says even I speak in parables so that those who are not supposed to understand
|
| 00:38:24.480 |
will not understand.
|
| 00:38:25.480 |
Exactly.
|
| 00:38:26.480 |
And so, like, actively, excellently.
|
| 00:38:27.480 |
Yeah, so that people who think they're clever, right?
|
| 00:38:31.040 |
Like the Pharisees and so forth.
|
| 00:38:32.680 |
So I don't want them to twist my words.
|
| 00:38:37.440 |
Which is why I think sometimes there are these cultic practices or these closed groups
|
| 00:38:45.320 |
when it comes to religious interpretation because there are some people who say, oh, I really
|
| 00:38:50.560 |
get the secret teachings.
|
| 00:38:52.600 |
Right?
|
| 00:38:53.600 |
Yes.
|
| 00:38:54.600 |
I mean, in the Gospels as we have them in the New Testament canon, they're nicely woven
|
| 00:39:03.400 |
narrative, the chronology of Christ, the genealogy of Christ that begins Matthew, the
|
| 00:39:10.000 |
Christmas story that begins Luke and this philosophical inquiry that begins John in the beginning
|
| 00:39:20.000 |
was the word in the word, was it the word, and the word was made flesh.
|
| 00:39:24.160 |
But interestingly, all of this came after all the desperate other Gospels of Jesus, right?
|
| 00:39:33.160 |
One that I talk about is the Gospel of Thomas.
|
| 00:39:35.360 |
Yeah, tell me you really have a thing with the Gospel of Thomas which is fascinating.
|
| 00:39:39.600 |
Yeah, and a lot of people need to be instructed.
|
| 00:39:42.280 |
I love the Gospel of Thomas.
|
| 00:39:43.760 |
And I mean, in short, it's part of this corpus of writings called the Naghamadi.
|
| 00:39:49.680 |
And it's named of the Naghamadi because it's this small town in Upper Egypt.
|
| 00:39:55.280 |
And the Naghamadi scriptures were unearthed by a couple of shepherd boys in the desert
|
| 00:40:04.120 |
in 1947.
|
| 00:40:05.760 |
And that really changed the course of biblical scholarship because in this excavation, we
|
| 00:40:11.800 |
have uncontaminated by tradition, some of the earliest writings of the Christians or people
|
| 00:40:19.440 |
like they call them the Jesus movement because this is before the institution of Christianity
|
| 00:40:23.840 |
as a doctrine.
|
| 00:40:25.480 |
Now, in this body of work, they're all like these really enigmatic sayings of Jesus, right?
|
| 00:40:32.400 |
And my hypothesis of why they were suppressed and put and buried literally in the ground
|
| 00:40:39.520 |
for thousands of years is precisely the were too enigmatic.
|
| 00:40:43.720 |
They're too mysterious.
|
| 00:40:45.480 |
If anybody gets their hand on them, that creates too much liability.
|
| 00:40:49.200 |
Can you give some example?
|
| 00:40:50.200 |
Sure.
|
| 00:40:52.240 |
This is how the Gospel begins.
|
| 00:40:54.560 |
And it goes like these are the hidden sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Judas Thomas
|
| 00:41:02.840 |
took twin recorded, whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death.
|
| 00:41:12.120 |
That's some pretty damn powerful lines here, right?
|
| 00:41:16.640 |
So what's interesting is that these are the hidden sayings.
|
| 00:41:20.200 |
And this sense of hiddenness is pervasive in so many of other, let me just read you a couple
|
| 00:41:27.240 |
because it all has to do with this sense of hiddenness.
|
| 00:41:30.560 |
All things are disclosed before heaven.
|
| 00:41:33.920 |
For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed and there is nothing covered that
|
| 00:41:38.560 |
will remain undisclosed.
|
| 00:41:42.000 |
There will be days when you will find and seek me and you will not find me.
|
| 00:41:47.240 |
But then there is another one which says, one who seeks will find, for the one who knocks,
|
| 00:41:53.320 |
it will be opened and seek and you shall find, right?
|
| 00:41:56.680 |
We see that in the canonical Gospels.
|
| 00:41:58.640 |
And in fact, that's the simplest and most beautiful invitation of Jesus to believe.
|
| 00:42:05.880 |
And this one that I'm going to share gets us back to the incubate, the beginning of the
|
| 00:42:11.520 |
Gospel, whoever drinks for my mouth will become one like me.
|
| 00:42:17.840 |
I myself shall become that person and the hidden things will be revealed to that person.
|
| 00:42:25.480 |
So as a literary critic, I take this as literary criticism is a vehicle to salvation,
|
| 00:42:31.960 |
whoever discovers the interpretation and the Greek here is Hermannaya,
|
| 00:42:38.200 |
right?
|
| 00:42:39.320 |
Hermannutics of these things will not taste death.
|
| 00:42:44.880 |
Interpretation is life-giving.
|
| 00:42:47.640 |
Yeah, but whoever drinks for my mouth, do you take that to mean interpretation?
|
| 00:42:54.040 |
I take it as an image of whoever will receive my word, whatever is coming out of my mouth,
|
| 00:42:59.720 |
to have to be the words that are, the words, whoever drinks from whoever imbibes my words.
|
| 00:43:06.360 |
Whoever imbibes my words and is imbibing the words of Christ the same thing as interpreting
|
| 00:43:12.600 |
them as a plastic tradition.
|
| 00:43:14.840 |
And we would all be saved in 2,000 years of commentary on the Bible.
|
| 00:43:20.560 |
OK, well, it's imbibing, but it's also digesting.
|
| 00:43:25.720 |
And it's an rumination, as you know, or from the Cal stomach, right?
|
| 00:43:30.360 |
And it takes a long time to kind of ruminate.
|
| 00:43:33.200 |
OK, you just listen, but then it can't be in one ear out the other, right?
|
| 00:43:38.600 |
It needs this temporal, it has done with lentil, as Nietzsche says, of the art of reading, right?
|
| 00:43:47.880 |
Just like you listen to a parable, you're not going to get it the first time, you have to think about it.
|
| 00:43:53.400 |
And it's this process of thinking that is the somatic metaphor for digestion.
|
| 00:44:01.600 |
Yeah.
|
| 00:44:03.520 |
Well, I would be a little--
|
| 00:44:05.800 |
Because like, seek and you shall find, like, you have to do seeking.
|
| 00:44:08.240 |
It's a process, right?
|
| 00:44:11.240 |
It's not just instantaneous like eating and drinking.
|
| 00:44:16.280 |
And again, I mean, what fascinates me about this is that, hey, there are some things
|
| 00:44:20.520 |
that are hidden to you, which is OK, but other things that are revealed to you, and it's your job to find out what the transparency of that is.
|
| 00:44:29.520 |
Right.
|
| 00:44:30.520 |
Well, it's interesting dynamic between what's hidden and what is actually--
|
| 00:44:35.520 |
Exactly.
|
| 00:44:36.520 |
And so, in front, you're right.
|
| 00:44:37.520 |
This is also then--
|
| 00:44:38.920 |
I mean, this is very Hellenic, you know, from what we saw in Heraclitus.
|
| 00:44:43.520 |
Yeah.
|
| 00:44:44.520 |
It's both Hellenic and Hebraic, because there are many moments in the Old Testament where it says,
|
| 00:44:49.520 |
the children of Israel, they have sinned themselves so much that I'm God, and he says, I'm going to hide my face from you.
|
| 00:44:55.520 |
Right.
|
| 00:44:56.520 |
Right.
|
| 00:44:57.520 |
Well, I tell you what, why don't we take a jump historically, because we don't want to run at times before we say at least a word about Nietzsche.
|
| 00:45:06.520 |
But how about Pascal, because he's a big one.
|
| 00:45:09.520 |
And the Paul Sei is a Paul Sei, the same thing as an aphorism.
|
| 00:45:12.520 |
I tend to agree that when it's really condensed, a Paul Sei, a thought of Pascal is aphoristic.
|
| 00:45:18.520 |
Some of his most famous Paul Seis, however, were kind of long short essays, very extended things.
|
| 00:45:26.520 |
Right.
|
| 00:45:27.520 |
Right.
|
| 00:45:28.520 |
It's very extended, like his wager or the disproportionate of man.
|
| 00:45:30.520 |
Yeah, the true infinities and tomoshinities.
|
| 00:45:32.520 |
Yeah, the true infinities and tomoshinities.
|
| 00:45:33.520 |
So, but what are some of the quintessential, paradigmatic aphorisms of Pascal?
|
| 00:45:39.520 |
Sure.
|
| 00:45:40.520 |
I mean, just one, many people would probably know.
|
| 00:45:43.520 |
The heart has its reasons of which reason does not know.
|
| 00:45:46.520 |
So that can be seen as like a hallmark Valentine card.
|
| 00:45:50.520 |
Right.
|
| 00:45:51.520 |
But that's it.
|
| 00:45:52.520 |
I think this is something very interesting.
|
| 00:45:54.520 |
And there's a lot we can say about this.
|
| 00:45:56.520 |
Here is a very famous one.
|
| 00:45:58.520 |
I think this one you've talked about in your show.
|
| 00:46:00.520 |
Right.
|
| 00:46:01.520 |
The eternal silence of these infinite spaces terrifies me.
|
| 00:46:04.520 |
My spoken French is not that good.
|
| 00:46:06.520 |
So you can read the French.
|
| 00:46:07.520 |
Like...
|
| 00:46:08.520 |
Yeah, Lucilos et ternél, there says a spas en fini méfre.
|
| 00:46:12.520 |
Yeah.
|
| 00:46:13.520 |
Which is terrifies me.
|
| 00:46:14.520 |
It frightens me.
|
| 00:46:15.520 |
Yeah.
|
| 00:46:16.520 |
And then there are some that are more...
|
| 00:46:18.520 |
Okay.
|
| 00:46:19.520 |
Okay.
|
| 00:46:20.520 |
You want to talk about this?
|
| 00:46:21.520 |
Yeah.
|
| 00:46:22.520 |
Yeah.
|
| 00:46:23.520 |
I want you to talk about that.
|
| 00:46:24.520 |
Okay.
|
| 00:46:25.520 |
Before I talk about this, let's think about, again, the word Ponguei, because Pascal did
|
| 00:46:28.520 |
not self-tidal.
|
| 00:46:29.520 |
Exactly.
|
| 00:46:30.520 |
His work.
|
| 00:46:31.520 |
I mean, these were actually fragments that he was writing really at the time of his death.
|
| 00:46:38.920 |
And they were in a way, kind of like Patrick, they're kind of discontinued pieces that he
|
| 00:46:43.400 |
wanted to form into the single body, which is what he calls the Apologia for Christianity.
|
| 00:46:48.400 |
Right?
|
| 00:46:49.400 |
His apology for Christianity.
|
| 00:46:51.200 |
And...
|
| 00:46:52.200 |
But he died at a very young age, 37, I think.
|
| 00:46:56.120 |
And what we have of the Pongueis are recreations by later editors.
|
| 00:47:02.280 |
Right?
|
| 00:47:03.280 |
And every century invents their own version of Pascal.
|
| 00:47:08.160 |
There is the Epikurian Pascal.
|
| 00:47:09.960 |
There is the Poy-Hael Pascal.
|
| 00:47:12.600 |
There is the Cartesian Pascal.
|
| 00:47:14.400 |
There is the Enlightenment Pascal.
|
| 00:47:16.440 |
There is the Scientific Pascal.
|
| 00:47:18.240 |
And then there's the Postmodern Pascal.
|
| 00:47:20.720 |
Right?
|
| 00:47:21.720 |
So part of what's underlying my theory of the aphorism is that a philology of the aphorism
|
| 00:47:25.760 |
is as crucial to the philosophy of aphorism.
|
| 00:47:30.600 |
Okay.
|
| 00:47:32.160 |
That said, let's go back to this.
|
| 00:47:34.160 |
The eternal silence of these infinite spaces terrifies me.
|
| 00:47:38.320 |
There's a lot you can say with this.
|
| 00:47:40.600 |
First, of course, the question is, why is this an aphorism?
|
| 00:47:45.000 |
Or is it an aphorism?
|
| 00:47:46.480 |
Because I think there's a case one could make that it's not aphoristic.
|
| 00:47:49.680 |
I would like to hear that.
|
| 00:47:51.240 |
Well, I would say that to begin with it has a first person singular.
|
| 00:47:56.080 |
Therefore it's confessional.
|
| 00:47:58.200 |
And I take the aphorism to typically, at least classically, exclude that sort of first person
|
| 00:48:06.560 |
If you're not too creative in order to achieve that sort of universal autonomy and
|
| 00:48:12.160 |
trans-cultural trans-historical validity across barriers, whereas here you could say that
|
| 00:48:18.120 |
this is a confessional statement about a subjective state of mind.
|
| 00:48:22.960 |
Or maybe this me is collective.
|
| 00:48:25.040 |
You can interpret it like that.
|
| 00:48:26.840 |
Yeah, you could push it.
|
| 00:48:28.600 |
But okay, assuming it is an aphorism, what did it make you think of?
|
| 00:48:35.000 |
What makes me think of it?
|
| 00:48:36.000 |
God is provoked in your mind when you read that.
|
| 00:48:39.360 |
Well, Pascal, early in his career was a mathematical genius and he made signal contributions
|
| 00:48:45.760 |
to calculus and geometry.
|
| 00:48:49.680 |
Later on in his conversion to the movement of, that's called, Jansenism, he turned his
|
| 00:48:55.640 |
thoughts entirely to God.
|
| 00:48:58.280 |
And for Pascal, there are two types of God.
|
| 00:49:02.940 |
There's the God of the philosophers.
|
| 00:49:05.160 |
And then there's the God of Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac.
|
| 00:49:09.080 |
Now, the way I interpret, the sis-es-mas-a-fini is the eternal silence.
|
| 00:49:17.200 |
That's the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, right?
|
| 00:49:22.720 |
Because it's silence, right?
|
| 00:49:29.320 |
The very silence of God, the hidden God, is deafening and we're all searching, right?
|
| 00:49:30.480 |
It's the voice and the wilderness, right?
|
| 00:49:32.800 |
We're always searching, but God doesn't speak.
|
| 00:49:35.640 |
And so this is the tragic condition of the post-lapseering man or the questing Christian,
|
| 00:49:43.920 |
right?
|
| 00:49:44.920 |
We pray and we seek God, but yet he is silent.
|
| 00:49:48.720 |
And then, as Pascal, if any, I take that as to be more the Cartesian God.
|
| 00:49:55.640 |
Because this is a post-capernicus, post-capular sense of the early modern period in which
|
| 00:50:02.200 |
you no longer have this beautifully closed, tallamake cosmos, but this infinite expanding
|
| 00:50:09.040 |
world.
|
| 00:50:10.040 |
And this creates this existential free zone, this terror in us, right?
|
| 00:50:16.480 |
And so where is man caught between infinity and nothingness?
|
| 00:50:22.640 |
And even, let's look at the poetics of this one sentence.
|
| 00:50:26.760 |
Look how long the subject is, right?
|
| 00:50:30.440 |
And in fact, it kind of follows the rules of French porosity in the Alexandrean, right?
|
| 00:50:37.160 |
Laus-Cilons et d'Arnèle, right?
|
| 00:50:39.960 |
Ses-es-mas-a-fain-i, right?
|
| 00:50:42.160 |
He's perfect heme-stish, divided by the C-zero of the der.
|
| 00:50:47.280 |
But then, mythway, the 'm', right?
|
| 00:50:51.640 |
The 'me', even that word is elided, you know?
|
| 00:50:57.840 |
And so you have this puny one letter that stands for the individual and this huge, enormous
|
| 00:51:03.400 |
enormity of the infinite cosmos.
|
| 00:51:06.920 |
Yeah, well, I think the poetics of this is this ingenious.
|
| 00:51:10.160 |
Well, I think it's ingenious up until the last word, because for some reason I find that
|
| 00:51:15.840 |
it falls flat, proesotically, by the fact that mythre only has two syllables.
|
| 00:51:23.760 |
And Laus-Cilons et d'Arnèle, this is a spas-sefain-i, is a perfect symmetrical, since we're
|
| 00:51:29.880 |
a separating the two.
|
| 00:51:32.000 |
But then you would say, imagine if it were Laus-Cilons et d'Arnèle, this is a spas-sefain-i,
|
| 00:51:36.840 |
the tédé-fé, or something that you would have more syllables.
|
| 00:51:42.720 |
I think the scanning would be different.
|
| 00:51:45.720 |
But I think that precisely because it's cadence is, there's this equilibrium, right?
|
| 00:51:51.360 |
And so, I mean, the subject is that we are terrified and this causes this kind of dread
|
| 00:51:58.240 |
in us and, proesotically, the line mimics that.
|
| 00:52:02.520 |
Okay, that could be the case.
|
| 00:52:05.120 |
So, let me go back to your interpretation of this Cilons et d'Arnèle, because you
|
| 00:52:13.480 |
associate it with the Abrahamic God of a God who is silent and yet the subject of this
|
| 00:52:21.640 |
sentence is not the infinite spaces.
|
| 00:52:25.160 |
Although you're right, it's the infinite, it's the infinity of a post-Gapernican world,
|
| 00:52:29.880 |
which has all of a sudden become relative.
|
| 00:52:32.880 |
Right.
|
| 00:52:33.880 |
There is nothing but relativity.
|
| 00:52:35.520 |
Exactly.
|
| 00:52:36.520 |
Because we've lost the containment and the sub-roomedries.
|
| 00:52:39.400 |
Floating in space, we can't find our way.
|
| 00:52:41.400 |
We can't find our way.
|
| 00:52:42.400 |
And that infinity of space means that there's an infinity of the large, the infinity
|
| 00:52:47.560 |
of the small, the atom.
|
| 00:52:49.400 |
We have lost our orientation and basically we've lost our bearings and that could be
|
| 00:52:54.560 |
very terrifying.
|
| 00:52:55.560 |
However, that's not the subject of the sentence.
|
| 00:52:57.600 |
That is the subject of the sentence.
|
| 00:52:58.920 |
No, the subject of the sentence is the eternal silence.
|
| 00:53:01.920 |
Oh, okay.
|
| 00:53:02.920 |
I had big difference, huh?
|
| 00:53:04.400 |
Because what does the eternal silence mean?
|
| 00:53:06.280 |
It's not the silence of God.
|
| 00:53:10.480 |
It's that the pre-Gapernican cosmos was full of music because the spheres embedded one into
|
| 00:53:22.600 |
the other end.
|
| 00:53:24.200 |
The music of the spheres were so harmonized by the creator who had created a self-contained
|
| 00:53:32.560 |
universe and when Dante goes into those heavenly spheres, he's always hearing the sound of this
|
| 00:53:39.520 |
harmony.
|
| 00:53:40.520 |
Now, because of the infinite unbounded nature of space, the universe itself has gone silent
|
| 00:53:49.440 |
and it's that silence that terrifies him, not the infinity of space.
|
| 00:53:55.160 |
And we know that interstellar space has a silence of a vacuum that is nothing on Earth
|
| 00:54:02.320 |
could come anywhere near of having the kind of total abyssal silence of interstellar space.
|
| 00:54:10.200 |
So that makes this on the one hand a comment on the post-Gapernican state of mind of a subject
|
| 00:54:19.880 |
who now has to find a way to belong or to fit into this new cosmos and can't find it
|
| 00:54:27.640 |
because there is no response out there.
|
| 00:54:31.360 |
There's no sound coming back and therefore there's a certain kind of terror on the body.
|
| 00:54:37.680 |
I think that reading is ingenious and I'm very grateful for you for sharing that with me.
|
| 00:54:43.040 |
So yeah, I kind of buy it now.
|
| 00:54:45.880 |
But that said, the music of the spheres for mortal bodies, it's inaudible.
|
| 00:54:53.880 |
Dante hears it because he's been purged in Pudgatoru, but whereas we, you know, what
|
| 00:55:01.280 |
Shakespeare and Marcia Venice that are still in the muddy vesture of our decay.
|
| 00:55:06.880 |
But that's why the word et t'etne is so crucial because he's not talking about the silence
|
| 00:55:11.440 |
of the provisional silence of us in our bodies here on Earth.
|
| 00:55:15.680 |
He's talking about an eternal silence that even if there is a salvation or thing
|
| 00:55:20.240 |
that the universe will remain silent forever.
|
| 00:55:22.240 |
So do you read Pascal then as this utter pessimist?
|
| 00:55:25.240 |
How do we get, how do we hear the voice of God?
|
| 00:55:28.080 |
Well, I see the subjective confessional content of this aphorism as coming from a self that
|
| 00:55:38.800 |
does not know how to fit itself into the new cosmos and doesn't know its place of belonging
|
| 00:55:44.960 |
and is bewildered.
|
| 00:55:46.840 |
And this is the kind of post-coperanican dread of a universe that's gone completely cold.
|
| 00:55:53.400 |
And I think in the post-coperanican world the only way we can express the physics of infinity
|
| 00:56:00.120 |
is through the politics of the fragment because writing in unity does not make sense anymore.
|
| 00:56:05.880 |
So the only way to express this vastness, right, this pure nothingness is through fragments.
|
| 00:56:15.000 |
Well, yeah, and your book is, as a whole meditation on the relation between the aphorism
|
| 00:56:21.680 |
and the fragment.
|
| 00:56:22.680 |
That's right.
|
| 00:56:23.680 |
Yeah, both fragments that are found like the ancients and the fragments that are created
|
| 00:56:30.240 |
like with Pascal, you know, case in point here, as well as Nietzsche, right?
|
| 00:56:35.560 |
So I love this aphorism about aphorism by Friedrich Schlegel.
|
| 00:56:41.880 |
Many of the works of the ancients have become fragments.
|
| 00:56:44.960 |
Many works are fragments as soon as they're written.
|
| 00:56:48.560 |
Actually we can understand this as, you know, in German romanticism, the philology of
|
| 00:56:53.420 |
classical fragments went hand in hand with the creative production of fragments.
|
| 00:57:00.320 |
Yeah.
|
| 00:57:01.320 |
Well, that's great.
|
| 00:57:02.720 |
I have to say that, you know, your book interests me a great deal and I'll read it in
|
| 00:57:08.840 |
its entirety when it comes out with, you know, with great interests.
|
| 00:57:12.000 |
I think it's clear over the last hour of our conversation that might sense abilities
|
| 00:57:17.200 |
in decline in another direction, then the aphoristic in the sense that I haven't been doing
|
| 00:57:24.560 |
a radio show for 12 years like this for nothing.
|
| 00:57:27.360 |
I believe in discourse.
|
| 00:57:28.840 |
Yeah, yeah.
|
| 00:57:29.840 |
Yeah, yeah.
|
| 00:57:30.840 |
And in the fact that you let your thoughts air themselves out in ways.
|
| 00:57:36.760 |
I also do like systems believe or not.
|
| 00:57:40.080 |
Even though I understand the philosophical systems no longer correspond to certain, there's
|
| 00:57:45.080 |
out of scaleness, the universe and so forth.
|
| 00:57:47.880 |
You have a quote of Italo Calvino.
|
| 00:57:50.320 |
I've always had sensibility problems with Calvino.
|
| 00:57:53.520 |
Oh, I love Calvinos.
|
| 00:57:54.520 |
Yeah, but my sensibility is going a different direction of his.
|
| 00:57:58.480 |
So this aphorism of his where he says, "I dream of immense cosmology, sagas and epics
|
| 00:58:05.880 |
all reduced to the dimension of an epigram."
|
| 00:58:10.160 |
How depressing that would be if you could reduce.
|
| 00:58:13.800 |
I mean, give me immense cosmologies.
|
| 00:58:16.360 |
Give me sagas and give me epics.
|
| 00:58:18.280 |
Yeah, yeah.
|
| 00:58:19.280 |
Don't reduce them to an epigram because then you are, you are impoverishing.
|
| 00:58:24.600 |
That's interesting.
|
| 00:58:25.600 |
The only thing that's, that's, so you think this is too reductivist.
|
| 00:58:28.760 |
I think it's a question of sensibility.
|
| 00:58:30.280 |
Oh, yeah.
|
| 00:58:31.280 |
It might be sensibly, but I think I'm attracted by, I think there's something inhibited
|
| 00:58:35.760 |
of the aphorism.
|
| 00:58:36.760 |
Right.
|
| 00:58:37.760 |
I mean, and I prefer the uninhibited.
|
| 00:58:41.000 |
I think there's something very open about the aphorism and something very flexible and
|
| 00:58:45.680 |
something very playful.
|
| 00:58:47.400 |
And I mean, the first question that you asked me when I told you about this project is Andrew,
|
| 00:58:52.760 |
do you like aphorisms?
|
| 00:58:53.960 |
And in a way I do.
|
| 00:58:55.800 |
And I take it what's underlying kind of this suspicion you have is if you are reading
|
| 00:59:00.800 |
many aphorisms, it's kind of frustrating and you know, it becomes like too much, right?
|
| 00:59:06.840 |
But for me, the spaces between each aphorism, the blank space on the page is like what
|
| 00:59:14.080 |
Debussy says about music.
|
| 00:59:17.480 |
Music is the silence between the notes.
|
| 00:59:20.720 |
And it's precisely these unpunctuated and disconnected aphorisms and their relationship
|
| 00:59:27.360 |
to each other that creates the authorial silence in which then the reader can come in with
|
| 00:59:34.440 |
his own interpretation and the co-production of meaning.
|
| 00:59:37.920 |
Right.
|
| 00:59:38.920 |
That's true.
|
| 00:59:39.920 |
You could take the Debussy quote a little differently, however, by saying that silence is the
|
| 00:59:46.960 |
precondition of music and of melody.
|
| 00:59:51.280 |
And you know, if you see that movie, Tulem Matandi Mullins, I've read the novel Pascal
|
| 00:59:58.720 |
Renan, which is beautiful.
|
| 01:00:00.760 |
I mean, gorgeous.
|
| 01:00:02.000 |
And there, at least in the movie version I haven't read the novel, there's Departio
|
| 01:00:05.960 |
is playing the role of my decision, right?
|
| 01:00:09.760 |
But I'm Matay, and he's recalling his whole.
|
| 01:00:13.160 |
And it begins with him saying, this is a beautiful aphorism.
|
| 01:00:16.800 |
Shakk nott dwafinir amu hong.
|
| 01:00:20.480 |
Every note has to finish by dying because in its dying, it goes back into the silence.
|
| 01:00:27.800 |
But if there's not that silence, then the next note will not be in relation to that one.
|
| 01:00:33.440 |
And then one after that.
|
| 01:00:34.920 |
And therefore, melody requires these intervals.
|
| 01:00:39.520 |
But if there's complete autonomy of each note, then you would never get a melody or
|
| 01:00:48.080 |
let alone a symphony and so forth.
|
| 01:00:50.080 |
It's been a while since I've read the novel, but if I remember, the musician is, he's
|
| 01:00:54.160 |
very melancholic, and he's very elegiaic.
|
| 01:00:57.680 |
You might take that as the tragedy of music, but every note dies, but then the melody is
|
| 01:01:05.000 |
picked up again.
|
| 01:01:06.000 |
So there's a rebirth, there's a recreation, just like for Augustine, after you chant
|
| 01:01:11.960 |
a psalm, there's this cadence.
|
| 01:01:13.960 |
But then there is also Christ resurrect ourselves.
|
| 01:01:17.520 |
So there is this kind of dialectic between memory that's always going backwards and hope
|
| 01:01:22.800 |
that's forever projecting itself to the future.
|
| 01:01:27.160 |
Right.
|
| 01:01:28.160 |
Well, I wish we had more time to talk about all the other authors and of authorisms
|
| 01:01:33.160 |
and other, you know, Hippocrates, for example, I was really fascinated to read the way some
|
| 01:01:39.760 |
of these medical things are actually aphoristic and nature and so forth.
|
| 01:01:43.000 |
Yeah, I mean, the very name of aphorisms first appears in the corpus of Hippocrates.
|
| 01:01:49.360 |
Right.
|
| 01:01:50.360 |
So that's interesting.
|
| 01:01:51.360 |
And I don't know if I mentioned the title of your book, yeah, I did mention the title.
|
| 01:01:55.880 |
No, a theory of the aphorism from Confucius to Twitter.
|
| 01:01:59.600 |
Twitter.
|
| 01:02:00.600 |
Next time we can talk about Twitter.
|
| 01:02:01.440 |
We can talk about Twitter next time.
|
| 01:02:03.560 |
And I guess I'll leave our listeners with one of the most remarkable aphorisms in my
|
| 01:02:08.880 |
view and it's Kafka, who could be a more known person.
|
| 01:02:11.720 |
Oh, of course.
|
| 01:02:12.720 |
Yeah, I think I know what you're going to read.
|
| 01:02:14.360 |
A cage went in search of a bird.
|
| 01:02:16.800 |
Yeah.
|
| 01:02:17.800 |
Now that you can think about, a long time and never get to the bottom of it.
|
| 01:02:21.160 |
Yeah.
|
| 01:02:22.160 |
A cage went in search of a bird.
|
| 01:02:23.720 |
So thanks Andrew Huey.
|
| 01:02:24.720 |
We've been speaking with you.
|
| 01:02:25.720 |
Thank you so much Robert.
|
| 01:02:26.720 |
Professor Andrew Huey from Yale and S.
|
| 01:02:28.920 |
Thank you, thank you.
|
| 01:02:29.920 |
NUS and Singapore.
|
| 01:02:30.920 |
Yes, Singapore and then back tonight.
|
| 01:02:32.320 |
And next, I am fellow here at Stanford.
|
| 01:02:34.320 |
So you take care and we'll see you next time.
|
| 01:02:37.160 |
Thank you.
|
| 01:02:38.160 |
Bye, bye.
|
| 01:02:39.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:02:41.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:02:43.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:02:45.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:02:47.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:02:49.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:02:51.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:02:53.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:02:55.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:02:57.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:02:59.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:03:01.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:03:03.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:03:05.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:03:07.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:03:09.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:03:11.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:03:13.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:03:15.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:03:17.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:03:19.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:03:21.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:03:23.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:03:25.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:03:27.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:03:29.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:03:31.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:03:33.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:03:35.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:03:37.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:03:39.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:03:41.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:03:43.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:03:45.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:03:47.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:03:49.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:03:51.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:03:53.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:03:55.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:03:57.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:03:59.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:04:01.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:04:03.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:04:05.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:04:07.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:04:09.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:04:11.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:04:13.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:04:15.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:04:17.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:04:19.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:04:21.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:04:23.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:04:25.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:04:27.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:04:29.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:04:31.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:04:33.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:04:35.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:04:37.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:04:39.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:04:41.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:04:43.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:04:45.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:04:47.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:04:49.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:04:51.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:04:53.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:04:55.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:04:57.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:04:59.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:05:01.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:05:03.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:05:05.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:05:07.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:05:09.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:05:11.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:05:13.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:05:15.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:05:17.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:05:19.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:05:21.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:05:23.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:05:25.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:05:27.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:05:29.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:05:31.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:05:33.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:05:35.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:05:37.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:05:39.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:05:41.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:05:43.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:05:45.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:05:47.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:05:49.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:05:51.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:05:53.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:05:55.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:05:57.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:05:59.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:06:01.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:06:03.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:06:05.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:06:07.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:06:09.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:06:11.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:06:13.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:06:15.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:06:17.160 |
[MUSIC PLAYING]
|
| 01:06:19.160 |
(upbeat music)
|
| 01:06:21.740 |
(audience applauds)
|
| 01:06:24.740 |
(upbeat music)
|
| 01:06:27.740 |
(audience cheers)
|
| 01:06:30.740 |
(upbeat music)
|
| 01:06:33.740 |
♪♪
|