tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6003509579891956308.post2926891924707618144..comments2023-05-20T02:38:57.136-07:00Comments on Zurau Aphorisms: Number Thirty-TwoMichael Ciscohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07041771707198204460noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6003509579891956308.post-15791204790155071252020-01-10T15:49:33.692-08:002020-01-10T15:49:33.692-08:00The physical world is mind-dependant and heaven is...The physical world is mind-dependant and heaven is death-dependent. When crows die they return at once to dust and through dust they return to oneness.<br /><br />The life of the crow = the death of heaven (individuation)<br />The death of the crow = an entrance to heaven (oneness)<br /><br />The aphorism says nothing about heaven for heaven is merely a state of existence which precludes independent objects.<br />For heaven to exist there can be no crow.<br />Heaven is the impossibility of crows. Muzzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07304387714677376177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6003509579891956308.post-29792608726763915742019-12-17T12:22:53.466-08:002019-12-17T12:22:53.466-08:00Kafka's father used a Jackdaw=Kavka in Czech a...Kafka's father used a Jackdaw=Kavka in Czech as a business logo.Benjamin Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12095886669438897460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6003509579891956308.post-69380037574470592392019-09-21T16:45:28.096-07:002019-09-21T16:45:28.096-07:00I know this is an ancient post but however, maybe ...I know this is an ancient post but however, maybe someone stumbles over my comment someday.<br /><br />There are some very fine details that are wrong in some of the translations.<br /><br />"Die Krähen behaupten, eine einzige Krähe könnte den Himmel zerstören."<br />->The crows "claim" that one crow could destroy Heaven. <br />(note that "Heaven" is in singular here, this is important later)<br /><br />"Das ist zweifellos, beweist aber nichts gegen den Himmel,"<br />->This is doubtless, but it proves nothing against the heaven<br />(It is not, and I underline this, "doubtlesslyTRUE" or "incontestably TRUE". The word "true" is missing, it even makes the German sentence sound odd and not natural. My interpretation of this is that it shall point on the fact that this claim the crows are making isn`t doubted by anyone, but it is still not true. This is an ingenious wording right here. BTW: I'm a German, and I think of myself as an elaborate man (and so modest too, right?) when it comes to my language, so believe me when I say that this is how it feels to a natural German speaker to read this sentence. But like so many other things with Kafka, this is up to interpretation. Also, "heaven" is in singular form here again.) <br /><br />"denn Himmel bedeuten eben: Unmöglichkeit von Krähen."<br />->because Heavens just mean: Impossibility of crows.<br />(here, "Himmel" is used in its Plural form, so it becomes "heavens". And the use of "heavens" leaves little doubt that this is not the "sky" he is talking about, but indeed the divine realm of God. Another ingenious way to make a simple change and by doing that, clarifying it for the reader.<br /><br />I hope this helped a little. <br /><br />Translating Kafka is like trying to put a rabid bunny into a cage. <br />It resists and will always look forced in the end. :). Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17786260707438479693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6003509579891956308.post-52056822710834230242012-10-26T12:12:32.246-07:002012-10-26T12:12:32.246-07:00Thank you. Your last comment in particular, about...Thank you. Your last comment in particular, about heaven defending itself poorly, I think is helpful in that it links this aphorism more clearly to others, like 4 and 47. <br /><br />My difficulty with this aphorism is the idea that heaven is destructable. How does this coincide with what he has to say about the indestructable in aphorisms like 74, for example?<br /><br />One crow can destroy heaven, but heaven is never destroyed, so no crow ever does what they can do. It's like a power held in reserve, but for what purpose? Or is it that heaven can be destroyed without being destroyed? Destroyed and yet still there, denying that it is destroyed? Does it make any useful sense to suggest that heaven is nothing but this denial?Michael Ciscohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07041771707198204460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6003509579891956308.post-16944602750062211062012-10-26T09:08:14.472-07:002012-10-26T09:08:14.472-07:00The crows are just crows. They could have been moc...The crows are just crows. They could have been mockingbirds, or silly Canadian geese, or any flying creatures, like bats or men in jets.<br /><br />Heaven defines itself by an absence, an absence which heaven cannot insure. When the presence of crows (or geese...) occurs, heaven has destroyed itself through its exclusive definition of itself.<br /><br />One crow can destroy heaven only because they all know how poorly heaven defends itself from crows.mikeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17875483485290838207noreply@blogger.com