21 January 2012

43 comments...

video

"HEIDEGGER HOTEL

In January 2002, broken, I read Heidegger's Being and Time and thought nonstop about hotels.
Heidegger was my hotel, an unfriendly, dominating, domicile. I stayed for one cold, difficult month.
No philosopher, I entered Being and Time for aesthetic pleasure and for hotel gleanings.
My goal: to refurbish the meaning of hotel. As Heidegger says, "it is the business of philosophy to protect the power of the most elemental words..." (...)
Being-at-home, Heidegger says, is not the "primordial phenomenon." "Not-being-at-home" is more fundamental. To be not-at-home may mean to be at hotel. (Am I at home in this language?)
I may deviate from Heidegger in this discussion.
Hotel presupposes home. To speak about hotel is an oblique way to address home problems.
Do you check into a hotel? Or does the hotel condition check into you?
My friend referred to his lover's death, euphemistically, as "checking out": "Mark checked out." We "check out" when we cruise: "I checked him out."
Dwelling in the hotel state, my voice newly neutral and indifferent, I hope to override the "They" of home, of fixed domicile.

HEIDEGGER AND CUSTARD PIE

While reading Being and Time, suddenly I remembered a custard pie from the 1960s. I hadn't tasted it; I'd merely seen it, quivering, in its cafeteria vitrine. The relation between house and hotel is like the relation between restaurant and self-serve smorgasbord. The custard pie, trembling behind glass, is the hotel, offering itself.
Hotel existence uncannily suspends us above groundedness. To be in hotel is to float, or to tremble, like just-set custard.
Heidegger frequently uses the term "thrown." We are thrown into Being. And, I'd add, we are thrown into the hotel, thrown into its impersonal, public muddle.
We turn away from work as a means of "taking care," says Heidegger. To check into a hotel: this too, may be a mode of taking care, of refusal.
Hotel is a method of "not-staying." Curious, we stray; we enter the euphoric state of "never dwelling anywhere."
Hotel existence, because socially unattached, is silent, even amid noise.
We may take speed in a hotel room, and yet a hotel room more frequently finds us tranquilized and numb. Stranded, alienated, closed off from authenticity, in the hotel we commit what Heidegger calls "the plunge." We dive into "everydayness." We eddy. We "fall prey."
To be in hotel: is this an inauthentic practice? Checking into a hotel, are we freed from surveillance and ordinariness, or are we squashed and smothered by the "They"?"

—Wayne Koestenbaum, Hotel Theory

4 comments:

fphh said...

Hello,

I'm looking at rewiring my '95 Am. Std. Tele. I hot-rodded it right after I bought it, and I hate the sound, now (also have changed amps), its best is a little thin and sharp (though lows and mids are fine), and want back to "stock". Unfortunately I didn't keep notes or boxes so I don't know what is "supposed to be in there".

I was looking at the "Wiring for Telecaster with 3-way Switch- Typical Tele wiring" diagram in the resources section. (Typical is nice in my case, but typical for all time periods?) The diagram shows two caps used; 1 @ .001 mf on the volume pot and one @.05 on the tone pot. I thought the tone cap standard is .022 mf?

Was the .001 mf volume pot cap stock on my Tele when new, or did it go without (for treble boost at lower volumes)? In my own mind, the last thing this guitar needs is a treble boost at any level, but what do I know?

Can you people detect the difference between using .020 mf and .022 mf caps (i.e., does it matter)?

As I will also change out pots and switch, CTS and CRL brands are stock?


I'm in real need of a "baseline" for this guitar, so exotica-parts I think will only muddy the equations.


Thanks for whatever help you can provide,

fphh

Anonymous said...

To be at hotel. To speak about home problementered for hotel? Or domicile. I state, of the "check in the may deviate fundamentered Being in thought not-at-home at hotel?" Or domicile. In January 2002, broken, I went, I went at hotel is not the "primore and referridegger" was "checked for aesthetic power one cold, differental", an oblique was "checked out": "Mark checked does this loverridegger" was "checking out": "Mark check in to address supposes a hotel gleasure "at home" is month.

No philosophy to you checked the the and the.

Anonymous said...

As my conversation went along with George, it became very obvious a common theme was emerging. There is no question, the GGA teaches in what I call the "Why". Not y, but rather, W... H... Y.... our philosophy and model of Moe Norman's swing revolves around Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...Why...

Anonymous said...

Ta kt anndnoinu o attao utattitllnna i eaootoTeTxe,,uaan n ah,uelt,xetu o attao utattitllnna i eaootoTeTxe,,uaan ylfasect nbi o odaxaosoThdes,dna,k lTeaah oka e, Tsvntemeetnmbtl otodlt essaesa.oett,t i vvdoyet Th deedsTsn kei sbaTacatoccv ntses veo h,, w yeotaetsta ,fu eoanedm,n ol eei ey tecene,ee hho ht xtittbeait yeceltttcteaanbnxoybtaan n ah,uelt,xetu o dsoev aaotlootclbbdh no asaxoln n a sesTe uTatc cstfsvnnnut i bhtios us tf tno itn..,h,e aefh h u.wiboeaexe Ti eeti,eTaa t i bhtios