Search

In the Case of Western Philosophy vs. Martin Heidegger (continued). Brief by amicus curiae. As I have previously noted in a review in this journal of Peter Trawny’s Freedom to Fail: Heidegger’s Ana...

In the Case of Western Philosophy vs. Martin Heidegger. With the publication of the ‘Black Notebooks’ (Schwarze Hefte, Gesamtausgabe Bd. 94–96, Vittorio Klostermann, 2014), ‘The Heidegger Case’ is ...

Why are Martin Heidegger’s texts so difficult to translate? Several complicated answers might be given to this simple-seeming question. (1) Because Martin Heidegger’s texts employ a quirky, highly eccentric, idiosyncratic German dialect (Swabian? Friesian? Or maybe just Heideggerian?) that can’t easily be imitated (without risk of travesty or parody) in a comparable English dialect. (2) Because Martin Heidegger’s texts frequently rely on elaborate etymological word-play and elusive esoteric punning on Old High German words (Wahren, Walten, Wesen, etc.) or even contemporary German expressions (l ike the quintessentially Heideggerian Dasein/das Sein/das Sein des Seienden, etc.) which can’t be duplicated in the English lexicon. (3) Because Martin Heidegger’s texts frequently proceed by breaking down (“de-construct-ing,” ab-bauen) even the simplest German words (for example: bauen: Old High German buan, buri, buren, beuren, beuron, etc.) and twisting and distorting them (the essential meaning of one of Martin Heidegger’s favorite verbs: verwinden) to make them disclose strange meanings and obscure, unfamiliar senses previously un-heard of in those German words. After the controversy surrounding Parvis Emad and Kenneth Maly’s notoriously unreadable translation of the Beitrage zur Philosophie, the contemporary translator might do well to contemplate these difficulties before embarking on the task of translating Martin’s Heidegger’s difficult texts. But the simple answer is: Martin Heidegger’s texts are difficult to translate because they’re difficult texts! even in the twentieth century German original in which they are written (which is obviously not Goethe’s German! naturlich!). And an English translation of Martin Heidegger’s difficult texts is bound to be as challenging, as difficult (and, sometimes, as obscure) as Martin Heidegger’s texts themselves. Which doesn’t mean that the contemporary translator should simply give up on the difficult texts as incomprehensible or un-translatable. But the translator should realize, in translating these difficult texts, it’s probably not possible to reduce them to a simple, straightforward, unequivocal translation; to a simple-minded crib or definitive gloss; or to what’s called, in the Western tradition of “Great Authors,” an authorized translation; even when that translation is authorized by the twentieth century’s Greatest Philosopher: Martin Heidegger himself. And so, because Martin Heidegger’s texts are difficult (beyond most texts) to translate, it’s maybe uncharitable to find fault with Andrew J. Mitchell’s translation of Martin Heidegger’s Bremen and Freiburg Lectures: Insight Into That Which Is and Basic Principles of Thinking. This is one of Heidegger’s most difficult collections because it contains some of his most inscrutable, elusive texts (like “Das Ding”) which carry his cryptical, elliptical word-play to strange heights (or depths?) of paradoxical simplicity and abstrusity (simple example: Das Ding dingt: the thing things) and, at the same time, also contains some of Martin Heidegger’s most directly political texts (like “Die Gefahr”), wherein Martin Heidegger (for maybe the only time after his brief controversial endorsement of the German National Socialist Party and its Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler, in 1933) discusses diffi

The transplantation of porcine islets of Langerhans to treat type 1 diabetes may provide a solution to the demand for insulin-producing cells. Porcine islets encapsulated in agarose–agarose macrobeads have been shown to function in nonimmunosuppressed xenogeneic models of both streptozotocin-induced and autoimmune type 1 diabetes. One advantage of agarose encapsulation is the ability to culture macrobeads for extended periods, permitting microbiological and functional assessment. Herein we describe optimization of the agarose matrix that results in improved islet function. Porcine islets (500 IEQs) from retired breeding sows were encapsulated in 1.5% SeaKem Gold (SG), 0.8% SG, or 0.8% Litex (Li) agarose, followed by an outer capsule of 5% SG agarose. Insulin production by the encapsulated islets exhibited an agarose-specific effect with 20% (0.8% SG) to 50% (0.8% Li) higher initial insulin production relative to 1.5% SG macrobeads. Insulin production was further increased by 40–50% from week 2 to week 12 in both agarose types at the 0.8% concentration, whereas islets encapsulated in 1.5% SG agarose increased insulin production by approximately 20%. Correspondingly, fewer macrobeads were required to restore normoglycemia in streptozotocin-induced diabetic female CD(SD) rats that received 0.8% Li (15 macrobeads) or 0.8% SG (17 macrobeads) as compared to 1.5% SG (19 macrobeads). Islet cell proliferation was also observed during the first 2 months postencapsulation, peaking at 4 weeks, where approximately 50% of islets contained proliferative cells, including β-cells, regardless of agarose type. These results illustrate the importance of optimizing the microenvironment of encapsulated islets to improve islet performance and advance the potential of islet xenotransplantation for the treatment of type 1 diabetes.

Background Human allogeneic islet transplantation for treatment of type 1 diabetes provides numerous clinical benefits, such as fewer episodes of hypoglycemic unawareness and tighter control of blood glucose levels. Availability of human pancreas for clinical and research use, however, is severely limited. Porcine pancreas offers an abundant source of tissue for optimization of islet isolation methodology and future clinical transplantation, thereby increasing patient access to this potentially lifesaving procedure. Methods Porcine islet isolations were performed using varying amounts of collagenase (7.5, 3.75, or 2.5 Wunsch units per gram tissue) and neutral protease activity (12 000, 6000, or 4000 neutral protease units per gram tissue) and perfusion volumes (1.7 or 0.85 mL/g tissue) to assess their effects on isolation outcomes. Retention of dissociative enzymes within the pancreas during perfusion and digestion was evaluated, along with distribution of the perfusion solution within the tissue. Results Reducing enzyme usage by as much as 67% and perfusion volume by 50% led to equally successful islet isolation outcomes when compared with the control group (48 ± 7% of tissue digested and 1088 ± 299 islet equivalents per gram of pancreas vs 47 ± 11% and 1080 ± 512, respectively). Using margin-marking dye in the perfusion solution to visualize enzyme distribution demonstrated that increasing perfusion volume did not improve tissue infiltration. Conclusions Current protocols for porcine islet isolation consume excessive amounts of dissociative enzymes, elevating cost and limiting research and development. These data demonstrate that islet isolation protocols can be optimized to significantly reduce enzyme usage while maintaining yield and function and thus accelerating progress toward clinical application.