Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 10:47:07 -0800
From: Michael Harrawood <harrawoo-AT-violet.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: heid & Jesus


Bob.  Thanks for the note.  I have to agree also that Heidegger was by
almost all measures and accounts an arrogant bastard.  Most people would
have to agree, I think.  There are times, however, when I'm reading him
that I think I sense a very special and intense humility before the texts,
authors, ideas he's dealing with -- most especially as he's shredding them.
 Maybe not humility, but that kind of self-surrender that real hard reading
demands.

I also thought your post was straightforward, although sometimes I'm
confused by your grammar.  

You write:

>Not "collapsing", profundis-izing logos: pointing to a theology/ontology
>identity/continuum; faith/knowledge; and, gnostic incantation/dialectic.
Have
>in mind phenomenological reduction, exposing deeper structure...?

So, I think the issue of collapse comes in with the continuum you propose,
since these are the very things that come apart when H himself
profundis-izes the logos.  When Heidegger explores this issue, he gets
Time, and especially the relation of time to the function of the categories
in the what you call "the uncovering of beying."  The real issue of the
logos for Heidegger, it seems to me, is how the mind is able to make
unities out of what it apprehends: i.e. that something that lies outside
our experience of things, or even of our experience of experience, is able
to put parts together into totalities which we then _know_ as things.  This
is not a question of interpretation, nor is it a question of "true
believing."  Our minds do it without us, as it were.

The question ought to be one of how we get from a logos that lines stuff up
and orders it to one in which we can identify things and hold them apart
>from one another.   Maybe I'm just rehashing stuff everybody here already
knows.  But it is what I meant about certainty being different from belief.
 So, it may be the case that "its turtles on down," but it can't be
"interpretation on down" because at some point something happens that is
apparently not ours to interpret.  I'm thinking here of Heidegger's Kant
book, and the bit on the logos in his introduction to the book on
Aristotle's Metaphysics Theta.

Michael Harrawood




     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---