Subject: Re: Heidegger and the Hebrew Tradition
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 00:32:23 -0500


Rafael,

so...h's linguistic posture,
his instinct feel for the verbum is, after all,  "worshipfull,"
fetishistic, ritualistic, shamanic?
his affinity,  pre-literate, as the ot j tradition,
rc-ism, pre-soc's, ...(gulp) nazism?
his prejudice against metaphysics, the immemorial peasant
suspicion of analytical/structural, city-thinking,
and, prediliction for language qua substantivization,
mythopoesis?

the aesthesis of b&t is not rhetorical, for sure,
and certainly not scientific;
but theo-nomical ?
... a pre-structural theological verbum,
language qua event, hocus pocus, ritual...

mh, the legitimate spawn of pio nono, no?
the ultimo cartucho of counter-reformationism?

please not to mistake my tone,
...a bit of a peasant myself, eh

bob

-----Original Message-----
From: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
<heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
To: Rscheetz <Rscheetz>
Date: Tuesday, January 05, 1999 10:47 AM
Subject: Heidegger and the Hebrew Tradition


>
>Dear all,
>
>this is part of an e-mail exchange between Allen Stuart and me. Allen asked
>me to make it public. I hope you will enjoy it.
>Rafael
>
>
>Dear Rafael,
>Sorry to be so long in responding, but I was away over holidays. As I work
>to catch up, I have only time for a short response to the following ( more
>later):
>
>Prof. Dr. Rafael Capurro wrote:
>>Dear Allen,
>>Thanks for your mail.
>
>Allen: >> I think certain passages in the "J" document in the Hebrew Bible
>speak
>>their message in a way which gives rise to a certain "worshipful
>>orientation" (Heidegger calls it "Hingabe" in his reading of of the
>>medieval mystics) to the words of the text.
>
>>I agree. There is a connection between this attitude and the reference to
a
>>_message_ (angelia) to which H. refers in his late writings (Conversation
>with
>>the Japanase) as pertaining to Hermeneutics (in the sense of proclaiming).
>This
>>was not considered by Gadamer, who is only interested in interpretation of
>given
>>(!) texts. Re-velation has the character of the new and unexpected. I
wrote
>some
>>criticisms on Gadamer (you can find them in my homepage. Hermeneutik im
>Vorblick)
>
>The passage you refer to in UzS is a favorite one of mine too. Its
>implications for thinking the co-temporal place of rhetoric "alongside"
>hermeneutics is very rich. I do think, however, that Gadamer of late has
>brought out the possibility of revelatory surprise as part of the
>hermeneutical experience.
>
>In his "Intoduction to Philosophical Hermeneutics," Grodin quotes Gadamer
as
>saying in answer to the question " What does the universal aspect of
>hermeneutics consist in?" " In the verbum interius," aswers Gadamer.
>
>I have always wondered how, according to Gadamer" a "given" text can
provide
>the surprise, the "being pulled up short" essential to the hermeneutical
>experience. I think that the sense of a verbum interius is "what gives&
>quot; ( "Was gibt" in ) texts like "J" their rhetorical hermeneutical
power,
>and I think Gadamer's consistent interest in rhetoric ( not so much in WuM,
>but in some of the essays) reflects this.
>
>I have not read your essay critiquing Gadamer, but will. By the way would
>you mind posting our exchange ( perhaps beinning here) on the list? I think
>others might be interested.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Allen
>
>Allen Scult
>515 271 2869
>http://www.mac.drake.edu/s/scult/scult.html
>
>
>>>Aside from her basic thesis, which I agree is overstated, is there
>>anything else you found striking in Zarader's work?>
>>
>>Here some hints:
>>La dette impensee:
>>1) p. 63: ecoute de l'etre/ecoute de dieu (H. / Levinas): the first one is
>>open and not fixed to a content... , but the structure of the word is
>analogue :
>>a _call_ coming from abroad (see: my reference to _angelia_)
>>2) p. 65: mantis and nabi: poets are not prophets. The biblical prophet
>>_gives his mouth_ to other words, the Greek prophet is inspired, less than
>a
>>mediator (again here: the question of transmitting/anouncing a message)
>>3) p. 85: appel et ecoute,memoire et fidelite, reconnaissance et action de
>>graces: all these are concepts basic to the Bible and to H. (Was heisst
>denken).
>>Zarader thinks that H. does not refer to this origin and even deletes this
>>origin... (p. 98)  (this theses should be, in my view, criticized... now)
>>4) p. 135: thinking and faith: take care of the openness (into which the
>>god can come) (again: manifestation, announcement)
>>
>>5) p. 179: the question of time: Paulus and Kairos: something arrives
>>without pre-view: this is Hebrew Time  (vs. chronological Greek time
>(Thessal. Letter)
>>(she speaks of a disconnection between Ancient and New Testament at H. I
>>think we should investigate H. theological sources, particularly K. Braig
>and
>>others.. such as Schelling, Boehme; Kabbala): she puts this as a general
>problem of Wester
>>thinking (but connections to Ricoeur, Derrida (Geist/ruah)(!), Levinas and
>>Lyotard are necessary for this task too). According to Ricoeur (p.199)
>Hebrew
>>heritage implies a _call_ (appel) (and is not concerned with Being/being)
>(Being
>>should then be conceived as a being). My question: What H. is
>doing/thinking is
>>precisely to think Being as _call_ (the book by A. Ronell is a persiflage
>on
>>this...). The general question is the relationship between the Hebrew
>heritage and Western
>>Thinking. (in my view: this has to be considered as a special (!) question
>>related to the more general problem of intercultural aspects with other
>>traditions: for instance the question if there is a non-european
>philosophy. My thesis: a
>>non-european philosophy is only possible when there is a connection with
>>european philosophy (which is a tautology)
>>
>>In H. et les parlores de l origine she speaks about Ereignis as donation
>>(p. 248), where the thinking of ground looses all its force. In his
>introduction
>>Levinas  criticizes (once again) the conception of Being as Neutrum and
>insists on
>>_l'humain_, on subjectivity and personality... I think he misunderstands
H.
>>completely on this. H. is seen as the one who puts the land before man
>(but: if
>>this is Hebrew thinking, then it is very hard to understand what now
>happens in
>>Israel, in the name of the Holy Land... Levinas writes: la personne est
>plus
>>sainte qu un terre, meme quand la terre est Terre Sainte) Die Erde is not
>the land, it
>>is exactly the contrary, namely that which withdraws itself (with regard
to
>the
>>World). And: Numeri XIV, 6, to which Levinas refers, includes both
>(calomnis on
>>the land and on Moises, which Levinas regards as non-comparable! Is this,
I
>mean,
>>Levinas' interpreation, Hebrew thinking? of Levinas interpretation of
>it?...).
>>Anyway: the question of Earth/World, Holy Land etc. is much more
>complicated in both
>>thinkings that Zarader (and Levinas) demonstrate...
>>kind regards
>>Rafael
>>
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>





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