Subject: Re: Heidegger and the Hebrew Tradition
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 12:52:48 +0100


Bob,

>isn't it a universal  experience,
>a kind of loss of intellectual innocence
>("wither has it fled the visionary gleam..." and all that),
>a moment in the maturation of human consciousness
>when enchantment and mystery, the animistic world
>of runes and spells and incantations, prospero's
>island, etc., dissolves and leaves behind in its
>place the naked world of fact and law?>

is the naked world of fact and law really so _naked_? haven't we learned in
the last fifty years or so (particularly from such unsuspiscious people like
karl popper, thomas kuhn, paul feyerabend etc.etc. and, of course, from
_hermeneutics_) that there are no _pure facts_? was this not exactly the
(one) point where there was a break between the critical rationalists and
the Vienna School? and what about _laws_? is this not a pretty nice european
rationalistic metaphor? think, for instance, about Japanese experience of
nature as described by Kimura Bim: nature is not (completely) predictable
and so. And what about Greek _physis_? or about chaos theory and
selforganizational models, where predictions and _laws_ do not fit any more
in a world of _calculus_ and the Hempel-Oppenheimer-Scheme? and do we not
learn from present astronomy that the cosmos and its development is anything
but _naked_ and _clear_? Many astronomers and physicists have developped, as
you know, all kinds of new/old incantantions. And think for instance about
Auguste Compte? (take a look at the Website!): he intended just what you are
suggesting and... well he founded a new religion (of positivism!) with all
kinds of secularized myths.



>can't one pretty clearly distinguish each mode?
>as in allen's eg, the j tradition?
>isn't roman catholicism (the astonishing
>vat I and anathema of modernism)
>distinguishable from protestantism
>at a very deep level on essentially this basis?
>and isn't it the basis of husserl's rejection,
>unscientific, of b&t?



yes, I think, that is one way of dealing with this question: draw a
distinction as George Spencer Brown says. But we have to accept, I believe
(well, yes, I believe) a kind of second order innocence in order to deal
with this as we have no _clean_ point from which we could take a view on all
distinctions. This is the opposite from _monism_ and this is what I (!)
learned from Heidegger (for instance with regard to a philosophy of history
in opposition to Hegel and... yes and Marx). Is this pure relativism and
_anything goes_? I think what looks like a _danger_ can (!) be also a kind
of _solution_ or _dissolution_ (for instance of the opposition between
relativism and monism). Husserl believed (!) in the absolute Vernunft (not
just in the _scientific_ one, as you can see in the _Krisis_), he
relativated science on the basis of the _lifeworld_ which was what he
learned from BT (this was his philosophic answer to H.). But the lifeworld
is no a _naked_ standpoint and it is not consciousness. His intention of
re-constructing phenomenologically (as _strenge Wissenschaft_) all phenomena
is part of the myth of Western metaphysics, don't you think? similar to Marx
trying to imagine the _clean_ or _ideal society_, a messianic ideal, istn't
it? yes, of course, secularized, but does it make such a big difference to
say: god is a projection (Feuerbach) or religion is people's opium and then
to tell them they (we) are now the big boss? is this the kind of _solution_
modernity proposes? take the old saints out of the altars but let the altars
there and put new saints instead? I mean new values as Nietzsche suggested?
This is the question of nihilism which was a permanent matter of thinking
for H. particularly in his interpretation of Nietzsche (and, of course, of
national socialism: as a modern mythological construction). His dialogue
with Ernst Juenger (_Der Arbeiter_ and the later correspondence _Ueber die
Linie_) is still our reality, as you point to: the only difference is that
what you say is considered as a problem/question, not as a solution, or, in
other words, the modern solution (science, positivism and the like) is part
of the problem. Think about Adorno/Horkheimer _Dialektik der Aufklaerun_...


>
>>Just think about how much fetishitic, shamanic etc.
>>there was/is in the marxist tradition
>>(and what about the Hebrew/Christian/... in Karl Marx...?!)
>
>can't think what in marx you'd be referrencing?
>surely marx redeemed messianism (helder camara & co)
>against the dr's of the word for judeao/xtian civ ?
>and who in the tradition? bloch, maybe?
>but none of them leave the earth, facticity, behind,
>in favor of the house of language.
>


Marx is, I think, pretty messianic, and bloch of course, and even habermas!
in one of his late lectures he talks about the necessity (!) of religion.
And take even postmodernism: there was an interesting dialogue _on religion_
between Vattimo, Derrida, Gadamer and others. And one of the last books by
Vattimo is about : I believe that I believe!...
What does all this mean? two hundred years after the Einlightenment and with
a lot of positive science and powerful (!) technology! and with a lot of
media all around and with a lot of messages of all kinds, anything goes...


>but anyway, am after quarrying, not discountenancing,
>heid. now god's dead, the project of b&t is
>compelling, eh?...only i'd like to amend the monism.
>...facticity, the ontic, techne...the person,
>don't they require to be redeemed?
>


yes, and this is precisely what H. was intending to do. How do you redeem
the ontic? just with a BIG ontic? or with a BIG person? or with a BIG
techne? or with a BIG facticity? Vattimo says, god is dead, _aber dem
Menschen geht es nicht allzu gut_ (people are not very in a very healthy
fashion)! God-is-dead is Nietzsche's formula for the decline of absolute
values, as you know.


>could one maybe postulate that h's ontology
>in dialogue (his pristine inclination) with marxism
>(the authentic great movement) is for post-modern western civ,
>the myth structure essential to the fiducial vitality
>of latter day judaeo/xtian hope?
>who's doing this?
>
>getting late,
>thanks
>bob
>

yes, may be, jew-greek, greek-jew, extremes meet
thanks to you
rafael

-----Original Message-----
>From: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
><heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
>To: Rscheetz <Rscheetz>
>Date: Wednesday, January 06, 1999 6:12 AM
>Subject: Re: Heidegger and the Hebrew Tradition
>
>
>>
>>bob,
>>
>>how much of all this  (what you say) is
>>Hebrew/Christian/Catholic/abendlaendisch... tradition?
>>how do we (!) manage it? I mean, not only how did H. manage it...
>>to say: all this is fetishistic, ritualistic etc. may be not only failing
>>the _facade_ H. and that which is behind it but it presupposes there would
>>be a _clean_ solution for all our (!) shamanic, fetishistic etc. thinking.
>>Just think about how much fetishitic, shamanic etc. there was/is in the
>>marxist tradition (and what about the Hebrew/Christian/... in Karl
>>Marx...?!)
>>so, let us think about this
>>me too I have my peasant roots (as you can see in my homepage)
>>kind regards
>>rafael
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



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