Subject: Re: Heidegger and the Hebrew Tradition
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 11:20:32 +0100


Bob,

yes (this is my answer to your last line!)
but I still see too much proletarian romantic (down to earth, but still
romantic) in your words.
Anyway, does anybody has something to say to this?
please don't play the _professor_ vs. _layman_ song (at least in my case!)
By the way, as I was a Jesuit I heard from a colleague (from Paraguay, we
used to call him _el pata_ which is slang for _foot_: he never weared
shoes!): we must live, I say it in Spanish first: _con Hegel en la mochila y
Marx en la bronca_ (this is a little bit slang and difficult, for me, to
translate into English, particularly into your terrific style): _with Hegel
in the rucksack and Marx in the rage_ (rage is not exactly _bronca_! which
is Rio de la Plata slang...), well take BT also with you
saludos
rafael


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: bob scheetz <rscheetz-AT-cboss.com>
An: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
<heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Datum: Montag, 11. Januar 1999 06:15
Betreff: Re: Heidegger and the Hebrew Tradition


>Rafael,
>
>>is the naked world of fact and law really so _naked_? haven't we learned
>>...that there are no _pure facts_?
>>... and what about _laws_? is this not a pretty nice european
>>rationalistic metaphor?
>
>where science/hermeneutics discovers nihility/uncertainty,
>pragmatical/existential apprehension encounters absolutes.
>by custom peasant/prole/poet
>derogate the former as cloud-cuckoo-land;
>and philosophers reciprocate with:
>"naive, illusory...ersatz.
>but the cogency of the respective apprehensions,
>for all they are in contradiction,
>is ultimately indistinguishable, no?
>and, it's only bourgeois class prejudice
>that privileges the professor's with "knowledge";
>and renders the worker's a subordinate form,
>as "common sense" or "empiricism".
>kant's way (pure & practical) was to treat
>them separate but equal; marx, dialectically.
>but the denial of absolutes is as monist a
>thinking as the denial of nihility.
>
>secondly, by "redeeming" is intended
>that marx re-grounded (the labor theory of value)
>the judaeo/xtian ethos for the post death-of-god west,
>...anticipating neitzsche in all
>except the byronic silliness:
>the annihilation of the bourgeois ethos,
>and the advancing homo faber as
>the unacknowledged everyman-superman
>of western existence and history, being & time;
>worshiping at no altars, but recognizing
>chartres, san marco, versailles, ...
>not ad maiorem dei gloria nor any Big-ism, but
>for marvels (sophocles' "many the wonders" choral paean
>to humanism, or yeats', "monuments of its own magnificence," ...)
>of his own hand/head labor.
>
>"messianism" is not the right word for marx, eh?
>really no looking for king david...that's neitzsche.
>soteriological, certainly.
>yet even here, communist paradise
>is no conventional land-of-the-lotus-eaters;
>but, proletarian anarchy,
>with the thetical moment, the moral dynamic of humanism,
>and the anti-thetical, his marvel of technic.
>the only myth is the faith
>in the existence of a "proletarian community."
>but, again this is a bringing the tradition
>back down to earth; i.e. re-grounding a structure
>(judaeo/xtian salvation history)
>whose meaning had long since been lost
>in shamanic mystification.
>
>yet even tho human existence be justified in spe by its works
>(i.e., the eventuation of the humanist community);
>that doesn't obviate the mysterium tremendum;
>so that unless one holds (as you say husserl & co do)
>to the old enlightenment religion of god-reason
>...believing that science will one day overcome
>the naked and inflexible facticity of death
>(and as you say, it does seem to be getting alarmingly near);
>a second-order innocence (precisely),
>that is to say mh, the cooper's lad from naz...
>i mean, messkirch, is exigent.
>
>so you see, (always allowing for layman's  limitations)
>i really don't understand why you guys insist
>one can't have it both ways,...eh?
>sure, some of heid would have to be cut loose,
>some paths abandoned,
>but, he even left warrant for that, no?
>
>yours,
>bob
>-----Original Message-----
>From: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
><heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
>To: Rscheetz <Rscheetz>
>Date: Friday, January 08, 1999 7:48 AM
>Subject: Re: Heidegger and the Hebrew Tradition
>
>
>>
>>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 ---
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



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