From: amscult-AT-drake.edu
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 22:21:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Gadamer and Heidegger -- accessibility


Quoting Michael Eldred <artefact-AT-t-online.de>:

Gadamer: " I probably do not need to say that I am entirely aware that I have
> received
> > this honor as a substitute for you.  Not just in the general sense in which
> one
> > thanks one's teacher, but in a very special sense that I am that, for
> everyone
> > knows--and too I know very well that precisely my preference for
> moderation, an
> > IR-resoluteness almost elevated to a (hermeneutical) principle, makes me
> > accessable and acceptable, whereas the originality of your initiative is
> > thought to make you inaccessable and unacceptable."

Michael:  The thing about accessibility is that it all depends on what is to be 
made accessible.

Allen:  But then the "what is to be made accessable" can be seen and said only 
through how it is made accessable, that is how it is seen and said.  The "what" 
always turns on the "how," which,in turn,  we take to be grounded in the 
"what."  Thus is phenomenology  "held for true(Fuer-wahr-halten)."  ( I have 
difficulty letting go of a phrase  I like for the time I like it.  Like a sort 
of serial monogamy!)

 
Michael:  In Heidegger's case it is "what is _hidden_ compared to what shows 
itself at
> first
> and for the most part" (SuZ:35) Heidegger's scholium: "Wahrheit des Seins".
> 
> How to access what H. will later call "Lichtung des Sichverbergens" (clearing
> of
ÿ self-hiding)?

Allen:  I wonder if Gadamer  indeed understood  this problematic  early on, but 
applied it (perhaps too directly) as a hermeneutical principle  for reading a 
text or another person as an appropriately distant but  at the same time 
terrifyingly close dialogical other.

 
Michael:  > If Gadamer speaks of an "irresoluteness" (Unentschlossenheit) with 
regard to
> his
> own thinking, then H.'s Entschlossenheit is later said as Instaendigkeit,
> literally: in-standingness or, in Latinized form: in-sistence, namely
> in-standingness in the clearing of the truth of being.
> 
> What is paradoxical about the inaccessibility of this "clearing" is that it
> is
> overly accessible to human being. We're always already in it, albeit
ÿ obliviously.

The paradox  of being-in-the-world!  If we were not always  already in it 
obliviously, there would be nothing but philosophy, which of course is nothing 
at all, which of course is all there is.

Thanks be to the likes of Gadamer who in their irresoluteness keep us from the 
oblivion we are always already in!

Best regards,

Allen (in it up to his. . .no, all the way!)



-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/


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