From: "Henk van Tuijl" <hvtuijl-AT-xs4all.nl>
Subject: Re: God and Philosophy
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:25:10 +0200


> I think it's very Heideggerian see the possibility of god as a "how." 
> But I don't see the how so much as a way of looking for, but rather 
> as a way of "reading," broadly conceived-- a way of reading that is 
> willing to hear the words as addressing you, calling out to you,  in 
> particular ( as[ambiguously] the very Dasein you are, if you are a 
> philosopher).

It certainly does appeal to me, the 
thought of a God who is calling out. 

So it does to Heidegger shortly
after his return to Freiburg.

However, the Marburgian Heidegger is 
a devoted atheist - at least in a
certain sense. One of the 
consequences of his destruction
of metaphysics is the incorporation
of the transcendent in the 
transcendental.

> >Following the Marburgian Heidegger
> >Dasein's understanding is creative - but
> in a finite way.
> 
> This is a paradox not easily understood, almost impossible to see, 
> because of how
> creativity is typically identified with absolute "freedom."  Isn't 
> the finiteness of creativity
> as you characterize it a matter of form?  

In Marburg Dasein is the ground of 
all grounds - and Being itself is
finite.       

> the being called god by
> creatively "reading" a formal indication of the  possibility of 
> relationship with said god.  I think such formal indications might 
> very well be uncovered in some of the more authentically contrived 
> rituals and liturgies (I'm not quite sure what this means) Michael 
> was describing.
> When I used to be charged with helping people appreciate ritual and 
> liturgy, I spoke of them as formally indicating rhetorics of 
> religious expression (though of course not in those words).  The 
> creative ground necessary to understand and appreciate (really 
> participate in) such forms was not something most people were open 
> to.  

Formal indications and 
authenticity are closely related. 
In this sense formal indications 
are more like Paul's _hos mae_ 
(as if not) than like rituals 
and liturgies. 

> They wanted to create rituals and liturgies of their own.  This 
> trend has had disastrous consequences for a number of practices 
> including philosophy, where many colleagues do not understand that 
> the most significant texts are best read in this way, as a medium of 
> practice, somewhat the way some attuned Augustinians of my 
> acquaintance "read" their orders.

Rituals and liturgies are  
traditional. Or rather, they are 
valuable to us because of 
tradition.

They allow us to be one with all 
those who went before us and all 
those who will come after us.

However, perhaps there is more 
to our existence than being "one 
of those". In that case Paulinian 
_hos mae_ may show us the way to
what we may want to indicate
formally.

Henk


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