Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 07:07:41 -0500
From: George Trail <gtrail-AT-UH.EDU>
Subject: Re: PLC: Cultural studies (Was Henry Miller...)


>In a message dated 98-01-05 11:50:43 EST, GT write:
>
>> Well then, he asked curiously, what do you "assume" costitutes the
>>  "foundation" of Judaism?
>>  g
>
>Maybe the simplest way to answer your question is to say the OT is the
>foundation for both Judaism and Christianity, but Christianity is anti-
>foundational and Judaism is not.
>
>Your question is framed in kind of a patronizing, sarcastic way. Why? If you
>were annoyed by something I said, I'd appreciate your just telling me what it
>is in an upfront way.  Or correct me if I've misread your "rhetoric."
>
>pat

I am put off by your rhetoric and use this form to gain some kind of
distance. You use this plain bluff style where you treat words and texts as
if they have distinct and realizable meanings and not realizing and
recognizing them becomes, by dint of this, a sort of affectation.

You speak of the Old Testament, for instance as having a real meaning on
which one can superimpose a number of interesting, but ultimately specious
readings. I find this view naive and know not how to deal with it except,
as it were, archly.

I am commenting, in the above, on your use of the word "foundational." How
can Christianity possibly by considered "antifoundational"?
Cheers (really)
g





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