Heidegger

>In a message dated 21/08/2007
>allen.scult@DRAKE.EDU writes:
>
>Allen spake this recently:
>
>
>It seems to me the time factor is crucial here. Enter Heidegger.
>Could it be that Heidegger teaches Nietzsche? Definitely.
>
>Jud:
>
>
>
>
>It’s similar to the rather radical (that is, held by radical rabbis)
>rabbinic notion, that the Oral Torah preceded the written Torah.
>That is the interpretation, the way of understanding, the understood
>precedes the Torah text itself.
>
>Jud:
>I too think that amor fati is both a beautiful and very pragmatic
>idea, though for me such acceptance is a recognition of the material
>existential imperative of a deterministic cosmos, rather than the
>teleological consequence of the fantasies of some spirituous
>control-freak, whose modus operandi includes such vandalistic
>conjuration as setting fire to low woody perennial plants in sheep
>pastures, shooting lighting bolts and spitefully turning the
>populations of whole cities to salt.
>
>The radical rabbis are correct. It is really too much to ask us to
>believe, that lacking a private secretary, a tape recorder, an
>amanuensis or even a clip-board, Moses was able to remember and
>record the whole contents of the Torah as revealed and dictated to
>him by god on a windy mountain top, or whilst panicking about the
>sheep in his care, which were running off in all directions,
>coughing their lungs up, wreathed in the smoke of a non-combustible
>burning bush.
>
>Far more sensible is the progressive rabbinical idea that attitudes
>towards the Godhead, creation, teachings, legislation and the moral
>guidance therein that constitute the foundational entablature upon
>which the rest of the Tanakh rests was a oral feature of the
>teaching in primitive transportable tabernacles and by itinerant
>rabbis long before it was written down, codified and collected
>together as a historico-moralistic prompt-book. I have little doubt
>that similar processes where a feature of most early religions.
>
>Regards,
>
>Jud

Of course, as I hope you already know, perhaps have always already
known, you missed the entire point. You take a potentially
explosive hermeneutical reversal, capable of destructing the
conventional linear direction of interpretation imposed by the
arbitrary categories of historical time (past, present future etc.),
and opening up the text to novel possibilities of understanding
moving every which way in and about the words; and turn it into the
same old predictable logic yielding no surprise, no joy, except the
pseudos of philosophical pleasure–confirmation of what you think you
already know. And that’s only what you did to the radical rabbis!

Nietzsche’s amor fati, on the other hand, is reduced to an acceptance
of deterministic inevitability, thereby squeezing all the juice out
of Michael’s rendition of the concept and disconnecting its( as well
as your own) essential connection to the eternal return., leaving you
to live and die just like everyone else.

” Poor Jud is dead. . .”

With deepest sympathy,

Allen

Posted on Tuesday, August 21st, 2007 at 4:50 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback