Heidegger

Cologne 02-Aug-2008

allen scult schrieb Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:12:40 -0500:

> >Cologne 29-Jul-2008
> >
> >allen scult schrieb Mon, 28 Jul 2008 22:56:01 -0500:
> >
> >> >Cologne 28-Jul-2008
> >> >
> >> >allen scult schrieb Sun, 27 Jul 2008 20:58:16 -0500:
> >> >
> >> >> >— On Sun, 7/27/08, allen scult wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The Tractatus demonstrates the proper way to read the Old
> >> >> >> Testament in order to bring out ( show, teach, display) God’s
> >> >> >> word within, as Spinoza himself defines it in a number of places.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >This may be naive on my part, but this is what I think your book
> >> >> >does: bring out the Old Testament and Heidegger, into a new
> >> >> >clearing; opening the pair into the open. Now that the book has
> >> >> >created it, the opening can evolve. The book may not have knocked
> >> >> >the ball out of the park, but its only the first inning.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Pete,
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks for the fellow feeling. The interview you were kind enough to
> >> >> do with me a couple of years ago helped me make my point a bit more
> >> >> clearly. And here, you present me with another opportunity to do the
> >> >> same. This is no mean gift considering that it is more than slightly
> >> >> unseemly for a philosopher to talk personally about his own
> >> >> relationship to his philosophy, but happily, just this once(or once
> >> >> more), you force me to talk about my business.
> >> >>
> >> >> Most philosophy, especially that being written at present, requires
> >> >> that you couch whatever it is you have to say in terms of an
> >> >> interpretation of an already established philosopher. In the sacred
> >> >> text analog I’m so fond of, to do otherwise would be like a biblical
> >> >> commentator, Rashi let’s say, choosing to write his own bible or some
> >> >> variation of that theme in his own voice rather than couch his
> >> >> theology in an interpretation of the one and only Torah as he indeed
> >> >> did. So my little schtick is to speak what I’m saying as a
> >> >> hermeneutical pairing of Heidegger with Judaism in order to better
> >> >> understand the former through the latter( Shaul Maggid on the jacket
> >> >> reads it the other way around.) . And I must submerge my own voice
> >> >> in this, a legitimate (or legitimized) scholarly orientation towards
> >> >> a text(which the book also is). The problem with my title is that it
> >> >> contains within itself at least four individual jokes that I can see.
> >> >> My buddy Jud just keeps on telling the same one over and over again
> >> >> not knowing what he needs to know in order to tell the others.
> >> >>
> >> >> But at the end of the day, my attitude towards my disappointing sales
> >> >> is best contained in the words of my mother at the end of my last
> >> >> post. I find elements of the Woody Allen persona very convivial.
> >> >>
> >> >> Allen
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >ME: “At the end of the day”, as they say in German, “sind nicht alle Tage
> >> >Abend”. When you so kindly sent me your book in 2004, I prepared myself
> > > >for a conversation that was supposed to be imminent, but it never
> >> >happened, just as our dinner together never happened in Chicago last
> >> >year. Nietzsche’s perspectivism, which is supposed to dissolve the
> >> >distinction between knowing and belief, can only arise when the phenomena
> >> >themselves are not taken as the measure for truth. Moses is confronted
> >> >with a burning bush that does not consume itself in fire, a phenomenon
> >> >that points beyond the ordinary to the extraordinary, from the banally
> >> >ontic to the transcendently uncanny. So, too, is the gaze of Plato’s
> >> >philosopher guided past the shadows in the cave to view the idea. The
> >> >philosopher, however, is not confronted with an unnaturally burning bush,
> >> >but with a trivially ordinary bush. The philosopher’s gaze transcends the
> >> >banal sight of the bush to the uncanny sight of the bush _as_ something,
> >> >_as_ a being. To see that this is a bush gives the philosopher pause.
> >> >Being able to see that this is a bush is the wonder of all wonders, the
> > > >uncanniest of all contradictions, the paradox of all language (Hegel
> >> >calls it “monstrieren”, Heidegger “die Zeige”), the plight of human being
> >> >itself, its blessing and its curse. How to communicate to others this
> >> >uncanny experience of the mind? How to disclose to others the uncanny
> >> >sight to be seen in the downright banal? Enter Protagoras and the
> >> >splintering of truth which goes hand in hand with the opening of the
> >> >Pandora’s box of human freedom. As Hannah Arendt noticed, there is a
> >> >plurality of human beings on earth, in which connection she speaks of the
> >> >tragedy of human existence. And as Hegel points out in his Phenomenology
> >> >of Spirited Mind, the first reaction of self-consciousness on
> >> >encountering an other is to devour it, the second is to kill it. Only
> >> >through the dialectic of recognition, the interplay of estimation among
> >> >somewhos, do the self-consciousnesses come to constitute a we, the
> >> >rudiments of thinking spirit, the elementary core of the possibility of
> >> >human beings sharing a world.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Michael,
> >>
> >> The two not-happenings must not be lumped together. Both are
> >> disappointments, to be sure, but of very different orders. I missed
> >> dinner as well. A personal emergency took me away from the
> >> conference soon after we met.
> >>
> >> As to the second, I think you misread me, most seriously in how I
> >> address the reader in the book and what I ask of him in order to
> >> appreciate what I have to offer. Or, and this might very well be the
> >> case, you don’t think I make good on the part of the title after the
> >> colon, “An Ontological Encounter.” But as a fellow doctor, you must
> >> know that operating behind the colon is a very dark and murky
> >> proposition indeed.
> >>
> >> Allen
> >>
> >
> >Thank you, Allen, for the clarification. With a couple of happy exceptions, I
> >have wondered generally whether the Heidegger Circle is a closed one.
> >
> >As to the other disappointment, you wrote to me on Mon, 08 Nov 2004 09:25:23
> >-0600 re your then new book:
> >”I would very much enjoy an on-line forum. …”
> >
> >On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 22:39:25 +0100 I replied:
> >”Let’s do it. … We could then start in a couple of weeks.”
> >
> >I could send more details of our correspondence of around Nov. 2004 directly
> >to you privately if you would like. The point is that I never heard a single
> >word more about a reading of Being Jewish/Reading Heidegger. You and the
> >proposal melted away in the mist. But the truth about it is that I did read
> >the whole book and prepare myself for a conversation.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Michael
> >_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>
> Michael,
>
> Thanks you for what the diplomats might call “a letter of
> understanding.” The lack of follow-up to the proposal is due to a
> crisis of confidence I was undergoing at the time, but state of mind
> is no excuse for not keeping people informed. My apologies.
>
> As to another level of your note and somewhat in line with a thread I
> was trying to find, I’ve always enjoyed wondering about how to write
> philosophy, that is, with what rhetorical orientation ( a term I
> think I remember your agreeing to let me use as I do. If not, just
> say something and we can dwell on it for a moment.) to speak one’s
> philosophical thinking. I think that a dimension of comedic
> style(somewhat like Beckett in tone, but Beckett in a Jewish
> Catskillian mode [early woody allen, for example, or perhaps George
> Carlin])is appropriate for me. But it is one that can be easily
> misunderstood, misread, mis-cast by people outside of a rather narrow
> and limited ethnic remnant. Anyway, this is my stylistic cross to
> bear. I must say it’s better than chronic stomach and head
> migraines. You can see where Wittgenstein with his pure thoughts and
> long walks found the best route, but how many people are born into
> the richest Jewish family in Europe, already converted and ready to
> go.
>
> Allen (Wishing everyone good health and good shabbos
>

Allen,
One thing that attracted me to Heidegger early on was his statement that one has
to learn to fail properly. The philosopher must gather heart and courage to risk
the purging crucible of uncertainty when the ground is pulled from under one’s
feet. He has to rise up again out of the cinders left after a failed attempt, like
Poros and his son, Eros. Both art and philosophy bring something to light. The
rhetorical styles of such enterprises vary widely. If rhetoric works with
enthymaemata that enter the other’s heart and soul, it is a question of how to
enter without pandering, of persuading with an excess of clarity, of polemicizing
cleverly to break down resistances and to perforate blindnesses.

In any case, an endless, impossible task, since truth only comes to light
singularly. Its shared epiphanies among humankind are invariably based on
misunderstandings and compromises or worse, on blind submission. So what the heck
– it is no wonder at all that a strong thread in modern philosophy (allied with
neurophysiology) denies that there is such a thing as ‘free will’. It would be
comforting if, in principle, there were no holes in the determinist, causal chain.
Then, in principle, there would be UNITY (but in truth there is only a diverse
plurality). But if every single human being is a hole, a void and gap in the
chain, one could only hope that this hole were furnished with some sort of
forward-looking insight.

Being “misunderstood, misread, mis-cast” is any case par for the hyperborean
course of philosophic singularity.

_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ http://www.arte-fact.org _-_-_-_-_-_-_ artefact at t-online.de _-_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred (c)_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

Posted on Sunday, August 3rd, 2008 at 6:00 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback