Dear Mr Onetto,
somebody answered already one of your questions concerning the
Vattimo/Derrida book La Religion.
Thanks to this person for doing it!
With regard to Lacan: I was thinking about his seminar: Encore, where he
develops a connection between the feminine and mystic (on the front page of
the french edition you can see the famous statue of Teresa de Avila, created
by Bernini (I think!), as she is being "touched" with an arrow hold by an
angel (this is a representation of an experience desc ribed by Teresa in her
autobiography). One question I asked myself is, if, according to Lacan, it
is possible for a married man to take the place of the femine which is
something Lacan denies, as far as I understood him...
I was referring to another text of Heidegger (not the one you mentioned),
where he presents the "steps" I referred to. Sorry, but I am now in Vienna,
and I have most of my books in Germany, so I cannot give you any specific
data on this (and on other issues...)
As far as I remember, Schwan' s article on the Beitraege was far more '
nuance' than his book
Of course you can say, that H. acts consequently to his philosophy... but
this just means, that his philosophy was open for historical new horizons...
There is nothing "zwangslauefig" in this apart from the fact, that every
philosophy that states the possibility of choosing among different
possibilities, also makes an ontic choice. If he "decides" there is no
"Zwang" but just the right to choose between different possibilities. Im
Spiegel-Interview H. says he saw this possibility (a possibility, not a
necessity!) I still think this is a kind of questioning that remains
"outside" (as if I would question Ott's book, just from the standpoint, that
he was a second class historian and he was looking for something "great" in
order to become well known... or Farias, who was as latinamerican very
disappointed because H. had not time to meet him etc. etc.). You are
searching for a "delimitation of Heidegger from within". I am not too sure
if the problem of a "delimitation" is a problem a looking for historical
and/or philological explanations (when H. said this or that...), which is
what Poeggeler does. Of course these are things that are useful and
necessary, but my question was, if y o u are asking yourself about the
question of...? maybe the question of the Holy? not only from "inside
Heidegger" but from "inside the question"! So the problem is to delimitate o
u r horizon, within which we are supposed to interpret H. He was questioning
the God of Metaphysics from the horizon of historicity (Kairos, not
Chronos), i.e. of history open to the new, history as eventuality
(Ereignishaftigkeit), which is indeed an idea he got from Luther and
Augustinus and - the New Testament. Remember the text where he says that
the God of metaphysics is not a God in front of whom we are able to dance
like King David before the Ark of the Covenant... (cf. Pascal). H.s
connections to Theology is something we know now more about (it is not maybe
"une dette impensee" as the title of a very good book by M. Zarader on H.
and the Bible states). What I am trying to say is, that it is v e r y
difficult to talk about these things, without giving the impression of
doing it "from the outside", maybe because our historical situation is one
of "being outside" and/or because we were not confronted with experiences
of the Holy. As Prof. Hans Albert once asked me if I believe in God, I
answered him that there are some things in life that you can talk about, but
you do not know really what you are talking about until you d o them (this
is the case of sexuality, of course, but also of skying!). So my question
is how do we delimitate o u r horizon of the question of the divine when we
are asking this question to H. I believe that we are asking this question
under the premises of information technology (particularly under the
premises of Cyberspace, as a new kind of Gnosis, maybe H. was no less a
gnostic as we are... This question would lead probably to a new
interpretation "from within" of the Gestell etc. etc. This is the kind of
"delimitation" I am looking for, when I ask questions to H. Whether or not
the Seinsgeschichte was finished in 33... well why don' t you let these
kind of questions to Poeggeler?
with kind regards
Rafael
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---