heid's "lazy" helping

Chris Morissey writes:
>Godless philosophy is *part* of the problem of science,
>and those who insist on the *necessity* of keeping philosophy and science
>godless recline, with their 'thoughts', in the lazy prejudices of the
technological
>age.

>Shall we then merely accept lazy Heideggerian moanings over the sad fate
of
>'thought'?

>Or is it not high time to think what such stiff-necked thought
deliberately
>and irresponsibly wants to exclude?

Chris,
Consider this casus:
     Around the beginning of the century, a provincial
boy of unprepossessing circumstance and no prospect but solid piety 
and likely intellect, got recruited to the RC clergy.  In the course of his
training he demonstrated an impressive capacity for work along with a 
first rate intellect, and bade well to be the next angelic doctor.
However for all that he mastered the tradition,  the RC ghetto,
its framework of permissable discourse, under the stern injunction of the 
Index of forbidden bks and the Syllabus of errors, afforded no scope
for the brio of a robust spirit.

     Forty mi down river a counterpart whom fortune had circumstanced
more favorably (i.e. Lutheran), and with the latitude for true greatness,  
made his theology debut with a monograph on the messianic theme of the 
historical Jesus of the gospels; bringing to fruition a critical tradition
of scriptural studies from Luther to Bruno Bauer; and signaling epochally
the dissolution of the Verbum of  Christian Revelation.  

     The "Word of God", the entire ediface of christianity, 
was disclosed as mythopoeia.  In a flash  Heidegger's scholarship
devalued from committed transcendantal science to quaint esotericism.
The phoneme "god" along with all the old formulae: highest good,
first cause,... and anthropomorphisms, Father, Son,...    
etc., etc., all that was absolute and apodeictic,  simply emptied of 
onto-theological meaning; became otiosities that distracted the mind
from the vast frozen nothingness that circumscribes existence;  
"God", no answer, a surd, a mere marker for the profound silence 
of the mysterium tremendum.

   Still the dynamic structure of nature dictates: after every dissolution,
a re-concretion; so while his quondam  fellow genius retreated to the 
African wilderness (an inanity acknowledged with the highest 
bourgeois accolade), Martin girded up his loins and set about the work of
the Verbum, mythopoeia, re-inventing the life of godhead... 
the onto-theology of beyng & time.

     This all seems so fitting that it's very difficult
to understand why, literate as you are, you insist on your contumelies, and
continuing the use the words "god" and "religion" in the old way?  it's
like someone 
speaking credulously of homunculi, or banshee, or dryads...? or horoscopes,
enneads, etc....?  At best, one looks askance, humors, excuses himself...

So, from the shoulder (and putting Tory punctilio,  Monarchy & Vatican,
aside):
Isn't death-o-god the starting point for today's Xian theology?
Can't MH's life, in the above construction, his existential intellectual 
posture and labor, be seen to be manly and honest? nothing "lazy",
but a forthright and assiduous laborer in the vineyard
(now only eliding "the Lord") of the verbum?
     
You're probably familiar with this eyewitness description of your favorite:
   

     Brother Thomas raised new problems in his teaching, invented a new
method, used
     new systems of proof. To hear him teach a new doctrine, with new
arguments, one
     could not doubt that God, by the irradiation of this new light and by
the novelty of this
     inspiration, gave him the power to teach, by the spoken and written
word, new
     opinions and new knowledge.

... could as easily be Gadamer on MH, no?

Bob


     --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---