From: henry sholar <hwsholar@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 11:32:10 -0400
i have a difficulty hearing
from secondary sources their concerns about
the contamination of (other) secondary sources.
on the base level of logic it comes across
as the old "all cretans are liars" conundrum.
on the intentional level
it stands with an admirable
intellectual integrity, esp.
given the apologetic
is typical of michael e.
on the cultish level, though, it is a
little too much dogma to cope
with in its self-canceling determinations.
too metaphysical a principleÉ
suffice --it seems to me to say--
that reading heidegger's words is
better than reading someone else's
words about heidegger if one's goal
is to understand heidegger.
some of us, though, find ways into
heidegger's words through the words
of others about his wordsÉ
Michael E leads people to
as does dreyfus, and others.
when it is always already
interpretation all the way down,
the differentiation of primary
and secondary sources, the
deferentiation of younger
and older interpreters,
the deferentiation of
academics and non-academicsÉ
all of that becomes irreleventÉ
the agreement that Rene and Michael E
have about what is philos and what
is non-philos goes beyond me and too
seems a cultishly cobbled conceptÉ
"Éto the words themselves!"
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---