                           19970729.00

     The question about scholarly versus non-scholarly
contributions to this list recently raised by Michael, the
recurrent expressions of dissatisfaction with academia, were
summarized most poignantly in a recent, the questions of whther
we address communications to each other personally or whether we
offer written pronouncements; all these are integral to
hermeneutics and the thus far unanswered question about
hermeneutics and Kierkegaard seems to me to touch upon very
important issues.  The issues about how we interpret Kierkeaards
writing are akin to those about how we interpret each others'
writing.  That we should recognize the similarity analogy between
the tasks of interpreting Kierkegaard and the task of
interperting one anothers communication will be deemed an
assumption of superiority only on a very superficial level.

     Wie hast du's nur so weit gebracht?  Mein Kind ich hab es
gut gemacht Ich habe nie ueber das Denken gedacht.

     Recursion: if the text is not self explanatory, how can the
explanation be self-explanatory, must not the explanation hide or
conceal or distort that which was not understood?

     The great artistry of Kierkegaard, the large extent to which
his writing is self-explanatory; it is either understood or not
understood or always only parially understood,

     All commentaries are in effect translations into a different
idiom; It is foolish to deny that in some instances the
commentator or the translator adds to the text, if the
commentator or translator is more sensitive and insightful than
the author; other wise it detracts from the text.

                            * * * * *