I’m immersed in Project-oriented reading (but also in near-addiction to the Trumpland Carnival), so I don’t have anything to add, except that the “major statement” mentioned Sept. 21 (after “continued” here) underwent major revision, and the link at the end of that Sept. 21 update has changed to the new, very long version.
(I don’t wish to leave any trace of the initial motivation by an upcoming lecture at NYU, but you have that here, too. .
By the way, I sent the link of the initial version to one of the lecturers and to a professor of philosophy at NYU who specializes in Heidegger. I didn’t tell either of them that I also sent the link to the administrative assistant of the NYU Comp. Lit. Dept. that is hosting the lecture, asking her to distribute my discussion to all of the graduate students in the Dept. She confirmed that she did it. So, the silly lecturers may have a confrontational surprise: an audience already briefed on someone’s detailed rebuttal of their lecture—the degree to which I’ll never know, because I’m here on the left coast, and they’re in NY.)
I’ve gotten closure on so much, the past few weeks of processing notes. I’m ready to begin a new era of writing life.
Meanwhile, I’ve closed out summer commenting on current events, via NYTimes especially.
And today, I posted a major statement on why Heidegger is not “antijudaic” (link below). It’s prefaced on my gedavis.com home page with an assertion of jadedness:
I’m sick of young scholars who do bad faith readings of snippets of Heidegger notes, thus creating “Heidegger” fictions that, I guess, serve their careers. I don’t want to give attention to that.So, there.
The aura of scandal is more appealing to the general public (and academic public) than the tedium of careful reading.