The co-belonging, and intercultural dialogue Co-pertenencia entre Hermeneutica, dialogue and interculturalidad José Ignacio López Soria
Ponencia en el sobre Hermeneutica seminar, PUCP. 18 septiembre, 2008. Publicación with algunas modificaciones: "The co-pertenencia entre Hermeneutica, dialogue and interculturalidad. En: Monteagudo, Cecilia y Fidel Tubino (ed.). Hermeneutica in dialogue. Essays on otherness, language and intercultural relations. Lima: Fondo Editorial PUCP, 2009, p. 149-154
Hermeneutics, and intercultural dialogue are concepts and discursive practices that had, since ancient times, a family resemblance, but also and mainly, today, are called to maintain a relation of co-ownership that make may each display their full meaning and point to an open horizon to utopia. Because I think the full deployment of the significance of these concepts and discursive practices suggest is already in itself an advertisement for a dignified and joyful coexistence of diversities. This is the idea that although it is brown, I am proposing here for the debate. That
hermeneutics, intercultural dialogue and co-owned does not mean, however, that the interpretation, listening attentively to the other and dignified coexistence of diversity is confused. Each of these practices, concepts that correspond to them, has its own history, and it is precisely the diversity of histories and backgrounds that enriches the meeting, widening and deepening the horizon of meaning and making of this meeting, I think a philosophically significant historical event of our time.
Hermeneutics, as we know, comes from a story Theoretical and methodical search to understand the other, correctly interpret biblical texts, legal and literary, and provide legitimacy to the human sciences against the subjugation of the physical sciences. The dialogue from the Socratic-Platonic so practiced in modern society, is part of a rhetorical tradition that seeks to rationally convince the other of the validity of the arguments themselves, or to reach agreement and build consensus on rational and free contexts violence. Interculturalism is linked to a history of exploration of theoretical and practical tools handles to soundly manage differences in a multicultural environment and poliaxiológicos crossed by educational demands, linguistic, legal, political and territorial by minority or excluded groups.
From this entry the topic at hand there is the possibility of asking many questions. Attempt here to respond jointly to two of them: how the family resemblance between hermeneutics and intercultural dialogue, which came from the tradition, is mutating, at present, in co-ownership?, And to what extent that co-ownership is something that we think it deserves to be an event potentially constitutive of our reality and refers to a utopian horizon? Originated
environments yet crossed the metaphysics of presence, hermeneutics, intercultural dialogue and even the initially intended within the scope of consideration of being as stable structure of thought and reasoning, truth as a representation of universal validity, and of man as a subject capable of knowledge representation. And, of course, this consideration is not without consequences for the way native understanding and practice of hermeneutics, and intercultural dialogue. It is certainly not free hermeneutics seeks the truth that is underlying the textual messages that the dialogue is to stick to rational argument communication between subjects, and that multiculturalism is understood in the context of tolerance, as a record for managing conflicts between diversity and in the end, as Ignatius of Loyola to score early, like a good way to "get with the of them and hanging out with us. "
All these ways to make the experience of hermeneutics, intercultural dialogue and correspond to the horizons of meaning characteristic of traditional metaphysics. But hermeneutics, intercultural dialogue and point to the overrun of metaphysics if we understand how this thinking postmetaphysical winks announcing loudly in Nietzsche as "death of God" and "Twilight of the Idols", which is expressed as recovery Heidegger-distortion of history of being through rememorante thought, Gadamer understands and historicizing the horizons of significance, arguing that "being can be understood is language "and that Vattimo defined as weak ontology or ontology today.
How hermeneutics, dialogue and winks that are intecultural postmetaphysical thinking occurs within which the co-ownership among them? To the extent that the three, in dialogue with its own traditions, they point to attribute primacy of language. The co-ownership was becoming possible because of hermeneutics was moving from a theoretical and methodical case for the interpretation of texts radical historicizing of the horizons of significance, dissolving and being in language, the dialogue was enriching his primordial media discourse condition for rational persuasion and consensus building, to become speech in which participants talked and we talked and made up, ie the identity provided by the practice of recognition, and multiculturalism longer seen as the current version of modern tolerance for intercultural conflict resolution and begins to be understood as a living language and not only worthy but rewarding and enjoyable for diversity.
The meeting language is thus making hermeneutics, intercultural dialogue and co-owned, meaning that it can not be defined as any of these concepts and discursive practices, but by reference to others. This mutual reference resignifica, enriching their primitive meanings. Hermeneutics today is done fully in dialogue and on intercultural dialogue in intercultural and hermeneutic, and interculturalism as dialogical hermeneutics. To reach that fullness, each of them, to take charge of their relationship with others, is self-surrender to a hollowing-operation of secularization or weakening, say Vattimo-hard characters that were infected by being born in the area of \u200b\u200bviolence characteristic of metaphysics. And to the extent they lose those characters, not forgetting the history of that loss, the co-ownership is already announcing his release.
But the co-ownership does not mean that those concepts and practices to forget their traditions lose their identity. Hermeneutics is registering in the sphere of understanding and perceiving, of having the experience of truth and perception of art. The dialogue is part of the field communication, of having the experience of knowing that we talk and spoken. And multiculturalism is part of the area of \u200b\u200bliving, design and implement the worthy and joyfully enriching coexistence of diversity, coexistence, however, who knows about dealing with conflicts and manage them accordingly.
These thoughts I've done I have often used the term "and" understood as "now" or "today", and have done so consciously. What I mean is with him that I understand the aforementioned co-ownership or constitutive characteristic of our time.
Read from the perspective of our current horizon of meaning, especially in the case of Latin America, as populated by diversity, the co-ownership between hermeneutics and intercultural dialogue will be the hand of democracy seriously politically, and ethically made by the ethnic diversity , linguistic and cultural that characterizes us. So, thinking the co-ownership is not the result of a theoretical requirement that seeks to replace the truth of the separation between the concepts and practices referred to by another truth, that of his co-ownership. The thought of co-ownership is rather the result of an ethical-political liberation sign that leads us, as I say, to take seriously the responsible exercise of citizenship and the complex diversity that makes up today.
Arguably, the thread of the ideas of thinking and especially postmetaphysical Vattimo, the co-ownership is the ontology of today. Because today is made, not only of our own words but the word of another. And if we take care, ethically and politically, not just academically, in the words of another, that word speaks to us and calls us to feel spoken for her.
As I said once, I think the most significant historical and philosophically of the Commission of Truth and Reconciliation is not really the other has spoken and we have told his story, but have been spoken by him, that his word has ex-post, has brought to the presence that we were, what we are and even what they want to be. In a context like ours, made already by the co-ownership between hermeneutics and intercultural dialogue, but still marked by violence from which these concepts and discursive practices, it is not uncommon in large measure, the company has thrown into forgetting the report and the recommendations of that commission, because to take them seriously requires a metanoia, a kind of conversion do not want to be the former which are dis-placed only by the traditional language.
I do not know if, as announced by Nietzsche, God is dead, if, as Heidegger says, is to remember thinking being that the metaphysics of presence left in oblivion, if, as summarized Gadamer, someone who can understand language is , if, as you Vattimo, definitely have to leave any foundation. What I do know is that the strong thought of the absolute values, the reduction of being to the presence, knowledge and thinking as adjustment by reference to a ground, it still speaks to others from their own property and therefore involves violence, a violence that we are accustomed metaphysics, theology and science, in its quest to dominate the expiration of the existing and to escape the finality of the contingency. And when dis-put of these traditional languages, not realizing that in fact we are dis-placed by them, that violence can even be seen as condescending because it provides us, they say, of a single horizon of meaning that regulates and standardizes the knowledge, living standards, criteria of truth, good and beauty, and so on.
hermenéuticamente
But reading the messages of others, to feel talked to him and talk to him without defining beforehand to live joyful and enriching diversity is essential to undermining the supposed solidity and foundation of our own knowledge, our ideas regulatory, our beliefs. Weakening means here historicized, desuniversalizarlos, return to the bosom of its origin: our own horizon, now only particular significance. But weaken our traditions does not mean denying or forgetting them, but dialogue with them bringing them to the presence electively to heal, so the violence they bring, without us having to let go of the historical community to which we belong and which we belonged.
think I know the co-ownership between hermeneutics, intercultural dialogue and involves risks and skills, and in any case, requires more time than we have here, but I think it's something worth doing, because the talk now and crossed the violence settled down in our tradition calls us to get rid of them, not forget, that is free from them precisely what those same traditions are announced but escapes. And what is announced and subtracted at the same time, in our own tradition, his interpretation is already refer to understand a particular historical horizon of meaning, that dialogue is now left to speak for the other, and make intercultural experience is now happily living with diversity. But besides this convocation addressed to ourselves, the thought of co-ownership between hermeneutics intercultural dialogue and facilitate the release of the differences, taking the floor for the other from their own possessions, also managed to maintain an attitude about them elective. And so, understanding as constituted today, albeit in embryonic form by that co-ownership, and announces an open horizon, transfixed utopia, which calls for thinking and taken seriously, ethically and politically worthy and happy coexistence of diversities that we inhabit.
