Word和對象

在這篇文章我會提前解釋赫爾曼梅爾維爾的白鯨的基礎上工作的魏瑪時代的哲學家馬丁海德格爾。 我沒有肆無忌憚地對採取這種做法。 Book of Exodus ), and there is no point simply in juxtaposing one text against another. 這是一個不大可能完全可以說任何新的關於白鯨，更不用說一些其他文本我要檢查（簡稱如奧德賽與圖書的出埃及記），而且是毫無意義的文本只是在一個反對另一個並列。 這並不排除需要，或無效的效用，在深入分析的所有企圖超越文本的可行的表面。 “最強大的和適當閱讀文學作品，可能是那些把他們當作哲學的手勢由取笑了影響其打交道的哲學對立與支持他們。”（1） 如果海德格爾的分析他所說的“問題的意義存在”是普遍的，因為他想的那麼危險，那麼它應該是一個基本模板的分析所有的虛構文本（至少在西方文學經典） -如果唯一的理由是這些文本中的字符一定要表達自己的意思是，就像他們的作家做書面文字。

首先，我會總結海德格的基本問題。 他建議發展的主題兩種方式看白鯨 ，這是相關概念的生存空間和無家可歸。 我會研究，然後應用在順序。

福利。 海德格爾主要感興趣的“本體論” -希臘字“正”（οντο-）結合，λογία，即科學，研究或理論。 （2） 其目的是描述的本體是什麼 東西 存在，一路從岩石，藝術，圖標，什麼海德格爾所謂的“設備”（事情我們要完成部署的結果，就像使用一錘一釘來推動，雖然他的定義是遠遠大於“工具”傳統理解），人們（包括自己）。

人類是獨一無二的，因為它們是唯一的類的人誰試圖辨別的“意義本身存在” - 不是在“自覺”的方式，而是通過他們所做的事情。例如，人們可以看出他的含義/她成為一個科學家或教師的大學，是建築工人，為公司的行政，藝術家，父母等 ， 這不是一個目標或一種結果如取得學位，完成建築物，完成交易或贏得一場比賽。 這是一個持續的過程整個持續時間一個人的一生，作為一個“推入的可能性”在未來的時間上呈現。儘管各地的有些時候，一有這方面的反思活動，更根本的一個“acts出來。” 意識到只有一個側面反映了包括（和一個小一）什麼和怎樣做一個不斷“是在世界上。”

“世界”有三個基本特徵：這是一個相互關聯的整體件的設備，用來進行每一項具體任務，如在一錘釘。 這些任務是進行以達到某種目的，例如建築的房子。 最後，這一活動使那些有身份執行它，例如被一個木匠。 這些身份的含義或點從事這些活動。“（3）在海德格爾的術語來說，這可稱為自己的”換了，清酒的，其中，“一系列的同心圓日益擴大的關注，結構一個人的生命並給它的意義。 （4） 他們包括了世界變得有意義。

空間化

一個重要的方面是點上，我們的世界是如何面向自己空間。 這將需要好幾個步驟概述海德格爾的帳戶這一現象，然後應用到白鯨 。 首先，我會解釋海德格爾的區分笛卡爾空間和生存空間。 我簡要地將討論兩個戰略（即梅爾維爾對比），人們可以利用自己在其中的方向，我會形容為“科技導航” 與 “定位導航。” 海德格爾實際上有一個概念，它必須是一個喜歡動物（如鯨魚），我將簡要闡述。 由於整個遊海洋，鯨本能地部署一個形式的位置導航。 最後，我會研究亞哈的突然轉變，從技術導航在笛卡爾空間，生存空間導航定位，並顯示如何是一個重要的因素在小說的結局。

笛卡兒空間和生存空間 。 一海德格爾的 存在與時間 概念之間的差別是笛卡爾（5）空間和生存空間。 “笛卡爾空間”是 水庫extensa -目標空間。 它使用一個評估條件，如“寸”，“米”或“光年”。 “生存空間”的境界，是我們的實際環境問題。 一個沒有自己的立場是“身體設在某一個點目標空間。” 相反，在世界上的事情“顯示為具有一定的輔助功能-也就是說，在一定貼近或法內斯-根據我的能力，以'把握'或'購買'他們。” 他們是“近”或“遠”，或“左”或“右”，一個地處自己使用這些方向。 物理，幾何空間衍生從我們的“有關交易的世界”，讓我們“透露務實空間性”（德雷福斯， 作為點上，世界 133）。

亞哈的概念笛卡爾空間 。 下面是如何適用的 白鯨 。 不可能有比大海還要寬廣的空間更廣闊的爭辯亞哈與他追求的鯨魚。 他開始在佩闊德的航程為從事與海洋笛卡爾空間。 梅爾維爾介紹亞哈的航海技術如下（第44章）：“[Ÿ]歐會看到他去一個更衣室的氣窗，並帶出一個大皺輥黃色海圖，傳播他們面前，對他擰式表。 然後他自己的座位前，你就會看到他專注研究各種線條和陰影其中有認識了他的眼睛，以及與緩慢但穩定的鉛筆痕跡額外課程超過前位是空白。 每隔一段時間，他將提及樁舊日誌圖書在他身邊，其中訂定的季節和地點，其中各種不同的船舶航行前，抹香鯨已被抓獲或見過。 ... 幾乎每個晚上他們被帶到了，幾乎每天晚上都有些鉛筆的痕跡抹去，和其他人取代。“

技術導航 。 一個定位自己的方式在笛卡爾空間的海洋是使用工具的技術導航，如亞哈的“滾動的黃色海圖”和“樁舊日誌圖書。” 他還部署了他那個時代的其他技術，如象限（第118號）和一個指南針（第124章），以修正自己的位置（1象限措施緯度的顯示角度一顆星，如北極星，到一個單位飛機，這是表面的海洋）。 “當航海家需要一個指南針關係到一個具有里程碑意義的橋樑，他的船有一個真正的角度對一個真正的空間。”（6） 這些技術在文化特有的。 一個結果18世紀的理性主義和實證主義，他們“要求的性質是物化和放置在一個距離，它可以通過系統研究”和理解“性質的機械裝置。”（7）

海德格爾是著名的可疑有關技術（在這裡，圖表，記錄圖書，象限儀和指南針）和發揮的作用在一個社會的關係的性質。 （8） 他批評“消費而消費的”，甚至抨擊德國農民的黑暗的森林因收音機和電視機。 撇開這些具體成果，更嚴重的問題與他的技術是信仰，將解決我們所有的問題。 技術麻痺我們，以為我們可以理解自然現象（如海洋和笛卡爾空間），並掌握它們。 它限制了我們“的思維方式”（損害我們的理解存在的意義）。 我們可以克服這種影響只有通過加強它和它以外的相關分析/的計算方法。 有這樣做的，我們可以看到它是什麼技術 - 一個是促成我們目前的文化習俗，我們的“最新了解福利。”（9） 正如我將顯示，亞哈後剛剛進行這項工作。

定位導航 。 獲取的方式之一是通過生存空間導航定位，利用定向指標的變化海德格爾準則。 這是怎樣的考古發現之一的方式之一是在剝奪了一切的文書技術導航。

雖然他們有不同的短語，這確切區分誰感興趣人類學家研究過航海文化，如密克羅尼西亞。 這個例子是在南太平洋相關，因為它是一個幅員遼闊，通過這些遠洋航行亞哈（第111章）。 Mardi, A Voyage Thither (1849).梅爾維爾航行，寫有關於它在泰彼 （1846年），Omoo（1847年）和 狂歡，一個旅去那裡 （1849年）。 除了主題，如食人，其他方面的文化要有自己的思想滲透。 （10）

密克羅尼西亞航海家使用位置導航旅行的方式，完全不同於西方的航海家。 他們“經常航行數百英里的視線之外的土地沒有使用圖表，表格，或任何其他文書。” 從認知科學的角度來看，他們可以“用一個優雅的精神圖像疊加系統。”（11） 這些精神圖像，構成一個“全球代表性的地點的各條土地相對對方。” 他們開發出了一個“抽象表示的空間”，然後啟用一個假設的“虛構 point的觀點相對於抽象的代表權”（赫欽斯，“理解密克羅尼西亞導航，”206）。

人們有可能把這個作為一種“心理地圖”，因為所有的航海家所要做的就是想像。 有“小房間或需要創新。 導航需要的解決方案不前所未有的問題。 領航員必須明智和敏銳，但他從來不要求有新的想法，與東西放在一起以新的方式。“（12）

這些不同類型的“心理導航地圖”在文化上，具體的：“西方研究人員的合理性提出質疑的密克羅尼西亞的航海家，說他們的技術在邏輯上是不協調的，或者說，密克羅尼西亞航海家不允許邏輯一致性或不一致，只要他他們知道，干擾實用價值。 但是，它可以證明該模型使用不同的密克羅尼西亞運作框架的參考和在此基礎上不同的基本假設從那些表象是很常見的西方世界。“（赫欽斯，”材料共混錨為 Conceptual“ 1568）。

即使沒有這個概念了“心理地圖”定位導航技術是根本不同的導航。 它依賴於直觀的戰略位置雪亮的生存空間內，而不是顯性知識如何利用工具建立在笛卡爾坐標空間。 它可能被定性為“自我中心代表性的環境;”後，一個“社會為'神的眼睛風景'。”（13） 作為一個西化的船員，亞哈沒有其他選擇，而不是開始佩闊德的航行使用的工具和技術，通過導航技術在海洋，視為笛卡爾空間。

鯨魚眼導航 。 鯨魚是無法使用這些工具和技術，或想像任何戰略技術導航。 它們是生物與自然說不出的歸屬性謂詞（第42章），海洋是他們的自然生態。 他們在自己位於它，並在其生存環境和功能的限制，對動物的本能。 他們（明顯）不使用技術手段（因為它們不是人類）。 他們（可能）不使用“心智地圖”（出於同樣的原因）（假設我們這樣做）。 他們的航行戰略更像一個形式定位導航範圍內的環境空間。 他們更喜歡密克羅尼西亞航海家（ 反之亦然 ），那麼當他離開楠塔基特亞哈。

海德格爾有相當多談談動物，按照這種辦法。 （14） 動物某處存在一個無生命的物體之間的頻譜和人民。 該動物“是在世界上的窮人自己的條件，差的被剝奪感。” 作為一個動物是比被一塊石頭，因為石頭沒有“准入”到其周圍的環境。 它缺乏的可能性，甚至有被剝奪的世界，但動物做。 蜥蜴，例如，在陽光溫暖自己的“陶醉在一個溫暖的石頭。” 這比簡單的“有”，在目前的身體意識。 他說：“積極尋求出石頭，它的謊言。 如果被刪除的蜥蜴從石頭，放在另一個較冷區域，它不會留在原地的石頭的做法，但將在所有可能再次嘗試尋找一個溫暖的石頭或其他地方，沐浴在陽光下。 “ 它“有一個反應和互動關係與它周圍的環境。”（15） 如果鯨魚是人，海德格爾會說這是專注於應對其環境和透明的環境（珊瑚，海藻，浮游生物，魚類等， 等 ）。

鯨魚可能是聰明比海德格爾認為他們是。 “儘管深進化分歧，身體適應不同環境，和非常不同的神經解剖組織，”鯨豚“顯示驚人的銜接，社會行為，人工'語言'的理解，和自我識別能力。”（16） 然而，它似乎是安全的結論，鯨魚不能circumspectively考慮其對環境或自己的底層，它可以作為一個人。 “當我們在陽光下的謊言...太陽是我們接觸到的 太陽，我們接觸到岩石 的 岩石的方式，是根本不可能的動物。” 原則上，從來沒有一種動物可以“進入其他實體在其環境中遇到 的 實體”（著重在原件）。 如果世界上只有一個“是指使用的其他人，我們可以說該動物世界，但如果'世界'是在某些方面有相關的訪問是對生命，對人 如此 ，那麼動物沒有世界。“ 基於這些原因，動物（如鯨魚）“有一個完全不同的方式被合的世界比人類”（卡拉爾科23）。 讓我們稱之為正在點上洋-現有的方法是完全取決於環境的限制，以及有必要對具有位置在水上航行的世界。

亞哈的轉型從笛卡爾空間到生存空間 。 亞哈戲劇性地說明了區別笛卡爾空間和生存空間。 由於佩闊德的航程進步，他變得越來越不舒服，煩躁領域內的笛卡爾空間。 梅爾維爾形容這場衝突如下（第44章）：“現在，任何一個不完全熟悉的leviathans方式， 它可能看起來是荒謬無望的任務從而尋求出一個孤獨的生物在未進行hooped海洋這個星球。 但並非如此做了，似乎亞哈 ，誰知道集合所有潮汐和海流;，從而計算driftings的抹香鯨的食物，以及，同時， 要求考慮到定期，確定季節狩獵他特別緯度;可到達合理的猜測，幾乎逼近確定性，最及時的一天就被這樣或那樣的理由後，在搜索他的獵物。“[著重號。]

亞哈是漂泊的“迷宮水流和漩渦”的笛卡爾空間。 而不是使用其客觀的參考點，以科技導航看出，他的生存空間，成為該項目的輪廓定位鯨（第36章）。 他的任務是“荒謬絕望”的境界笛卡爾空間，但他感覺良好的框架內對自己的生存空間。 在這方面，亞哈來到功能在同一環境的白鯨。 他停下來思考一個人一樣，開始表現得象一條鯨魚。

出現了亞哈的時候，明確提出從笛卡兒的過渡空間，生存空間，成為定位導航儀，而不是一個技術之一。 他突然開始“另一種系統化的思維模式” -一個“充滿活力，分級和自我中心的地圖，”使用軸承的“射”從他自己的觀點。 過了這座橋，這是“不可想像的字面相交的軸承可能”在任何一個點，但是他自己的即時位置（Shorr 279）。

亞哈完成了他的隔閡與笛卡爾空間，實際上破壞佩闊德的導航儀器的技術。 他整個東亞文明（第118號）：“詛咒你，你象限！”破滅到甲板，“不再將我引導我的塵世的方式由你;水平船舶的指南針和水平航位推算，通過記錄和由線人，由他們進行我，告訴我我的位置在海面上。 唉，“照明從船甲板上，”因此我踩你，你微不足道的事情有氣無力地pointest高，因此我的分裂和毀滅你！“

後來（第134章），他甚至試圖說服他們要去東部船員，而不是西方：“他的頭一半的頂推入賓納克，亞哈捕獲一見的羅盤，他舉起的手臂慢慢下降;了一會兒，他簡直是在錯開。 星巴克在他身後站立觀看，看哪！ 兩個羅盤指出東，和佩闊德被視為無誤向西走。 但野生隴第一報警可以走出國外的船員中，老人笑了剛性叫道，“我吧！ 它發生過。 星巴克先生，昨晚的雷聲把我們的指南針 - 這一切。 但chancing滑與他象牙腳跟，他看到了碎銅視力管的象限，他前一天沖向甲板。 “你可憐的，驕傲的天堂，基色和太陽的飛行員！ 昨天，我破壞你，到當天的羅盤會假裝已經破壞了我。 因此，所以。 但是亞哈是稱王稱霸的水平洛德斯呢 。“[著重補充。]

這是一個最重要的通道在整本圖書。 通過破壞和神奇象限以為他可以改變方向的指南針，亞哈完成他的斷開與笛卡爾空間。 他推翻了字面上技術（象限和指南針），使他的位置在它自己。 他不妨也扔到海裡的黃色海圖和樁舊日誌的書，也許他沒有。

在這樣做時，戲劇性地證明亞哈笛卡兒空間之間的對立和生存空間。 疏遠了前者，他完成了預期的弧梅爾維爾在開始的航程。 亞哈堅持歸於邪惡意圖的鯨魚，當它僅僅是一種動物。 雖然大多數捕鯨根本是“一心賺錢郵輪，盈利將下降用美元計算的薄荷，”亞哈“是一個大膽的意圖，immitigable，和超自然的復仇”（第41章）。 在追求這個目標，要求他毫不猶豫地跟隨鯨魚，只要有可能導致。 這是他的意思是。 他關注的不是佩闊德的目標位置，但多近或遠它是從白鯨。 他不再想要或需要自己具有位置位於在笛卡爾空間。 （17）

這導致了事件序列第3天的追逐（第135）。 亞哈放棄任何努力去認識海洋，或白鯨，在科學合理的基礎，甚至。 海洋是深，深莫測。 這是鯨魚的自然生態，海洋哺乳動物。 一種根深蒂固的船員，亞哈羨慕鯨魚的設施，依靠本能，回應的直覺它建議。 不像白鯨，亞哈是受制於公約的笛卡爾空間（在其他問題上，他無法呼吸水下）。 他終於成為部分鯨魚的世界。 他給了矛和響應鯨魚的詛咒和他一起，只有滅亡。 （18） 他這樣做解決了並列之間把自己看成是眾生和鯨魚作為一個非意識，頑石獸。

無家可歸

這一點，我一直認為（並且，我希望證明），一個獨特屬性的生存空間定位導航的那種本能地部署了白鯨，（最終）由亞哈。 通過這兩個 caromed海洋像台球或保險槓，汽車在一個縣公平，配置了各自的方向和目標。 我現在想延長此行的另一個概念推理，這是現象，“不幸福，在- homeness。” 海德格爾稱這種Unheimlichkeit，這是德國的經驗“怪誕”或“uncanniness”（海德格爾， 存在與時間 ）。 對他來說，不可能有一個更重要的概念。 這是一個“不容忽視的特徵對人類狀況...我們被一個陰影。”

通過世界徘徊-無家可歸-又是一個白鯨 的明確的主題。 （19） 所有的重要人物的經驗來看-亞哈，以實瑪利，Queequeg，和白鯨自己。 這是一個最令人震驚（和可怕的）方面的書。 這是地方（或更確切地說，缺乏的地方）在任何海德格爾分析 白鯨 必須解決。

為了證明這一點，我首先將建立什麼海德格爾手段Unheimlichkeit 以及為什麼它是一個根本的方式被合的世界。 我會解釋的替代海德格爾反對反對，他稱之為“居所”。 該主題的 Unheimlichkeit 是無處不在的史詩敘事傳統上梅爾維爾，和他是一個組成部分。 Book of Exodus in the Bible. 我會看它的兩個基本標準方面，這是荷馬的 奧德賽 與 圖書 在聖經 出埃及記 。 Unheimlichkeit differently, and iterates important aspects of the phenotypes of Odysseus and Moses. 每一個重要人物， 白鯨 遇到 Unheimlichkeit 不同，迭代的重要方面，表型的奧德修斯和摩西。 我也將每個帳戶的方式解決了住房問題的，只要他們做的事。

Unheimlichkeit。 Unheimlichkeit 的來源是“拋出性”的焦慮，我們的經驗在面對不可避免的前景基本上是任意的死亡和人類文化的性質和機構。 這是一個意義上的隔閡。 （20） 這是破壞性的，因為它“需要一個位移或破壞”一個人的“魯莽的順利運作的世界。”（21） Being-in-the-World 37) (emphasis in original): “The things that once evoked commitment – gods, heroes, the God-man, the acts of great statesmen, the words of great thinkers – have lost their authority. 一個“感覺根本解決，也就是人類感官不能在家中的世界”（德雷福斯， 作為點上，世界 37）（著重於原）：“有些事情，一旦誘發的承諾-神，英雄，神人，偉大的政治家的行為，偉大的思想家的話-已經失去了權威。 因此，個人感到孤立和疏遠。 他們感到自己的生命毫無意義，因為世界上有沒有公開的指導方針。 ...唯一的方法有一個有意義的生活在當今時代，那麼，讓你的參與成為最終的現實你，什麼是明確的現實是給你的東西是不以任何方式臨時性圖則-儘管它肯定是脆弱的。“（22）

棲居。 激進的不安全的 Unheimlichkeit 是平衡的海德格爾的概念，“住宅”，這意味著“安全”，“將在和平”，“受到保護，免受傷害和威脅”，“保障”和“關心和保護。”（ 23） 居住在這裡一結束時，一站起來徘徊。 它促進了公約的發展和傳統。 （24） 它是“地方銜接的性質的東西”（如物質文化）發生。 （25） 它導致什麼社會學家阿爾伯特博格曼所謂的“重點做法”或“聯合商品” -如何在人類活動的重點是通過利用成為對象，歸屬的意義，以及發展的社會意識。 （26）

它這樣做是“接通能量”我們的感情 - 在他們成為一個適當的心情使意義的事物和人。 接通能量帶來了“的事情，人們把自己的”接地情況，並提出了他們對我們非常重要。 （27） 它“讓我們進入某些日常的現象，我們不希望生活在沒有。”（28） 它是我們日常生活的常識性的認識，使事情的方式顯示出來，他們做的，我們是這樣，我們都是。 “共享的做法納入社會化...我們是提供一個背景的了解什麼問題，什麼是有意義的事情，在此基礎上，我們可以指導我們的行動。 這種理解造成什麼被海德格爾稱之為結算中的東西，人們可以顯示為無所謂的，有意義的我們。 我們沒有產生結算。 它生產我們作為人類的一種，我們。“（德雷福斯，”海德格爾對虛無主義之間的連接，藝術，科技與政治“）。 海德格爾的話是清理澄明 ，從字面上來看，一個有燈的地方。 文化是這樣的結算-背景的解釋和說明我們都在其中居住，這使得不同的含義可能。

在猶太教和基督教傳統。 contemporary culture. 海德格爾標識 Unheimlichkeit 作為 當代 文化的弊病。 適當考慮，雖然，它是一個廣泛的主題， 整個 猶太教和基督教傳統（因為它在時間展開）。 我們所說的猶太教和基督教傳統最初是由古希臘人（海德格爾他們著迷）（29）和古以色列人。 海德格爾來描述它為“本體神學”，這是目前的想法，具體的實體可以在以下方面加以解釋的其他具體實體，如神。“（30）

梅爾維爾始終納入神話，神話，比較神話和神話理論來源於猶太教和基督教傳統，在他的主要作品。 他們決定，並確定大部分地區的白鯨 的結構和意義。 （31）

梅爾維爾是精通（以史詩的形式），並撥出他們自己非常原始的目的，的確，在這部小說中，他列出的英雄品質融合了古代荷馬史詩的精神素質的早期發現，現代的形式Dante and Milton, all in an unprecedented poetic prose – the first such prose epic of its kind. … Moby Dick is a 'spiritual epic.' … Moreover, given Melville's symbolic technique, which in an epic work is designed to infuse the quotidian world with significance and elevate mundane matters to the supernatural plane, the theme of the quest for the soul takes on an overriding importance. … As an epic of the universal story of mankind therefore, Moby-Dick is … comparable for its time and place to the Odyssey of ancient Greece or the Aeneid of early Rome. （32）

在撰寫白鯨 ，梅爾維爾“進行了一項雄心勃勃的計劃加倍，匯集了兩大傳統的形式，古老的民族史詩的戰鬥，作為例證的伊利亞特或貝奧武夫，現代史詩的精神追求，體現了作為神曲或失樂園“。 這是“史詩故事的普遍人類。”（33）

從這個角度看，奧德修斯和摩西是特別合適的例子。 它們形成了我們目前的關注，甚至我們的意識，關鍵是人的完善，他們是我們的“猶太教和基督教的傳承。”（34） 他們仍然是“活著對我們來說，是當代與我們的方式，不早數字。 我們的文化傳統和偉大的世界仍然在許多方面我們確定，都源於“他們。 （35）

在各自的傳統，每個是一個催化劑或“世界披露”，因為它們促進了點化各自文化的典範，他們成立。 世界表露接管“任何可用的感性材料是為了表達權的特定情況下的感覺，”從而控制“的共同情感方面的含義。” 這樣，他們可以“改變國家的事務。” 他們把注意力集中到“我們的方式向他們收集的東西，就像我們把他們吸引他們具有一定的點化”（斯皮諾薩， 海德格爾在生活神 ，224，216）。 他們提供一個“了解什麼問題，什麼是有意義的事情，在此基礎上，我們可以指導我們的行動，”一個空間，“事物，人們可以顯示為無所謂的，有意義的我們。”（36） 他們“創造歷史的可能，讓一切顯示了一定的口氣當時就旨在闡明。”（37）

他們還原型為主要特徵的白鯨 ，誰是複合材料的幾個最重要的歸屬性謂詞，因為我將描述。

奧德修斯 。 奧德修斯的主題是普遍的，它是“過於誇大”其影響力。 （38） 他是一個“模型和一面鏡子的個人和文化的自我定義”（沙因，“導言” 讀奧德賽 3）。 該方面的奧德修斯，大部分被俘梅爾維爾的想像“是不是他的實力，他的果敢，或他的狡猾，但他的永恆的漂泊。”（39） 正如奧德修斯穿過陌生的世界，面對幾乎沒有人形，他成為了原型為“以後每探險家海，陸，甚至外層空間。”（40） 即使在他居住的他們，他是外星人給他們，他們給了他“沒有社會功能”，他可以“承認和接受的。”（41） 儘管如此，他成功地生存下來，倖存下來，他就像伊斯梅爾對抗，白鯨。 （42）

奧德修斯航行說明了徒勞的使用地圖，甚至有方向感。 他徘徊。 他沒有工具技術導航。 他在那裡降落到明年完全是神的（或至少，從他的手）;波塞冬決定了他的導航策略。 他不是無家可歸（他住在伊薩卡）。 他的目的是要回到他的家，他意識到這點。

摩西 。 大約在同一時間奧德修斯（43），摩西和選擇的人peregrinated對西奈。 摩西為以色列人重要的是古老的奧德修斯是古希臘人。 （44） 奧德修斯一樣，摩西徘徊，沒有儀器技術導航。 雅威戰略決定了他的航行穿越沙漠（他的海洋）。 雲率領他的一天，一夜間火災支柱。 不像奧德修斯，他仍然在一個單一的世界只有一個神誰帶領他們穿過它。 （45） 也不像奧德修斯，摩西是無家可歸者，他沒有住房。 他的目的是要帶領他的人民的樂土。 他意識到它（雖然他死在東海岸的約旦河，沒有跨越到它，聖經， 號碼 20:12）。

流浪，無家可歸，居住，導航，目的 。

The characters who populate Moby Dick instantiate different aspects of Odysseus and Moses, their world-disclosing predecessors. They exemplify different facets of the argument I have developed to this point. Wandering is a basic feature of Unheimlichkeit , and the characters of Moby Dick are every bit as much wanderers as Odysseus and Moses. They have odd adventures and encounter disconcerting phenomena. (46) They become forgetful of their purpose. (47) They pursue the meaning of their being. More broadly, Melville's point is that we all are cast out, just like the Biblical Ishmael. All of us are “guests” on the earth. (48) One is fortunate if one is able to find, and come to inhabit, a dwelling that is suitable and congenial to one's purposes – like Odysseus, Moses, and the characters of Moby Dick . I will devote the remainder of this essay to discussing these topics.

1。 Moby Dick . Moby Dick wanders. He is not homeless. He dwells in the ocean. He positionally navigates it as he follows the “driftings” of his food. There are “ascertained seasons for hunting him in particular latitudes.” One can “arrive at reasonable surmises, almost approaching to certainties, concerning the timeliest day to be upon this or that ground in search of his prey” (Chapter 44). He does not, however, have any kind of non-instinctual objective. He's a whale, and whales don't have “purposes.”

2。 亞哈 。 亞哈徘徊。 他不是無家可歸。 He dwells in Nantucket (Chapter 16). He starts off navigating technologically through Cartesian space. He loses directionality when he segues to positional navigation through existential space. At that moment his dwelling changes from the terrestrial to the oceanic, which is the same as Moby Dick's. He remains intent to the end on his objective, which is to exact revenge on Moby Dick for biting off his leg. Viewed as a goal or an outcome, he does not realize it. Moby Dick destroys the Pequod, Ahab drowns, and Moby Dick swims off (Chapter 135).

3。 Ishmael . Ishmael wanders. He is homeless. He has no dwelling. (49) As a sailor on the Pequod, he is captive to Moby Dick's and Ahab's navigational strategies. He has no purpose other than to “sail about a little and see the watery portion of the world” (Chapter 1). He achieves it and survives the catastrophe (Epilogue).

4。 Queequeg . Queequeg wanders. He is not homeless. He dwells in Kokovoko. He too is captive to Moby Dick's and Ahab's navigational strategies. He has no purpose other than to “see something more of Christendom”) (Chapter 12). He achieves it, but perishes in the process. (50)

The following table summarizes these findings:

Culture . Melville envisions a culture that permits these different perspectives to cohabitate. He imagines a world in which purposeful human activity is balanced with the factors that constrain it, both natural and social. Culture is produced by interactions between people, such as the squeezing of the hands (Chapter 94). On such occasions, we attune ourselves to communal practices and become sensitized to the corresponding intuitions they evoke. They are created, manifest themselves, and we become aware of them (to the extent we are) only within the space of this “clearing.” They are a precipitate of dwelling, standing against the Unheimlichkeit of wandering.

Although not referring to Melville, two modern social theorists have expressed this idea with particular clarity: Robert Bellah and Charles Taylor. In his essay “Civil Religion in America,” (51) Bellah elaborated on Rousseau's definition of “civil religion,” redefining it as “a collection of beliefs, symbols, and rituals with respect to sacred things and institutionalized in a collectivity.” It is “neither sectarian nor in any specific sense Christian.”

According to Taylor, “We are now in an age in which a publicly accessible cosmic order of meanings is an impossibility.” (52) As a result, we have “tended to displace in importance the sense of belonging to large scale collective agencies.” (53) This is contrary to our nature, because “to make the demand for meaning is not an optional stance. It is central to our humanity” (Taylor, A Secular Age 584) and cultural institutions are an “indispensable matrix of civilizational order” (Taylor, A Secular Age 491). Any contemporary definition of self “requires answers totally dependent on cultural or moral contexts, frameworks, or orientation – human categories of personal and social action, of value.” (54) This is appropriate because (man) is “a self-interpreting animal. He is necessarily so, for there is no such thing as the structure of meanings for him independently of his interpretation of them; one is woven into the other.” (55)

Taylor's use of the verb “weave” is particularly suggestive of Melville's “weaver god.” In The Bower of the Arsacides (Chapter 102), Melville imagines a disclosive space much like a Heidegger-type clearing: “It was a wondrous sight. The wood was green as mosses of the Icy Glen; the trees stood high and haughty, feeling their living sap; the industrious earth beneath was as a weaver's loom, with a gorgeous carpet on it, whereof the ground-vine tendrils formed the warp and woof, and the living flowers the figures. All the trees, with all their laden branches; all the shrubs, and ferns, and grasses; the message-carrying air; all these unceasingly were active. Through the lacings of the leaves, the great sun seemed a flying shuttle weaving the unwearied verdure.”

The same God fractures the light of the whale's spout into a multi-colored rainbow (Chapter 85). Melville then encounters a gigantic whale skeleton. While it is a remnant of nature, human initiative has transformed it into what could be a church, or a museum, or a prison – all human architectural structures. It integrates both into a harmonious whole.

Our inability to classify the whale's skeleton is symptomatic of our own ontological confusion. （56） We are confused because of the ambiguity of the interface it presents between man and nature: “Melville's careful disorderly reading of antiquity's inscription of the whale attests to myth's ambiguities. His use of the whale in classical myths confirms the persistent permeability of myth's borders and Melville's celebration of that permeability. The mythical whale-man and the recorder of tales remind us that myth grants us complexity and, in its variations, compounds the complexity of narrative's desire. The cumulated variations, the diversity of competing accounts of any myth, preserve and safeguard contradictions. For Melville, myth-maker, selective reader, and purposeful natural historian, these variations extend a chase on ancient waters beyond a three-day pursuit of Moby Dick toward the ever-receding horizon and the morphing shape of the whale.” (57)

Several critics read Moby Dick as a critique of monotheism, (58) or as a psychological study of Ahab. (59) The outcomes envisioned by Bellah and Taylor suggest neither of these interpretations have it quite right.

We know as a matter of his biography that Melville was “nurtured in orthodox Calvinism by his Dutch Reformed mother and minister; yet by the time he wrote Moby Dick , he had not only lived among cannibals and whalemen but had 'swam through libraries'.” (60) His interest was not so much to “attack traditional ideas about God with the object of replacing them with better ideas,” such as polytheism. Rather, “his mission is prophetic, that of calling us to a deeper life.” (61) His “revolutionary impact upon the novel form does not derive from Christianity's absence – a formal experimentalism released from the grip of conventions that have their roots in a defeated Protestant orthodoxy – but precisely from its continued presence ” (Franchot 157) (emphasis added).

All religions “employ a controlling hierarchy; with narrow doctrines that restrain and control people's choices and lives.” But Moby Dick should not be read as depicting a “battle between good and evil with Ahab as the human hero trying to destroy the symbol of evil in the whale.” What is wrong is any form of religion that structures the world “in such ways as to be available to empower an Ahab, who believes that he has the knowledge of good and evil and may act for the rest of his society, nation, or the world.” (62)

To strip Melville's “profoundly symbolic writings down to theological allegories … is reductive.” (63) He rejects the “simplifications, reductions and isolations” of dualisms such as monotheism versus polytheism. His “quarrel” is not so much with God as with these opposed conceptions of God. (64) Melville can be seen as creating a new discourse that attempts to overreach these distinctions. In place of them he substitutes a “language of wonder” that preserves a “fascination with the particulars of the natural world” while simultaneously embracing and critiquing our assumptions about it. (65) This enables us to see outside of our “traditional ways of thinking about religion and spirituality.” (66)

Nor is the world Melville envisions some kind of private mental universe. He “discovered that the universe is an infinite sum of concepts, a universal conceptual brotherhood.” The “actual and anonymous universe remains shielded and impervious to man exactly because this opaque net of concepts or masks, like an impenetrable wall, intervenes.” (67) This dramatizes both the “parallel failures of human striving (Ahab) and knowing (Ishamel).” (68) In juxtaposing Ahab against Moby Dick, Melville “forces the reader to contemplate the Absolute suddenly placed in what appears to be the ordinary contingencies of life, and then to consider the consequences.” (69) All of which illustrates Melville's conception of a dynamic clearing situated beyond the categories of faith (such as the Bower of the Arsacides).

結論

Obviously Melville did not think in explicitly Heidegger-like terms, and there is no evidence that Heidegger even had heard of Melville. It is not that far off the mark, though, for me to contend that Melville was deeply concerned with the same problems of being-in-the-world that Heidegger later would address. In this respect, while it is (trivially) true that “no single artist … can ever represent an entire culture,” there is a profound sense in which Melville is “truly representative of the kind of humanity that gives meaning to culture. (70) Moby Dick “conceives one last and greatest quest for a whole vision of a whole world” (Grenberg 93). It invites and demands constant reinterpretation, as do the Odyssey (Slatkin 229) and Exodus . I am confident Melville would embrace the ecumenical spirit of this endeavor.

Endnotes

(1) Jonathan Culler, On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism (Ithaca: Cornell, 1982) 149.

（2）馬丁海德格爾， 存在與時間 ，1927年，跨。 John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson (New York: Harper, 1962).

(3) Charles Spinosa, Fernando Flores and Hubert Dreyfus, Disclosing New Worlds – Entrepreneurship, Democratic Action, and the Cultivation of Solidarity (Cambridge: MIT, 1997) 17.

(4) Hubert Dreyfus, Being-in-the-World (Boston: MIT, 1991) 95; with the important exception that “for-the-sake-of-which” is a process of disclosing, not a “final goal.” As much as Ahab may have enjoyed his quest for the whale, there can be no question but that it was focused on an objective, that is, the whale's physical demise.

(5) The term “Cartesian” comes from the French Enlightenment philosopher who was the modern originator of these theories, René Des cartes .

(6) Edwin Hutchins, “Understanding Micronesian navigation,” Mental Models , eds. Dedre Genter and Albert Stevens (Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1983) 206.

(7) Bruce Harvey, “Science and the Earth,” A Companion to Herman Melville , ed. Wyn Kelley (Malden: Blackwell, 2007) 71 – 82.

(8) Martin Heidegger, “The Question Concerning Technology,” 1954, trans. William Lovitt, Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings , ed. David Krell (New York: Harper, 1977) 307 – 342.

(9) Hubert Dreyfus, “Heidegger on Gaining a Free Relation to Technology, Technology and Values , eds. Kristin Shrader-Frechette and Laura Westra (Lanham: Bowman and Littlefield, 1997) 41 – 54.

(10) Michel Despland, “Two Ways of Articulating Outsider's Knowledge of Polynesian Culture and Religion: Melville's Typee and Mardi ,” Method & Theory in the Study of Religion , 2004: 16, 105 – 121.

(11) Edwin Hutchins, “Material Anchors for Conceptual Blends,” Journal of Pragmatics , 2005: 37(10), 1555 – 1577: 1567.

(12) Gladwin Thomas, East is a big bird: Navigation and Logic on Puluwat Atoll (Cambridge: Harvard, 1970) 220.

(13) Bradd Shore, Culture in Mind – Cognition, Culture, and the Problem of Meaning (New York: Oxford, 1996) 278.

(14) Martin Heidegger, The Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics: World, Finitude, Solitude , 1929, trans. William McNeill and Nicholas Walker (Bloomington: Indiana, 1995).

(15) Matthew Calarco, “Heidegger's Zoontology,” Animal Philosophy: Ethics and Identity , eds. Peter Atterton and Matthew Calarco (New York: Continuum, 2004) 18 – 30: 23.

(16) Lori Marino, “Convergence of Complex Cognitive Abilities in Cetaceans and Primates, Brain Behavior and Evolution , 2005: 59, 21 – 32: 21.

(17) Another example of the contrast between Cartesian space and existential space is Kokovoko, which is not drawn on any map. Its lack of coordinates in Cartesian space has an “underlying ontological dimension.” Even before he destroyed his instruments of technological navigation, Ahab would not have been able to find it, because the “existence of maps is no proof of the existence of a reality.” The map is a: “catalyst of the protagonist's perception. … Trying to negate the topographical tendency towards disorder by the building up of shapes, organizing divergent disorderly factors, by orderly delineation of some marks and erasure of what is thought to form irrelevancies, Ahab tends to believe in implied necessary existence. The systematic inscription of the supposedly uninscribed ocean is the exemplification of a structuralist wish to guarantee presence although stability cannot be guaranteed.” Zbigniew Bialas, “Pondering Over the Chart of Kokovoko – Herman Melville and the Critique of Cartological Inscription, Melville “Among the Nations” , eds. Sanford Marovitz and Athanasios Christodoulou (Kent: Kent State, 2005) 345 – 354: 347 – 349.

(18) As foretold by Mapple in his sermon on Jonah, who “cries out to them to take him and cast him forth into the sea” (Chapter 9). Contrary to first impression, Mapple does not so much fall into the “formulaic tradition of Protestant homiletics.” Rather, his concern is to juxtapose the futility of individual purpose in contrast to the overwhelming force of nature. As Ishmael glosses it, “clear Truth is a thing for salamander giants only to encounter” (Chapter 76). Truth that “lives in the deep can be confronted only in the deep.” Ahab and his crew “dramatize the heroism and tragedy of our unsuccessful yet unyielding efforts to confront that alien world. … In the end, we can neither control nor understand our world, can neither control nor understand ourselves.” Bruce Grenberg, Some Other World to Find – Quest and Negation in the Works of Herman Melville (Chicago: Chicago, 1989) 98, 101 – 102.

(19) Jenny Franchot, “Melville's Traveling God,” The Cambridge Companion to Herman Melville , ed. Robert Levine (New York: Cambridge, 1998) 157 – 185: 158.

(20) Pio Colonnello, “Homelessness as Heimatlosigkeit ?,” The Ethics of Homelessness – Philosophical Perspectives , ed. G. Abbarno (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1999) 41 – 54: 41.

(21) Leslie MacAvoy, “Overturning Cartesianism and the Hermeneutics of Suspicion: Rethinking Dreyfus on Heidegger,” Inquiry , 2001: 44, 455 – 480: 461.

(22) Hubert Dreyfus, “Heidegger on the Connection between Nihilism, Art, Technology and Politics,” 15 Oct. 2008.

(23) Martin Heidegger, “Building Dwelling Thinking, ” 1951, trans. Albert Hofstadter, Poetry, Language, Thought (New York: Harper, 1971). Quotes are from Julian Young, “What Is Dwelling? The Homelessness of Modernity and the Worlding of the World,” Heidegger, Authenticity and Modernity – Essays in Honor of Hubert L. Dreyfus , eds. Mark Wrathall and Jeff Malpas (Cambridge: MIT, 2000) 187 – 204.

(24) Hubert Dreyfus and Charles Spinosa, “Highway bridges and feasts: Heidegger and Borgmann on how to affirm technology,” Man and World , 1997: 30, 159 – 177: 166.

(25) Håkan Karlsson, “Why Is There Material Culture Rather than Nothing? Heideggerian thoughts and archaeology,” Philosophy and Archaeological Practice – Perspectives for the 21 ^st Century , eds. Cornelius Holtorf and Håkan Karlsson (Lindome: Bricoleur, 2000) 69 – 86: 72.

(26) Albert Borgmann, Crossing the Postmodern Divide (Chicago: Chicago) 88.

(27) Hubert Dreyfus and Charles Spinosa, “Further Reflections on Heidegger, Technology, and the Everyday,” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society , 2003: 23(5), 339 – 349: 344.

(28) Charles Spinosa, “Heidegger on Living Gods,” Heidegger, Coping, and Cognitive Science – Essays in Honor of Hubert L. Dreyfus, eds. Mark Wrathall and Jeff Malpas (Cambridge: MIT, 2000) 209 – 228: 210.

(29) He thought they were the last philosophical thinkers correctly oriented towards pursing the meaning of Being. Martin Heidegger, Parmenides , 1942, trans. Andre Schuwer and Richard Rojcewicz (Bloomington: Indiana, 1992). They were the first to experience the “astonishment, the fundamental mood of the first beginning.” It “struck and dazzled them,” Michel Haar, “Attunement and Thinking,” Heidegger Reexamined – Volume 3 – Art, Poetry and Technology , eds. Hubert Dreyfus and Mark Wrathall (New York: Routledge, 2002) 149 – 162: 158. The historical commentator who came closest to realizing a Heideggerian interpretation of the Odyssey may have been the neo-Platonist Porphyry (ca. 234 – 305 CE). In The Cave of the Nymphs in the Odyssey , he “sees Odysseus as a symbol of the soul journeying through the material realm of becoming to its final restoration in pure being.” Seth Schein, “Introduction,” Reading the Odyssey – Selected Interpretive Essays , ed. Seth Schein (Princeton: Princeton, 1996) 3 – 32: 15.

(30) “Theology” (θεολογία), of course, is discourse about god or gods – religion, conventionally understood. Onto-theology defines a god as the originator of being. In the Judeo-Christian Tradition, the God of Abraham and Moses produced or caused everything that is. For Heidegger, referring to God is “telling a story” – tracing one form of entity (us) back to its origin with some other entity (God). Heidegger is critical of onto-theology because has obscured the quest for the meaning of Being. “Being” is what produces and causes entities, not other entities. William Blattner, Heidegger's Being and Time (London: Continuum, 2007) 17.

This conceptual misunderstanding has pervasively infiltrated the Judeo-Christian literary and narrative tradition. Martin Heidegger, “The Onto-Theo-Logical Constitution of Metaphysics,” 1955, Identity and Difference , trans. Joan Stambaugh (New York: Harper, 1969) 42 – 74. It has done so by proliferating distinctions such as “reality versus appearance” and “the rational versus the irrational,” all of which Heidegger rejects. It is a short step from Heidegger's definition of onto-theology to include monotheism in the sense of Abrahamic religions. Merold Westphal, Overcoming Onto-Theology: Towards a Postmodern Christian Faith , New York: Fordham, 2001) 9 – 16; Benjamin Crowe, “On the Track of the Fugitive Gods: Heidegger, Luther, Hölderlin, The Journal of Religion , 2007: 183 – 205: 187. By “codifying and disseminating an understanding of what entities are, metaphysics provides each historical 'epoch' of intelligibility with its ontological bedrock. And by furnishing an account of the ultimate source from which entities issue, metaphysics supplies intelligibility with a kind of foundational justification that … Heidegger characterizes as 'theological.'” Theology “reflects a series of historical transformations in our metaphysical understanding of entities are.” Iain Thomson, Heidegger on Ontotheology: Technology and the Politics of Education (Cambridge: Cambridge, 2005) 8.

(31) H. Bruce Franklin, The Wake of the Gods: Melville's Mythology (Stanford: Stanford, 1963).

(32) Christopher Sten, Sounding the Whale – Moby Dick as Epic Novel (Kent: Kent State, 1996) x, 2.

(33) Christopher Sten, “Threading the Labyrinth: Moby-Dick as Hybrid Epic,” A Companion to Herman Melville , ed. Kelley, 408 – 422: 408.

(34) Hubert Dreyfus, “The Roots of Existentialism,” A Companion to Phenomenology and Existentialism , eds. Hubert Dreyfus and Mark Wrathall (Malden: Blackwell, 2006), 137 – 161: 138. World-disclosers such as Odysseus and Moses also played significant roles in establishing our sense of “self,” understood as a cultural precipitate. They developed a system of “creedal hedges … raised around impulses of independence or autonomy from communal purpose.” By doing so they established a “corporate identity within which the individual” must “organize the range of his[/her] experience.” Philip Rieff, The Triumph of the Therapeutic (Chicago: Chicago, 1966) 15, 17.

(35) Robert Bellah, “What is Axial about the Axial Age?”, Archives of European Sociology , 2005: XLVI(1), 69 – 87: 73.

(36) Hubert Dreyfus, “Heidegger on the connection between nihilism, art, technology, and politics,” The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger , 2 ^nd ed., ed. Charles Guignon (New York: Cambridge, 2006) 345 – 372: 351.

(37) Hubert Dreyfus, “Introduction,” Heidegger: A Critical Reader , ed. Hubert Dreyfus and Harrison Hall (Boston: Blackwell, 1992), 1 – 12: 12.

(38) Claudia Johnson and Vernon Johnson, Understanding the Odyssey (Westport: Greenwood, 2003) xiii.

(39) Milton Reigelman, “Looking at Melville's First Hero through a Homeric Lens: Tommo and Odysseus,” Melville “Among the Nations” , eds. Morovitz and Christodoulou, 201 – 209: 202.

(40) Edith Hall, The Return of Ulysses – A Cultural History of Homer's Odyssey (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 2008) 75.

(41) Hélène Foley, “'Reverse Similies' and Sex Roles in the Odyssey ,” Arethusa , 1978: 11, 7 – 26, reprinted in Modern Critical Interpretations – Homer's The Odyssey , ed. Harold Bloom (New York: Chelsea House, 1988), 87 – 102: 100.

(42) The Greek word for Odysseus' return home is νόστος or nostos (from which our word “nostalgia” is derived). Nostos is a genre of epic literary form. Karl Reinhardt, “The Adventures in the Odyssey ,” Reading the Odyssey , ed. Schein, 63 – 132: 87. Odysseus had to make it through numerous literal and symbolic encounters in fantastical lands in order to return back to normalcy. These confrontations defined the meaning of his being and his identity as a member of the human species. The most important aspect of his adventure is the contrast between these worlds, 82. Seen in this light, “Odysseus' homecoming is his most exotic adventure” of all. Michael Nagler, “Dread Goddess Revisited,” Reading the Odyssey , ed. Shein, 141 – 162: 161. As is Ishmael's rescue by The Rachel (Epilogue). Moby Dick flips between first- and third- person narrative, emphasizing this juxtaposition, as does the Odyssey . Laura Slatkin, “Composition by Theme and the Mētis of the Odyssey ,” Reading the Odyssey , ed. Schein, 223 – 238: 231.

(43) Bellah refers to it as the “Axial Age.” Bellah, “What is Axial about the Axial Age.”

(44) Jan Assman, Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism (Cambridge: Harvard, 1997) 3.

(45) As did Virgil for Dante in the Divine Comedy . Although layered, that world nonetheless remained a phenomenologically-consistent whole, with a single god ( ie , God). Dante and Virgil encountered Odysseus in the only place where Dante thought to stick him, which was in the eighth circle (Inferno, Canto 26). In Dante's cosmology that was the one reserved for false counselors, Odysseus having betrayed his sailors by inducing them to travel beyond the edge of the known world, on the promise of virtue and knowledge.

(46) I am thinking in particular of the Pequod's improbable and hallucinogenic encounters with other ships: The Albatross (Chapter 52), The Virgin (Chapter 81), The Rose-Bud (Chapter 91), The Samuel Enderby (Chapter 100), The Bachelor (Chapter 115), The Rachel (Chapter 128) and The Delight (Chapter 131).

(47) Chapter 61: “It was my turn to stand at the foremast-head; and with my shoulders leaning against the slackened royal shrouds, to and fro I idly swayed in what seemed an enchanted air. No resolution could withstand it; in that dreamy mood losing all consciousness, at last my soul went out of my body; though my body still continued to sway as a pendulum will, long after the power which first moved it is withdrawn. Ere forgetfulness altogether came over me, I had noticed that the seamen at the main and mizen mast-heads were already drowsy. So that at last all three of us lifelessly swung from the spars, and for every swing that we made there was a nod from below from the slumbering helmsman. The waves, too, nodded their indolent crests; and across the wide trance of the sea, east nodded to west, and the sun over all.”

Odysseus frequently avoids similar opportunities to become forgetful of his objective (the meaning of his being, to return home to Ithaca): with Circe, in the land of the Lotus-Eaters, upon hearing the song of the Sirens, and with Calypso. The “human way” prevailed over all that is “nonhuman.” Pierre Vidal-Naquet, “Land and Sacrifice in the Odyssey: A Study of Religious and Mythical Meanings,” Reading the Odyssey , ed. Schein, 33 – 54: 45. By “wresting the names of its heroes from oblivion” in this manner, “the social memory is really attempting to root a whole system of values in the absolute, in order to preserve it from precariousness, instability, and destruction: in short, to shelter it from time and from death.” Jean-Pierre Vernant, “Death with Two Faces,” Reading the Odyssey , ed. Schein, 55 – 62: 57. It establishes their κλέος ( kleos ) or historical celebrity – something they cannot do of their own accord. Charles Segal, “ Kleos and Its Ironies in the Odyssey , Reading the Odyssey , ed. Schein, 201 – 222: 203.

Illustrating this, Odysseus returns to Ithaca as a simple beggar, much as Ishmael would have been following his rescue by The Rachel (Epilogue). Odysseus' identity progressively changes from being a wanderer to being at home in his dwelling, as he is “recognized” by Telemachus, Argus, Euryclea and Penelope. Ishmael survives to narrate Moby Dick . Melville establishes Ishmael's kleos for all time, just as Homer did for Odysseus.

(48) There is a long tradition in Greek poetry involving the concepts of “being a host” and “being a guest” (ξενία, xenia ). Reinhardt, “The Adventures in the Odyssey ,” Reading the Odyssey , ed. Schein, 63 – 132: 88, 122; Nagler, “Dread Goddess Revisited,” Reading the Odyssey , ed. Shein, 141 – 162: 157. Some hosts are less congenial than others (Polyphemus eats his guests), just as some guests are less than congenial (the Suitors are gluttons).

(49) It might be possible to regard Ishmael's dwelling as the Pequod (Chapter 21 – Chapter 135). However, it only is a provisional or temporary place. It lacks the culture-revealing facility that a true dwelling has. Ishmael is as acculturated as he is going to get during the course of the story, when he signs up to sail on the Pequod. He eschews the easy bonhomie of the crew (Chapter 40), and never does acquire much facility as a sailor. “Even when Ishmael seems intimately involved in the activities of the Pequod, he stands truly apart from the rest of the crew, his separateness revealed in his inability to engage in any activity and take his identity from it.” A better interpretation of Ishmael emphasizes this estrangement. “An unwanted child in an alien world, clinging to his fragile mortality, just as at the end of the voyage he will cling to Queequeg's life-buoy coffin, Ishmael not too surprisingly sees himself at the mercy of 'the invisible police officer of the Fates'.” Grenberg 111, 96.

(50) Queequeg is considerably more alert to cultural signifiers than is Ishmael. He embodies the practices of his Kokovokian culture. He is devoted to a religious totem, Yojo (Chapter 16), and spends considerable time constructing a coffin in accordance with Kokovoko tradition (Chapter 110). He guides Ishmael, just like Virgil guides Dante.

(51) Robert Bellah, “Civil Religion in America,” Dædalus, Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences , 1967: 96(1), 1 – 21. Reprinted in Beyond Belief (Berkeley: California, 1970), 168 – 189: 175.

(52) Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self (Cambridge: Harvard, 1989) 512. Taylor specifically invokes Odysseus: his homecoming “from the realm of the monstrous, the threatening, of the limit situation, to the joys of ordinary life with its rhythmed flow of time” is “one of the constitutive experiences of modernity,” 627.

(53) Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge: Harvard, 2007) 484.

(54) Alfred Tau ber, “The Biological Notion of Self and Non-Self,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , 19 Mar. 2006, 15 Oct. 2008.

(55) Charles Taylor, “Interpretation and the Sciences of Man,” Interpretive Social Science – A Second Look , eds. Paul Rabinow and William Sullivan (Berkeley: California, 1988) 33 – 81: 46. Dostoyevsky actually accomplished this synthesis in The Brothers Karamazov (1880). “His religion is Orthodoxy because it is the religion of the Russian people” (emphasis in original). Dmitry Mirsky, A History of Russian Literature From Its Beginnings to 1900 , ed. Francis Whitfield (New York: Vintage, 1949) 283.

(56) Thomas Werge, “Moby-Dick and the Calvinist Tradition,” Studies in the Novel , 1969: 1(4), 484 – 506. Reprinted in A Routledge Literary Sourcebook on Herman Melville's Moby-Dick , ed. Michael Davey (New York: Routledge, 2004) 96 – 98: 96.

(57) Juana Djelal, “The Shape of the Whale: Flukes and Other Tales,” Leviathan – A Journal of Melville Studies , 2006: 7(2), 47 – 53: 53.

(58) Eg Shawn Thomson, The Romantic Architecture of Herman Melville's Moby Dick (Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson, 2001).

(59) Eg FO Matthiessen, American Renaissance: Art and Expression in the Age of Emerson and Whitman (London: Oxford, 1941); Nick Selby, Herman Melville, Moby Dick (New York: Columbia, 1999) 62; Lawrance Thompson, Melville's Quarrel with God (Princeton: Princeton, 1952); Clifford Hallam, “Ishmael's Tale: Confessions of an Outsider,” reviewed in John Samson, ed., “Melville,” American Literary Scholarship , ed. David Nordloh (Durham: Duke, 2002) 46.

(60) James McIntosh, “The Mariner's Multiple Quest,” New Essays on Moby Dick , ed. Richard Brodhead (New York: Cambridge, 1986) 23 – 52: 23.

(61) T. Walter Herbert, “Calvinist Earthquake: Moby Dick and Religious Tradition,” New Essays , ed. Brodhead, 109 – 140; T. Walter Herbert, Moby Dick and Calvinism: A World Dismantled (Piscataway: Rutgers, 1977).

(62) Emory Elliott, “Wandering To-and-Fro – Melville and Religion,” A Historical Guide to Herman Melville , ed. Giles Gunn (Oxford: Oxford, 2005) 167 – 224: 190 – 191.

(63) Walter Bezanson, “Review of Thompson, 1952, Melville's Quarrel with God ,” Modern Language Notes , 1953: 68(4), 266 – 268: 268.

(64) Herbert, Moby Dick and Calvinism ; Rowland Sherrill, “Review of Herbert, 1977, Moby Dick and Calvinism: A World Dismantled ,” The Journal of Religion , 1978: 58(3), 324 – 325: 325.

(65) Chad Luck, “ The Epistemology of the Wonder-Closet: Melville, Moby Dick, and the Marvelous,” Leviathan – A Journal of Melville Studies , 2007: 9(1), 3 – 23: 5.

(66) Gail Coffler, “Melville's Allusions to Religion,” Leviathan – A Journal of Melville Studies , 2006: 8(1), 107 – 119: 112. It also shows that Melville may have had a better understanding of the problem of onto-theology than did Heidegger. Heidegger would have been truer to the phenomena he described if he had not disapproved of monotheism per se . He should be more interested in opposing the initial juxtaposition of experience into categories such as monotheism versus polytheism, to begin with.

(67) Athanasios Christodoulou, “The 'Tragicalness of Human Thought' – an Introduction to Melville's Theory of Knowledge, Melville “Among the Nations” , ed. Marovitz and Athanasios, 159 – 174: 162.

(68) Lawrence Buell, “ Moby Dick as Sacred Text,” New Essays on Moby Dick , ed. Brodhead, 53 – 72: 61.

(69) Hilton Obenzinger, “Wicked Books: Melville and Religion,” A Companion to Herman Melville , ed. Kelley, 181 – 196: 181.

(70) John Bryant, “The Persistence of Melville: Representative Writer for a Multicultural Age,” Melville's Evermoving Dawn: Centennial Essays , ed. John Bryant (Kent: Kent State, 1997) 3 – 30: 4.