rosa maria lupo
mènes de révélation, qui seuls correspondent formellement � ce que
prétend accomplir la Révélation?^13The choice of Christ’s Revelation as a theme of phenomenological
research is a trait that quite clearly qualifies Marion’s position among
others in the phenomenological (not only French) world. There is, for
example, if one looks in another direction than France, the phenom-
enological path of Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka, which approaches the
theme of the divine by taking as a starting-point the analysis of the
human soul. Even if her work contains an evident opening to Tran-
scendence as indicated by the “presence of the Witness” in the soul,^14
her approach remains anchored to the horizon of immanence. The soul
is, in fact, conceived essentially as the determination of the human
being as existence and as life in the world. In this way, Tymieniecka is
closer to Husserl’s project of a transcendental eidetic of consciousness,
because it is always necessary to understand human life, essentially, as
- Ibid., 10. Marion comes to the conclusion, in fact, that “[i]l se pourrait au
contraire qu’élargir la phénoménalité même aus phénomènes de révélation, en
sorte de faire droit � la possibilité de phénoménaliser (selon ses modalités propres)
de la Révélation accomplisse aussi essentiellement la phénoménologie, qu’elle ne
libère les droits de la théologie. Il se pourrait enfin que le refus de vouloir voir ou
même de pouvoir voir ne disqualifie pas ce qu’on dénie, mais bien celui qui le
dénie”, ibid., 11. - For Tymieniecka the presence of the Divine in the human soul appears in the
form of the Witness that shows himself as a radical form of otherness: “As a mat-
ter of fact, the Witness that emerges in an intuition journeying through all the
fluctuations of the life of the soul, affirms himself ‘in his presence’ absolutely
distinct from the soul, as radically other. Radically other because he cannot iden-
tify himself with any living being, with anything known and with nothing that
could be known, because he introduces himself as other, radically other, not only
in relation to all that is present, but also to all that which is possible; in this way
he introduces himself at the peak of being and of becoming, and knowing all,
penetrating all, he is somehow aware of all. Thus present in the soul, the Witness
is able to understand the human attitude in its totality as such and particularly
that of the soul which invokes him”, Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka, From the Sacred to
the Divine, in Analecta Husserliana XLIII, 17. In a way, this position shares a com-
mon element with Levinas’ conception of the opening to the Other as absolute
Transcendence that determines my Self as “hostage” of the Other in my respon-
sibility for Him.