this work appear parenthetically in the text using the following formula:
( CG , page #).- See Calvin O. Schrag, Communicative Praxis and the Space of Subjectivity
(Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1986), esp. 115–138. - Cf. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1998). Vanhoozer defi nes a text as “communicative action
fi xed by writing” (229), saying a text is “a kind of ‘body’ of the author”
inscribed with matter (as content) and energy (as illocutionary force). - Cf. Stephen H. Webb, The Divine Voice: Christian Proclamation and the
Theology of Sound (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2004), 205–206: “The voice we
hear in a text is both our own and not our own.... [hearing] the inner voice
is not the same thing as talking to ourselves.... It shows just how close
speaking and hearing are to being the same thing, since the speaker must
listen to her own voice and the hearer must let the other person’s words
resonate from within.” - Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception , trans. Colin Smith
(London: Routledge, 1962; reprint, 2002), 466. - Cf. P. Christopher Smith, The Hermeneutics of Original Argument:
Demonstration, Dialectic, Rhetoric (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University
Press, 1998), 147: “[A]s we experience it, a voiced word arises out of pre-
vious word or previous silence only then to fade into a subsequent word or
silence. Each voiced word displaces either a previous word or, if it is the
fi rst word, silence, all the while it momentarily defers what is yet to come
and defers to it, be this the next word or silence. The being of a voiced
word is thus experienced as a self-contradictory conjunction of being and
not being: it is all the while it is re-ferring, carrying the listeners back, to
what is no longer, and pro-(f)-ferring, carrying the listeners forward, to
what is yet to come” (italics original). - Cf. Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, Speech and Reality (Norwich, VT: Argo
Books, 1970), 120–221: “The ubiquitous and omnipresent character of
life on earth depends on man, since through his traditions, his story-tell-
ing, his observations, the passing events in the remotest corner of the
globe are kept as an eternal present before all the generations and nations
of the earth.” - However, there are no guarantees that one’s voice as preserved in the dor-
mancy of the text will be heard precisely as one intended: “Not just occa-
sionally but always, the meaning of a text goes beyond its author”
(Gadamer, TM , 296). This yields the conclusion that one is understood
differently, in a new way, if at all (cf. Gadamer, TM , 296–297 and CG ,
104). - My designation of Davies’ view as “presence-with” instead of “presence-
as” or “presence-in” is warranted, I think, by the subtlety of his overall
48 C.C. EMERICK