Date: 13 Dec 95 11:35:35 EST
Subject: MB: to ozzy and tom


Thomas,
Yes. Please. This Blanchot line needs some action.
I'm interested to know what particular topic you wrote on concerning Levinas and
Blanchot.  I am currently writing on death and writing in Blanchot, and am
finding myself constantly checking and contrasting Levinas on death.  (And,
these days, no one can escape bringing up Heidegger within a discussion on
death!)
A professor of mine has said that Levinas admitted to getting his idea for the
"il ya" (the *there is*) from Blanchot.  THis is a great topic.  Blanchot refers
to something like the il ya  in his early works-- perhaps *The Last word*, where
the three people are awaiting disaster in the last tower.  However, I find
Blanchot deals more directly with the il ya in *The Space of Literature*, where
the ilya has a clearer position as a non positon-- i.e., it is dread,
nothingness, emptiness, subjectlessness, and (my favorite name for it--) the
flood.    In this work, Blanchot stresses that the truth of existence lies
there, within the flood, which is why the writer seeks to "throw himself into
the flood".  For some reason, this metaphor has always reminded me of Nietzsche
in *the Birth of Tragedy*-- Niet. says that the artist must throw himslef into
the pit/abyss of the Dionysian existence.  
The interesting difference arises here: WHereas Blanchot has characterized the
movement of the il ya as one of striving and will; Levinas says that the very
definition of a subject is its struggle against the il ya.  To greatly
over-simplify,  Blanchot's conception of the il ya is more positive, or at least
something (though a no-thing) that the artist must encounter to express the
truth of nothingness.  Because Blanchot undenyingly characterizes art as a
'positive' in society, we can at least by association say the il ya is somewhat
positive.  Levinas's il ya is more negative in that no one wants to get near
it-- all we do, day in and day out  (like Penelope) is fight against it.  Our
very consciousness is that where the il ya is not.  Of course, oppositions of
positive and negative don't do justice to the dialectic thinking and writing of
Blanchot and Levinas.  I realize this.  But I have a foggy notion that this
difference underlies their conceptions of the il ya.   What do you think?

And to the person who wrote asking about Levians, Blanchot and Heidegger-- I
hope I have begun something that gives a peek at their ideas.  Please ask any
questions-- though no question is too basic, some are too big!           
And by the way, I saw recently that there are about 50 members on this list
serv.  Where are you?  It dosen't seem quite "fair" that you read all the
messages while a few risk looking like fools.   Philosophy makes fools of us
all.  So what. 
Awaiting some responses--
Tanya