Date: 	Tue, 5 Mar 1996 18:06:03 +0100
Subject:       Re: MB: Heidegger


to Petar
Untill know, I only analysed the evolution of the publications 
between 1930-1943. My statements can only be interpreted within this 
temporal limit. That doesn't mean I may not show how in different 
contexts the same or analogous topics appear in the later work.  Within 
the temporal limit of my corpus, there is a very important diachronie 
that I can qualify as a continuous deepening/intensifying of a "prise 
de conscience" of the conditions and contradictions inherent to, what 
may be called, 'modernity'. That's the reason why Blanchot is so 
fascinating.  This diachrony, though, doesn't imply a moment of 
dismissal, but much more a continuous reinterpretation of the 
starting point. Blanchot is talking about "abandon" not to give up 
the ideal, but to "accentuate"  the fight (see "On demande des 
dissidents", GRAMMA II, p. 65 : "la vraie forme de dissidence est 
celle qui abondonne une position sans cesser d'observer la meme 
hostilite a l'egard de la position contraire ou plutot pour accentuer 
cette hostilite"). 
Concerning the relationship between revolution and literature, 
Blanchot interpretes in an article with the very significant title 
"De la revolution a la litterature" the latter in fuction of the 
first. In Faux pas the aim of literature is to "transform" the 
experience/the world (see f.i. text upon Lautreamont, but I can quote 
much more examples) and its force consists in its opposition to the 
world!! In his later work, when you permit me to cross over the 
limits of my corpus, Blanchot continues to reflect upon the power of 
literature and its (conflictual) relationship to the world. When in 
the 60ies he is writing about communisme, he links again writing with 
a revolutionary ideal, he even use therefore the same vocabulary as 
in the 30ies!!! (see again Gramma: "Tracts, Bulletins,..."). My point 
is not that the position of Blanchot did not change, but that his 
writings upon literature determines him a position in this world 
characterised by an opposition that needs continuously an 
explication. The rupture you are talking about is concomitant with 
"le trait d'union d'un des-astre, un changement d'astre", which is an 
(im)possible revolutionary ideal of the transformation of the world.
The interesting point of studying the publications of the 30ies, in 
order to answer to Tom, is not to reveal a durty secret of fascism. 
Blanchot is really not the only intellectual to see a moment into 
national-socialism a way of transforming the world and what can we 
know how we should have react in this context. Blanchot is very 
conscient of the "desaster", "the monster" this revolution can 
become -interesting question: can there be a revolution without this 
possibility? The study of the historical origine of the work of 
Blanchot permits us to see the difference between Blanchot and 
Heidegger and between Levinas and Blanchot. To my opinion it is wrong 
to read Blanchot from the point of view of Levinas. Then you miss a 
very important feature of the blanchotian discourse. The same for 
Heidegger: I'm quite sure that untill 1945 Blanchot knew only some 
statements of the german philosopher. To understand what Blanchot is 
telling about language and writing, it is much more important to read 
Mallarme (or Lautreamont) then Heidegger. In Faux pas there are a few articles 
consacrated to the poet and who throw a light on the difficult text 
"De l'angoisse au langage". Last but not least, the study of the 
writings of the 30ies shows how a discourse is built up of the 
intersection of homogenous and heterogenous elements. The same work 
can be done for many so called "postmodern" publications today.
Thanks
Arthur