Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 15:48:37 -0500
Subject: Re: MB: Heidegger


to Arthur
Dear Arthur
>From your answer to my question I see that your study is fascinating. As I am
learning from you about the aspect (historical, biographical) of Blanchot's
work I don't know much about, I have a few questions. It seems to me that you
presupose the meanings of revolution and of literature as if they are clear
in the historical context in which Blanchot is writing. I am not sure that it
it so. That, in short, Blanchot does not revoutionized literature and
fictionalize revolution (notion of disaster is a topic which brings the two
together, for example). That, moreover, revolution and literature gain a
rather paquiliar meaning if we can hear still speak of the meaning. 
As I understand you, for you history itself provides the meaning for both,
while in my post I am trying to argue that the relation between Blanchot's
work and history (and therefore meaning) are quite complex, not to say
obscure. (obscure for me, but also intentionaly left as such after B. has
illuminated certain aspects.).
I believe you are right when you say that B's work cannot be reduced to
Heidegger and Levinas, and that his relation with Mallarme and other French
poets should also be kept in mind. But I believe that Heidegger and Levinas
more than the French poets provide a context for understanding of B even if
there is no direct corespondance between their philosophies (which I believe
there is). Why so? Well, if for no other reason, the three have tried to
define the (contemporary) epoch.
etc. etc.
Believing that only short posts are useful I'll stop here.
Thanks
Petar