Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 13:39:02 -0500
Subject: Re: MB: List? [Them "Limit-Experience($)",...]


I agree that something has to be done.  I have only been on this list for a month and have hit the delete key way too many
times...
Perhaps if those of us are serious about discussing Blanchot's work could start to pose some questions for discussion, or
at least post our interest in Blanchot/reasons for joining the list, we could somehow salvage this discussion.
Maybe we could choose something to read and discuss together.

I joined this list because I hoped to learn more about Blanchot's ideas.   I am working on a paper on a Jeff wall, a
contemporary Canadian photographer.  I am looking at his work through Freud's theory of the uncanny and Kristeva's theory
of abjection.  My interest in the uncanny and the image has led me to Blanchot's "Two Versions of the Imaginary" and I
wonder if he is saying that all images are uncanny.  If indeed he does say this, then I think that he must be saying that
some images are more uncanny than others.  What makes one image more uncanny than another?
I think that every photograph is uncanny because it presents (an)Other, a self that is both the self, yet not, as it
exists as something else.  It is both a memory of one moment in time and a separate object that creates a new moment in
time.
I am unsure whether this makes any sense (long week!), but any comments would be helpful.

Linda



Reg Lilly wrote:

> Dear Mike Purcell, et al.,
>         I'm afraid I'm coming to agree with you, and as the moderator of this list,
> this is indeed for me a sad state of affairs.  Silence is fine; in fact, I find
> it healthy for dialogue.  However, the silence(s) on this list have, in the past
> year or two been colonized by, as you say, a small, self-indulgent, often
> juvenile 'logonanistic' group.  Not only are the missives emanating therefrom so
> obliquely relevant to Blanchot that they can be and in fact are indifferently
> cross posted to (of is it from?) other groups, but, like screeching noise, they
> produce a climate inhospitable to thought and thoughtful dialogue about
> Blanchot.
>         That this is the state of affairs, as you say, does Blanchot no favours and in
> fact is a real distraction from Blanchot, has led me to seriously consider
> several alternatives.
>         1) I am seriously considering closing down this list.  If it a) is not going to
> be used and therefore provide a real service for Blanchot studies, or a) is only
> going to be used for puerile exchanges, it is no longer worth the effort of
> maintaining it.
>         2) I am also considering making postings to the list by approval only.  This
> would mean I would have to read and repost messages from everyone, filtering out
> the garbage.  This obviously is to very appealing to me, as it greatly ties me
> down.
>         3) I may put a filter on the list that would prevent certain individuals from
> posting.
>         4) I may move the address of the list.
>
>         I'm not sure in which direction I am inclined to go on this matter, but the
> status quo is no longer acceptable to me, and I know others aren't very happy
> about things.  There are some very gifted individuals on this list, and I think
> it a shame that this resource hasn't been able to better serve and develop
> serious readers of Blanchot.
>         I strongly encourage individuals to make express their opinion on this matter
> either to the list or to me privately.  Silence here will certainly lead to but
> one conclusion.
>
> Regards,
> Reg Lilly
>
>