Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 12:37:39 -0500
Subject: Re: MB: List? [Them "Limit-Experience($)",...]


If there's not a copyright problem and you could send me a GIF or JPEG file, we
could put it up at the web site and actually look at it while we discuss
Blanchot.

Reg

Linda Steer wrote:
> 
> 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
> >
> >