Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 21:30:00 +0000 From: "Large.W" <stawla-AT-lib.marjon.ac.uk> Subject: MB: RE: RE: LRD Because for Blanchot engagment presupposes a bridge between the work and the world which literature radically calls into question. stawla ---------- From: owner-blanchot[SMTP:owner-blanchot-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU] Sent: 08 May 1998 14:29 To: 'blanchot-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU' Subject: MB: RE: LRD I do not quite understand the exteriority of the work to the world; is that to say that the work is considered something metaphysical? And, you claim that "He says he writes books for others. But he is lying, for if he really were for others then he would not be a writer". But that seems to be begging the question, as it presupposes the conclusion of the argument. Why should Sartre be so wrong in giving an account of the engagement of the work to the world? Yours Ulli -----Original Message----- From: Large.W [SMTP:stawla-AT-lib.marjon.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 1:44 AM To: 'Blanchot list' Subject: MB: LRD Let us look at the dialectic, or hyper-dialectic to use Merleau-Ponty's expression, of the writer again. The question is whether the writer belong to this world (the world of events, causes, commitments) or not. The writer wants to belong to this world. He says he writes books for others. But he is lying, for if he really were for others then he would be not be a writer. So the writer just writes then? Is this what makes him authentic. But there is a twist. The more the writer throws himself into the centre of the work, the more the work turns towards the world. The work and the world are neither the same nor opposed to one another, rather they are interlaced. The writer and the reader cannot be separated and opposed to one another rather they are all moments of what we might call the work. This means that neither the writer nor the reader can have any precedence over one another. What we have to avoid is the Hegelian temptation (which is philosophy's temptation) of thinking that the work, at some higher level, is the unity of the writer and the reader. The movement here is one of constant opposition in which there can be no reconciliation. Thus the writer can never be authentic. stawla
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005