Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 18:23:09 -0400
Subject: Re: MB: MB early morning thought



I don't know my Sade, and I don't know Blanchot's
book on Lautremont and Sade? 

Acctually it is not blanchot that you should read to understand our Grand
Méchant Homme;( apart from himself ) it is Pierre klossowski ( mom prochain and 
un si funeste désir )and perhaps Jean Paulhan too, Blanchot and all the other thinkers 
relied on them. and why not Sollers, he's interesting too...

 We are impelled towards a destruction, a self-sacrifice,

don't tell that to people who survived Aushwitz Dachau..., "sorry guys, 
you did it for nothing, kill your-selfs now" or in other words, being a bit 
less down to earth, "use no more your memory, do not Think-write, or become a 
Godot-like-veggie, or loose your-self in a heidggerian speach"

a dispersal of our subjectivity.
Literature attests to this. Eroticism attests to this. The relation to
the Other also attests to this.

Yes, Levinas could have something to say here.

 And yet this desire is always
interrupted; it can never be carried through. And as such: thinking
begins in its exposition. Always and already. The (scientific?
metaphysical?) image of thought as this ... adequating, progressive
colonisation of being conceals such exposition. And yet it always
returns - always haunts. Thinking cannot exclude exposition. Exposition
sustains it. Nothingness runs in the veins of negation. 

I would turn that around but yes. as a random thought, i do think
that negation and nothingness are close, but please explain to me why 
nothingness, well, could not be the start, the begining and from then on
establish it's importance. I think that is what can be seen in his later novels.

Why is this important? - Because we must think. Because there are two desires 
that drive thought, two motors. Strange rewriting of Plato's
Phaedrus - the two charioteers. - We have no choice.

oh stop it, you sound like a Sartre; people who don't eat in this world would shit 
over any book/thinking by blanchot or Nietzsche if it would give them food, 
poor philosophers died with the fall of the greek and Roman empires.  We are the rich
thinkers of the rich countries, therefor WE/or the words that we say, are the negation 
of humanity but we can leave that aside, this is not the place for self-destruction, is it?

Hillier, I read this this mornig, it somewhat continues the though:
it was Nietzsche's attempt to do so that drove him mad, but with a different madness,
his reason not so much shattered by it's failure to think the unthinkable as by its success
in crossing over "to another languge removed from the ordinary forms of temporality" 
Bruns, MB p.191

BL