Subject: Re: MB: Re: inside, etc.- Afterword
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 19:16:54 +0000



Dear George,

I'd be grateful an email of your work. Perhaps, it might enact a discussion
that might be fruitful for the members of the list. A point I'd like to
comment on Claires' remark about locating the work of Blanchot.  

I find a crude differentiation in Claire's idea about the academic and
non-academic. I am not sure what does this classification entail? If the Act
is actually the predominance idea in how Blanchot is read, this does not
necessary reach to a point of furrowing such crude distinctions. Actually, I
do not know what academics/non-academic mean in the stream of the Act of
creation. If you occupy the status of the Act itself you cannot just see one
pole of the differentiation, the academics. The academics is an impure
element that is invaded and dessiminated with the non-academics and *the net
yet*. The Act is a flash that reverbates through the sea of differenciated
formations. Each one of them would couple without necessary presuming a
dialectical opposition. 

amd

   
>>
>>Does anyone on this list ever question these (and other such) notions in
>>terms
>>of creativity/the creator (artist/writer), instead of simply in academic
>>terms?  It seems to me the ACT of creation is Blanchot's chief
>>concern/obsession, not academic comparisons and distinctions. I'm not
>>trying
>>to say anything negative about the list - this has simply to do with my own
>>interest in Blanchot.  I would very much like to hear any one else's ideas
>>on
>>his perception of the act and engage in a discussion of it's meaning - both
>>Blanchot's meaning, and those of other writers on this list.
>>
>>the floor is open and I await ...
>>
>>Claire
>>
>>
>>--
>>"We live in the dark.  We do what we can. We give what we have.
>>Our doubt is our passion.  Our passion is our task.  The rest of the
>>madness
>>is art."
>>- Henry James
>>http://www.StudioCleo.com
>
>
>
>
>