Subject: Re: MB: The outside
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 17:09:05 +0000


At 09:39 AM 3/9/99 +0100, you wrote:
>Obviously one of Husserls main problems has to do with the outside, but
>what does it really mean that he ends with conciousness? Even though one
>can say that his attempt, in Cartesian meditations, to find out how the
>other is given for us, in many ways failed, he certainly attacked the
>question. Well, of course Husserl ends with consciousness; but why should
>THAT worry me? Maybe that's what you wanted to say (as a swede, nuances in
>the english language sometimes disappears), but I would really like to see
>a discussion concerning inside/outside. And this of course evokes the
>relation Husserl-Derrida-Blanchot, and the notion of paregon.
>
>
>Nils Olsson
>
>
>>The outside is perhaps the most important concept , if one can use that
>>
>>
>>word, in Blanchot's work.  It is phenomenological.  You would have to
>>think it in terms of the reduction.  A question: Why does Husserl end
>>with
>>consciousness?  It that worries you, then you're already thinking about
>>the outside.
>>staw
>
The reason why it worries me is because the outside, as a phenomenological
notion, turns to be not radical enough. It is a sort of reactive move. If
Blanchot's idea of the ACT is an image of that sort of outside, the
phenomenological one, and a broken notion of dialecticism, then I cannot see
the radicality of it. The outside decipher its border in retrospect to a
continuity that is a consciousness. In such relationship, the outside needs
to recuperate the inside as a territory for its self identity. What happens
if the inside is a splitted one, the outside becomes less phenomenological,
a paregon. Though this can be said to be a differential outside, it does not
actually break the negation. 

amd