Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 01:03:12 -0700 From: Christophe Wall-Romana <kitocwr-AT-uclink4.berkeley.edu> Subject: MB: Re: being and neuter Dear Reg-- I do feel like slipping into a triple-layered Catweasel anti-IS suit (tm), because of your somewhat disciplinary wielding of the argument of being qua copula, which makes it a purely formal argument (one it will take Catweasel a lot more firepower to crack, though!), and this interests me very little... unless the question becomes, closer to Blanchot, how come language or consciousness seem endowed with a negative capability, perhaps as our exchange shows, to find discrepancies between intuited being on one hand and generated intuitions about being through writing on the other. My knowledge of Hegel and Heidegger is very limited, but I'd be interested to hear more about how Heidegger's thinking about being (I guess post B&T) may shed light on Blanchot's neuter, or what in Hegel's maddenlingly precise Phenomenology as, foremost, writing may have inspired Blanchot as writer. Reg, I am attuned to Blanchot's idea that literature is weird, in its ontological dimension, that its claim to being is remarkably weak or even false, that its inspiration isn't reducible to philosophical problems, that its language practice seeks some possibilities in time, composition, experience, that plays havoc with doctrines of being, and precisely because they do. Thanks for the Gasche ref. Best, Christophe
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005