Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 16:19:54 +0800 (CST)
From: Liano Sharon <lsharon-AT-ms2.hinet.net>
Subject: Re: to Liano; re: his questions




On Sun, 22 Dec 1996, Vadim Linetski wrote:

> 15 MAY 97
> Dear Liano,
> my post of 13 May seems to contain some ideas which might be regarded as
> an answer to your messages of 14 May, whhereas my post in answer to
> Guillaume's query re: time adds some more remarks to the same end (again
> and again i have to ask you to forgive me for answering indirectly). 

	I'm afraid I can no longer see my way clear to accept these 
apologies.  You seem to disagree with me, and in some ways seem to 
patronize me (Liano!-Liano!; sort of like---See the Light!---See the 
Laight!), while stating (not even arguing) that the ideas I have presented 
have far different 
consequences than I believe them to, but at no time do you actually 
attempt--as you yoourself point out--to engage my arguments directly.  
Instead, you interpret them, and then slide out your 
interpretations as you see them related to someone else's argument which 
you are responding to according to your ideas.  You co-opt what I've said 
to argue your own points without even the curtisy (sp?) of first 
demonstrating in any way that I actually do say what you claim I 
have said.  I'm affraid that, honestly, after four such posts I have 
begun to be somewhat offended by this.  Especially since at every turn I 
have been very carefull to pose direct questions, comments, or replies to 
specific claims you have made--while in these four posts of yours in 
which you claim to answer me you have not once done the same.  You have 
not once answerd one of my questions, comments, or replies except by 
claiming that they demonstrate things which you have not bothered to show 
that they do in fact demonstrate.  In effect, you do not speak with me, 
you ignore me while you speak with some one else and explain to them that 
I am wrong without reference to anything I've have actually said.
	I'm sorry, but I cannot accept this appology again.  You seem 
again and again to use my name without actually attending to what I have 
said, while you also seem to claim that established theories should not 
attempt to impose themselves on new textual bodies.  I feel imposed upon.


> Now
> i am going to address two issues which remain in suspense.
> 1. you are certainly right in your critique of Zeno's paradoxes. However
> you address them 

an und für sich,

	I'm sorry, I don't understand this, is it another language?  
Please explain.
	


> and there's the rub! what justifies my
> = of the two paradoxes is their structure
> and discursive effect dubbed
> in my NABOKOV AND SWIFT... essay a self-dimunitive one.

	By my reading of yoour peice, you argue about the 
self-dimmunition of A&T, but suppose the self-dimmunition of the Liar by 
equating the two--do you demonstrate that the Liar, by itself with out 
reference to A&T is also self-diminutive?  If so, please point out 
where.  I must point out again that their structure is quite 
different, 
so If you have not demonstrated the self-dimunition of the Liar on its 
own, you may have a problem.


> On a purely
> philosophical level, your critique is quite valid (as Bergson has argued
> in MATTER AND MEMORY and Ch.Peirce contended in his notes A. will
> overtake the T. - at least as a fact), but i am interested in the use of
> this paradox in PoMo theory. Curiously, what i call structure and
> discursive effect is situated precisely in the gap /khora (another basic
> notion of PoMo) between your two interpretations: in effect, you try to
> dissociated the two paradoxes by arguing that that of A&T relies on a
> physical setting, that of the Cretan Liar - on psychology of sorst

	It should be pointed out that this "psychology of sorts" is not a 
static thing unless the paradox is restricted to a fixed _point_ (not 
duration) of time.  Also, I would argue that the Liar, without temporal 
restrictions, represents a completely different waay of being, not simply 
a change in psychology.  The passage to this new way of being may be 
concieved of as a change in psychology, but being their is not simply 
about psychology, since time and space have also changed.


> (as
> you say we should take into consideration that a Liar could not be a
> prioro accused of a continuous flaw of lies). However, it is precisely
> the UNCANNY RETURN OF THE REFERENT

	Please explain what you mean.  One reason I'm so interested in 
paradoxes is that they don't need referents--they appear to have them 
because of the operation of contradiction.  YOu can live paradoxically 
without refering to it and without referencing any particular objects or 
actions as being paradoxical to eachother.  


> a recourse to "naturalism" which
> undermines the PoMo project,

	Please explain the connection between naturalism and "the uncanny 
return of the referent".  Also, please explain how it is that naturalism 
undermines the PoMo project, since it has been my understanding that 
Postructuralism (which you often seem to equate with postmodernism) 
rejects naturalism. 


> and this is my theme. In other words, it
> is the naturalization which PoMo identifies as one of the logocentric
> moves which returns in its own discourse...

	This may well be true, but please support this claim.  In doing 
so, pleaase be clear about the definitions of "naturalism" and 
"naturalization" you are using.  If you mean a humanist naturalism, then 
you may be a victim of over theorization.


> (In another chapter
> ,"BAKHTIN'S WORDS...", i further develop the notion of Cretan
> discursivity)
> 2. you are right that what i am arguing against is the view of
> deconstruction as a theory which requires smth to deconstruct. This is
> one of the most common rebukes. My aim is to conceive of deconstruction
> of the second degree 

	What does "deconstruction of the second degree" mean?  It sounds 
something like the theory of types most mathematicians seem to use to try 
and deal with Russell's paradox or the spirals of language and 
meta-language used to try to run away from Godel's proof.  Both of which 
don't really work.


> as a theory which would not need anything
> antedating it , would not be parasitic. However, the sine qua non is the
> baring of the discursive moves common to all versions of
> poststructuralism. I think that we are justified to speak of
> poststructuralISM: consider fo example one of the most radical versions
> of feminism: recently Braidotti has  made a special point that the
> reconstruction of the female subjectivity requires a consolidated
> (oedipal) subjectivity in order to proceed.  there obviousy ARE some
> fundamental discursive moves common to all, and it is this moves which
> matter.
> Thank you very much for your provocative remarks, i am looking forward
> to hearing more of them.
> Your Friend,
> vadim
> 
> 
> 



	You're Welcom,

Your Friend,

		Liano