Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 10:19:38 +0200
From: Vadim Linetski <picador-AT-luckynet.co.il>
Subject: Re: to Liano, re: his complaints


17 MAY 97

> 
>         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.>
needless to say that no offense was intended! if you were, on my knees,
i beg your pardon and promise - for i enjoy our exchange and profit
greatly from it! - from now own to comply with your request. But the
latter as well as my compliance within the context of our discussion
immediately retranslate themselves into  theory. Do not you feel that
your request contradicts what you have been advocating all along?! on
the one hand, you argue for "theorizing without rules", for theeory as a
reflection of one's "mood" (broadly conceived), on the other, call for
strict rules of the game, for a quite traditional language in which such
a theory should be voiced.BTW that's a contradiction which is
unfortunately all too widespread in the present day academy, it's
another instance of res.to th. qua a matter of practical politics: the
self-apointed guardians of D/G,Derridaetc. feel themselves justified to
require "clear argumentation", the conventional manner of preasentation
etc. and censor critics which try to touch on too many points - whereas
theorists under whose auspices they place themselves are everything else
than lucid, are dense stylistically, do not bother to write having the
undergraduate auditorium in mind. Further you complain about my practice
of paraphrasing your ideas - and yet argue for a mode of reading which
is by necessity and basically aparaphrasis (in your second message you
celebrate reading D/G as poetry, more importantly, just as your moment's
disposition would prompt you to read it).For my part, ialso have smth to
complain about of which later.
  
>  while you also seem to claim that established theories should not
> attempt to impose themselves on new textual bodies.  I feel imposed upon.<
Sorry! But rhetorically you deploy here the Formalist device of "making
strange" (literalization of a metaphor), a practice which might be used
to corner whomesoever.
> 
> > 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.<

sorry, in German, in English they translate it as "in and for itself"

> 
> 
> > 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.<

Part of the difficulty in our exchange stems from the fact that i refer
to published texts of mine where the argument has been developed in
full. To disentangle issues which PoMo theorists were at pains to push
into an abyss requires a great amount of space. for techn. reasons i
cannot recapulate my argument in full. the summaries you find obscure...
i feel that in the referred essay the structural = of the paradoxes has
been sufficiently spelled out. all i can do is to cut the lrelevant
passage and post it to the list. however to do this i have first to ask
the permission of other subscribers (it will be a bit lengthy, and what
if another john would cry "stop shitting"?!)
> 
> > 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.<
Interesting! however i fail to see how "a way of being" whatever its
novelty might be dissociated from "temporal restrictions"? You seem to
propound a non-restrictive temporality?An a-temporal  way of being?
However your celebration of diversity, multifacetousness of expirience
does not make much sense if does not take into account this human
predicament. what you are arguing for, then, is a strange hybrid of
quasi-Sartrean existentialism and quasi-idealism.
  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.<- ... in a way that does away with their restrictiveness?


> 
> > (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.<

and would not this new way of living = maximum of abstraction,
inattention to the lived environment, to the minute details
constituting  "here and now".? your philosophy needs referentiality as
no other does.

 
> > a recourse to "naturalism" which
> > undermines the PoMo project,
> 
>         Please explain the connection between naturalism and "the uncanny
> return of the referent". <
i humbly thought that at least this would be self-evident:  naturalism recourse to referentiality the latter implied by the sort of
environmentalism (phisycal, psychic etc) you defend, what makes this
return uncanny is the fact that PoMo is about doing away with
referentiality altogether (D/G, Baudrillard, Derrida are in accord re:
triumph of simulacra) thought to represent the nucleus of logocentrism.
Since in practice their theories require a recourse to referntiality
(and your theory is exemplary in baring this necessity), the effect is
uncannilly deconstructive.

> 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.
>
Precisely due to this rejection. See above.

 
> > 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.
 
all along i was trying to clarify my use of "naturalization" which is
certainly a rather loose term. Could you perhaps suggest a better one?
> 
> > (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.

Nothing of the sort! Esp. since it's precisely this "mathematism" which
decons of the first degree is all about. Again you are over-literal.
Decon of the second degree retains the aims (urgent as they are) while
rejecting the propounded means (that of Gödel incl)
> 
> > 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. 
 i wonder why you've found this clarification unclear. which explains
why, were i as sensitive to "being heard" as you seem to be, i could
have re-direct your complaints to their author.

TO REITERATE:
> > Thank you very much for your provocative remarks, i am looking forward
> > to hearing more of them.<

vadim
> >
> >
> >
> 
>         You're Welcom,
> 
> Your Friend,
> 
>                 Liano