From: "michelle phil lewis king" <kinglewis-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: dialectic (can clumsy pragmatists read?)
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 13:33:49 PST




m. shot back,

>>
>>
>> On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, michelle phil lewis-king wrote:
>>
>> > "The greatest force is the force of a writing which in the most
>> audacious
>> > transgression, continues to maintain and to acknowledge the
>> necessity of the
>> > systems of prohibitions (knowledge, science, philosophy, work, 
history,
>> > etc). Writing is always traced between these two sides of the 
limit.
>> >
>> [...]
>> >
>> > "For this writing must assure us of nothing, must give us no
>> certitude, no
>> > result, no profit. It is absolutely adventurous, it is a chance
>> and not a
>> > technique."
>> > Derrida W+D pp 272
>> >
>> >
>> > 'Beyond' maintains the prohibitions of your system of Philosophy.
>>
>> Such as what?  I'm curious to find out what I
>> think.
>>
Such as the prohibition to  go further than the helpful good and fair 
side of 'English Comprehensible Coherent.'?
>
>> > Farther
>> > onwards in comparrison with Derrida because as well as writing 
about
>> > writing it is (in my view) the writing that Derrida continually
>> indicates.
>> > It is 'beyond' in  the sense (direction) that it includes the
>> unknown, in
>> > the sense that it is 'experimental'and can loose its direction.
>>
>> Derrida loves to talk about such things -- see,
>> e.g., his remarks on the aleatory in essays like
>> "Mes Chances" and "The Time of a Thesis".
>
he probably does.. so whats your point.. are you saying that talking 
about and doing are the same thing? 
>>
>> But this "beyond" still sounds like vague hype:
>> the sciences "include the unknown", experiment,
>> and lose their direction.  Advertising assures
>> us of nothing, with neither certitude nor result.
>> Are these pursuits Bataillean-Derridean-Deleuzean
>> too?
>
I never claimed I was making a specific sound. It is an interesting 
suggestion to think of advertising and science as kinds of writing. 
Mental graphitti perhaps. Thanks.
>>
>> > "A writing with pneumatic, electronic, or gaseous indifferent
>> supports, and
>> > that appears all the more difficult and intellectual to
>> intellectuals as it
>> > is acessible to the infirm, the illiterate, and the schizo's,
>> embracing all
>> > that flows and counterflows, the gushings of mercy and pity
>> knowing nothing
>> > of meanings and aims."A.O pp370-1
>> >
>> > Deleuze (and Guattari!)'s 'writing' is a trace drawn between
>> two sides of
>> > the limit, as they continually stress (M.P)..I really don't
>> want to use the
>> > rhizome example..."writing has nothing to do with signifying.
>> It has to do
>> > with surveying, mapping, even realms that are yet to come".pp5
>>
>> Yes, I get your general point of comparison:
>> Derrida reads Bataille as indicating an extra-
>> textual "scream", which is prima facie akin to
>> Deleuze's attack on semantic or semiotic linguistic
>> philosophy in favor of pragmatics, true.  But
>> this is an exceedingly general common point.
>> By the same standard, you may as well enrol
>> H.P. Grice or John Searle as Bataillean beyonders,
>> too.
>
Please demonstrate. Who says that I was setting standards? How do you 
judge notions? It seems a specific activity on your part to try and turn 
them into points in a 'discourse'. Please explain the basis of your 
activity.
>
>
>
>> On more specific grounds, the differences over-
>> ride the superficial similarity.  For example,
>> the above quotes have little to do with the two
>> sides Derrida is talking about (trangression and
>> prohibition).  That dyad, supreme for Bataille,
>> is a non-issue for d+g.
>
their warnings of the  dangers of a massive reterritorialization of a 
too hasty detterritorialisation seem to me to make a similar point. 
hence their much discussed plea for caution. Simply the use of the word 
'beyond' which means for you 'transgression' is enough for you to 
scramble for 'specific grounds'. I should have been more cautious.yawn.
>>
>> > > However, if Deleuze is doing something like that --
>> > > going beyond conventional philosophy by relating
>> > > concepts to a non-meaning beyond absolute meaning
>> > > (as Derrida attributes to Bataille) -- then we would
>> > > expect Deleuze to make some indication of that, no?
>> >
>> > I didn't say he was going beyond conventional Philosophy by 
"relating
>> > concepts"
>>
>> But that's what Derrida was talking about.
>>
>>
>> > but that he was going (beyond)further than philosophy by an
>> > experimental writing whose  activity endlessly created (creates) 
endless
>> > unknown concepts. He is beyond philosophy because he existed in
>> 'addition'
>> > to philosophy.. a 'Brut' (Pourparler p122)'supplement' to
>> philosophy that
>> > replaced it (derrida again!).Writing as philosophy. philosophy
>> as writing.
>> > Philosophy beyond Philosophy. (Le plus denue de culpabilite de
>> "faire de la
>> > philosophie").
>>
>> Okay.  How does this differ from philosophy?

At last a good question.

>>
>> > > But he doesn't.  One would expect, if this was part
>> > > of his project, it would surely be quite important
>> > > to him, and that he would mention it, say, in his
>> > > criticisms of the Hegelian dialectic (which is the
>> > > only place where Derrida's remark has any relevance
>> > > at all).  But he doesn't; Deleuze's critique of
>> > > Hegel is very different from Derrida's (or Bataille's).
>> >
The critique is in the activity of a thought without an image: In the
question "what is such a thought, and how does it operate in the world?"
>> >
>> > You fetishize what he said  and ignore what he does.

you are a clumsy pragmatist.

>> It strikes me as an improvement over stringing
>> together random quotes with free association,
>> or using the vaguest of similarities to justify
>> ignorance.

please explain how fetishizing talk and ignoring action is an 
improvement over the pragmatic activity of associatively linking 
passages.

I got from  a description of a specific action of Nietzsche's ignorance 
of Hegel as pointed out by Bataille and Klossowski,  to a general 
justification of ignorance as an (absent) basis for writing through 
Derrida's work on Bataille. I would say that I haven't been vague 
enough. 

How can we make what we don't 'know' productive?

Is writing, (in derrida's sense) the activity of Deleuze's thought 
without an image ? (very helpful and good of you of you to point out 
that there is no evidence that this is so, yet I maintain the impression 
that it is so. The question affects me in that way.)
  
>> > I think his thought
>> > operates as writing in Derrida's sense (about Bataille for
>> example) .. and
>> > Derrida says a lot about writing..as a dangerous supplement..   
derrida
>> > indicates  writing is a  critique of Hegel in itself.. as an
>> activity.. as
>> > production.. as movement.. as trace.. as operation.
>>
>> I think it's in "Restricted to General Economy"
>> that Derrida says something like "Il n'y a qu'un
>> discours, il est significatif et Hegel est ici
>> incontourable".
>>
Who is talking about discourse?

>> >  There's quite a lot of evidence that Deleuze 
wrote!!!(understatement)
>>
>> Duh.  But not in the Derrideo-Bataillean sense
>> you claim.
>>
further, in addition to the direction indicated by them, for me. I am 
convinced by the evident black humour.(I laugh)(I cry).

>> > see above. also " beyond: on the farther side of:
>> >                           farther onward in:
>> > >           and " farther:same as further, sometimes
>> >                   prefered when the notion of distance
>> >                   is more prominent
>> >             and " further: at or to a greater distance
>> >                   or degree: in addition: additional,
>> >                   more, other
>> >             so: beyond: on the other side of
>> >
>> >     Chambers English Dictionary
>>
>> And your point is...?
>>
Chosen definitions of the word 'beyond' which work for me at the present 
time. Not really a point as such.

>> > So:
>> >
>> > Deleuze Philosophy Writing on the additional side of Hegel 
Philosophy
>> > Philosophy.
>>
>> Verbs Philosophy Writing on the helpful side of
>> English Comprehensible Coherent.
>>
Thanks for your helpful efforts.
Phil.


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com