From: "michelle phil lewis-king" <king.lewis-AT-easynet.co.uk>
Subject: RE: dialectic (can clumsy pragmatists read?)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 16:14:00 -0000




>
>
>
> On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, michelle phil lewis king wrote:
>
> > >> > 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?
>
> You say the "beyond" is (a) beyond Derrida and
> (b) experimental and can lose direction.  Derrida
> has said and would say that his work is (b).
> If you think that's not actually the case, fine.
> You might consider backing that up with some
> evidence.

D+G specifically define what they mean by experimental. I'm not aware of
Derrida's definition. I certainly consider his work experimental yet more
concerned with remaining within that which is known. Just an impression. For
me reading him is an experiment in the d+g John Cage sense however.
>
>
> > >> 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.
>
> You're welcome.
>
(How do you know I'm welcome?)

> > >> 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.

Please demonstrate how H.P.Grice and John Searle (who I don't know) can be
enrolled as Bataillean beyonders according to the standard that my claim
 that both Bataille and Deleuze practice a 'comic operation' beyond
philosophy) is true.

Who says that I was setting standards?
>
> You say that Deleuze is like Derrida's reading
> of Bataille: both practice a writing "beyond"
> philosophy.  Thus you are setting a standard:
> that that claim is true.
>
You 'get' the point: you set the standard. I wasn't making a point. You then
say this claim is true read through your own  understanding of a link
between Bataille's scream and Deleuze's pragmatism. You situate Deleuze's
pragmatism as beyond philosophy.This is your claim.


> > >> 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.

> > 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.
>
> Reason.

On what basis? What do you mean by Reason?
>
> > >> 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.
>
> And hence quite different from Bataille.  Have
> you read much of his writings?

I have in the past. Not at present. This comes back to the 'caution' debate
on the list. Where Nick Land's Deleuze is seen to betray the call for
deterritorialization in a.o by the caution of t.p.

Derrida's pointing out that Bataille's transgression of discourse (by
laughter, scream whatever))can only be affirmed by Bataille in discourse is
in my view a call for a pragmatism that is on the dark side of  discourse.
Beyond it.
>
>
> > >> > 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.
>
> And....?
>
It's philosophy  but not as we know it. The difference is an open problem.

>M

> > you are a clumsy pragmatist.
>
> So you say.

So I wrote.

> > >> 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.
>
> As soon as you explain how I'm in fact
> fetishizing talk and ignoring action.

You are so fixated on talk as an object (ie Deleuze's voice speaking for
himself)that the movement of any writing not subservient to a logical voice
appears unnacceptable to you. Please explain how elevating (written) spoken
discourse as a fetish object to which your words are obsessively attatched
is better than the sovereign action of associately linking passages of
writing with a sense of direction.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Great.  So is ignorance justified as a
> basis for wirting?
>
Yes. "a wirting knowing nothing ... of meanings and aims." A-o pp370
>
> > >> > 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?
>
> Derrida says that that's all there is.  And
> you're the one who finds this Derrida essay
> so persuasive.
>
I'm using it as a means of persuading myself to 'talk' to you.

"This is the Western democratic, popular conception of philosophy as
providing pleasant or aggressive dinner conversations at Mr. Rorty's. Rival
opinions at the dinner table - is this not the eternal Athens, our way of
being Greek again?"W.i.P

Cheers Norm.

Phil.

p.s I'd like to add that I read Derrida as 'beyond' Deleuze as much as
Deleuze  beyond Derrida.