From: "michelle phil lewis-king" <king.lewis-AT-easynet.co.uk>
Subject: RE: dialectic (can non-philosophers read?)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 04:15:41 -0000



M. 'said':

> On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, michelle phil lewis king wrote:
>
> > In molecular revolution he clearly seperates derrida's arche writing
> > from an arch writing subjegated to the signifying voice. He
> condemn that
> > servile arch writing.
>
> Re-read the opening sections of "The Place of the
> Signifier in the Institution".  Guattari clearly
> criticizes Derrida's arche-ecriture as ahistorical.
> If I had the text in front of me, I'd type it in.
> Would someone like to verify this?
>
>
> > >> He makes the same point as is made in A.O, that Imperial
> > >> Representation is an arche-writing but not in Derrida's sense.
> > >
> > >So d+g's concept of writing is not Derrida's.
> > >Gee, what have I been saying in this discussion
> > >all along?
> > >
> >
> > They base the concept of primitive barbarian representation on
> Derrida's
> > 'writing' and seperate it from 'Imperial' representation.
>
> You're avoiding the issue.  D&G (especially G.)
> are critical of Derrida's notion of writing and
> do not base their postulates of linguistics on it.
>


I'd be very interested in examples of this critisism.

I don't know about 'basing their postulates of linguistics' on Derrida's
'writing' but,

In anti oedipus d+g describe how Hjemslev tends to fashion a theory of
language which breaks the dominant position of the voice over writing. This
causes form and substance, content and expression to flow according to the
flows of desire. (See also Derrida's work on Hjemslev in 'Of Grammatology')
Earlier they work through what Derrida says about the relation between voice
and writing, agreeing that writing supplements the voice to then become its
basis and cause. They quote derrida saying that "phonetism is never all
powerful".
This addition of writing to the voice breaks the dominant position of the
voice over writing by Derrida's understanding that the supplement replaces
that which it supplements. (bearing in mind that D+g push Derrida's
'writing' beyond writing as such to a graphism, and then following Lyotard
to a 'thick space' (discours - figure pp75) a figural dimension.
This figural dimension is made of flows and points.. a constellation of
images that form and disintegrate.. a figure matrix: desire.

A better description than 'writing' might be Guattari's 'enunciative
substance'. It has a collective character. (In O.G Derrida uses the term
graphic "substance of expression." to describe his arche-writing.)

"We are actually confronted by a non-discursive, pathic knowledge, which
presents itself as a subjectivity that one actively meets, an absorbant
subjectivity given immediately in all its complexity." chaosmosis pp31

what issue have you whipped up that I'm supposed to be avoiding?

> > >> > > But no this notional, superficial, figural writing
> > >> > > is not M's thing.  He has to translate it into
> > >> > > something acceptable to discourse and will only accept
> > >> > > exchange as a discursive exchange of points. He can only
> > >> > > trade conclusions.

So practical; such an economy of  consequences, such a test, what a lesson.
What a master.

> > Oh, the bigoted dull world of a micheal Q+A session.
>
> Learn how to spell, moron.
>
Sorry, I'm still learning English Bigotte. How do you spell moron?

Phil.