From: "michelle phil lewis-king" <king.lewis-AT-easynet.co.uk>
Subject: RE: dialectic (can clumsy pragmatists read?)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 04:15:47 -0000



 M.
> > >> Now: is Deleuze "beyond" Derrida, as your
> > >> impressions claim, and if so, how?  Some of
> > >> us here are, on occasion, interested in the
> > >> facts of the matter.
> > >>
> > Why is this such an occasion? Oh I see I used the word 'fact' as in 'in
> > fact' Deleuze takes place 'beyond' Derrida because he seems to ennact
> > the 'sovereign' writing that Derrida heralds.' I can see now
> how linking
> > the word fact with 'seems to' triggered your reaction. What can I say,
> > I'm an artist we talk a lot about subjective facts.
>
> If your claims here are subjective, then it
> makes no sense to argue for them, nor to
> interject them into a discussion of the merits
> of Deleuze's interpretation of Hegel.  You
> can say, "well, that's how it strikes me"
> but no one else need give it the time of day
> -- since by the same light I can just say
> "well, it doesn't strike me that way at all".
> Sorry if I presumed you were saying something.
>
At last! a genuine apology! There's humility in the reactive old dog yet!

And I thought I was asking a relevant question about the nature of sharing
that underlies classical (Hegelian?) philosophical pedagological discourse
and Nietzsches problematic relationship with that reciprocity because he was
first and foremost (for me) a writer. And I thought I was floating the
possibility that Deleuze might follow that direction rather than that of
classical philosophical discourse. And I thought, despite some
misunderstanding, Nathan and I indicated something interesting in our
exchange.

> > All I've offered is a fact based on my own specific impressions.  I can
> > see now that this can in no way be justified within your
> discourse where
> > questions of translating everything into familiar known  terms, points,
> > and objective facts takes over from problems of how that writing can be
> > used in my own  practice as an effective challenge to it.
>
> You may not like my style, but asking for
> reasons and evidence is by no means "my"
> discourse alone.
>

I like your style. .. it's the discourse that's grim. Strength though
numbers is servile. Are you an American by any chance?

> > I'm loosing interest
> > in talking to you as your questions don't have much to offer.
>
> If I followed that dictum, I would've ignored
> your post in the first place.
>
Sorry, can't hear you Micheal, speak up.

> > My reading is on a pretty
> > subjective basis, in movement towards something that I don't
> know about.
> > I find my impressions impressive enough for now.
> [...]
> > And so as your practice is a dreary quest for some kind of legitimate
> > basis you're asking the wrong person in the wrong way. As yet my
> > activity has no basis.
> [...]
> > I feel its similar because Deleuze doesn't leave discourse but remains
> > beyond it. Just a slight  impression. It works for me for now.
> [...]
> > In time using my intuition.. for me.
> [...]
> > I don't believe that I'm
> > making a meaningful point but rather a suggestion that might or might
> > not become justified in time.
>
> (A sovereign reading by association.)
>
> Yawn.  When you have something other than your
> subjective impressions, please share.  Until
> then, I give you my profound subjective impression
> that you're wrong.
>

fair enough.

> > >>> 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.
> > >>
> > >> Sure thing, kemosabe.  Working with what someone
> > >> has actually said is far superior than selectively
> > >> arranging quotes because it is honest.  E.g.:
> > >> working from Nietzsche's works is superior to
> > >> associatively linking passages in the direction
> > >> of fulfilling one's anti-Semitic impressions.
> > >>
> > So reducing a writers thought and writing to a mere verbal debate  is
> > superior to the ongoing and difficult impression the operation of his
> > writing ennacts in different contexts throught the work of succesive
> > writers and thinkers?
>
> Yes, reading is better than reader response.
>
so, it's best not to 'share' reading?

> > so narrowing Nietszches thought to a series of disconnected discursive
> > points about various issues in the name of real standards of
> honesty and
> > justice is superior to understanding its role as a kind of deeply
> > rigorous and challenging artifice that provokes thought in all kinds of
> > contexts. Not all of them 'good' or 'fair'?
>
> In order to understand how Nieztsche provokes,
> you have to be able to let him speak in the first
> place.

 He's dead as well Micheal.

( Sorry, I just have to share this Robert Crumb vision of you jerking off to
'Ecce Homo'.. uh.. the.. voice.. uhh .. uhh')(Apologies list.)

> But you are dodging the issue: isn't Elisabeth
> Forster-Nietzsche's reading a sovereign reading
> by your definition?


No. Because she narrowed his writing down to particular arguments. Using his
writing simply to refute those arguments is as slavish. I don't know what a
sovereign reading would be. An experiment I guess, something in movement not
just spasmodic reactive jerks.(Don't worry it'll come soon).

> > >> > > Great.  So is ignorance justified as a
> > >> > > basis for writing?
> > >> > >
> > >> > Yes. "a writing knowing nothing ... of meanings and aims." A-o
> > pp370
> > >>
> > >> And a reading knowing nothing, apparently.  Or
> > >> perhaps you would like to share the impression
> > >> which draws a justification of ignorance from
> > >> the cited passage?
> > >>
> >
> > Duh. A writing can be based on the ignorance of its own meaning.
> > The writing's movement justifies that ignorance. Its a kind of desire.
> > What is the point of a reading that knows already what it hasn't read?
>
> You miss the point entirely.  Let me simplify:
> should we write about Hegel without having read
> Hegel?

When did you of all people start trying to make points, Micheal?
You know the answer why ask the question?

Additional question: Should we write about Hegel without having read him in
German?

You equate writing with verbal argument I don't. I think writing is better
than verbal argument as it is radically inclusive. ( It includes verbal
argument for example).  Writing for me is not necessarily about anything. It
provides a basis in movement.

> > >> > > > >> 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.
> > >>
> > >> What a pleasant non-answer.  Do you agree with
> > >> Derrida on this point or don't you?
> > >>
> >
> > I did before I 'talked' to you. Besides, I can't find Derrida saying
> > that in that essay, so I have to take your word for it because I think
> > you're a very fair, honest and truthful citizen.
>
> Try page 383 in the French.  Then answer the
> question.
No need for you to copy out that page for me oh, master of the 'Mot
D'ordre'.

"In sacrificing meaning, sovereignty submerges the possibility of discourse:
not simply by means of an interuption, a caesura, or an interior wounding of
discourse (an abstract negativity), but, through such an opening, by means
of an irruption suddenly uncovering the limit of discourse and the beyond of
absolute knowledge."pp261

.. here it is:

This sovereign speech (this is before Derrida goes on to implicate it in
writing) is not another discourse, another chain unwound alongside
signicative discourse. There is only one discourse, it is significative, and
here one cannot get around Hegel. The poetic or the ecstatic is that in
every discourse which can open itself up to the absolute loss of its sense,
to the (non-)base of the sacred, of non meaning, of un-knowledge or of play,
to the swoon from which it is reawakened by the throw of the dice."

yes, I agree with that. Poetry ('writing'( inadequate word) must be
accompanied by an affirmation in discourse of its sovereignty, a commentary
on its absence of meaning.

What do think I'm doing here?

Thats why I find D+g so important to me at present, they both provide the
commentary within discourse and go beyond it. (Proffessor Challenger).

That Derrida passage is indeed the one that persuades me to keep 'talking'
to you. Have you anything to say?

Ask the question about Hegel again.

phil.

>