Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 07:24:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Paul Bryant <levi_bryant-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: dialectic (can clumsy pragmatists read?)


Perhaps what is most astonishing is why a person would want to vilify
Hegel having never read him.  Somehow post-structuralism turns Hegel
into some sort of Homoculous man, exagerrated out of all proportions,
full of all sorts of strange powers of totalization.  To make an
absurd comparison, American readers of post-structuralism come to
treat Hegel as a signifier that must be avoided at all costs-- a
signifier! not a set of texts --in much the same way that accusations
of Spinozism constituted a devastating attack on ones opponent.  Our
Hegel is a phantasm.  In fact, it's hard to see that Hegel's had
anything more than a covert influence on Angl-American thought as a
quick glance at logical positivism and the verificationist thesis
demonstrates (insofar as the opening chapters of the Phenomenology
sqarely demonstrate how verificationism is a dead end).  So, when
there are so many other threads of thought one could pick up to
construct their war machine against, so many more pressing concerns,
why choose Hegel who's almost a nil figure here?  Why not Frege, or
Wittgenstein, or certain aspects of pragmatism, or even Heidegger?




---Michael Rooney <rooney-AT-tiger.cc.oxy.edu> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, michelle phil lewis-king wrote:
> 
> > >Say what?  You're letting your image of me
> > >cloud your ability to read.  All I'm saying
> > >is that, for Deleuze, writing is not a means
> > >to go "beyond" philosophy, at least not in
> > >the Derridean sense.  Let me fetishize again
> > >(uhhh...the voice!): "overcoming metaphysics
> > >never interested us".  Deleuze wants pragmata,
> > >deeds, not an evanescent laughter or differential
> > >will-o-the-wisp.
> > >
> > 
> > overcoming and moving beyond aren't the same thing, why have you
> > persistently read them as if they were? I specifically indicated
how I
> > was using the word, now you are again mixing it with an assumed  
> > Derrida use of it. 
> 
> "Specifically indicated"?  You quoted a list
> of definitions from a dictionary and specified
> none of them.  I've asked you what the difference
> is between philosophy and "beyond philosophy"
> and you haven't answered.  Apparently it means
> the contrary of whatever I think it means.
> 
> 
> > I deliberately chose 'beyond' because it indicated transgression
> > without going that far. Because it indicates a movement. 
> 
> I.e., an equivocation.  More sophistry.
> 
> 
> > Your obsessively
> > pragmatic reading continually draws innapropriate practical
consequences
> > from mere indications. These 'practical consequences' appear as
fixed points
> > for you to demand answers of. You drew the consequences.
> 
> "Obsessively pragmatic"?  We're talking about
> a bunch of French academics, fer chrissakes.
> You say d+g are "beyond", I'm asking you what
> that means.  Seems pretty freakin' theoretical
> to moi.
> 
> 
> > (enjoy your voice fix? was it unique for you?)
> 
> Mmmmm.
> 
> 
> > Yes, Deleuze wants deeds, deeds that provoke movement against the
state
> > with whom he identifies Hegel (for example). Writing is the
movement in
> > which (and against which) he enacts those deeds.
> 
> Somehow I suspect that neither Deleuze nor Guattari
> would see writing as the primary fulfillment of their
> pragmatism.
> 
> 
> > O.K. I'll ask you another question about your priviledging reading
as
> > debate, as a search for 'points' to trade, as opposed to a act of
> > vulnerable pragmatism geared towards keeping hasty interpretations
at
> > bay so that the movement of the writing can operate as an
impressive and
> > challenging encounter in time. Why is it better?
> 
> And you say I ask "predefined" questions. 
> Let me unload the above briefly:
> 
> (1)  I'm not privileging "trading points", I
>      acknowledge that reading can do other
>      things.
> 
> (2)  But in this case, you started everything
>      off with "points": that Deleuze's writing
>      is like Bataille-Derrida's writing.  You
>      may say that you weren't making "points",
>      but were offering your "impressions", but
>      in that case, there's no point in defending
>      or discussing what you say, since my 
>      "impression" is to the contrary.
> 
> (3)  How can you tell what is a "hasty" reading
>      and what is a "sovereign" one, except by
>      recourse to [shudder!] reasons?  Because it
>      is my strong "impression" that it is your
>      interpretation which is the hasty one.
> 
> 
> > >> So how come you think Nietzsche can
> > >> still speak for himself ?
> > >
> > >His books are still there; his words
> > >waiting patiently.
> > >
> > well, yes and..words on a page are more than just transcription of a
> > dead speech... 
> 
> I never implied such a thing.  You obstinately
> misread my preference for reading what someone
> wrote, somehow interpreting it as a phonocentric 
> fetishism for an author's Voice (as opposed to 
> writing).  On this point, see our other exchange.
> 
> 
> > >> > > > But you are dodging the issue: isn't Elisabeth
> > >> > > > Forster-Nietzsche's reading a sovereign reading
> > >> > > > by your definition?
> > >> >
> > >> No. Because I have absolutely no control over their texts. 
> > >> I can make all the claims I want. Some work some don't, that 
> > >> one works for me, for now.
> > >
> > >Suppose Elisabeth said the same thing.
> > >Nazism works for her (and some other Volk),
> > >"for now".  They (encouraged by certain
> > >things Nietzsche said) had little use for
> > >arguments, too.
> > >
> > The example of Elizabeth is utterly telling because she had
control of
> > the texts so what she said unfortunately mattered. I have no
authority. I
> > have no students to master. My reading is thus an irresponsible
one, a
> > light reading on the move.
> 
> So sovereign readings must not matter?
> Or must not have "control" of the texts?
> Her readings have no control today, and
> don't really "matter": so are her readings
> sovereign now?
> 
> 
> > I have been finding this argument very
> > useful. My every indication is read as having a concrete
> > political-historical meaning, a moral gravity when I considered 
> > them to be a-significant.
> 
> Don't tell anyone, but I agree with TMB here
> (though not in his terms): our deeds do have
> moral gravity.
> 
> 
> > >If you don't know what it is, how can
> > >you tell the difference?  Or how can you
> > >tell *that* it is a sovereign reading?
> > >
> > Well, that's a very good question... and presumes that I should take
> > responsibility for setting up a course in 'sovereign reading' and a
> > 'beyond philosophy' in which I will corrupt a whole generation of
> > innocent students with my 'worse' readings. That's really not what
I do.
> 
> This is a straw man on the scale of the
> Colossus of Rhodes!  Screw the students,
> how do *you* tell the difference?
> 
> 
> > Why do so many of your questions and comments have the word 'know'
in them?
> 
> Because it is preferable to ignorance, which
> you are effectively advocating.
> 
> 
> > To tell, speak about, signify, the difference between a hegelian
> > philosophy based on the primacy of the voice and a philosophy
based on
> > the operation of an unsubjugated writing that signifies nothing in
> > particular but works flush with reality without being reactive.
> 
> Derrida's charge of a phonocentric tradition
> has always been one of his most questionable
> (or, at best, "metaphorical") readings.  Hegel
> quite honestly does not make a big deal out of
> the "Voice" in contradistinction to writing.
> But then, you'd never know that, since you are
> happy to ignore what Hegel actually wrote.
> 
> 
> > >> > > You know the answer why ask the question?
> > >> >
> > >> > Like, to dialogue.
> > >> >
> > >> Like, in a safety zone in which you feel you have total power.
> > >
> > >I have no power here.
> > 
> > you have the power to ask limited questions whose consequences are
> > predefined.
> 
> A far cry from the "total power" you paint me
> as craving.  I can ask you an honest question
> ("should we write about Hegel without having 
> read Hegel?"); I have no power to make you reply,
> as you indeed did not.
> 
> 
> > I didn't ignore your demand, I simply haven't answered it yet.
> 
> And Clinton doesn't lie, he simply hasn't been
> completely forthcoming.
> 
> 
> 
=== message truncated ==
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free -AT-yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com