Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 13:32:46 +0000 From: Hilary Robinson <h.robinson-AT-ulst.ac.uk> Subject: Re: irigaray & colour <!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 } --></style><title>Re: irigaray & colour</title></head><body> <div>Hi Simone -</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1" color="#000000">Hilary, I'll send the paper along this weekend. It's a summary of a chapter in my dissertation. Perhaps the chapter would be more useful? You choose: read twenty pages, or sixty? </font></blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>well! let's go for 60, why not! (rtf format attachment to my personal email address would be great.)</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1" color="#000000"><br> <br> </font></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1" color="#000000">My approach is more about looking at how intersubjectivity is handled in poems. There is the poet, the reader, and poem as interval between them, but then there are the relations to an other in the poem itself, whether that other is a person, or time, or Being, or some object or idea. So there are levels of these relations in play all at the same time. My focus, for the sake of clarity more than anything, is on the subject-in-the-poem's relation to the other-subject-in-the-poem. It's messy to try to write about, but I'm trying anyway. </font><br> <font face="Arial" size="-1" color="#000000"></font></blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>this sounds very interesting ,and I look forward to reading it.<br> </div> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1" color="#000000">I have been warned that I shall be branded a mystic. As if I have a probelm with that. I don't think that academics in the Humanities can long afford to ignore the mystic elements in poets and artists and philosophers. We must confront that element of the human. Without it, the whole endeavor is incomplete, crippled in some way. Neitzsche had Ekhardt, Derrida had the Kabbalah, and Irigaray has Buddha and the Tantrists. What is so dangerous about exploring these influences and connections? Why not simply own up to it? I don't understand. At least we are no longer isolated. This is wonderful. As far as I know, unfortunately, there is none or precious little critical work on her that addresses these elements and influences in her work. Though now, I think it will be unavoidable after Two Be Two. W! e had better hurry up and get our work out there to publish.</font></blockquote> <div><br></div> <div><br></div> <div>I think that one of the problems is that various meditative processes stress emptying or stilling the self, and have constructions of subjectivity which do not accord well with those found in psychoanalysis, or post-structuralist theory. The fragmented, partial, constructed self as opposed to.... let me give a quote from Yuanwu's Zen Letters (trans. Cleary) (Shambala 1994) (Yuanwu's dates are 1063-1135 CE):</div> <div><br></div> <div>"If you can cut off outward clinging to objects and inwardly forget your false ideas of self, things themselves are the true self, and the true self itself is things; things and true self are One Suchness, opening through to infinity.</div> <div>If you are attached to perception then this is a perception - it is not the arriving at the Truth. Those who arrive at the Truth transcend perception, but they manage to use perception without dwelling in perception. When you pass directly through perception and get free of it, it is all the fundamental Truth."</div> <div><br></div> <div>he also quotes Yogjia: " It is not apart from<i> here</i> always profoundly clear and still. If you search for it, you know you cannot see it."</div> <div><br></div> <div>So we clearly have a huge problem with terminology between the disciplines current in academic theory today, and these texts. How to understand 'self', truth', etc. Then of course there is the vexed issue of translation. Translations of these Teachers can vary so much as to be almost unrecognizable as the same texts, and utterly infused with the values of their time and culture. In relation to Irigaray, teasing out the varying processes (esp. analysis and meditation), terminologies, and aims of these disciplines seems to be crucial. How do they differ? how can they be reconciled - as surely they must be within her/her writing, as she maintains practices of both. The hints of her meditative practices (in English) goes back as far as I can see to a 1980 interview (Baruch & Serrano).</div> <div><br></div> <div>Alison Martin's book<i> Luce Irigaray and the Question of the Divine</i> (mainly concerning christianity) discusses buddhism briefly in relation to Irigaray's reading of Nietzsche, and links her concepts of 'becoming' back to the incident of Buddha and the flower - which Yuanwu interprets as the initiation of Zen transmission - and certainly, Irigaray discusses this incident, and uses the concept of the flower and/or blossoming elsewhere in a manner which can be read 'through' this incident productively (as opposed to reading it according traditional western constructions of the feminine, which I have found to be a dead end in understanding these passages).</div> <div><br></div> <div>(a coda: I am presently catching up with recent translations of Irigaray's work into English alongside the originals (I finished my PhD in 1998 and am just returning to working on Irigaray, and I'm not a fluent reader of french or italian), but you are right, Simone: we scholars of Irigaray's work must take this increasingly visible strand of her thought into account: it cannot simply be ignored. Her work has to be understood across its breadth - uses of terminology developed in one text appear as fundamental, but un-explained, elsewhere - the flower is but one example; and (as another correspondent emailed me privately last week) reading her late work through her early work (and vice versa????) is a wholly appropriate approach - in fact, I think, the only possible approach to a body of work which deliberately resists conventional academic analysis for political reasons. Hope all of this has made some sense - I'm stuffed full of a cold.)</div> <div><br></div> <div>best wishes,</div> <div><br></div> <div>Hilary</div> <x-sigsep><pre>-- </pre></x-sigsep> <div>_______________________________<br> <br> Dr. Hilary Robinson<br> School of Art and Design<br> University of Ulster at Belfast<br> York Street<br> Belfast BT15 1ED<br> Northern Ireland<br> UK<br> <br> <h.robinson-AT-ulst.ac.uk><br> direct phone/fax: (+44) (0) 28 9026.7291)<br> ________________________________<br> <br> Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction....The chain reaction of evil--hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars--must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.<br> <span ></span > <span ></span > <span ></span > <span ></span > <span ></span > <span ></span > <span ></span > <span ></span > <span ></span> -- Martin Luther King Jn.</div> </body> </html> --- from list french-feminism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005