From: Bob Guevara <guevara2-AT-gte.net>
Subject: RE: Bob Guevara - Dreyfus lectures - misc 
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 21:47:16 -0700


howdy kenneth,

was it:

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~hdreyfus/

that you tried?

there isn't as much there as there was before.... it seems that his site may
be between updates [later heidegger].

congrats on the broadband. makes a difference eh.

be well kenneth.

bob guevara



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> [mailto:owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of Kenneth
> Johnson
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 10:49 PM
> To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Subject: Bob Guevara - Dreyfus lectures - misc
>
>
>
> The cloak of pall under which the universe shrouded itself for
> the past few
> lunar cycles is lifting finally, rebourning under the wings of a Mozart
> flute playing out in to it here inside an overflowing univocity with
> ineffable chordate strains of. . . . .
> ___________
>
> Hello Bob,
>
> I have broadband now so I treked on over to Berkeley's site but couldn't
> find the Dreyfus lectures. If you still have the exact url to them
> somewhere I'd appreciate it.
>
> I did find a Foucault lecture and seminar there, on the Self, and it was a
> _MAJOR_ thrill to hear him viva voce!! It sounds funny I know I know, it
> sounds funny to say it - but I was, uh, sorta psyched out to discover he
> spoke with a french accent, as every word I'd ever gotten from
> him over the
> years was always in perfect english and, um, well -  ok, laugh if
> you want,
> i certainly smiled.
>
> Any other streaming stuff out there in the cyber like this? I'd love to
> listen at Deleuze, in English or otherwise - -!!
>
> speaking of streaming, if anyone here likes roots kind of music you might
> give a listen to Sisyphus Tracks, http:www.sisyphustracks.com
> -Dylan, Kate
> Wolf, Townes van Zandt, Kasey Chambers, Doc Watson, Hank Williams, Judy
> Collins, Baez, Utah Phillips, Lightning Hopkins, Carter Family type stuf,
> 56k modems also work fine there.
>
> and which all for some reason reminds me, Rene, to thank you, for turning
> my ear toward the Prelude to Parsifal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> kenneth
>
> ps,  I'd be interested if anyone might have some comment on the following
> post, made to the Derrida list, I cleaned up some of its typos:
> ---------
>
> "Please would anyone tell me a classic reference to "Logocentrism", a word
> that is used a lot but defined little, or so it seem to me,
> perhaps because
> I am guilty of just that.
>
> My def. of Logocentrism (a language-faith-thing?)
>
> A specific attitude towards language characterized by:
>
> 1) The belief in the possibility of non-communicative but still meaningful
> language.
>
> 2) A belief in the existence of "ideas" or "meanings" which match words
> prior to the intrusion of language.
>
> 3) A belief in the universality of the structure of language coded in the
> "mind" or the nature of things.
>
> 4) A refusal to accept the social origin of language and its intrinsic
> "externality".
>
> 5) A belief in purely private, interior, linguistic self-reference.
>
>
> It is linked with phonocentrism in that the rise of the phoneme as the
> signifying substance gave, by its ephemerality, rise to the possibility of
> logocentrism. Derrida tends to see phonocentrism as inevitable, it would
> seem.
>
> A few of my favourites quotes from of grammatology -
>
> These disguises [referring to the subjugation of writing as the
> "supplement" of the phoneme] are not historical contingencies that one
> might admire or regret. Their movemement was absolutely necessary, with a
> necessity which cannot be judged by any other tribunal. The privilege of
> the phone' does not depend on a choice that could have been avoided. It
> responds to moment of economy (let us say of "life" of "history" or of
> "being as self relationship"). The systeme of "hearing
> (understanding)-oneself-speak" through the phonic substance - which
> presents itself as the nonexterior, nonmundance, therefore nonempirical or
> noncontingent signifier, has necessarily dominated the history of
> the world
> during an entire epoch, and has even produced the idea of the world, the
> idea of world origin, that arises from the difference between the worldly
> and the non-worldly, the outside and the inside, ideality and
> non-ideality,
> universal and non-universal, trancendental and empirical etc. (Of
> Grammatology P7-8)
>
> (This sounds sort of "supra-logocentric" to me but that is another issue.
> Supra-logocentric is... the attitude that logocentricism is not right or
> wrong but essential.  )
>
> Derrida goes on to write about the way that phonemes in the brain are
> rareified, or thought to be rareified.
>
> "The voice is heard (understood) --that undoubtedly is what is called
> conscience -- closest to the self as the absolute effacement of the
> signifier: pure autoaffection that necessarily has the form of time and
> which does not borrow from outside of itself in the world or in "reality,"
> any accessory signifier, any substance of expression foreign to its own
> spontaneity. It is the unique experience of the signified producing itself
> spontaneously, from within the self, and nevertheless, as signified
> concept, in the element of ideality or universality. " p20
>
> And he links this illusory (? he says "at least") self presence with "God"
> the holy word
>
> "God is the name and the element of that which makes possible an
> absolutely
> pure and absolutely self-present self-knowledge.. God's infinite
> understanding is the other name for the logos as self presence. The logos
> can be infinite and self-present, it can be produced as auto-affection,
> only through the *voice*: an order of the signifier by which the subject
> takes from itself into itself, does not borrow outside of itself the
> signifier that it emits and that affects it at the same time. Such is at
> least the experience - or consciousness - of the voice: of hearing
> (understanding) oneself speak [s'entendre-parler]. THat experience lives
> and proclaims itself as the exclusion of writing, that is to say [the
> exclusion of] the evoking of an "exterior," "sensible," "spatial"
> signifier
> interupting self-presence. p98
>
> Echoing Lacan (but using the character from a novel by the same name),
> Derrida states how the split caused by the word gives rise both to the
> institution and the death of the self.
>
> "Jean Jacques is subjected not only in the play of mirrors with "captures
> his reflection and exposes his presence." It lies in wait for us in the
> [our?] first word. The specularly [mirror like] dispossession which at the
> same time institutes and deconstructs me is also a law of language. It
> operates as a power of death at the hear of living speach..." p141
>
> Derrida also defines "auto-affection" as a sort of masturbation. This chat
> that we have with ourselves is a sort of rubbing ourselves and consoling
> ourselves against the death and self alienation that our
> relationship-with-ourselves brings with it.
>
> "A terrible menace, the supplement is also the first and surest
> protection;
> against that very menace. This is why it cannot be given up. And sexual
> autoaffection, that is autoaffection in general, neither begins nor ends
> with what one thinks can be circumscribed by the name of masturbation. " p
> 155
>
> But that is rather a long way from Logocentrism. Does anyone know
> some good
> and famous logocentrism quotes.
>
> It seems that when Derrida talked to Koujin Karatani he argued that
> Japanese was not outside of the rule of the phoneme.
> So...umm...(Sounds all
> too Jewish to me but... "logocentrism" in Derrida would (if used) only be
> an inevitable historical moment, not a geographic or historical accident.
> Does anyone use it about the West in the latter sense -- as a
> Western bias?
> I bet that they do.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---