From: Ariosto Raggo <df803-AT-freenet.carleton.ca>
Subject: Re: Anybody there??????
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 15:49:50 -0500 (EST)


> 
> _________
> 
> What has struck me most about it so far is a line from a dialogue (between
> "he" and "she")  called "Interesting?"
> 
> "SHE:  The only interesting thing is to try to speak in the language of
> another you don't understand."
> 
> This "fable" points out that most conversation has the effect of confirming
> what we already know.  This kind of conversation helps us keep going, doing
> being.  But it is not "interesting," not what we want or need.  That which
> is interesting stops us.  It causes us to lose time.  
> 
> It points to a kind of call that is not understood, but is nonetheless
> recognizable as a call that somehow is received in an attitutde of hope of
> being able to understand and respond.
> 
> If you understand this, is it still interesting?  

 I have been reading _Heidegger and "the jews"_ Your comment about 'it'
causes us to loose time made me pause... willing me to come out of lurking
concealment. Perhaps 'it' does so because it can't be comprehended and brought
under a thematizing consciousness, it _remains_ in concealment lurking in
the fringes of a texture folded away outside understanding. Perhaps the
interesting is that which frustrates the understanding as much as affect
our sensibility. Frustration, it seems, no stranger on this list causing a
little impatience? If 'it' steals away from the understanding is this
because it doesn't want, to be a little anthropocentric, the understanding
to approach it supposing that somehow the hunger of understanding would be
satisfied? I remember reading somewhere Lyotard writing to the effect that
one of the thinks we can't stand is the cessation of thinking, no doubt
because it reminds us of our mortality -- then, 'it' gives (il y a/es gibt)
silence?

Ariosto




--