From: steve.devos-AT-krokodile.com
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 13:59:07 +0100
Subject: Re: ethics - Levinas


Diane, Glen

Intertextuality....

Which Nancy were you referring to below?

regards

sdv

"D. Diane Davis" wrote:

> This is actually a better explanation than I could have given, Steve. But
> let me muddy up the mis-reading maybe a little more. In my posts on levinas,
> i've been working mainly out of derrida's many readings of him and out of
> levinas directly--but (big but) reading someone "directly" always means
> reading him/her across a host of others whom you've already read and who
> give you a hook to hang his/her words on. For me, that means reading
> Levinas's words across the many works I've already consumed and
> embraced--mainly by Ronell, Nancy, Blanchot, Nietzsche, Heidegger,
> Lacoue-Labarthe, Cixous, even Irigaray, and certainly Derrida. All of whom,
> of course, I approached in much the same way, across other texts and at
> another time. And of course, I also read each of these texts from where I
> am, from my own "lifeworld" context. So...so much for reading directly. ;)
>
> best, ddd
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:   owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> [mailto:owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu] On Behalf Of
> steve.devos-AT-krokodile.com
> Sent:   Sunday, July 15, 2001 7:00 AM
> To:     lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Subject:        Re: ethics - Levinas
>
> Glen
>
> The Thomas Carl Wall book is 'Radical Passivity' ISBN 0-7914-4048-6 SUNY
> new
> york 1999.
>
> The (mis)-reading was a 'joke' encouraging Eric to rite something on
> Lyotard's
> ethics - though actually Lyotard is not really a philosopher who writes on
> Ethics, directly unlike Levinas or Singer. In my use of the term I'm
> actually
> refering back to textual and cinematic theory/criticism where there has been
> a
> movement towards the relativisation of the relations of writer, reader and
> observer (critic). Traditionally, and in the common sense reading of texts
> and
> objects which still obviously enough dominates, the concept of a 'work' is
> considered as being almost in a way related to the Newtonian conception of
> the
> universe a 'real' singular object. By referring to a (mis)-reading I am
> assuming
> something more relativistic and intertextual, referring to something more
> open
> and appropriable. For example Eric has been reading Levinas through Lyotard,
> Diane through Wall, perhaps Critchley and of course directly, I've been
> reading
> though my distrust of the use of theology and the critique of Levinas in
> Irigaray as well as Critchley. Each reading is inevitably a (mis)-reading
> and
> appropriation of the body of work which could be referred to as the Levinas
> Text.
>
> Is that clearer?
>
> Diane could give a clearer and more concise definition - it's a long time
> since
> I worked at SEFT...
>
> regards
>
> sdv
>
> Glen Fuller wrote:
>
> > G'day Steve and All,
> >
> > >(I also like the Wall book but haven't read the Levinas section - >bought
> > >it because of the Agamben section. I very much like Agamben's >work.)
> >
> > Which book are you referring to?
> >
> > And one other question... What do you guys mean by a "(mis)reading" (like
> of
> > a particular text, I know it does not necessarily mean an aberrant
> reading,
> > or is that exactly what you mean)?
> >
> > I thought I had better get hip with the lingo...
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Glen.
> >
> > PS You are all very interesting and I enjoy reading the the different
> > streams as they progress.
> > _________________________________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.