Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 23:46:42 +0100 From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.com> Subject: Re: one more try: milk and stuff Diane/Eric Replying to Diane has proved to be as impossible as I imagined - there is no imaginable way to bridge the difference that is established between us in our different readings of Nancy. Perhaps at some stage when time is available to engage in a longer more discursive piece using Nancy, bt until then difference will have to be accepted. All that is left of the initial attempts to respond is the following: I have thought a great deal how to respond and expand the discussion around Nancy and human subject/community/society. It is by no means clear to me that this is addressable - but perhaps it can be approached by my defining to a greater extent what the objects in question are. Prior to that though - pragmatism is a specifically American/Liberal intellectual virus - appealed to and engaged in by Rorty amongst others who desire to justify some completely spurious notion of liberal democracy . The reading I am interested in relating to Nancy is much more discreetly materialist - perhaps more a constructive empiricism than a pragmatics, which intends to utilize the post-Heideggerian perspectives of Nancy to re-interpret and understand the reality of currently existing communities - which are in some sense all equally penetrated by the destructive traditions that are the histories of our communities and of course the social we exist in. (I suspect we would make more progress if we discussed Agamben's work but never mind later...) Earlier we established that the primary difference between our readings was the acceptance or refusal of the 'originary nature of being-in-common and communion' - the refusal of origins and originary moments engages a materialist reading and a working with and against the real or reality (in this case the same thing) beyond this at that earlier moment we also identified the different understandings of what constitutes a 'subject' a psychoanalytically understood subject or being... With these starting moments - continued in this latest batch of mails it is not clear to me how we could reconcile the different readings. So - originally you asked : So I'm wondering again--eric, steve, anyone--when you're talking about community here, are you talking about what Nancy's calling community or what would better go under the name society or even neighborhood or something like that? Or do we disagree about what Nancy's calling community? Yes to the first question - It is precisely what Nancy is calling community and society and yes to the second question we do disagree about what Nancy is calling community... regards steve Diane Davis wrote: >Thanks, Eric! Here's one more try sending the response I originally sent >to steve last week. Wonder what happened? Anyway, I'll send you the >lyotard piece. >Best, ddd > >-------------------------- > >Steve, I'm happy to affirm whatever (mis)reading of J-L Nancy works for >you, since every reading, including mine, is in some sense a misreading. >But I do want to note that Nancy is a (post)philosopher and not--by any >stretch--a (neo)pragmatist. His efforts in that book (IC) may certainly >be used pragmatically, but it is not in itself a "how to" book. You may >read it pragmatically, iow, but it seems important to keep some kind of >distinction there. Nancy's work is an engagement with (what Lacan would >call) the real--yes, definitely. But this is not at all the same thing >as an engagement with real*ity*, which amounts to webs of little >hermeneutic fictions. Nancy: "Community understood as a work or through >its works would presuppose that the common being, as such, be >objectifiable and producible (in sites, persons, buildings, discourses, >institutions, symbols: in short in subjects). Products derived from >operations of this kind, however grandiose they might seek to be and >sometimes manage to be, have no more communitarian existence than the >plaster busts of Marianne" (31). The community Nancy is affirming is not >society nor any kind of product. There is no common-being, as he says >over and over, but there is being-in-common (community), which is not at >all the same thing. > > The Sense of the World surely is more inclined toward pragmatic >interventions. I totally agree. And the piece you mention, "Politics >II," has been very important to me. (Interestingly, I got to talk with >him about this piece last summer [over wine] when we were in >Switzerland, and he was kind of stunned by it; and I was stunned that he >was stunned. But he wrote it ages ago, and he was shocked to hear some >of the English translations of his words and also to revisit some of the >thoughts he did indeed write back then.) At any rate, his sense of >community doesn't seem to me to change from one work to the next. And >btw, the distinction b/w community and society is HIS; I'm simply >repeating this distinction that he articulates in IC, Birth to Presence, >"Being-in-Common," Retreating The Political, etc. I got it from him. > >What he's suggesting in the "Politics II" piece, as I understand him, is >that there may be a social praxis for accommodating (rather than >effacing) community. This would be a praxis of ty-ing, a praxis which >would only be possible, btw, *because* there is always already >community, originary being-toward(-others) and the "infinite lack of an >infinite identity." In this work, he's noting that rediscovering >community is not enough--that a praxis that affirms it and that promotes >social organizations based on it is necessary (he's at his most >pragmatic here, it seems to me). Though, of course, the whole thing is >dizzyingly complicated.and he ends his thoughts in the next section >contemplating clouds. > >Tying entails a non-appropriative encounter with the other. But this >means, first, that tying involves welcoming the other as Other because >the one who is coming--whether or not one has a "pre-existing" >relationship with her/him--necessarily would be unknown and unknowable, >without valid Identity papers. Precisely because s/he has not (fully) >arrived, because s/he is (be)coming, emerging, s/he is (at least >temporarily) homeless, a refugee in a sense--which is why s/he needs to >be welcomed. And/But second, to extend oneself toward this other is >also to expose oneself to otherness and so to present oneself >exposed--or ex-posed, posed in exteriority, outside of one's Self or of >one's "proper" I-dentity. Offering my "I" (ipseity) up to the other's >effraction, I am left no way to recover expenses: tying names a >departure without the assurance of return, an ek-static (gift) event >that, in opening toward the other, leaves "me" homeless, depropriated >and de-situated. > >Incidentally, one of the things I mentioned to Jean-Luc last summer was >that I frequently hear a Levinasian echo in his work. He said "of >course!" ;) A Blanchotian echo, too. > >I think we're doomed to disagree on this one, Steve. Though I can affirm >what you want to *do* with J-LN, I just can't hear that pragmatic >approach *in* his work. > > >best, ddd > >___________________________________________ > D. Diane Davis > Division of Rhetoric (UT Mail Code B5500) > Department of English > University of Texas at Austin > Austin, TX 78712-1122 > > Office: 512.471.8765 FAX: 512.471.4353 > ddd-AT-mail.utexas.edu > http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~davis > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu >[mailto:owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu] On Behalf Of >steve.devos >Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 5:03 PM >To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu >Subject: Re: Give me some milk or else go home > > >Diane > >As before when we previously discussed Nancy's work/thought - our >readings of Nancy and the use that we intend to make of his work, which >is highly significant, varies considerably. I am afraid I still believe >that a more realist reading of the Nancy's 'inoperative community' is >more sensible and useful. The abstraction you are engaging in by reading >Nancy in this way disengages the text from the everyday and prevents >it's usefulness in addressing and perhaps engaging in the very many real >and virtual communities that we exist, usually painfully within. The way >Lyotard is using Nancy's work/phrase - is in my view the correct and >most useful interpretation to make of the work because of the necessary >engagement with the real. > >Difference here is inevitable. > >Perhaps we can compromise on the use of the word 'community' in Politics >11 in 'the sense of the world' where Nancy discusses community in terms >that are directly related to how "subject, citizen, soveriegnty, >community - organisizes, saturates and exhausts the political space >closing itself today...." I recognise that our readings of Nancy may >not be reconcilable - and indeed in this virtual community it's harder >to arrive at a position of mutual agreement and understanding than it >would be normally. But nonetheless in this use of community Nancy is >directly proposing an understanding and an engagement with the political >apparatus that constitutes the West and consequently globalisation. > >consequently in your last paragraph the distinctions you are drawing out >are unnecessary. > >regards >steve > > > >
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005