File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2003/lyotard.0308, message 92


Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 18:25:36 +0100
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
Subject: Re: a question of myths...




Geof

Ok - a discussion of the differences in position between derrida and 
delueze could indeed be interesting, if only to explore the differences 
in reading and understandings that have been generated.

It will be interesting to see how the anti-postmodernism of recent 
thought is reflected in this discussion,  including the growing critique 
of heteronomy.  It is precisely in the "middling negotiation" that 
derrida has come to be seen as marooned in a version of the "third way" 
- how to get derrida beyond his ambitions to establish a 'school' and 
into the asociality of emancipatory thought .

regards
steve

gvcarter-AT-purdue.edu wrote:

>Steve/All,
>
>Derrida's reference to haunting reference comes from Castricano's peculiar 
>Cryptomimesis wherein he cites (i.e. ghost sightings) a number references to 
>this possibility.  In Fors, for example, Derrida refers to "the ghost that 
>comes haunting out of the Unconscious of the other" and that "the crypt from 
>which the ghost COMES BACK belongs to someone else" (C28/F119).  There is in 
>this, of course, a kind of Freudian-Levinasian move being made here.
>
>Elsewhere, and as Eric references w/ regard to Derrida's Specters of Marx, D 
>says we must "learn to live WITH ghosts, in the upkeep, the conversation, the 
>company, or the companionship" (C18/xvii).  
>
>For Derrida all this means is a matter of approach.  One of the reasons his 
>works appear so CRYPTIC is is the relation he takes up--a middling negotiation, 
>a channeling (of sorts)--which, according to Castricano, "produce a radical 
>psychological model of the individual and collective 'self' configured in 
>spectral terms of phantoms and hauntings" (13).  Derrida's columns in Glas, 
>even w/ the then living Genet w/ Hegel, is one such example, but the main point 
>is really how different each of D's texts have to be w/ regard to who is being 
>written about.  
>
>To be sure, what Derrida raises-from-the-dead is not immediately familiar.  
>Genet arrives, for example, as a shambling mound of flowers.  Castricano uses 
>Stephen King's Pet Semetary to illustrate that what returns from the dead is an 
>Other who is unrecognizable, perhaps even horrific.  Textural transformations 
>that have the TEXTURE of the skin of the zombies from the Night of the Living 
>Dead w/ torch ball eyes.  
>
>This is, of course, a play on Castricano's part within the GOTHIC, but this is 
>in keeping w/ his CRYPTIC point.  He says, "To learn to live WITH ghosts is to 
>rethink ourselves through the dead or, rather, through the return of the dead 
>(in us) and thus through haunting" (19).  
>
>Derrida is someone who takes such a chance, and perhaps such chances will have 
>been a necessity.  
>
>Anyway, this is a kind of Becoming, though there is much that could no doubt be 
>said about the differences between Derrida and Deleuze.  (Such distinctions I 
>would be interested in talking about, if anyone is so inclined...)
>
>Best,
>geof
>
>      
>
>
>
>Quoting "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>:
>
>  
>
>>Geof,
>>Whilst I'm interested in the globalising aspects of the internet games 
>>(i.e. Everquest) the pleasure gained from the actuality of the playing 
>>escapes me  consequently the references to the internal structures and 
>>representations passes me by almost completely.
>>
>>It did occur to me that Deleuze and Guattari's "Becoming-Animal" does in 
>>a sense coincide with the non-species thought I was playing with. But I 
>>deliberately approached the thought from a Darwinian perspective, as it 
>>is reasonably obvious that we humans have not yet accepted the 
>>underlying logic behind the theory. It does seem that the continuing 
>>struggle between the rationality of evolutionary theory and the 
>>irrationality of the non and anti-evolutionary will continue for 
>>sometime yet, but ultimately the irrational will fall.
>>
>>There are a wide range of other textual becomings that work within the 
>>frame suggested below for example Cortazar's  "Axototl" or "Hosue Taken 
>>Over"  (from Bestiary) or the relationship between Ripley and the Alien. 
>>Both these "becomings" work on a baseline of terror  and fear - are 
>>there any that do not ? (I cannot think of any today...) Might it be 
>>perhaps that it is something to do with the "love of the wolf" where the 
>>relationship between the lamb and wolf is established as being that 
>>sometimes, occasionally the wolf falls into the jaws of the lamb ?
>>
>>Where in Derrida is the Haunting reference from ?
>>
>>later...
>>
>>regards
>>steve
>>
>>gvcarter-AT-purdue.edu wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Steve,
>>>
>>>Yes perhaps the myth of the material economy is too obvious.  I raised it 
>>>mostly as the EverQuest video-game example cross-referenced the "alchemy" 
>>>and "crystal spheres" myths which I hoped to re-invigorate after a fashion 
>>>(i.e. people pay hard cash for knotty staves that rend and whirl the
>>>      
>>>
>>earth.)
>>    
>>
>>>I hesitate before the "extra-economic" or the "end of the human species," if
>>>      
>>>
>>>only that past experience suggests that someone like Deleuze, particularly
>>>      
>>>
>>with 
>>    
>>
>>>regard to becoming-animal, becoming-woman, etc. is not greeted with much 
>>>response here.  
>>>
>>>Deleuze's discussions in A Thousand Plateaus of the Wolf-Man (whose name 
>>>contains a roving pack) or the the movie Willard (w/ a quite different swarm
>>>      
>>>
>>of 
>>    
>>
>>>rats) are two examples I find intriguing insofar as they present not an
>>>      
>>>
>>"end" 
>>    
>>
>>>but "becomings."  (Becomings which may make the idea of a "myth" a myth 
>>>itself.)  Burrowing w/ Kafka, Becoming cockroach with Clarice Lispector, 
>>>getting in an ultra-light a flying alongside migrating geese.  
>>>
>>>In quite another way, Derrida presents an idea of "haunting" that, too, may
>>>      
>>>
>>be 
>>    
>>
>>>a response to the "extra-economic," but again I hesitate in bringing this up
>>>      
>>>
>>as 
>>    
>>
>>>it extends back in some ways to a Levinasian phenomenology.  There is an 
>>>intriguing book by Carla Castricano entitled Cryptomimesis in which she
>>>      
>>>
>>works 
>>    
>>
>>>out a Derridean-reading of Stephen King's Pet Semetary which illustrates
>>>      
>>>
>>that 
>>    
>>
>>>that which is at its "end" actually rises from the dead--in some new
>>>      
>>>
>>shambling 
>>    
>>
>>>or swarming form--to return.  
>>>
>>>One can think of this as "The Return of the Living Dead" (playfully, 
>>>disruptively) as Derrida's example tends to lend credence too, or if one 
>>>prefers the more serious transcendental working out of Descartes's "cogito"
>>>      
>>>
>>and 
>>    
>>
>>>its role towards the other's other in Levinas, fine.
>>>
>>>Both "becomings" and "hauntings," I submit, will have had a role to play in
>>>      
>>>
>>the 
>>    
>>
>>>conception of "myths" forwarded, though I speak abstractly, w/o "alchemy," 
>>>stripped bare by bachelors, even, in saying as much.  
>>>
>>>best,
>>>
>>>geof          
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>  
>


HTML VERSION:

Geof

Ok - a discussion of the differences in position between derrida and delueze could indeed be interesting, if only to explore the differences in reading and understandings that have been generated.

It will be interesting to see how the anti-postmodernism of recent thought is reflected in this discussion,  including the growing critique of heteronomy.  It is precisely in the "middling negotiation" that derrida has come to be seen as marooned in a version of the "third way" - how to get derrida beyond his ambitions to establish a 'school' and into the asociality of emancipatory thought .

regards
steve

gvcarter-AT-purdue.edu wrote:
Steve/All,

Derrida's reference to haunting reference comes from Castricano's peculiar 
Cryptomimesis wherein he cites (i.e. ghost sightings) a number references to 
this possibility.  In Fors, for example, Derrida refers to "the ghost that 
comes haunting out of the Unconscious of the other" and that "the crypt from 
which the ghost COMES BACK belongs to someone else" (C28/F119).  There is in 
this, of course, a kind of Freudian-Levinasian move being made here.

Elsewhere, and as Eric references w/ regard to Derrida's Specters of Marx, D 
says we must "learn to live WITH ghosts, in the upkeep, the conversation, the 
company, or the companionship" (C18/xvii).  

For Derrida all this means is a matter of approach.  One of the reasons his 
works appear so CRYPTIC is is the relation he takes up--a middling negotiation, 
a channeling (of sorts)--which, according to Castricano, "produce a radical 
psychological model of the individual and collective 'self' configured in 
spectral terms of phantoms and hauntings" (13).  Derrida's columns in Glas, 
even w/ the then living Genet w/ Hegel, is one such example, but the main point 
is really how different each of D's texts have to be w/ regard to who is being 
written about.  

To be sure, what Derrida raises-from-the-dead is not immediately familiar.  
Genet arrives, for example, as a shambling mound of flowers.  Castricano uses 
Stephen King's Pet Semetary to illustrate that what returns from the dead is an 
Other who is unrecognizable, perhaps even horrific.  Textural transformations 
that have the TEXTURE of the skin of the zombies from the Night of the Living 
Dead w/ torch ball eyes.  

This is, of course, a play on Castricano's part within the GOTHIC, but this is 
in keeping w/ his CRYPTIC point.  He says, "To learn to live WITH ghosts is to 
rethink ourselves through the dead or, rather, through the return of the dead 
(in us) and thus through haunting" (19).  

Derrida is someone who takes such a chance, and perhaps such chances will have 
been a necessity.  

Anyway, this is a kind of Becoming, though there is much that could no doubt be 
said about the differences between Derrida and Deleuze.  (Such distinctions I 
would be interested in talking about, if anyone is so inclined...)

Best,
geof

      



Quoting "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>:

  
Geof,
Whilst I'm interested in the globalising aspects of the internet games 
(i.e. Everquest) the pleasure gained from the actuality of the playing 
escapes me  consequently the references to the internal structures and 
representations passes me by almost completely.

It did occur to me that Deleuze and Guattari's "Becoming-Animal" does in 
a sense coincide with the non-species thought I was playing with. But I 
deliberately approached the thought from a Darwinian perspective, as it 
is reasonably obvious that we humans have not yet accepted the 
underlying logic behind the theory. It does seem that the continuing 
struggle between the rationality of evolutionary theory and the 
irrationality of the non and anti-evolutionary will continue for 
sometime yet, but ultimately the irrational will fall.

There are a wide range of other textual becomings that work within the 
frame suggested below for example Cortazar's  "Axototl" or "Hosue Taken 
Over"  (from Bestiary) or the relationship between Ripley and the Alien. 
Both these "becomings" work on a baseline of terror  and fear - are 
there any that do not ? (I cannot think of any today...) Might it be 
perhaps that it is something to do with the "love of the wolf" where the 
relationship between the lamb and wolf is established as being that 
sometimes, occasionally the wolf falls into the jaws of the lamb ?

Where in Derrida is the Haunting reference from ?

later...

regards
steve

gvcarter-AT-purdue.edu wrote:

    
Steve,

Yes perhaps the myth of the material economy is too obvious.  I raised it 
mostly as the EverQuest video-game example cross-referenced the "alchemy" 
and "crystal spheres" myths which I hoped to re-invigorate after a fashion 
(i.e. people pay hard cash for knotty staves that rend and whirl the
      
earth.)
    
I hesitate before the "extra-economic" or the "end of the human species," if
      
only that past experience suggests that someone like Deleuze, particularly
      
with 
    
regard to becoming-animal, becoming-woman, etc. is not greeted with much 
response here.  

Deleuze's discussions in A Thousand Plateaus of the Wolf-Man (whose name 
contains a roving pack) or the the movie Willard (w/ a quite different swarm
      
of 
    
rats) are two examples I find intriguing insofar as they present not an
      
"end" 
    
but "becomings."  (Becomings which may make the idea of a "myth" a myth 
itself.)  Burrowing w/ Kafka, Becoming cockroach with Clarice Lispector, 
getting in an ultra-light a flying alongside migrating geese.  

In quite another way, Derrida presents an idea of "haunting" that, too, may
      
be 
    
a response to the "extra-economic," but again I hesitate in bringing this up
      
as 
    
it extends back in some ways to a Levinasian phenomenology.  There is an 
intriguing book by Carla Castricano entitled Cryptomimesis in which she
      
works 
    
out a Derridean-reading of Stephen King's Pet Semetary which illustrates
      
that 
    
that which is at its "end" actually rises from the dead--in some new
      
shambling 
    
or swarming form--to return.  

One can think of this as "The Return of the Living Dead" (playfully, 
disruptively) as Derrida's example tends to lend credence too, or if one 
prefers the more serious transcendental working out of Descartes's "cogito"
      
and 
    
its role towards the other's other in Levinas, fine.

Both "becomings" and "hauntings," I submit, will have had a role to play in
      
the 
    
conception of "myths" forwarded, though I speak abstractly, w/o "alchemy," 
stripped bare by bachelors, even, in saying as much.  

best,

geof          



 

      

    



  


Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005