Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:19:37 +0000 (GMT)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?anna=20miller?= <ruboutthewords-AT-yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: way to go! Yahoo!stepping back


Now finally someone who knows something and Not all
these imbeciles!! -

-- lambdac-AT-globalserve.net wrote: > Here's what,
triple d davis -
> 
> Step back from this text, and realize what is
> 'mind-blowing' about it: its
> total vacuity and irrelevance - particularly with
> respect to Nietzsche's
> thought.   To his method of an open system.  It is a
> zero infinity, your
> drooling.  It is beyond being worth deconstruction -
> conditional and
> unconditional surrender...
> 
> Now, why is this so - because ddd is an ambulatory
> placard; like those
> Berliner proletas from inbetween wars, she is a
> gigantic advertisement with
> a surmised human being therein.  And is there one? 
> Legally yes.  One wants
> to be loved from without the placard and is sorry it
> carries no insurance:
> rhetoric, composition, english, Texas, sisterhood,
> Nietzsche's hatred of
> women, etc, etc, so many perhaps of nonthought.
> 
> Lamb Da Selva
> 
> Diane Davis wrote:
> 
> > Ruth and Warren:
> > The forgiveness lectures weren't based in
> Nietzsche, at least not
> > explicitly. Sorry if i gave that impression. It
> just so happened that
> > while i was in NYC attending one of the lectures
> (part of a team-taught
> > seminar Ronell and Derrida do together annually at
> NYU), Cardozo was
> > also holding its N and Legal Theory conference, at
> which Ronell gave the
> > keynote and Derrida responded. Ronell's working on
> a book on testing
> > that involves N's experimental disposition. I've
> gotten to read a bit of
> > it in advance, and it's mind-blowing stuff.
> >
> > Derrida's response to her presentation at the
> conference mainly zeroed
> > in on the notion of the Test itself, but he opened
> by noting that N's
> > statement "God is dead" is a specifically x-ian
> statement, a
> > performative that kills god upon its utterance and
> that wouldn't make
> > sense in Judaism or Islam, frinstance. But the
> performative, he notes,
> > produces no pure event b/c it produces it under
> restrictions. A
> > "genuine" test, if there is one, he says, would
> resist any logic of
> > constative and performative--if it doesn't, it
> can't really be a test.
> > It may be that the test of love would qualify as a
> real test, he says,
> > since the risk is never neutralized or
> neutralizable. There is no
> > insurance. It's absolutely risky--in friendship
> and in love, you can't
> > even be sure if it's really you who is loved and
> who is being called to
> > love. JD also noted that the "new philosophers"
> are the ones who can
> > think the Nietzschean "perhaps."
> >
> > Lessee...and the forgiveness lectures. He gave
> three of them, Warren,
> > and i only caught the last one. But yes, JD's work
> on forgiveness is
> > available both online and in a new little book
> called _On
> > Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness._   Online, the
> interview (or most of
> > it) is called "The Century and Pardon," and it's
> here:
> > http://www.excitingland.com/fixion/pardonEng.htm
> >
> > Basically, JD's trying to distinguish b/w what we
> call amnesty and
> > something like "pure" "forgiveness," which he
> notes is something else
> > all together. Several tricky issues arise in the
> distinction--and btw he
> > reminds us that forgiveness is not the same as the
> gift but
> > for-give-ness does house the "concept" of the gift
> (Le/le don). (If you
> > know his work on the gift, you'll recognize some
> of these moves.)
> > Forgiveness, to really *be* forgiveness, can't be
> FOR some other
> > purpose--not even for reconciliation. It cannot
> even involve a work of
> > mourning. What we might call "genuine" (kabillion
> scare quotes)
> > forgiveness could not be therapeutic in any way.
> It has to be
> > aneconomic--a total interruption of exchange and
> even historic
> > temporality. And it would have to give itself
> freely, without
> > restrictions or recourse to judgment--it is not a
> cognitive act, in
> > other words: forgiveness, to be forgiveness, would
> have to be
> > unconditional. Forgiveness, he says, must be
> understood as the
> > impossible; for it can only be(come) possible as
> the im-possible.
> >
> > So if you ask me for forgiveness for something you
> did to me and i
> > decide to forgive you, one question becomes: whom
> am i to forgive? The
> > you who did it and may do it again or this other
> you who asks for
> > forgiveness and so who is no longer really the
> guilty party and who
> > therefore needs no forgiveness? And for that
> matter, if what you have
> > done is forgivable in the first place, what's the
> point? For forgiveness
> > to be what it is, it must be limitless because
> only that which is
> > UNforgivable would even NEED to be forgiven.  And
> then: who gets to give
> > forgiveness for an unforgivable act? Can i give it
> in the name of the
> > *real* victim (who is presumably no longer around
> to give it)? Or from
> > another angle--who has the power to forgive? It
> would take a sovereign
> > b/c already to say "I forgive you" puts me in a
> position of power; i
> > claim for myself subjective mastery.
> >
> > I've got a billion papers to grade, so i'm going
> to jump ahead and just
> > say that Derrida distinguished the conditional
> "forgiveness" involved in
> > amnesty from an unconditional and limitless
> forgiveness, and he noted
> > that these two, the conditional and the
> unconditional, are completely
> > irreconcilable but also indissociable.
> >
> > Best, ddd
> >
> >         --- from list
> nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 
> 
> 
> 	--- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> ---
>  

___________________________________________________________________
*NEW*   Yahoo! Messenger for SMS. Now on your ORANGE phone    *NEW*
        Visit http://in.mobile.yahoo.com/smsmgr_signin.html


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