Date: Fri, 08 Dec 1995 19:26:11 -0600 (CST) From: Quetzil-AT-UH.EDU (Quetzil Castaneda) Subject: Re: non-discursive as outside-the-sentence - ness? re. Debbie Radhika, not sure I follow your question, maybe wrong in thinking its directed to me. But, I am suggesting that i dont buy that there is this "prediscursive" or "outside-of-the-discursive" quality, experience, nature. I know its an extreme position that many shoo shoo as ridiculous, but every time i try to find the outside, prior, or beyond of discursive meaning I always get caught into some insideous thread of an embedded discursiveness. for me its not that tjhere are things that are untranslatable. any entity that falls within that category, well, falls within that CATEGORY and is thus always already translated into discursive meaning by cultural-historical practices. Sorry to be so old hat, but to reverse derrida, its not just that there is nothing outside the text for me, but that everything already is always within textual systems. to posit an outside, a pre-, a beyond is a textual, discursive, rhetoric act. One cannot just FEEL, but knows how to feel within a sociohistorical cultural, class, ethnic, gendered modality that one learns and learns how to experience the "corporeal" as if there were no quotes around the sensation. everything is translatable ("good" "bad" are secondary issues of one's political location); nothing but translations. eh. quetzil. >ok ay so your talking about something at the level of affect >which is untranslatable into the discursive - pre discursive, >outside-discursive perhaps? > >Radhika > > > --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005