From: INMAN J S <S.Inman-AT-greenwich.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 13:45:04 GMT Subject: Re: ????dumbfounded object (in the nursery) I'll confess to having wanted to annoy, to make Monsieurtexte Monsieur testy as it were. This was partly because I was annoyed with Edward Moore's dismissive remarks to Chris Beneke, partly with what I saw as a failure to connect the discussion with Surrealism. Of course, any subject could be discussed, be a springboard for discussions of other subjects or whatever, but I do feel very strongly that it then needs to be related to the specificity of surrealism, not be a more general philosphical argument. As it was, I found much of Edward Moore's comments very familiar, and the didactic tone of many of them sounded too much like an undigested regurgitation of other texts. OK, I should talk, we all do it, sometimes consciously, sometimes not. Also, I had given up trying to follow the conversation, partly through boredom, partly through being too busy. Skimming through a text means one tends to pick up on the familiar. Perhaps I have been too harsh? Perhaps, but in the words of Edward Moore: "...outbursts are rarely devoid of at least a semblance of truth." Well, of course, I have read Bataille, one thing I would never call his writing is flabby. Not asking in tones of exasperation, sarcasm or anything except polite curiosity, have you read "The Absence of Myth" Edward? Given that most people who have written about Bataille and Surrealism have presented him as anti-surrealist, the book is quite an eye opener in that respect. What you do not do Edward, is say WHY you think Derrida is relevant, only that I should read him. This of course presupposes that I have not read him, and that if I had his relevance would be self-evident. All I can say is that I have not read him deeply and may have missed much, but I got the impression of a shallow smart-arse at work. One thing I do regret about my last posting is the phrase "As a founding member of this group..." In the context of the rest of the message it sounds like I was trying to assert an authority I do not possess. I don't like people doing that to me, and in fact someone just did the other day on another list. apparently I can't possibly know what I am talking about because I am under seventy, never met Jung, Herbert Read or Arshile Gorky. Silly me. Because this list is not mediated, is a free-for-all, a great deal of rudeness creeps in at times, yours and mine Edward - thank God. (Whoops!) If you are intolerant of some of the other members of this list then others will be intolerant of you. Infinite space IS worth discussing, but how to cut through the crap, the abstraction, get to the experience? Have you read buddhist philosophers? the Buddhist description of the experience of space is valuable to me. I wanted to say more, but have to close down now. I will try to say more asap. Stuart Inman
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005