I wonder if this actually shows considerable restraint and sensitivity to
the issues. I mean, the issues are complicated, people are rushing to
judgments, to words of caution, consolation, etc. Why should he make an
immediate statement that might be later regretted, found to be inadequate or
ill-informed or mistaken, or turned against him?
I'm the member of several mailing lists which have had discussions, lots of
forwarded messages, and received loads from other sources. I haven't said
anything yet in these places, although of course I have discussed it with
family and friends. A couple of people have asked why I haven't said
anything on this list or elsewhere. I don't feel I have much to say that
hasn't already been said, or that would be appropriate or relevant. I'm not
comparing myself to Derrida, but maybe that's not dissimilar to how he
feels. Maybe that's not his position. Maybe he has other reasons.
But it seemed to me the best reason to break silence was to say a few words
about the sometime wisdom of silence.
> I take it you mean that Jacques Derrida refused to
> comment onthe recent atrocities?? -- This is sad, if
> it is the case and I wonder why M. Derrida has chosen
> silence. Compared to Prof. Noam CHomsky he is a
> strange bird.
> --- MSANCHEZ_@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > He refused to
> comment when asked.
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send a newsletter, share photos & files, conduct polls, organize chat
events. Visit http://in.groups.yahoo.com