RE: Nietzsche VS Mallarme: word-holder VS word-being

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C105BD.5617C240
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The great task to which Mallarme dedicated himself, right up to his death,
is the one that dominates us now. Mallarme's project is fundamentally a
reply to the question imposed upon philosophy by Nietzsche. For Nietzsche,
it was not a matter of knowing what good and evil were in themselves, but of
who was being designated, or rather who was speaking when one said Agathos
to designate oneself and Deilos to designate others. For it is there, in the
holder of discourse and more profoundly still, in the possessor of the word,
that language is gathered together in its entirety. To the Nietzschean
question: 'Who is speaking?', Mallarme replies by saying that what is
speaking is, in its solitude, its fragile vibration, in its nothingness, the
word itself - not the meaning of the word, but its enigmatic and precarious
being. Whereas Nietzsche maintained his questioning as to who is speaking
right up to the end, though forced, in the last resort, to irrupt into that
questioning himself and to base it upon himself as the speaking and
questioning suject: Ecce homo, Mallarme was constantly effacing himself from
his own language, to the point of not wishing to figure in it except as an
executant in a pure cerimony of the Book in which the discourse would
compose itself.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Glen
> Fuller
> Sent: 05 July 2001 03:35
> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: if -- And and and and
>
>
> > The work now possesses the right to kill, to be its author's
> murderer. The
> > writer must assume the role of the dead man in the game of writing.
> > The aspects of an individual which we designate as making him an author
> are
> > only A PROJECTION, in more or less PSYCHOLOGIZING terms, of the
> operations
> > we force texts to undergo.
> > In order to 'rediscover' an author in a work, modern criticism uses
> methods
> > similar to those that Christian exegesis employed when trying
> to prove the
> > value of a text by its author's saintliness.
> > What difference does it make who is speaking?
>
> Arianna,
>
> Why bother putting your name to this email? (Or was that an
> accident, if it
> doesn't matter who is speaking?)
> It doesn't make much 'difference', but it does constitute much of a
> 'sameness' due to 'difference'. As soon as we discard authorship then we
> also discard the associated responsibility. Heaps of different thinkers
> create some theory to do with the In/Out of the social (binary logic), I
> can't see how the social can operate (best for 'you' as an individual
> subject) without distinction, without definition, without
> authorship... you
> can't have it both ways ethical responsibility without having
> something able
> to be accountable. Slander?
>

the author of all these words IS dead

> What do you mean by 'dead man'? Who is this person? God? Sounds
> like you are
> describing God... who is beyond reproach?
>
> When ascertaining 'saintliness', was it not actually uncovering the
> possibility of the Christians investing themselves into the concept of
> 'Saint So-and-so'? Trying to discover its truth value?
> But my main issue with all this is:
> Where do you draw the line between what should be taken into account and
> what shouldn't be, when trying to figure out whether a text is not merely
> worthy of being read, but worthy of being believed?
>

knowledge and belief belong to separate realms.

> Cheers,
> Glen.

------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C105BD.5617C240
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3DWindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
The great task to which Mallarme dedicated himself, =
right up to=20
his death, is the one that dominates us now. Mallarme's project is =
fundamentally=20
a reply to the question imposed upon philosophy by Nietzsche. For =
Nietzsche, it=20
was not a matter of knowing what good and evil were in themselves, but =
of who=20
was being designated, or rather who was speaking when one said=20
Agathos to designate oneself and Deilos to designate =
others.=20
For it is there, in the holder of discourse and more profoundly still, =
in the=20
possessor of the word, that language is gathered together =
in its=20
entirety. To the  Nietzschean question: 'Who is speaking?', =
Mallarme=20
replies by saying that what is speaking is, in its solitude, its fragile =

vibration, in its nothingness, the word itself - not the meaning of the =
word,=20
but its enigmatic and precarious being. Whereas Nietzsche maintained his =

questioning as to who is speaking right up to the end, though forced, in =
the=20
last resort, to irrupt into that questioning himself and to base it upon =
himself=20
as the speaking and questioning suject: Ecce homo, Mallarme was =

constantly effacing himself from his own language, to the point of not =
wishing=20
to figure in it except as an executant in a pure cerimony of the Book in =
which=20
the discourse would compose itself. 
 > -----Original Message----- > From:=20
owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [<A=20
href=3D"mailto:owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>mailto:owner-fo=
ucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>]On=20
Behalf Of Glen > Fuller > Sent: 05 July 2001 03:35 > =
To:=20
foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: if -- And and =
and=20
and > > > > The work now possesses the right to =
kill, to be=20
its author's > murderer. The > > writer must assume the =
role of=20
the dead man in the game of writing. > > The aspects of an =
individual=20
which we designate as making him an author > are > > only =
A=20
PROJECTION, in more or less PSYCHOLOGIZING terms, of the >=20
operations > > we force texts to undergo. > > In order =
to=20
'rediscover' an author in a work,  modern criticism uses >=20
methods > > similar to those that Christian exegesis employed =
when=20
trying > to prove the > > value of a text by its author's =

saintliness. > > What difference does it make who is=20
speaking? > > Arianna, > > Why bother putting =
your name=20
to this email? (Or was that an > accident, if it > doesn't =
matter=20
who is speaking?) > It doesn't make much 'difference', but it does =

constitute much of a > 'sameness' due to 'difference'. As soon as =
we=20
discard authorship then we > also discard the associated =
responsibility.=20
Heaps of different thinkers > create some theory to do with the =
In/Out of=20
the social (binary logic), I > can't see how the social can =
operate (best=20
for 'you' as an individual > subject) without distinction, without =

definition, without > authorship... you > can't have it both =
ways=20
ethical responsibility without having > something able > to =
be=20
accountable. Slander? >
<DIV>the author of all these words IS dead </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<FONT=20
color=3D#008080 size=3D3><FONT=20
color=3D#008080 size=3D3> > What do you mean by 'dead man'? =
Who is this=20
person? God? Sounds > like you are > describing God... who =
is beyond=20
reproach? > > When ascertaining 'saintliness', was it not =
actually=20
uncovering the > possibility of the Christians investing =
themselves into=20
the concept of > 'Saint So-and-so'? Trying to discover its truth=20
value? > But my main issue with all this is: > Where do you =
draw the=20
line between what should be taken into account and > what =
shouldn't be,=20
when trying to figure out whether a text is not merely > worthy of =
being=20
read, but worthy of being believed? >
knowledge and belief belong to separate realms. 
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
 >=20
Cheers, > Glen. </BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C105BD.5617C240--