Stuart -- your points are taken, and I had thought as
much before posting. However Noam Chomsky has said
something and given an interview and so has Robert
Fisk. And the sad thing since Michel Foucault's death
is that there is no comparable living intellectual who
has taken his place ie. Derrida has not spoken with
any of the brilliance he is capable of about such
grave matters... he signs a petition here and there...
but no strongly worded statements... do not misread
this. I obviously dont know the guy, but really.. what
does it take to speak..? but to return to the
comparison to Michel Foucault... I mean in the sense
of someone well-known enough to speak in the way that
Michel Foucault most certainly would have . And so for
that matter would Jean-Paul Sartre. It is not very
complicated really. But then perhaps Derrida has to
deconstruct everything first...yes, yes, I am
sarcastic., and perhaps am wrong. But he has the
choice, as we do. Perhaps his choice is like
Heidegger's(re:the Shoah)and we will shall never what
he thought...
--- Stuart Elden <stuart.elden@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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.
>
> Stuart
>
> > 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
> >
> >
____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send a newsletter, share photos & files, conduct polls, organize chat events. Visit http://in.groups.yahoo.com
much before posting. However Noam Chomsky has said
something and given an interview and so has Robert
Fisk. And the sad thing since Michel Foucault's death
is that there is no comparable living intellectual who
has taken his place ie. Derrida has not spoken with
any of the brilliance he is capable of about such
grave matters... he signs a petition here and there...
but no strongly worded statements... do not misread
this. I obviously dont know the guy, but really.. what
does it take to speak..? but to return to the
comparison to Michel Foucault... I mean in the sense
of someone well-known enough to speak in the way that
Michel Foucault most certainly would have . And so for
that matter would Jean-Paul Sartre. It is not very
complicated really. But then perhaps Derrida has to
deconstruct everything first...yes, yes, I am
sarcastic., and perhaps am wrong. But he has the
choice, as we do. Perhaps his choice is like
Heidegger's(re:the Shoah)and we will shall never what
he thought...
--- Stuart Elden <stuart.elden@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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.
>
> Stuart
>
> > 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
> >
> >
____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send a newsletter, share photos & files, conduct polls, organize chat events. Visit http://in.groups.yahoo.com