I'd like to weigh in on this subject although perhaps it is neither wise nor
necessary. I think M. Derrida has made it quite clear over the years what
his interests are. Yes there is a political component to his work but only
indirectly. "Positions" is probably the most concise and direct statement
about the political dimensions of his work which in a nutshell (no pun
intended) argues the untenability of any and all avowedly political
philosophies. This of course does not mean that politiical texts and theory
are absent from his work but the thrust of his work seems to advocate being
non-positioned. Of course, this itself is a position but this
non-positioning of oneself is meant as a discursive and philosophical
practice or praxis which seeks the "chora" and attempts to stand in the gap
created by the antinomies of reason and the contradictions and paradoxes of
experience.
See below references to Encyclopedia Brittanica re: chora
Plato's central inspiration, which unifies his metaphysics, his
cosmology, his theory of man, and his doctrine of the soul, was
basically dualistic (in the sense of dialectical dualism) with two
irreducible principles: the Idea and the chora (or material
"receptacle") in which the Idea impresses itself. All of this world is
conditioned by materiality and necessity; and because of this, the
descent of souls into bodies is said to be rendered necessary as
well.
http://www.eb.com:180/bol/topic?eu=117389&sctn=3#s_top
Among the important features of the dialogue are its introduction of
God as the "demiurge"--the intelligent cause of all order and
structure in the world of becoming--and the emphatic recognition of
the essentially tentative character of natural science. It is also
noteworthy that, though Plato presents a corpuscular physics, his
metaphysical substrate is not matter but chora (space). The
presence of space as a factor requires the recognition, over and
above God or mind, of an element that he called ananke
(necessity). The activity of the demiurge ensures that the universe is
in general rational and well-ordered, but the brute force of material
necessity sets limits to the scope and efficacy of reason. The details
of Plato's cosmology, physiology, and psychophysics are of great
importance for the history of science but metaphysically of
secondary interest.
http://www.eb.com:180/bol/topic?eu=115123&sctn=17#407357
I hope this doesn't sound too pedantic but I believe it would be
inconsistent with Derrida's work as it stands to be inserting himself into a
political situation where he has really no authority. Perhaps even a bit
arrogant for someone such as himself to think that he should say something.
A thinker such as Derrida, I think, can only be expected to comment on
topical or current historical events if he is pressed to or asked to either
by some public body or by politicians themselves. It is of course not at
all uncommon for news organizations and government to consult with members
of the academy but is Derrida really the type of member of the academy that
such groups might go to for any kind of practical advice or general
overview. No doubt he abhors the loss of life and the escalation of
tensions but these are sentiments and views of a private citizen. What more
would he be in a position to say?
Sincerely,
C. Daly
>From: maureen ford <mford@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Derrida and Silence
>Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 11:51:40 -0400
>
>I would like to speak in support of Stuart Elden's reference to the wisdom
>of silence, and speak against the call for Derrida to fill a void somehow
>left with Foucault's absence. In addition to the wisdom of taking time to
>consider before speaking (not to mention waiting for a time when genuine
>dialogue, including listening, might be possible... a time at which we
>might
>not yet have arrived), I recall Foucault's reluctance to speak as a "public
>intellectual" such that his speaking would be conferred with an
>all-encompassing authority. The very call for Derrida to join Chomsky and
>Fisk in making public declarations itself seems dangerous in just the way
>Foucault resisted. I don't have the document here with me but I am
>thinking
>of the contrast between Foucault and Chomsky's comments in their join
>interview...
>
>If Derrida may only speak because it is demanded by an audience that is
>ready to give the weight of his seemingly singular "brilliance" then it
>seems perhaps wise not to speak at all.
>
>maureen
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
necessary. I think M. Derrida has made it quite clear over the years what
his interests are. Yes there is a political component to his work but only
indirectly. "Positions" is probably the most concise and direct statement
about the political dimensions of his work which in a nutshell (no pun
intended) argues the untenability of any and all avowedly political
philosophies. This of course does not mean that politiical texts and theory
are absent from his work but the thrust of his work seems to advocate being
non-positioned. Of course, this itself is a position but this
non-positioning of oneself is meant as a discursive and philosophical
practice or praxis which seeks the "chora" and attempts to stand in the gap
created by the antinomies of reason and the contradictions and paradoxes of
experience.
See below references to Encyclopedia Brittanica re: chora
Plato's central inspiration, which unifies his metaphysics, his
cosmology, his theory of man, and his doctrine of the soul, was
basically dualistic (in the sense of dialectical dualism) with two
irreducible principles: the Idea and the chora (or material
"receptacle") in which the Idea impresses itself. All of this world is
conditioned by materiality and necessity; and because of this, the
descent of souls into bodies is said to be rendered necessary as
well.
http://www.eb.com:180/bol/topic?eu=117389&sctn=3#s_top
Among the important features of the dialogue are its introduction of
God as the "demiurge"--the intelligent cause of all order and
structure in the world of becoming--and the emphatic recognition of
the essentially tentative character of natural science. It is also
noteworthy that, though Plato presents a corpuscular physics, his
metaphysical substrate is not matter but chora (space). The
presence of space as a factor requires the recognition, over and
above God or mind, of an element that he called ananke
(necessity). The activity of the demiurge ensures that the universe is
in general rational and well-ordered, but the brute force of material
necessity sets limits to the scope and efficacy of reason. The details
of Plato's cosmology, physiology, and psychophysics are of great
importance for the history of science but metaphysically of
secondary interest.
http://www.eb.com:180/bol/topic?eu=115123&sctn=17#407357
I hope this doesn't sound too pedantic but I believe it would be
inconsistent with Derrida's work as it stands to be inserting himself into a
political situation where he has really no authority. Perhaps even a bit
arrogant for someone such as himself to think that he should say something.
A thinker such as Derrida, I think, can only be expected to comment on
topical or current historical events if he is pressed to or asked to either
by some public body or by politicians themselves. It is of course not at
all uncommon for news organizations and government to consult with members
of the academy but is Derrida really the type of member of the academy that
such groups might go to for any kind of practical advice or general
overview. No doubt he abhors the loss of life and the escalation of
tensions but these are sentiments and views of a private citizen. What more
would he be in a position to say?
Sincerely,
C. Daly
>From: maureen ford <mford@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Derrida and Silence
>Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 11:51:40 -0400
>
>I would like to speak in support of Stuart Elden's reference to the wisdom
>of silence, and speak against the call for Derrida to fill a void somehow
>left with Foucault's absence. In addition to the wisdom of taking time to
>consider before speaking (not to mention waiting for a time when genuine
>dialogue, including listening, might be possible... a time at which we
>might
>not yet have arrived), I recall Foucault's reluctance to speak as a "public
>intellectual" such that his speaking would be conferred with an
>all-encompassing authority. The very call for Derrida to join Chomsky and
>Fisk in making public declarations itself seems dangerous in just the way
>Foucault resisted. I don't have the document here with me but I am
>thinking
>of the contrast between Foucault and Chomsky's comments in their join
>interview...
>
>If Derrida may only speak because it is demanded by an audience that is
>ready to give the weight of his seemingly singular "brilliance" then it
>seems perhaps wise not to speak at all.
>
>maureen
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp