Howdy,
In those immortal words of William James "There is no lie more destructive
than a truth misunderstood". It is this which made it necessary for Marx to
declare that he was not a Marxist, those maintaining the purity of his
thought and evading all responsibility for how his words might echo and
distort in the empty heads of the turnip witted. Derrida is not a Derridean.
He does not teach that one should strive to be non-postioned. He teaches
that the attempt to perceive in any way that is not positioned or situated
is a contradiction; is an attempt to see things from a God's eye point of
view that is everywhere all at once while being no where in particular. Like
everything else rooted in religious thinking this attempt itself is a
symptom of disease in the form of a denial of one's situatedness.
What Derrida has written about specifically is the foundation of law in a
primordial act of violence which is the arbitrary judgment which originates
the rule which is the rule of law. To deny this violence at the heart of
law, all law, is to deny the situatedness of even those rules which would
allow one to make judgments about right\wrong , good\evil , groovy\icky. The
main thing a careful study of Derrida could bring to any discussion of
terrorism is a strong sense of the fact the every order is founded in an act
of terrorism which then becomes the cornerstone of the order which any
subsequent act of terrorism most decenter in order to become an act of
creation rather than an act of destruction. Derrida deconstructs the binary
of terror/law by pointing out the terror at the heart of law and the aching
need to become law at the heart of terror.
This insight will be traumatic from the point of view of all who respond to
the routine terrors of their own situated way of life through a strategy of
identification with the aggressor; from the point of view of those who most
think of themselves as "good" or "right" from the perspective of a God who
was never a terrorist and could never be undone by terror in order to
maintain spincter control, self-respect or the capacity to culturally
reproduce at home or in the classroom by making authoritative daddy like
sounds for the supposed benefit of young people who damn well better be
impressionable if they know what's good for them.
-----Original Message-----
From: charmaine driscoll
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 9/21/01 1:20 AM
Subject: Re: Derrida and Silence
--- Hello -- well I beg to differ with you on this matter. Last autumn
Mister Derrida signed a petition protesting the occupation of the
Palestinian territories and the repression in that country which wishes
to
be. He also signed a petition to help Mr. Edward Said whose books had
been
banned by M. Arafat. I think it a tad simple to try and explain the man
before he has spoken. I disagree completely with E.Mitchell's views.
Sincerely,
Charmaine
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
In those immortal words of William James "There is no lie more destructive
than a truth misunderstood". It is this which made it necessary for Marx to
declare that he was not a Marxist, those maintaining the purity of his
thought and evading all responsibility for how his words might echo and
distort in the empty heads of the turnip witted. Derrida is not a Derridean.
He does not teach that one should strive to be non-postioned. He teaches
that the attempt to perceive in any way that is not positioned or situated
is a contradiction; is an attempt to see things from a God's eye point of
view that is everywhere all at once while being no where in particular. Like
everything else rooted in religious thinking this attempt itself is a
symptom of disease in the form of a denial of one's situatedness.
What Derrida has written about specifically is the foundation of law in a
primordial act of violence which is the arbitrary judgment which originates
the rule which is the rule of law. To deny this violence at the heart of
law, all law, is to deny the situatedness of even those rules which would
allow one to make judgments about right\wrong , good\evil , groovy\icky. The
main thing a careful study of Derrida could bring to any discussion of
terrorism is a strong sense of the fact the every order is founded in an act
of terrorism which then becomes the cornerstone of the order which any
subsequent act of terrorism most decenter in order to become an act of
creation rather than an act of destruction. Derrida deconstructs the binary
of terror/law by pointing out the terror at the heart of law and the aching
need to become law at the heart of terror.
This insight will be traumatic from the point of view of all who respond to
the routine terrors of their own situated way of life through a strategy of
identification with the aggressor; from the point of view of those who most
think of themselves as "good" or "right" from the perspective of a God who
was never a terrorist and could never be undone by terror in order to
maintain spincter control, self-respect or the capacity to culturally
reproduce at home or in the classroom by making authoritative daddy like
sounds for the supposed benefit of young people who damn well better be
impressionable if they know what's good for them.
-----Original Message-----
From: charmaine driscoll
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 9/21/01 1:20 AM
Subject: Re: Derrida and Silence
--- Hello -- well I beg to differ with you on this matter. Last autumn
Mister Derrida signed a petition protesting the occupation of the
Palestinian territories and the repression in that country which wishes
to
be. He also signed a petition to help Mr. Edward Said whose books had
been
banned by M. Arafat. I think it a tad simple to try and explain the man
before he has spoken. I disagree completely with E.Mitchell's views.
Sincerely,
Charmaine
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp