Dear Mr. Roberts,
Thanks for your comments and your succinct summary of Derrida's arguments
regarding law and violence as a necessary founding act of law. Your
comments prompted a reflection on my part about both Foucault's and
Derrida's work, viz. although reason and discourse is capable not only of
accounting for itself in terms of the issues it raises and develops still
there is an internal historical necessity at work which in fact generates
the discourse and binds the discourse to history and temporality. In other
words, the question of terror is part of modern life and was ushered onto
the scene of history by the historical development which placed peoples'
destinies in their own hands either in the governmental forms of democracy
or communism or other varieties of modern forms of government.
Merleau-Ponty wrote a book called "Humanism and Terror" and the historical
conditions which necessitated the editor of Les Temps Modern and Sartre's
colaborator to write such a book are well known although probably not well
understood.
Sorry I am not being very articulate here but what I am trying to say is
that philosophy and especially political philosophy has become more and more
about violence and its justification (e.g. Habermas' treatment of
legitimation). So examining violence, its causes and conditions has become,
in the modern, context a preeminently philosophical act insofar as it not
only addresses the current situation (perhaps too obliquely in some people's
opinion) but, if the discussion is a well informed one, it returns one to
the issue of the founding act(s) of violence which legitimize the prevailing
laws. If such a discussion were to be carried out thoroughly it would, of
course, be viewed as subversive (which I think Foucault was trying to do)
since it would expose this founding act of violence to the light of day and
thereby destabilize if not delegitimize the laws under which we all live.
This of course raises the question of revolution and whether or not it is
legitimate for an oppressed people to react or act against their oppressors
with violence.
As for the current crisis, bin Laden, if indeed he is "responsible" for the
attacks on the US, he is not trying to foment revolution. Possibly he wants
a revolution in Saudi Arabia but he doesn't seem to be out to rule the world
although the destuction of the US seems just as impossible a goal.
Cheers and thanks to Eldorra for starting this thread,
CD
>From: "Roberts, Tony M" <Tony.M.Roberts@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: 'charmaine driscoll ' <missplateau@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
>"'foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx '"
><foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: RE: Derrida and Silence
>Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 11:47:15 -0500
>
> 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
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Thanks for your comments and your succinct summary of Derrida's arguments
regarding law and violence as a necessary founding act of law. Your
comments prompted a reflection on my part about both Foucault's and
Derrida's work, viz. although reason and discourse is capable not only of
accounting for itself in terms of the issues it raises and develops still
there is an internal historical necessity at work which in fact generates
the discourse and binds the discourse to history and temporality. In other
words, the question of terror is part of modern life and was ushered onto
the scene of history by the historical development which placed peoples'
destinies in their own hands either in the governmental forms of democracy
or communism or other varieties of modern forms of government.
Merleau-Ponty wrote a book called "Humanism and Terror" and the historical
conditions which necessitated the editor of Les Temps Modern and Sartre's
colaborator to write such a book are well known although probably not well
understood.
Sorry I am not being very articulate here but what I am trying to say is
that philosophy and especially political philosophy has become more and more
about violence and its justification (e.g. Habermas' treatment of
legitimation). So examining violence, its causes and conditions has become,
in the modern, context a preeminently philosophical act insofar as it not
only addresses the current situation (perhaps too obliquely in some people's
opinion) but, if the discussion is a well informed one, it returns one to
the issue of the founding act(s) of violence which legitimize the prevailing
laws. If such a discussion were to be carried out thoroughly it would, of
course, be viewed as subversive (which I think Foucault was trying to do)
since it would expose this founding act of violence to the light of day and
thereby destabilize if not delegitimize the laws under which we all live.
This of course raises the question of revolution and whether or not it is
legitimate for an oppressed people to react or act against their oppressors
with violence.
As for the current crisis, bin Laden, if indeed he is "responsible" for the
attacks on the US, he is not trying to foment revolution. Possibly he wants
a revolution in Saudi Arabia but he doesn't seem to be out to rule the world
although the destuction of the US seems just as impossible a goal.
Cheers and thanks to Eldorra for starting this thread,
CD
>From: "Roberts, Tony M" <Tony.M.Roberts@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: 'charmaine driscoll ' <missplateau@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
>"'foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx '"
><foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: RE: Derrida and Silence
>Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 11:47:15 -0500
>
> 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
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp