[D66] De belachelijke bolleboos

[A.O.]

To say that force is the origin of the phenomenon is to say nothing.
By its very articulation force becomes a phenomenon. Hegel demon-
strated convincingly that the explication of a phenomenon by a force is
a tautology. 58
--p. 31 Writing and Difference

On 08-11-18 08:49, A.O. wrote:
> "Allan Megill believes Derrida is right in thinking that Foucault
> remains bound up in a "spatial metaphoric that is force-excluding"
> (232). "In his critique of History of Madness, Derrida points out that
> Foucault is, by his own argument, trapped within 'logocentrism,' within
> the general historical guilt borne by Western language. For whatever his
> claims to be resurrecting the silent language of an oppressed madness,
> Foucault continues to speak the language of the very reason that carried
> out the oppression in the first place. In short, he is still caught
> within [and strengthening] the all-powerful order that he is seeking to
> evade.... Derrida's characteristic response to the historical guilt that
> in his view inevitably accompanies Western reason is to engage in a play
> with the text" (233).
> 
> On 08-11-18 08:30, A.O. wrote:
>> "Foucault understands Descartes as having been the first to expel
>> madness in an "act of force," for he considered it simply an
>> impossibility. Derrida disagrees, saying that Descartes doesn't exclude
>> madness but rather brings it to a hyperbolical exasperation. While
>> Foucault thinks Descartes wanted to neutralize the originality of
>> madness in order to make it the Cogito's other, Derrida thinks that one
>> only gets to the Cogito through the total madness embodied in the malin
>> genie. If Derrida is right, Foucault's whole project is trouble, for if
>> the Cogito only emerges through total madness, the desire to let madness
>> speak for itself is a gesture of strengthening the Cogito. Not only
>> that, but Foucault would have done an extreme disservice to the
>> radicality of the Cartesian project (by nevertheless participating in it)."
>>
>> On 07-11-18 15:16, A.O. wrote:
>>> "Derrida believes force is a by product of language's power of
>>> signification. Because the signifier is always in excess, meaning more
>>> than it is supposed to, the writer's intended meaning cannot contain it;
>>> this is the force of language. "Force is not darkness, and it is not
>>> hidden under a form for which it would serve as substance, matter, or
>>> crypt. Force cannot be conceived on the basis of an oppositional couple,
>>> that is, on the basis of the complicity between phenomenology and
>>> occultism. Nor can it be conceived, from within phenomenology, as the
>>> fact opposed to meaning."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://strongreading.blogspot.com/2010/08/derrida-writing-and-difference-chapters.html
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> D66 mailing list
>>> D66 at tuxtown.net
>>> http://www.tuxtown.net/mailman/listinfo/d66
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> D66 mailing list
>> D66 at tuxtown.net
>> http://www.tuxtown.net/mailman/listinfo/d66
>>
> _______________________________________________
> D66 mailing list
> D66 at tuxtown.net
> http://www.tuxtown.net/mailman/listinfo/d66
>