[D66] De bruine brutaalberen

[A.O.]

--De limburger 10/11/2018

On 10-11-18 08:56, A.O. wrote:
> "It may be acknowledged, then, that in the rereading to which we are
> invited by Rousset, light is menaced from within by that which also
> metaphysically menaces every structuralism: the possibility of conceal-
> ing meaning through the very act of uncovering it. To comprehend the
> structure of a becoming, the form of a force, is to lose meaning by
> finding it. The meaning of becoming and of force, by virtue of their
> pure, intrinsic characteristics, is the repose of the beginning and the
> end, the peacefulness of a spectacle, horizon or face. Within this
> peace and repose the character of becoming and of force is disturbed
> by meaning itself. The meaning of meaning is Apollonian by virtue of
> everything within it that can be seen."
> --p. 31 Writing and Difference
>
>
> On 10-11-18 08:42, A.O. wrote:
>> "One must refer to language’s peculiar inability to emerge from itself
>> in order to articulate its origin, and not to the thought of force.
>> Force is the other of language without which language would not be what
>> it is.
>> In order to respect this strange movement within language, in order
>> not to reduce it in turn, we would have to attempt a return to the
>> metaphor of darkness and light (of self-revelation and self-
>> concealment), the founding metaphor of Western philosophy as meta-
>> physics. The founding metaphor not only because it is a photological
>> one—and in this respect the entire history of our philosophy is a pho-
>> tology, the name given to a history of, or treatise on, light—but
>> because it is a metaphor."
>> --p. 31 Writing and Difference
>>
>> On 09-11-18 16:13, A.O. wrote:
>>> 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
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.tuxtown.net/pipermail/d66/attachments/20181110/e64a4b69/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screenshot from 2018-11-10 12-35-27.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 92415 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.tuxtown.net/pipermail/d66/attachments/20181110/e64a4b69/attachment-0001.jpg>