> That's it Henry, spell out where you are coming from:
> >Prynne's phrases reminded me of all the rest of the mountain of stylized
> >rhetorical blarney written in the name of "Language" from Heidegger
through
> >Derrida & the language poets etc. and so on.
>
> O deary me - I had to cross myself after reading that - the name of the
> father the son and the holy ghosts all felled in one swift swoop.
> When I first signed up for this list I naively imagined that the majority
of
> those on it would be free of that kind of thing, particularly with regard
to
> those particular names.
Tim
Very briefly and written in haste (might follow this up later) but I think
the particular issue in respect of this 'new issue' is that the responses
are split between those that have read the piece and those who are spinning
off at tangents to quotes.
Some of the postings of those who've read it whole, Peter's, Chris
Hamilton-Emery's, and, in particular, Alison's longer mailing, raise real
substantive issues, which, an aside to Nate, is a reason why Prynne is so
much discussed hereabouts, and a tribute to him, he raises the ghosts more
than many.
But some of the tangential postings have had, for me, an air of a
neo-Scholastic debate. I have no objection to anyone bringing Heidegger or
Derrida or whoever to bear on poetry, but when I feel I'm being presented
with a set of Authorities, the knowledge of whom, the ownership of access
to, is a pre-requisite for being seriously entertained in discussion, I cry
'Ut'. 'Ut ut ut'. As in King Harold's tongue. When workshops on
Augustinianism or whatever it was start appearing as key references to
understanding I begin to feel very very seriously excluded, and extremely
rebellious, of which last I am sure you, Tim, would approve per se.
That's all I've time for right now - will try to re-manifest my spectre at
this beggar's banquet anon.
regards
david
----- Original Message -----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: a new issue
> That's it Henry, spell out where you are coming from:
> >Prynne's phrases reminded me of all the rest of the mountain of stylized
> >rhetorical blarney written in the name of "Language" from Heidegger
through
> >Derrida & the language poets etc. and so on.
>
> O deary me - I had to cross myself after reading that - the name of the
> father the son and the holy ghosts all felled in one swift swoop.
> When I first signed up for this list I naively imagined that the majority
of
> those on it would be free of that kind of thing, particularly with regard
to
> those particular names. In the everyday world I inhabit such names are
either
> obscure or elicit the same response as Henry's. I expected the majority on
> the list to be at least open minded and inquisitive about the connections
> between C20 philosophy and avant garde poetry and I especially expected
this
> in areas where poetry itself is foregrounded. Instead I get:
>
> >I find the philosophical gobbledy-gook of poetry's false friends,
> >Heidegger & Derrida, extremely tiresome.
>
> Now don't get me wrong - I love this list's variety and knock-about
democracy
> - I am just registering a little surprise.
>
> It shouldn't be too much of a surprise though - not after a little
thought.
> The relative 'popularity' of deconstruction in academic America - the way
in
> which ideas have been dished out in the jumble-sale of sloppy degree
courses
> - has not only stopped people from actually looking at what Derrida, for
> example, actually says, as opposed to what somebody's soundbite says, it
has
> also lead to the situation where it can now be conveniently reacted
against,
> taking us neatly back to square one before that naughty Wittgenstein put
his
> oar in.
>
> Coincidentally, I am reading an extract from a Tom Wolfe essay in the
> Guardian in which his objections to Derrida and Foucault (the twerp sites
> Foucault as being a deconstructionist) seem to be not to do with what they
> 'say' but with the fact that they are not American. This of course is
typical
> of Wolfe - a brilliant cultural commentator until he hits a certain
baseline.
> Perhaps that is one step better though than implying, as many Brit
> commentators do, that what French and German philosophers say is
> gobbledy-gook simply because they are French or German.
>
> By the way, my spellcheck says Prynne should be prune and Heidegger should
be
> headgear.
>
> All the best of deferred meanings
>
> Tim A.
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|