Henry posts:

"I think that Heidegger, Derrida, and the language poets, the three
examples I mentioned, each reify aspects of language and make these aspects
the pivot of their worldviews. Heidegger in a mystical sense, Derrida
in an anti-mystical sense, and language poetry in a sort of functional-
rhetorical sense. In doing so, they alienate language, perhaps
unintentionally, from its human source. The fact that I don't cite
chapter and verse, I suppose, allows you to call this simply "prejudice"
on my part; I call it an opinion, voiced in the informal setting of a
discussion list."

Alright,and I certainly respect your opinion.I havn't a clue what a
Heideggerean reification/mystification of language means-and I cannot even
begin to fathom how this"aspect" becomes the "pivot" of the "worldview". A
pivotal worldview
reified and with an aspect to boot? Hmm,oh well.

You cannot simply posit "Heidegger" and expect us to know what it is that
you are referring to.On the one hand,there is the Heideggerean project in
its relationship to Husserlian phenomenology.In the later work-
considerations of Holderlin etc-Heidegger will continue to insist that
entities may appear(in the "clearing",lichtung)-with a specific advantage
that is given by naming.Names,in this "worldview"establish beings and
"keep" them.Naming is a holding together,a vouchsafing.

Now I grant you that there is a privileging,if you will-toward this
language use-and possibly that is what you where inferring by
"reification"-yet I would suggest that a distinction exists -Heiddegger
demarcates "practical communication" from what he thinks of as the
"passage" of "essential "words which are attuned and responsive to
being.Heidegger seeks a way to language,he is not"outfitted" with a
program for language,a methodology.He quotes Humboldt's suggestion that
language is the "labour of spirit".There is the suggestion that language
speaks solely and solitarily with itself;-the text of concern is "The Way
To language".From Humboldt to Chomsky's recent publication on"Consciousness
and the Mind"-there is something more at stake than the utilitarian
acquisition of a toolbox in some neo-pragmatist Rortyesque sense.

Yes,its true that there appears a mystical sense in which Heiddegger is
involved with this way-yet I have no way of knowing if for you this is a
pejorative sweep,or whether we may allow the mystical to exist as a
category of consideration and still-perhaps more than ever?- affirm its
human source?

Not to worry.Its appearance only.Its not true that Heiddgger really takes a
mystical turn at all-he at no stage asks for the maintaining of an inner
silence so that transcendental contraband may be assayed-rather the turn
is a linguistic one,which is in opposition to the technical-philosophical
accoutrements of metaphysics and its wornout assertions.Metaphysics has run
its course to completion.New namings are required.

As to Derrida alienating language in an "anti- mystical sense",i havn't any
idea what you are referring to unless you are to give some specific zone of
focus.The problem is the same as with Heiddegger-the range of Derrida's
address is broad now-from the positing of differance and
undecide-ability,to the hesitancies and unwillingness to trade in
ideological certitudes,to the fame and consequent distortion of
"deconstruction" existing as something of praxis outside the text
to a reassertion of the speech act -all with heavy debts to Heiddegger;-all
these and the current Derrida projects of responding to Levinas,in the up
coming colloquium in Paris (December)-via the considerations of "The
Gift"-and the important work done in a Augustinian context in Philadelphia
with Caputo and Marion-there is nothing in here which is "alienating
language from its human source"-Derrida is concerned with the ethical
facing into the Other more than ever,and the populist idea called
Derrida(Deconstruction as Nihilism) is a distorted representation of a
progressing corpus that refuses to remain solidified for long enough so
that it may enjoy the charge of willful alienation- as you impute.

 Finally- "language poets' are also in your view,responsible for the
"alienation of language from its human source".Now you may well be right-I
have no way of knowing.But you will see the dangerous morass that your
asserted "opinion" takes us to-you mean ALL language poets??

Some? All except? In all works?Why? How?

 I respect your right to your "opinion"-yet even in the informal setting
that you assume to be here. you may be challenged if your opinion appears
to assert without evidence,without specific address or textual reference.
-and as such cannot be passed over without commentary.

Regards,

KiwiWil.




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%