David said;
>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.
David, I think you have misread the purpose of my posting. To begin with it
was Henry who brought on 'the names' and I was responding to what I see as a
negativity where I would have expected some openness. Like you, I too react
rebelliously if "i feel I'm being presented with a set of Authorities, the
knowledge of whom, the ownership of access to, is a prerequisite for being
seriously entertained in discussion". It is perfectly possible to talk about
anything without referring to another particular so of course it is perfectly
ok to talk about the avant garde without reference to certain 'names' - but
the point of my note was simply to express my sleight surprise that two names
who can be illuminating if we choose to look their way are dismissed so
contemptuously by Henry in the same manner that I have become used to in
areas outside this list.
Henry said:
>You're assuming quite a bit here, Tim. Such as that I haven't read either
>Heidegger or Derrida, or serious analyses of their writings. It's
>convenient for you to imagine that attacks on their authority must
>emanate from unread American know-nothings.
I am not assuming anything Henry but I am making my own conclusions,
naturally, from phrases such as, " I find the philosophical gobbledy-gook of
poetry's false friends, Heidegger & Derrida, extremely tiresome." And i find
your phrase 'American know-nothings' quite off-putting as what I said has got
nothing to do with nationality, or an individual, such as yourself, but about
the very complex processes of reception and reaction to deconstruction within
the locality of American philosophy and cultural studies etc. I apologise for
using the word 'sloppy' by the way.
There is a very serious word in both David's and Henry's posts though, and
one which perhaps is pivotal in a lot of the misunderstanding and negativity
that revolves around such matters: Henry says "attacks on their authority" -
>authority< - now, why use that word? Derrida and Heidegger are not
>authorites<, they are/were philosophers. Philosophy is not authority it is
somebody thinking. Philosophy is not organised religion or ideology. Yes, it
might stem from either or lead to either or partake of either but >it is not
either<. It is as if everything that a thinker says is either 'true' or
'untrue', is to be believed or not believed. When you are talking with a
friend and he/she says something then what they say is not true or untrue, to
be believed or unbelieved, it is there to be received and chewed over and
responded to etc. Look at this list -no authority - no authorities - great. I
come to everything I read as an equal. If I came to it subject to its
authority then my reaction to it would be different - of course coming to
things subject to an 'authority' is what happens within the academic system -
big subject - but I have noticed a reluctance on the list to talk about that
one. The closest I have come to finding a view corresponding with my own
about coming to 'works' as an equal is in the essays of Tom Leonard.
from an 'authority' (where's your bleeding certificates then mate?) on these
matters
Tim A.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|