Tim wrote:
> 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.
Tim, m'sieu. Pax.
Having, over the weekend, spent a much greater proportion of my waking
hours than accustomed in the company of a single text by the estimable
Jeremias I was, in consequence, by Monday morning , frothing at the mouth
and extremely perturbed by repeated sightings of the Masters of Dialectical
Consciousness levitating at the periphery of vision.
So I got on my hobby-horse and rode it into the list. Your posting became a
tangential starting point, so apologies for the deceitful geometry.
But I do prefer arguments without scaffold, buildings without support. Thus
defying laws, such as gravity.
david bircumshaw
----- Original Message -----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: a new issue / authority
> 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.
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|