F.A.O. Others et al,

I loved the post by Richard.
He wrote stuff like:

[[Levinas' project might be interesting for film studies in so far it is an
attempt to think through the specificity of that which is 'other than me',
as something resistant to thematisation and representation.]]

I have my differences, but I love that idea - this is the first time I have
seen "philosophy" on this, or in this, "salon".
I also enjoyed Richard's comments on subjectivity:

[[Levinas' attention to concepts of passivity and proximity as modes of
subjection (literally, the formation of the subject) seems to me to be a
potentially productive resource for thinking about notions of audiences,
perception and reception (as constitutive elements in the phenomenon of
'cinema'): "Proximity, immediacy, this is *to take pleasure and suffer*
through the other." (AE, 114) There's something delightfully masochistic in
Levinas' account of the self-other relation - 'I' am subject to the
imposition of the other, which thereby defines me as 'subject'... (There
might be parallels here, too, with studies of film as ideological mechanism,
etc.) This is just a sketch of where phenomenological themes in general
might prove productive for thinking about film...]]

In his second / following series of remarks, Richard reiterated the
distinction between two 'types' of other(ness). I think this is necessary
because the two are significantly different and different implications abound
with each. Too often the more 'radical' otherness is reduced...read Richard
for yourself...

[[My comments on cinema, light and representation need more explanation. I
could do this through Levinas. At one point in 'Meaning and Sense' (1972),
he explains that 'the other' can be thought in two different ways:

1) The other is understood within the horizon of the concrete world (as
system of signs and symbols), just as any object in the world, e.g., a text,
is illuminated by its context.

2) The other signifies independently from the meaning attributed to it by
the world. "The other comes to us not only out of context, but also without
mediation; he signifies by himself." ('Meaning and Sense') In this way, the
other is an 'event' that disturbs the order of the world (as horizon of
meaning): it disturbs, precisely, the order of *images* (for
phenomenologists, of course, *all* phenomena are, by definition, already
images).]]

As Derrida says "Every other (one) is every (bit) other".
Or at least this is how I am trying to deal with this. I love the idea of
otherness.
Isn't love itself otherness? Or accepting exposure to otherness?
I love the idea of trying to accept otherness. And this is why I love
Richard's comments. He makes me consider the 'love of wisdom' definition of
philosophy: philosophy as a form (or genre) of love.
And I try to ensure that my love is not the kind that smothers the other; not
the kind that erects systems of thought to ensnare the other; not the kind of
love that assimilates the other; not the kind of love that reduces the
otherness of the other to the same.
I try to ensure my love allows the other to be; I try to make sure the other
does not scare me by the threat of their leaving and I try to not trap the
other into staying with me; or rather I should try to acknowledge that the
other will scare me - this is the nature of their otherness; do we seek to be
a host to the other without being hostage? A host without smothering? Maybe I
am not a good lover? Maybe we are not good lovers? Maybe I just love myself
too much? Perhaps love is something that is 'to come'.

Anyhow, Richard later speculated:

[Something else off the point that occurs to me: upon entering
the darkened room, we surrender the initiative (but without being totally
passive) - we wait, we expect, we watch... I think that phenomenology has
lots to say about these kinds of experiences.]

Perhaps.
I love the undecidability of "we surrender the initiative (but without being
totally
passive)".
Is insomnia linked to a refusal to be passive, a refusal to allow otherness,
a refusal to allow sleep to consume us, a refusal to 'surrender the
initiative'? I'm sure Levinas said something on this somewhere. And where did
I read that dreams 'last' about 1hour 40ish minutes, the same length of time
as a 'typical' film? And what does that mean / what are the implications (if
any)?

And Richard later said lots of things that were interesting.
I think he raised some important questions like:

[[Doesn't this peculiar status of the cinematic image yield a different
ontological status of the image? Do films *appear* to perception in the same
way as a painting or other plastic artwork? My point, I guess, is that the
cinema creates all kinds of problems for theories of representation - as I
said in the previous email, I'm not claiming that this account provides any
straightforward answers (so no surprises there...).]]

Cool, I like the rejection of the ability to provide 'straighforward
answers', to provide anything approaching a final word on the matter.
(Not entirely connected, but I have to get it in somewhere - I'm all up for a
critical rereading and discussion of Richard Dyer's 'Entertainment and
Utopia', if anyone can be arsed?)

Richard then said:

[[This isn't doing '*real* philosophy with film', as you asked, but then I
wouldn't know what '*real*' philosophy should be: it just raises some
questions about the nature of the thing we're discussing/studying here.]]

Gosh, yes, what the heck is  '*real* philosophy with film'????
What could it ever be?

And then I also read and enjoyed the following:

[[In fact, we're probably talking with different aims: mine, here, are
broadly
aesthetic inquiries about the specificity of film; your focus was on ways of
talking about specific films' philosophical content.]]

I like this distinction. I think that the "salon" could split into two on
this point - if it ever wanted to.
I, frankly, find the question of the philosophical content of films banal. So
fucking what if Woody Allen read a bit of Heidegger and then appealed to
middle-class accumulation of cultural capital?
When I smoke a few joints and watch a film everything is 'philosophical'.
Every aspect of the content I see as philosophical. I see undecidability
everywhere; I see questions of being where they shouldn't be; I see
judgements; I fail not to find philosophical content in a film when I'm high.

So I kind of prefer the other discussion on 'aesthetic inquiries about the
specificity of film'.
But that's just my opinion, what do I know?

So thanks Richard, I enjoyed reading you. It was a credit to this 'salon'.

One last thing: the following 'happened':

[[Date:    Fri, 7 Jun 2002 14:24:16 -0400
From:    steven w <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 4 Jun 2002 (#2002-13)

hi list.   lurker, c'est moi.  someone on the list recently mentioned
something by Baudrillard on Levinas.  I can't find the message, but if
anyone knows the reference could you please let me know.
thanks,  Steven]]

Hello Steven, maybe it was me who mentioned something on Levinas by
Baudrillard. I don't know? I'm always spouting off. Anyhow Mike Gane, writer
of a couple of books on Baudrillard and editor of the collected interviews,
has, or at least had, a PhD student who was investigating the relationship
between Baudrillard and Levinas. So that's your first port of call I assume -
unless you are the student Mike Gane is supervising!! I like Mike Gane's
enthusiasm for Baudrillard, but I kind of feel that something is seriously
missing in his analysis of Baudrillard.
Also I think there are a series of comments aimed at Levinas in the
Baudrillard from the mid 90's to late 90's. Can't remember exactly but it's
there somewhere.
By the way has anyone got a copy of the 'Dodi / Diana' poem that Baudrillard
wrote? Can they put it on this 'salon'? I'd love to reread that. I found it
so bloody funny!

So, fingers crossed for the England - Nigeria game tomorrow, eh?

Cheers, Jon