On Fri, 9 Aug 1996, Iain Thomson wrote:
> "Here we only wish to foreshadow that _within history_--but is it
> meaningful elsewhere?--every philosophy of nonviolence can only choose the
> lesser violence within an _economy of violence_."
> Derrida, "Violence and Metaphysics," _Writing and
> Difference_, P. 313n21.
To be sure: an economy. This of course does not mean that there is not
*aneconomy* as well. And, as I've been pointing out, nonviolence as
disalienated and minimally mature/non-naive is a standing in the *gravity*
of the possibility of violence, and rises and falls, grows and recedes
where there is violence. This means, always and already, that submission
to violence, in violence, can never be avoided. Yet, by the same token, it
must be noted, and is perhaps the primary matter given to thought, once,
whenever, wherever nonviolence accomplishes itself, that the misuse of
such an observation is the *primary* "falling* point, errance, error, or
straight-out corruption of nonviolence.
Gandhi knew this, and it is inscribed in this way (as a minimizing) in
Jaina texts concerning ahimsa, for example. This is why the matter of
measure, degree, criteria, extents, probabilities, etc., become activated
in special ways in nonviolence. And, by the same stroke, *thought*, or at
least a certain *labor of the mind*.
The violence Derrida points to, I believe (I don't have the text) is the
violence of speech, incidentally. It is here that we might call into
question (but not "call in for questioning"!) Paul Murphy's exasperation,
to whatever extent Paul perfers a nonviolent path. How does his
exasperation, or is it exaspiration? :) , er, *world*? As the activation
of the muscle which seeks to *remove* Robert Sheetz from his attention,
perhaps from this discussion? I do not mean to say that this is the case
for Paul. Probably it is not. But I point out this possibility because it
turns the light on a certain range of the stakes and conditions for
discourse, discourse concerning (non)violence, etc.
And I agree with Paul that to some extent Robert appears to be running
roughshod over too much, though we are never to know for sure to what
extent he is merely speaking elliptically, and we need not demand of him
that he produce long analyses to back up his points. At least I don't need
to. But let's look at Paul's formulation: these things "are dismissed",
etc., in some way or other. Or are they? The discussions on this list
continue, Robert is not burning books, nor is he silencing anyone (that we
know of). Yet, at the same time, in some ways what Paul says may be true.
I'm not trying to appoint myself as a *mediator* in a flamewar which I
hope is a non-starter. I'm just looking.
But, and maybe it's the radio program on Puccini (Karl Haas, Adventures in
Good Music) I heard this morning, a certain possible drama unfolds before
my eyes. A flame war erupts, lines are drawn, exasperation yeilds to
"action", Michael Eldred sings an aria about strife, Paul says, "that's
it, I've had it!", etc., and in the flurry, sturm and drang, Tom Blancato
issues a feeble voice speaking of nonviolence, while in a burst of manly
laughter the situation itself laughs in his face, and the question of
(non)violence is put to rest.
My apologies for incorporating these names into my fantasy, and into my
futural projection of a certain "us", in a certain way. But it seems to me
there is much to take note of in this little hypothetical unfolding. I
guess I'll save the reflection for another post. As always, feel free to
delete or pursue other threads.
Not tired in the least,
Tom B.
_____________________________________________________________________
"I'll take my coffee without sugar produced in slave labor camps, third
world plantations and by prison chain gangs, thank you."
_____________________________________________________________________
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> "Here we only wish to foreshadow that _within history_--but is it
> meaningful elsewhere?--every philosophy of nonviolence can only choose the
> lesser violence within an _economy of violence_."
> Derrida, "Violence and Metaphysics," _Writing and
> Difference_, P. 313n21.
To be sure: an economy. This of course does not mean that there is not
*aneconomy* as well. And, as I've been pointing out, nonviolence as
disalienated and minimally mature/non-naive is a standing in the *gravity*
of the possibility of violence, and rises and falls, grows and recedes
where there is violence. This means, always and already, that submission
to violence, in violence, can never be avoided. Yet, by the same token, it
must be noted, and is perhaps the primary matter given to thought, once,
whenever, wherever nonviolence accomplishes itself, that the misuse of
such an observation is the *primary* "falling* point, errance, error, or
straight-out corruption of nonviolence.
Gandhi knew this, and it is inscribed in this way (as a minimizing) in
Jaina texts concerning ahimsa, for example. This is why the matter of
measure, degree, criteria, extents, probabilities, etc., become activated
in special ways in nonviolence. And, by the same stroke, *thought*, or at
least a certain *labor of the mind*.
The violence Derrida points to, I believe (I don't have the text) is the
violence of speech, incidentally. It is here that we might call into
question (but not "call in for questioning"!) Paul Murphy's exasperation,
to whatever extent Paul perfers a nonviolent path. How does his
exasperation, or is it exaspiration? :) , er, *world*? As the activation
of the muscle which seeks to *remove* Robert Sheetz from his attention,
perhaps from this discussion? I do not mean to say that this is the case
for Paul. Probably it is not. But I point out this possibility because it
turns the light on a certain range of the stakes and conditions for
discourse, discourse concerning (non)violence, etc.
And I agree with Paul that to some extent Robert appears to be running
roughshod over too much, though we are never to know for sure to what
extent he is merely speaking elliptically, and we need not demand of him
that he produce long analyses to back up his points. At least I don't need
to. But let's look at Paul's formulation: these things "are dismissed",
etc., in some way or other. Or are they? The discussions on this list
continue, Robert is not burning books, nor is he silencing anyone (that we
know of). Yet, at the same time, in some ways what Paul says may be true.
I'm not trying to appoint myself as a *mediator* in a flamewar which I
hope is a non-starter. I'm just looking.
But, and maybe it's the radio program on Puccini (Karl Haas, Adventures in
Good Music) I heard this morning, a certain possible drama unfolds before
my eyes. A flame war erupts, lines are drawn, exasperation yeilds to
"action", Michael Eldred sings an aria about strife, Paul says, "that's
it, I've had it!", etc., and in the flurry, sturm and drang, Tom Blancato
issues a feeble voice speaking of nonviolence, while in a burst of manly
laughter the situation itself laughs in his face, and the question of
(non)violence is put to rest.
My apologies for incorporating these names into my fantasy, and into my
futural projection of a certain "us", in a certain way. But it seems to me
there is much to take note of in this little hypothetical unfolding. I
guess I'll save the reflection for another post. As always, feel free to
delete or pursue other threads.
Not tired in the least,
Tom B.
_____________________________________________________________________
"I'll take my coffee without sugar produced in slave labor camps, third
world plantations and by prison chain gangs, thank you."
_____________________________________________________________________
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---