Let me throw in this .02: I usually get serious and say something about having
to have an independent thematic substantive concerning nonviolence, which I
say in serious discussions of Heidegger, as a few might know on this list.
chris usually doesn't do this and so, while he enjoys his liberated violence
ethic, or whatever it is, he comes close to hurting feelings or being to nasty
and so forth, and maitains himself in a polemical formation which forecloses
the experimentation and textual instantiation many would like to undertake.
Then I say something about that and so forth. It's rather silly. I think its a
drag that people can't find ways to activate the discursive possibilities of
this kind of list format, in interaction with the given writer, without having
to make so much recourse to a certain kind of quasi-violence. But that is an
indicator of something much broader: the degree to which the "Serious" or
proper textual discourse is held in the clutches of a particular kind of
institutional and stylistic formation, and also the relative poverty of those
who practice to travel in the "land o' truth". When "they" do so, they often
organize truth-space with crude tactics of transgression, crisis, etc., and in
the process numerous plays and possibilites are eclipsed. I'm thinking as I
write these words of Derrida's discussion of woman/truth in Spurs, and his
take on Heidegger in this regard. Basically, I guess he says that Heidegger
manhandles Nietzsche or something. And likewise, the possibilities for the
"thinking that is to come", that could be, and so forth, is in fact severely
limited, positively limps, in the psuedo Nietzschean stuff the chris throws
around. If I'd seen in his Nietzsche something of an *underline*, something of
a Chopin, perhaps, rather than...well, I dunno, Bruce Willis with a Phd in
nihilism, then I'd hear his plays better. Not that he cares.
Carson Phillip writes:
>Obscenity and horsing around? I'd like to think so. Degredation and
>objectification? Of course those terms can be debated, but I don't think so.
> No censorship needed, but at a certain point all participants are degraded.
>
>Phil
>___________________________________________________________
>____________________To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>From: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on Wed, Aug 23, 1995 3:51 PM
>Subject: Re: absurd juvenilia
>
>
>So is philosophy so utterly dead that it can allow no space for
>obscenity and horsing around? Looks like we've gone a long way
>since the Greeks. I guess that's what they call "progress"?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
---
There is no path to peace. Peace is the path.
Tom Blancato
tblancato@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Eyes on Violence (nonviolence and human rights monitoring in Haiti)
Thoughtaction Collective (reparative justice project)
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------