Public Journal:

The very real effect is that the increasing influence of Republican ideology in America may well lead to an experiment with Fascism.

Dear Editor: In Raymond Tallis’ article “Ideas and Scholarship in Philosophy” (issue 104) I was reminded of what it is I admire about the good professor. On one hand, there are these Neo-Classicist impulses at work in him (that is given his scientific background) as can be seen in his disdain for more continental approaches to philosophy: Lacan, Derrida, etc. At the same time he shares a common disdain for intellectual arrogance and elitism with this particular fan of the continental approach. This can be seen in his concepts Neuromania and Darwinitus, both of which I have encountered too often on message boards in the form of Troll-like Behaviors –which makes him almost heroic given his own academic achievement. And this particular article reflects that balance. That said, I want make a few points on the issue addressed that will hopefully be complimentary to his.

My experience has been that we tend to work in the overlaps of philosophy. The process is one of starting with general issues (the nature of mind, Free Will, the meaning of life, etc.) that tend to bounce around blue collar circles primarily because they have been bouncing between the great thinkers of our culture since the beginning of civilization, then working our way to the details. This has a couple of implications as concerns Tallis’ article.

For one, the secondary text that seeks to interpret the process of culture has basically played a role in that process. It still adds to the discourse. As Deleuze and Guattarri point out in What is Philosophy, it is about the creation of and free-play with concepts that will hopefully lead to the creation of, yet, more concepts. We may be, at a more superficial level, be reading a philosopher who is trying to explain what another philosopher has said. Still, what that philosopher is ultimately doing is creating concepts based on the concepts the philosopher they are interpreting has created. In other words, secondary text can play a major role in the process of an individual’s process. Philosophy Now does as much for its readers all the time.

At the same time (and as Tallis suggests) if one finds themselves getting serious about it, they’ll find themselves, by necessity, wanting to get past the interpretations of secondary text and play them (along with the individual’s interpretation of the secondary text) against the actual text. And that, in my experience, is a point of no return. One may wish to return to the “good old days” when they could breeze through it in the same way they might a Steven King novel. But at that point, there is no turning back. There is nothing but the original text itself.

I would agree, Raan and Steven, that there is a Zen element at the heart of my particular philosophical process: including my focus on Deleuze (w/and without Guattarri (and Rorty: which might seem strange given Rorty’s kind of conventional academic feel. I might be able to include Zizek in that. But, at this point, I see myself having to do a lot of gerrymandering to pull it off.

(And, BTW, a-holes, I had come on here w/ the intent of making a point from the book I’m reading on political philosophy. But you hijacked my postcard for today. You Bastards!!! But then I should have known better than to first come on to facebook with people I’m enjoying jamming with and I guess we all gotta follow our flow…. right? Anyway:

While I am not the most spiritual or Zen-like person you might encounter on these boards, I do see, close to heart of my process (which from a rhizomatic perspective only seems like a heart because it is the particular rhizome I am focused on right now (is the Zen Nihilism of what I usually refer to as the nihilistic perspective: that which is tapped into the underlying nothingness of it all (the ungroundedness (and can never be looked at directly, but can only glance the corner of the eye: hence, the term “the nihilistic perspective”. And it has always haunted philosophy going back to Socrates’ claim that he knew nothing (as well as Zeno’s paradoxes (and acted as a strange attractor that has gravitated philosophy to the point we are now: the postmodern condition of a complete loss of faith in all grand narratives (all isms (or absolute truths.

And the best way to start to explain the nihilistic perspective: the Zen Nihilism(as I understand it, is through my criticism of the skeptic’s paradox as a final dismissal of skepticism (an expression of the nihilistic perspective (or the nihilistic perspective:

If you approached the skeptic and the nihilistic perspective and argued:

“You can’t say there are no absolutes since to do so would be to try to establish an absolute.”

:the skeptic would do what they normally do: scrutinize: until they came to the realization that there is a big difference between saying we live in a world in which there are no absolutes and actually living in one. Then they would go right on being skeptics. The nihilistic perspective, on the other hand, would just glare at you impatiently and snort:

“Right! Nothing is engraved in stone. Not even that nothing is engraved in stone. So what’s your fucking point?”

In other words, the nihilistic perspective embraces its own lack of a foundation by embracing its ability to self nihilate. This can be seen in Alan Watt’s Taoist point that truly letting go is a matter of letting go of the idea of letting go itself. And while I am not the most spiritual or Zen-like person you’ll meet on these boards, I think this puts some shine on Deleuze’s philosophical process and even Rorty’s (even if he might not recognize it because he is dispositionally opposed to having that kind of edge.

Still?

“Why do I find Susan Haack’s critique of Rorty and his views so…weak? It seems that every accusation (~‘Rorty wishes to see philosophy and reason end’~) that she makes, Rorty welcomes in a way? Personally I find little to no force in her work in this area. Any thoughts? Agree or disagree? Curious to what people think about her around these parts…”

“Never read her.”

First of all, gentlemen, as always: thanks for giving me my postcard for today.

That said, Steven, I haven’t read her either. And there may be a reason for that. From the accusation that Adrian articulates:

“'Rorty wishes to see philosophy and reason end.”

:I get the feeling of a common drone who happened to read a few books and thought they had the resources necessary to be intellectual about something they were too lazy to really look into: kind of an Ann Coulter for the half-assed intellectual. But all it actually amounts to is someone who is so wrapped up in the doxa of the status quo as to offer little more than reactionary responses based on superficial interpretations of something that is popularly known to threaten the status quo. And they are generally the result of people who are more concerned about the power they have (the status (than any authentic attempt at intellectual inquiry. For instance, I think we can safely assume that Haack’s notion of “reason” or “philosophy” is based on anything that supports her interests via the status quo. And the unfortunate fact is that it does appeal to people who have a constitutional need to feel solid ground beneath their feet: that which is usually directed to common doxa and the status quo.

And as far as I’m concerned, there are some rather impressive variations of Haack (people I hope to read more of (such as Dennett, Searle, and Pinker (or Hawking who arrogantly asserted that science would be the end of philosophy (who stay safely within the perimeters of Capitalist (status quo (values: people who share Haack’s distaste for such continental thinkers as Derrida, Deleuze, etc., etc., and even Rorty who threaten a hierarchical approach to understanding. Hence her harping on and and indiscriminate use of the words “reason” and “philosophy”.

And the reason we may not have heard of her, Steven, is that she may mainly work as a free-rider on the authority of such thinkers as Dennett, Searle, and Pinker and, in a knee-jerk manner (much as her masters did: dismissed Rorty through hyperbole and bottom-up slippery slope assumptions. Whereas we, as the intellectually curious, have a mandate to work beyond ourselves, she simply found what worked for her and exploited it. She basically surrendered herself to the analytic propensity towards conformity driven by the increasing influence of corporate funding in universities. She sees philosophy as little more than lip-service to science which can (unlike philosophy (produce an i-phone.

(And I would note here the fact that Rorty eventually had to abandon the philosophy department (because of pressure from his fellow philosophers (and find refuge in the humanity department: that which made his thought seem like an artwork or work of fiction as compared to an assertion about the way things are.

(But philosophy, like art, is about pursuing the non-functional while pursuing a deeper understanding of reality. It works in that no-man’s land between science and literature. This is what makes it important. And it is what makes it far more than the state philosophy that Haack seems to be embracing.

Previously on Postcards:

“That said, this particular postcard was inspired by a couple of articles in the recent issue of The Harvard Review of Philosophy (dry stuff, but giving me something to use all the same: Samuel Scheffler’s The Idea of Global Justice: a Progress Report which goes into Rawls and Thom Brooks A New Problem with the Capabilities Approach which goes into Martha Nussbaum’s Capability concept.”

“The theory he [Rawls] develops comprises two principles, the first of which assigns basic equal rights and liberties to all citizens, and the second of which governs the distribution of economic goods within the society. The second principle holds, roughly, the economic inequalities are permissible only insofar as they serve to maximize the position of the worst-off social group.”

“First of all, this is my first encounter with this particular issue of the Harvard Review, so it would be immodest (if not downright arrogant and deceptive (of me to claim that I’m working from any position of expertise as concerns the articles I’m quoting.”

“Hence the Utilitarian motto: the greatest happiness for the greatest number. “

“I realized then that perhaps the better route would have been to look away from the heights and towards the bottom and recognize that the true and more comprehensive path to a just society is the minimization of misery and suffering: by which I mean the complete elimination of unnecessary misery and suffering.”

“That said, in the next postcard (the next episode (I want to fumble (w/ a capitol F (with Brook’s article and Nussbaum’s Capability concept which also goes towards my bottom/up utilitarianism.”

Unlike my points with Rawls, I find myself having to fumble (given that this is the first time I have encountered it (with Nussbaum’s Capability concept in that the following will be based purely on my initial instincts. As I understand it, Capability is primarily about the potential for an individual to find satisfaction in 10 possible categories: life, bodily health, bodily integrity, senses, imagination, thought, emotions, affiliation, other species, play, and control over one’s political and material environment. And it is important to note here that the diametrical opposite of Capabilities is Functionings.

For instance: the building and stocking (w/ content: books (of libraries would fulfill the Capability criteria by assuring that everyone can have access to books and other learning materials (which would cover the categories of imagination and thought (through public funding. And were we to accept the Capability criteria, such a policy would be immune to the Functionings criteria of the bean-counting conservative who would argue there is no point in building libraries and stocking them with taxpayer money since no one would use them anyway. Put in mind here that the main point of Capability theory is freedom of choice. So the argument that no one would use the library fails (which is based on an unlikely prediction, anyway (since all that really matters is that the individual has the option available to them in order to fulfill the relevant categories of capability.

And I would offer as another, more personal example, the expansion of public transport which would make automobiles what they should be: a luxurious option as compared to the necessity they have become in many cities in America. And once again, the argument against this by the Functionings criteria of the bean counting conservatives who think the market is the only answer we need is (and I have heard it made: why build it if no one will use it? But once again, the only function (the only result (of import to Capability Theory is that it offers the option: the potential of fulfilling the relevant category.

Anyway, stay tuned for scenes from the next episode in which I make the connection (in a complimentary way (between Capability Theory and my own invention: Efficiency: that which is maximized by minimizing the differential between the energy and resources we put into an act and the energy and resources we get out of it.

Previously in Postcards:

“As Deleuze and Guattari point out in What is Philosophy: philosophy abhors debate. Walks away from it if it can. As they point out: it has better things to do.
This is because philosophy is more like poetry than popular doxa gives it credit for. It is a personal vision (a process (that doesn’t care if it is wrong or right (except to itself ( and can’t afford the distraction of listening to its critics.”

“Philosophers who debate tend to talk past one another. Deleuze makes this point in What is Philosophy, when he discusses why they must run away when someone wants to debate. Debating over a point is not productive (as anyone who has ever been in a debate will attest). Debates are more about affirming your own position, than productively engaging with someone else’s.”

“Debate is not a disease.”

“But what Deleuze is saying there is that philosophers always talk past one another, and that they never meet.”

This, gentlemen, is one of those instances where theory meets with reality –especially for us in that we’re talking about something we encounter a great deal on these boards: the distinction between debate and discourse.

To give an example from a recent experience of mine (the one that inspired the OP: I was posting a series of postcards regarding the utilitarian approach to ethics (which I saw as taking a rather bourgeoisie top-down approach to a clearly benign agenda (and the bottom up approaches (which I had gotten from the Harvard Review of Philosophy (of Rawls and Nussbaum. I was immediately assailed by someone who started their post with (and I am paraphrasing here:

“The notion that utilitarianism was Bourgeoisie is bunk.”

Now I would note here the use of the term “bunk” which, like such terms as “nonsense” and others I can’t recall right now, are terms that are the cornerstone of the debate (even if it isn’t exactly a disease (and have no place in a discourse. And while this person’s post might have carried some legitimate points concerning Utilitarianism, it wouldn’t have mattered to me since they had pretty lost me at the use of the term “bunk” which suggested to me that this person was more interested in a pissing contest than they were a discourse or even what Jasper’s referred to as: communication in the spirit of loving debate.

And, as I’ve experienced a thousand times before, when I told this individual to basically go fuck themselves, I was countered with the same strategy that seems popular among TlBs (Troll-like Behaviors: that of appealing to popular doxa: the appeal to socially programmed responses to socially programmed cues about what constitutes intellectual inquiry (that which D & G undermine in What is Philosophy (and the assumption that my rejection of their enticement to engage in a pissing contest was a clear indication of a lack of faith in my own process. The notion was that in order for me to truly fulfill the potential of my process, I was somehow obligated to engage in what was clearly a futile attempt to convince this individual of my point of view (a debate (and put up with their snide little remarks in the process.

(Unfortunately, I’m not that subtle and suggested (after apologizing for calling them a prick (that they worry about their process and let others worry about theirs. This got me kicked off the board(

Later that night at work, I engaged in my usual self d.construction of wondering if I wasn’t a bit of a hypocrite in that, I myself, in the postcard for that day, had attacked the libertarians with:

“For instance, a libertarian will argue that they would prefer to be born into a world in which they will be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor -that is out of some sentimental nostalgia for the good-old days of Adam Smith’s Capitalism where everyone engages in their talent and the free exchange of their labor (which, BTW, no longer exists and is every bit as saccharine and sappy as the Christian longing for the days of the Walton’s. Goodnight John-boy.”

I mean it seemed as mean spirited as my assailant’s approach. And I’m quite sure they would have used it had they of caught it: once again: the TlB appeal to socially programmed responses to socially programmed cues (much as we see in the constant references to my use of the one-way parenthesis while also responding to the content of what I’m saying. It didn’t take long for me to see through the weakness of such an argument in that there was a big difference between what I was doing and what my assailant was doing.

I was doing pretty much what every writer does: attacking a position they despise. It had nothing to do with the individuals that hold that position. And it involved a certain third person perspective detachment. And I will continue to express my contempt for the Libertarians in any clever and witty way it takes to rally the troops. I have no problem which preaching to the choir since trying to change the mind of the other-side is ultimately futile. Why waste the time? But what I will not do is go on a Libertarian board and heckle them, not because I’m afraid they’ll prove me wrong, but because it would be a wasteful use of my energy and resources and thereby a disruption (that which cuts off the flow of energy (in my process.

And that is the very big difference between what I did and what my assailant was doing which pretty much amounted to heckling. Everyone has a right to their perspective. But this comes with the understanding that everyone equally has a right to not have the perspective of the other crammed down their throat. For instance, Fox News has every right to engage in the nonsense they do. But I equally have the right to not watch it if it offends me. However, my assailant walked into my space with the explicit agenda of dominating my process. They made it personal. And that is, as far I’m concerned, fascistic in nature.

Anyway, stayed tuned for scenes from the next episode of Postcards in which I will hopefully (that is if undistracted by you guys: love ya, man! (elaborate on points made here and finish up with my points concerning Nussbaum’s Capability Theory and its common ground with Efficiency.

“ D Edward Tarkington, I have trouble following your writings because you use open parenthesis ( but never close any of them.
So your writing goes from one point with an aside remark and never returns to the first point but continues on the aside and then makes another aside remark and continues on the aside and never returns to the first aside and so on.
It’s like you never get to the point you first started out to make.
It’s very difficult to follow and hard work to figure out what your point is.” –Lorraine Bray: facebook.com/groups/philoso … ent_follow

“Then you’re getting the point of it, Lorraine Bray.”

“So your point is to ramble on pointlessly?
OK, I’ll leave you to it.”

Actually, I prefer to think of it as wandering aimlessly to see what happens. There is always a point. And I always try to get back to that point via a chance process of digression. My one way parentheses are merely a means of playing with the way we actually think –which is never the methodical building of an argument such as we see in the writing of John Searle. And my guess is that had I of just replaced the parentheses with commas, I would have stolen an opportunity from you to point it out while leaving you no less confused about what I was saying. And it’s not like conventional approaches fair much better –especially in philosophy. It has not been uncommon for me to encounter sentences (especially compound ones (that took me several readings before I got the logic of them.

“But, any language comes as an after thought to the brain reasoning.
Any logical thought process in the brain is not done with logic language symbols.”

I think one of the main problems we’re having here is that we’re dealing with 2 different understandings of what constitutes a language. What you’re working from is the classical technological notion as that which we can speak or write. What I’m working from is a more postmodern/semiotic sense of a system of signs that convey information. This is why the postmodern sensibility can comfortably define a text as anything that can be interpreted –the hermeneutic approach. Take, for instance, medicine which is a matter of reading a system of signs (symptoms (which the doctor must read and interpret in order to reach a diagnosis and, hopefully, a cure. And I do as much as a maintenance tech with a building or campus that is a complex of systems that expresses themselves through a system of signs. The very computer you are reading this on does as much. It converts a basic binary on/off semiotic system into programming (which is kind hard to deny is a language (into the words you are reading right now. And as neuroscience is showing, the brain with its system of cells pretty much works the same way.

So you would be right if we all shared your human centered understanding of language. But how different is what we do when we speak or write than the chirping of birds during mating season, the on/off digital language of a computer that produces everything we experience through computers, or the grunts and silences of the physiological brain?

I agree with you: all the discipline of Logic does is isolate the natural means by which the human brain (via the mind (adapts to its environment. But the two are too closely intertwined to act like there is that big of a difference: to act like the language of the brain is any less of a language than the language we translate it into. You have to ask yourself: at what point in the spectrum between the binary grunts and silences in the brain of any living thing, the chirps of birds in mating season, and what we do here do we demarcate between non-language and language?

Sorry to interrupt Your train of thought. But I just came across an article whose title source escapes me, but, it is an analysis of a critique of Hegel by McCumber, and the title is ‘Deleuze, Diversity and Chance’. there is a connection of this analysis to
Your post just above. Itjust caught my eye and thenI saw where You left off above Have no way to transmit the article now, but will look into the source,
if you are interested. Later bro

“That asked, I have to take an off bounce/ trajectory on your point about Being as concerns my own experience with it (perhaps out of a desire to show off –that is mainly in the spirit of the experiment of seeing what your response will be. Back in my old Sartre/Existentialism days, I use to talk a lot about Being and Nothingness -not Sartre’s book, but the actual concepts. I actually formed a lot of my intellectual constructs around it. The problem I came up against was that while Being (via beings (was incontestable, the concept of nothingness or non-being was always contentious since we can never look at it directly. I eventually came to the tactic of talking in terms of presence/absence since absence seemed like a much more credible term. But, as far as I’m concerned, the two are not interchangeable. The Being/Nothingness dyad is an ontological issue. The presence/absence dyad, on the other hand, is a phenomenological one.” –me: forum.philosophynow.org/posting. … 53#preview

“As to nothingness I didn’t see how your change in concepts solved the problem so I would like to hear more about it. My problem with purely phenomenological answer is that the lack ontology. It is essential to think the presence of things (their phenomena) together with their existence (their ontology.)For now I will limit myself to saying that the fact that we cannot see absence/nothingness does not mean it cannot be thought. I think that thinking the absolute difference between Being (I used the concept of being rather than mind because it refer to our existence as a whole, as in the question of ontology rather than the question of mind as in an epistemological question. “ –Yoni:ibid

The main reason I made this distinction is that throughout my process on the boards I have come up against hardcore materialists or what could also be referred to as metaphysical atheists (those who don’t stop at not believing in God (theological atheism (but go further in not believing in any transcendent property (love, consciousness, etc., etc. (and found myself distracted by a lot of arguments about whether nothingness can exist rather than making the argument I was based on its possibility. I just thought it a lot less contentious to speak in terms of presence and absence since absence is a much more tangible phenomenon: it can actually be observed. Nothingness, on the other hand, can only be inferred by the fact (and may the wrath of Strunk rest in its grave (that things are. I could easily see such metaphysical atheists argue that Sartre was actually confusing absence for nothingness when Pierre didn’t show up at the café.

(It was mainly a practical matter that I developed for another more finished piece I wrote on another board: [viewtopic.php?f=15&t=179930(](http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=179930()

In other words, as much as we may hate to do so, we have to concede to the metaphysical atheists that any talk about Nothingness, in the ontological sense, requires a leap of faith. But I am perfectly willing to take that leap with you. Once again, I have developed conceptual constructs around it. The main one is what is as about as close to a religion as I get. I personally believe that all perceiving things are the eyes and ears of God, that it is through them that nothing becomes something. To me it is the answer to Leibniz’s question: why all this rather than nothing: to which the answer would be: so that there can be something.

And it is this sense of nothing expanding into to something that underlies my sense of philosophy and the creative act as a function of our evolution as a species. But then I have to make this argument by appealing to resonance and seduction through the language game of writing ‘as if’ everything I say is true.

First of all, a confession: I am utterly scatterbrained. My mind wanders…. a lot. It’s like this Sartrean forward flight that sears as it projects from thought to thought. Consequently, I am always thinking and even manage to grasp on to certain patterns of thought that I repeat and build on –that is while allowing the input of the books I read (mostly philosophy (like a daily meditation (that which I allow to flow through me. I catch some of it while other parts flow through my filters. This is why I write. As H.L. Mencken said:

“How would I know what I think if I didn’t write?”

I use to think, and then write about what I thought. But that has changed because, now, when I’m not writing, I’m taking in the creations of others. But some (actually a lot (of the time I’m taking in information, my mind is wandering. And according to common doxa concerning intellect, I should think of myself as simply scatterbrain rather than intelligent. But I don’t. And I take this position because I know I am greatly changed in my conceptual constructions than I was any given time ago. And the only proof I can offer for that is what I write.

That said, I got some reassurance from a podcast from Studio 360 on the relationship between creativity and boredom: studio360.org/story/want-to- … ing-bored/. The main point was that creativity may be being stifled because kids today don’t have to deal with boredom thanks to new technology. And there was research that demonstrated how boredom tended to make people more creative because of a default state of the brain when there is no stimulation.

And it would be hard for me to disagree with this since I became who I am because of a lot of time spent alone in rural environments with no one around and nothing better to do than spend a lot of time daydreaming. Nowadays, since I have discovered intellectual and creative curiosity, I generally say that I haven’t felt boredom in some time. But I realize that is not true. I actually experience it all the time when I’m listening to some audiobook that is doing nothing for me or, more importantly, reading some philosophical text that means absolutely nothing to me. I’m just letting it flow through me while my mind is wandering: in other words, creating.

What I am suggesting here is that reading philosophy (especially of the French kind (and I mean it: damn the French and their weird obscure philosophies anyway! (may be the ultimate kind of creative boredom in that it allows the mind to wander while allowing for input via a kind of osmosis. And we have all experienced that osmosis. This is why a book of philosophy will start to make more sense with further readings: it’s as if our filters have developed with each reading.

And since I have a few words left in this window (and in order to justify putting this on the Zen board (I would point out how Alex Pang, in The Distraction Addiction, takes it deeper in how Buddhist Monks see not just our technology as a distraction, but our brain-chatter as well. And there is an important connection.

My friend, you can only become a part of my train of thought. Never apologize for something like that again. Get where I’m coming from, brother?

I look forward to the link. Thanks for being there.

“Life is a performance and we are but players on its stage…if I read the right article, I believe I have, I would agree first that yoni is humble. At the same time, I believe all people in some kind of authority or “expert” should be humble. The day you think you know everything about anything you fail. I say this, because if you think you have nothing else to learn, you become stagnant…caught up in your own rigid ideals.” –Ken

Yes, Yonathon’s humility is impressive. What is really telling to me is how lacking in humility many of the trolls can be that I have encountered on these boards who claim to have the authority that Yoni has proof of. I had always suspected, when confronted with such, that this was the case and that I had every reason to question their authority based on their lack of humility: their desire to turn it all into a pissing contest. I had always suspected them to be wannabes compensating for their lack through aggression. Yoni kind of added a little foundation to my assumption.

(And I should note here that I am mainly talking in terms of the past since the boards have done an effective job of eliminating the problem. While I have watched trolls turn the Yahoo and MySpace boards into wastelands, I’m not seeing so much of that these days. Roger???)

Unfortunately, he seems to have given up on me either out of lack of time (he had, after all, just published one of his first articles which likely wetted his taste for more (or frustration as I am older and a little more set in my ways. I’m open to new ideas, but can be a little stubborn in holding my own. Either way, I was flattered and appreciated his taking out the time out to go with me as far as he did and I look forward to further articles from him.

“I also agree that the use of “you” is often perceived as an affront directed at the individual the text is about, when often then not, “you” is used as a broader term meaning not the speaker or writer. In an ideal world, all would be understood in language and translation, unfortunately this is not true.”

The thing here, Ken, is that I was comparing experiences on the boards in which the second person perspective can lead to schoolyard brawls to the third person perspective of people writing books and articles in which they can keep it a little cooler and articulate through third person detachment. It’s not a guarantee against mean spiritedness (as Rand’s Virtue of Selfishness obviously demonstrates (I tried to read it, but got so nauseous by about the third essay, I had to put it down (but it gives the addressor a little more space to think before they assert.

But I agree: the second person perspective is a mixed package in being so personal. Saying “love ya, man!” is a lot more powerful, performance-wise, than “I love that person”. However, in situations of disagreement, it can get personal: “Fuck you: you fucking prick!!!” But once again: the third person perspective is not a guarantee:

“Fuck that fucking prick!!!”

Sometimes, anger can overwhelm the distance that the 3rd person perspective allows us. All it can be is a cushion.

“I personally believe that is why philosophers and also scientists (for what is philosophy, but the science of thought) use eloquent or what my less educated friends call “big words”. There is less misinterpretation if you use a word that means, usually, the same thing no matter how it is read. Less eloquent vocabulary will get confused because they rely on more than just the word itself (ie, when speaking, you have body language, tone, and so on). This makes me think of the first “hard” book I ever read. It was called Foucault’s Pendulum. I believe it was translated from Italian. I was maybe 17 and I had to read the book with a dictionary. Then I asked myself and then the person that recommended it why the words were so hard to grasp. I was told about it being translated. The reason I bring this up is because, again, the use of eloquent vocabulary leaves less room for misinterpretation. No matter what, though, there is always something lost in translation…even if it’s just translating the thought process you have into words.”

First of all, I could just Google this, but have to test myself: is Foucault’s Pendulum Umberto Eco’s?

That asked, I agree with you: the reason philosophers turn to such Latin-ate terms (the “big words” as you call them (is for precision and concision. The problem is that these terms never stay stable in time. They evolve like any word does and pick up different associations along the way for more than one person. Therefore, as I believe Yoni was getting at, via Derrida, these terms for any individual always ride on an infinite network of association: diffe̕rrance. And I would respectfully counter your point:

“The reason I bring this up is because, again, the use of eloquent vocabulary leaves less room for misinterpretation.”

With a point I made to Yoni:

“I’m thinking here of Lacan’s point that language is like an attorney that represents us to the attorney (the language (of the other. Even though, as I would still argue, language is an agreement, it is not an homogeneous one. It is rather heterogeneous in the way a language can arrive at slight variations of agreements in the various circumstances it can find itself being practiced in (ex. Ebonics. And this can go down to the individual themselves in their own individual context. This is how two individuals can actually be in agreement yet can still find themselves in a debate –sometimes to the point of hostility.”

But then you more or less suggested this with:

“No matter what, though, there is always something lost in translation…even if it’s just translating the thought process you have into words.”

But I would implore you not to take this self deconstruction (actually, as I would spell it, d.construction (as a weakness in your process. Take it, rather, as a sign of integrity.

The above idea suggests the deconstruction of the self in the realm between the segments, in the middle, where they become imperceptible, because they cannot fly (in the terms Deluze uses). However, this deconstruction is the result of an unmasking, where there is only the field of imminence. The language of identification of the performance is only attributable to those who can not fly.

Incidentally, to me the comic character of the professor in Foucalt’s Pendulum, is the only one to be able to offer a performance wich can fly, by presenting a persona capable of overcoming the hindrances of being put into his ‘place’. Do You think this interpretation has some bearing?

Tomorrow, Orb. Tomorrow.

Today:

Hope You appreciate my odd sense of humor. ‘tomorrow, tomorrow, there is always tomorrow’-from Annie, the musical.

“OK, so what I just wrote may be fanciful crap but it does express what I feel about mainstream philosophy, of which I think Heidegger is a part. Philosophy needs to start again, this time without the bonds that tie us to outworn ideas, if this is possible.” –Roger

Actually, Roger, I’m not seeing so much “fanciful crap” as someone who has their own systems of meaning (of differance (and is expressing themselves in those terms. This is why, while I had hoped to bounce off of your points, I cannot because I don’t understand it enough to be confident in any response I might make. And this is primarily because of my own systems of meaning that are not exactly coordinated with yours.

Dealing with our impasse, I realized that there are 2 aspects to writing: the internal and the external. The internal is how we capture our thoughts for ourselves. The external is how we communicate those thoughts to others via the rules that constitute the Lacanian symbolic order in which we must work: the very agreement that allows us to communicate.

That said though, you have provided me with a useful intro to today’s rhizome:

“Of course, the French word ‘différence’ (with an e) already brings into view the semantic dimension of, precisely, difference. Derrida appeals to a second sense belonging to the Latin verb ‘differre’ but completely absent from the French ‘différence’ that was in fact derived from it; namely, ‘the action of putting off’ – deferring. The point here is to get a semantic dimension of sameness into play as well (and into play without a commitment to a deferred presence; the only essential thing at issue when someone defers doing something is that instead of doing x now, they intend to do x later – whether ‘doing x’ can escape the logic of identity-in-différance being elaborated is a further question). French ‘différence’ (with an e) does not have this semantic component. Thence the value of a neologism which will compensate for this lack, with a term with greater semantic wealth: ‘we provisionally give the name différance to this sameness which is not identical’.” -Glendinning, Simon (2011-08-25). Derrida: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (p. 66). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

?: now, did anyone get that… If not, you’re in good company. At least I consider myself to be such. And if you do, you are perfectly free to skip over the following. But then you knew that, didn’t you?

The thing is I can explain the concept of Diffe̕rrance in a very blue-collarized and perhaps vulgarized way. Diffe̕rrance is a neologism of two words: difference and defer. It is a description of how language works through differentiating (for instance: the difference between a river and a brook (and through the deferral of meaning in that the definition of any word is always dependent on the definitions of the other words that are used to define it. And I got this understanding from a graphic guide, Derrida for Beginners, which many “serious” philosophers would scoff at since it doesn’t get at a full understanding of the term.

But I could easily counter this by pointing out that my description of it is merely a steppingstone into a fuller understanding of Diffe̕rrance. And the thing is, my description would give a lot of people something they can use until they reach a deeper understanding of it.

And I wouldn’t take issue with Glendinning had he of called his book a “study” of Derrida rather than an “intro”. But he chose to call it an intro then proceeded to engage in a lot of etherspeak as if he was more interested in showing off his comfort with the Derridaian nomenclature than actually explaining what the man meant –or, at least, what he thought Derrida meant.

It, to me, felt more like self indulgence than a sincere attempt to introduce anyone to the thought of Derrida. But this goes back to the point I made with Roger: that it’s not so much a matter of self indulgence as the comfort with an internal use of language as compared to an external one.

Glendinning felt like a professor saying it’s easy then proceeding to bamboozle you with a big bang of formulas expanding from a simple formula.

Actually, I understood the Derrida concept before It was analyzed. The idea is well founded, and maybe it’s just that it it simply that it is a work in progress. it’s referents are as dubious, than it would be to claim that the correspondence between certain
thinkers were more substantially involving ,then actually. But this charge is made by some minds who fear to glean into those types depths which
Are said to stare back. Reading into referentiality
where there may be less, is always a stark possibility. (Based on the premise,must there is a minimum of referentiality between all possible
referens, regardless of apprehension).

Nevertheless , it is no joking matter, and that is a possibility which can not be excluded.

As a work in progress, it calls for unique experiments in contentious areas, not at all resolved, even within
or without regional theaters of thought, - an allusion
to performance of philosophical argument.

Therefore , Deference is perfectly understandable
And as such, must ask for equal deference toward my
bad mimicry of the wannabe professor of Focault.

I used the word ‘contientious’ and really have on retrospect no need to defend my usemofmthe word, hence, my approach to philosophy is, and has been a-priori as long as I can remember. Searle, for one among many, seem to find ‘differance’ a very
ambiguous concept to validate, and finds problems
with it.

Now, if ever was a deliberate deconstruction of the self, as stated two or three blogs above, and a call to integrity, it is that self exposure, that exposure toward inmenetrabiltty, which succumbs in my opinion, any structural referens toward charges of posturing. whenever a correspondence is sought in furtherance of some kind of progressive adaptation to a need, it can be pointed out, that we all do this, and we do all of us start from a basic premis, a the result of which comes from collisions of very early forms of situations in the Sartrean sense. Many in this board and elsewhere, have admitted to their inability to take an existential leap toward post structuralism, precisely for the reasons I outlined, vis. The lack in the ability to fly. (Sources can be confirmed here).
Referentiality, finally is a problem both, in a literal sense, but for some, particularly in a figurative sense of an overextension to the hyper-realitional. This was Derrida’s first and foremost concern.
as far as progressing from here to here to there to here, we need to look at things in an anti Heglelians tread, of being able to back and forth, between referents, irrespective of direct implicitly, because we are never sure, of one thought or semantic structure, as having been infiltrated by another and so on. this begs my a-prior approach, more then ever, since some of these French philosophers were verifiably influenced by the surrealistic school ofmthen1920’s.
So although it may be funny, but an empathic resonance does involve a total commitment of the senses, as for instance Gide’s influence on Derrida, a somewhat mislpalced fact. The list goes on.

Phred I am not trying to displace You, it is only that I have to addendum something relevant to the above. PS, I am still reading Your article, and hope to get in touch with You.

d63

Here is a bit from ‘Writing and Difference’ which my implicate the above:

In general , Derrida’s texts respond to what is already at work, trying to recognize a sort of secret law written inside language.
This response sometimes took him beyond the conventions of writing. he sometimes neglected the relatively superficial constrains of ‘style’, in order to bow to a more hidden rule. “A language that would entrust itself only to me.” And again, “Invent your language if you can, or, want to hear mine.” From writing and Difference

Now guys, today I am, as Deleuze encourages us, writing at the edge of what I know and working with what is, given my present state of mind, diverse material that will straddle Yonathon Listik’s article in Philosophy Now, Derrida’s Performance, and Simon Glendiggen’s Derrida: a Very Short Introduction. Luckily, I have the time this may take for me to fumble around, this being my Friday. I would start with Yonathon’s point:

“Every word uttered has already been uttered and gains meaning from these past uses, and in this sense every word is parasitic on its previous usages to gain its present meaning. Language carries its past and the possibility of its future (This is the meaning of iterability for Derrida).”

Now this, for me (via Deleuze’s take on time, is easy to understand in that, like a language (including that of an individual, words (especially in philosophy –once again: my question concerning the effect of philosophy on the language it presumes to study (evolve through the various connotations that tend to build around it.

But my question for Derrida, which Mr. Listik will hopefully be able to answer, is how we distinguish iterability from diffe̕rrance. What was the point of creating two different concepts for what seems to be the same thing?

Now on to Glendiggen’s points:

“We have now reached what might be called the first conclusion of Derrida’s text: ‘the logic of presence’ must be displaced, indeed will always already find itself destined to be displaced by the logic of différance.” -Glendinning, Simon (2011-08-25). Derrida: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (p. 68). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

Then:

“To write is to produce a mark … which my future disappearance will not in principle, hinder in its functioning… . For a writing to be a writing it must continue to ‘act’ and to be readable even when what is called the author of the writing no longer answers for what he has written… . The situation of the writer is, concerning the written text, basically the same as that of the reader.” – Ibid, pg.70

We, as boarders, experience a sense of this in that we are our always writing ourselves into a future in which we will not be present: the moment the reader reads what we have posted. And, hopefully, you are starting to sense the kind of confused ontology involved that I am sensing as I write this.

“Equally, any message is readable only to the extent that a (determinable) reader can read whatever the sender could write in the absolute absence of the (destined) receiver’s presence: writing can and must be able to do without the presence of the (destined) receiver.” -Ibid

As well as without the presence of the sender. Now we (or is it just me? (are wandering deeper into uncomfortable territory –perhaps to the immovable point at which we can move no further. On the other hand, we could return to the comfort of Listik’s point concerning the past/future dynamic at work in iterabily:

“Every word uttered has already been uttered and gains meaning from these past uses, and in this sense every word is parasitic on its previous usages to gain its present meaning. Language carries its past and the possibility of its future (This is the meaning of iterability for Derrida).”

Or are we just giving up? I suspect we are. Perhaps we’re living to fight (to push deeper into the quagmire of it (another day.