My Photo

« all about... him | Main | Gibson: hateful, stupid and nauseating »

January 15, 2008

Comments

volcofsky

Probably a typo but a bit crucial in that it's actually 'The Intervention of The Other' ... And I think the vivid gap between them (L&L) -the gap itself - demands a voiced expression, since, for those of us, as you describe yourself, who love the work of both of them, this gap feels (to me) exactly like the desire they both describe as deepening itself in its (un)satisfaction ... we hear them echo one another and want them to relate, since in us they are in proximity ... And both of them ache to describe a '...' outside the set/subject, and regardless of their distinct arrivals, there's something of their intention and desire that is majestic and soteriological ... I'm sure they'd agree that 'the relation is not one'; this seems to be both their core. Also, somewhat disagreeing, I do think 'that thinkers from the same place and time' share 'the same core cultural patterns' - the era is as much made by thinkers as it makes them think (as I'm more a performance/theater/lit person, observing the late 50's & 60's avant garde works ((here in NYC)) so many seem to invent and presage hypertext/linking and the 'word falling ... photo falling' (WSB) shedding of the linear that partially occured. Richard Foreman once told me he in a sense invented the internet age ... and I actually think it's ALSO the other way around (a la Theresa Brennan's 'Transmission of Affect'). Whether or not you post this, been reading your site for a little bit (via either Wood S lot or Infinite Thought) and like very much. Thanks.

blahfeme

Hi. Yes it is Intervention - and it was typo. Thanks I've caught that now. Re your point about same space and time: it seems to me that this has become a kind of orthodoxy, a kind of fundamentalist historicism that refuses difference (in a different way, of course to older historicisms). My point is not a pragmatic one, but a political one: we must dare to think difference in all its many varied forms and not get seduced by the putative cement of the local.

volcofsky

Not really sure what 'the putative cement of the local' means, but it seems to me, structurally L&L are too echoic of each other to ignore - and this is while maintaining,suspending their difference - one of them would think the other's work imaginary/pathogenic, and one the other's just more 'being thinking being'; and I don't know if it's acceptable, but considering biographic 'data' in some sense they did not share the same place & time ... and yet still, were driven by their own phenomenological lives to describe a theoretical 'beyond' & an outside which resists all re-presentation ... Apologies if I made it seem I was annihilating them into a sameness, not at all: 'Proximity without coincidence', as Levinas says. And bringing them 'face to face' seems to reflect an internal dialogue of mine, and many others which seems to resolve either into the navel of the dream, or 'beyond being' ... thanks again. V

blahfeme

Hi thanks for this. I think I get what you mean now. You are right, of course, to speak of 'proximity without coincidence'. And it is precisely this I was trying to get at. In the context of what we might call the ideology of proximity (that is, the view in most recent scholarship that proximity always has consequence) you can see, I hope, why celebrating the differences here between L and L begins again to look radical, begins again to make a case for not just thinking about communities of thinkers and readers, but also for the notion of the exceptional, the one-ness of Levinas or Lacan.
Thanks for your comments - challenging and interesting in equal measure.

The comments to this entry are closed.