+
From: Tom Maria Blancato <tblan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
+
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 15:27:07 +0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 2 Jan 1997, Vadim Linetski wrote:
> 28 JUNE 97
>
> >
> Tom, i beg your pardon if this 'd offend you, but i find this passage
> exemplary of the current practice of , shall we say "theorizing", and of
> the difficulties this list has with me. the dispersal of postructuralism
> into poststructuralismS anf the concommitant denial of the basic
> convergence between d/G and deriida etc with the resulting cry (say,
> Greg's) "this chap's critique is clumsy , of no interest to us!", as
> your remark shows, stems from insufficient acquaintance with PoMo in its
> diversity: you prefer one corner of the field. to say that nobody
> examined the violence of justice.... hm, that ridiculous, at least. and
> what about Benjamin, to say nothing about Derrida, S.Fish, D.Cornell,
> Sam Weber etc. check out D.Cornell,M.Rosenfeld,D.Carlson eds.
> Deconstruction and the possibility of justice.routledge 1992. i feel
> more and more that this violence debate is becoming a "second discovery
> of America"-affair to ignorance of relevant precursors...
I've seen that volume, and have read Derrida on Benjamin. While I agree
with various aspects of those lines of investigaiton, I still hold that
the way the problematics are set up, how the deconstructions proceed,
etc., remain alienated from the *nonviolence* aspects of justice. Even
so, the accomplishemnt of standing in nonviolence always has a
"rediscovery of America" aspect, in that it is always already there, not
to be "discovered" so much as disalienated.
>
> 2. BUT the point you make about violence and lack is promising. in
> effect, it's the relation between violence and desire as spoken about by
> d/g which should be attended more carefully. you remember of course that
> desire lacks nothing. but nonviolence, i gather, does have a fundamental
> lack inscribed into it. what's then the force which propels it?
Oh, love or something like that, maybe.
or, as
> it seems more likely, your non-violence is an affair of Kantian
> disinterestedness?
I doubt it.
Re's
TMB
> puzzled, vadim
>
>
>
