From: Graham John Sharpe <gsharpe@xxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 11:48:53 -0800 (PST)
thanks for the reply. i thot a quick and rash generalization might stir
thanks for pointing me towards Leibniz's discourxe on metaphysics.
knowing very little of leibniz, my initial post was really just a search
my short tirade to myself was simply a means to engage myself again, not
necessarily provide a completed glance of mallarme, jabes and leibniz.
trying to work on "book theory" has proved to be a challenging task.
there really is little info about, tho some these days on hypertext and
its relation to the book.
Yes, while mallarme, jabes, and leibniz's book may not really be
identical, what difference is there really between "The Book" and "the
book." especially as you examine how it operates. Jabes speaks volumes
(no pun intended) about the nature of the everyday book and its cultural
significance even if he really is discussing "The Book."
for mallarme the book is spiritual. granted.
for jabes the book is not necessarily god. the book does seem however to
be that space in which god and man communicate, dialogue, live. the book
is nver complete for Jabes, and thus is not God. but the imagined
totality of the book (tho never actualized in reading it or writing it)
is God is it not - or bare minimum that space where God and man blur.
of leibniz, frankly, i know little. as you say, in Leibniz there are the
myriad of substances, all unique, but i thot this was really a means of
proving the "existence" of "god" (tho not necessarily theologically).
from _The Monadology_
38. Thus the final reason of things must be in a necessary substance, in
which the variety of particular changes exists only eminently, as in its
source; and this substance we call God.
39. Now as this substance is sufficient reason of all this variety of
particulars, which are also connected together thoughout; there is only
one God, and this God is sufficient.
So like i said, i'm just starting to read Leibniz, and sporadically too,
so perhaps it is true that the book is not god for Leibniz, but i wonder
if we could apply Leibniz's formulations in _The Monadology_ to "the
book." ie: a book consists of a myriad of monads, unique and
interrelated, "bound" by God. If it is indeed god that allows for the
existence and interrelation between monads for leibniz, can't our notion
of the bound book also act like a leibnizian god?
perhaps i am way off here, but thanks dominic for entering the dialogue
and questioning my post. i wasnt too sure how long i could continue to
dialogue with myselves.
+ Previous by Thread:
+ Next by Thread:
Partial thread listing:
- Re: book, (continued…)
- a book.....,