Richard Burt
Type Writer Ribbing of Derrida
Yüklə 1,02 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Screaming Driver , Screaming Drivers Wife
Type Writer Ribbing of Derrida I will contemplate about, and look [in mock Derridean fashion] for, his typewriter ribbons." And also for his computers and discs, and even the hard drive. Now where are those ribbons, anyway? And what traces did JD leave on them? Did he re-ink them? Or did he buy new ones each time? As Derrida writes of Rousseau’s purloined ribbon, stolen and passed from hand to hand turned typewriter ribbon, a formidable writing machine, a ribbon of ink along which so many signs transited so irresistibly, a skin on which or under which so many words will have been printed, a phantasmatic body through which waves of ink will have been made to flow. An affluence or confluence of limited ink, to be sure, because a typewriter ribbon, like a computer printer, has only a finite reserve of coloring substance. The material potentiality of this ink remains modest, that is true, but it capitalizes, virtually, for the sooner or later, an impressive quantity of text: not only a great flux of liquid, good for writing, but a growing flux at the rhythm of a capital—on a day when speculation goes crazy in the capitals of the stock markets. And when one makes ink flow, figuratively or not, one can also figure that one causes to flow or lets flow all that which, by spilling itself this way, can invade or fertilize some cloth or tissue and the surface and ink of an immense bibliography . . . . The ribbon will always shave been more or less a subject. It was always already at the origin a material support, at once a subjectile on which one writes and the piece of a machine thanks to which one will never have done with inscribing: discourse upon discourse, exegesis on top of exegesis, beginning with those of Rousseau. . . [Marion] with or without annunciation . . . will have been fertilized with ink through the ribbon of a terrible and tireless writing machine that is now relayed, this floating sea of characters, by the apparently liquid element of computer screens and from time to time by ink cartridges for an Apple printer. (2001, 322-23)20 How comes it, may the reflective mind repeat, that the grand Tissue of all Tissues, the only real Tissue, should have been overlooked by science—the vestural Tissue, namely, of woole or other Cloth; which Man’s Soul wears as to its outermost wrappage and overall; wherein his whole other Tissues are included and screened, his whole faculties at work, his whole Self lives, moves, has its being? 4 Thomas Carlyle, Sartor Resartus (Oxford Classics) ed. Kerry McSweeney and Peter Sabor. Caryle makes the same move form tissue to cloth Derrida does. Derrida says that de Man was going to call “Excuses (Confessions)" “The "Purloined Ribbon," but Derrida does not state that that was the original title of de Man’s essay when it was first published in Glyph. Derrida resists glossing. Sur-vivance; no key words, no synonyms, no chain even, necessarily. “Driving” by car is one instance of many. Survivance.
I will lay down cards and play a few hands. I have no trumps, no wild cards. I may not be playing with a full deck. I just shuffle and reshuffle, like iTunes. I’ll take “mes” chances. The Post Card is not about publication—what is it about? Not a thematic reading. Publcation is sufficiently internal and external to pose come questions, leave the reader some callng cards, or “interjections d’apel” Media addressed separately, as it were, in the “Envois.” Also separated by a lack of translators notes and footnotes. There are none. And that distinction is complicated by Derrida’s readings of Freud’s footnotes and of their completely useless—and himself writes a completely useless one. And set adrift is already an operative metaphor in The Post Card. For you may consider them as calling cards, or “interjections d’apel.” Placing a call, asking a question Paper—not material versus virtual—Paper Machine; Echographies—reduction of media to technology as machines versus as techne, as repletion. Where does ash go in survivance? How does one read the ash in other than figurative terms, in not in empirical terms either (Derrida’s typewriter ribbons). Cinders. Strictly posthumous just happens to be about fire, yet it is not destroyed—destructibility and divisibility of the letter, but also the name of the dead person. Death of letter writer/s in “Envois.” Useless footnotes. Economy of the footnote and of reading the footnote. Inattention and attention to the paratext. Letter as destructible versus the support. The issue of publication comes up in problem of typographical error versus Freudian slip, though Derrida just says slip, in “Du Tout.” So how to decide the limits of the undecidable? What is the relation between error in general and destinerrance in general, drifting and idling. The typographical error and destinerrance. Both specific to The Post Card and beyond. What are the limits of reading the heterogeneity of Derrida’s corpus? How does he deal with Lacan—not a model for dealing with Derrida—he dedicated Artaud le MOMA to Paul Thevelin, who wrote part of the Artaud book.
Derrida in “restitutions” is replying as if to Hegel’s preface to he phenomenology and the complaint people make about reading philosophy. You have to read too much before you can read. Preparation and reparation. The beyond of this its actual existence hovers over the corpse of the vanished independence of a real being, or the being of faith, merely as the exaltation of a stale gas, or the vacuous Etre supreme. “Of Spirit,” Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, Trans. A. V. Miller, 358. The aim by itself is a lifeless universal, just as the guiding tendency is a mere drive that as yet lacks an actual existence; and the bare result is the corpse which has left the guiding tendency behind it. Preface, 2-3 This abnormal inhibition of thought is in large measure the course of complaints regarding the unintelligibility of philosophical writings from individuals who otherwise possess the educational requirements for understanding them. Here we see the reason behind one particular complaint made so often against: that so much has to be read over and over again before it can be understood—a complaint whose burden is presumed to be quite outrageous and, if justified, to admit of no defense. . . . We learn by experience that we mean something else something other than what we meant to mean, and this correction of our meaning compels our knowing to go back to the proposition, and understand it some other way. Preface, 39 paraFreudian reading of networks and media, without rerouting them via Lacan’s return to Freud and language and the unconscious. A more radical return, a return to what is refound, etc. in relation to media, metaphor, and the parergon. Point of Pascal is to set up a problem of involved in The Post Card—media, reading, burning. The sidelining of history, of law, thee juridical and history both discourses in need of deconstruction; ruin as always already, always “before”; the apprehension. Also the book not as corpse. The “tissue” and “weave” mixed metaphors.
Topics a problem of media and the subjectile. Cite passage in Derrida about the problem of the subjective. Not empirical materiality as opposed to idealization of the transcendental signifier, deconstructed in facteur. But does have a model of writing that skips over publication, over relation between Memoirs of Blind and the event of the exhibition that occasioned it. Ditto for Artaud le Moma. Not an error, not a mistake for which Derrida should be punished. (See Memoirs of Blind). But his lecture versus publication format could have been placed between slide show lecture and powerpoint. Instead, he distributed handouts or Xerox copies. Impact does not include publication, virtual or otherwise. Finitude of archive and finitude of ink and typewriter ribbon. Finitude of the archive. Is the paper an absolute conservation and preservation, an archive without anarchivity? Or is it pure expenditure, a sealing that keeps what it destroys, a kind unburned ash of he archive? Where do the generations of repetitions fit in relation out the finitude of the archive? The finitude of survivance? Why did Pascal have two pieces of parchment? Did Pascal copy it? Are both pieces of parchment written on? Or is one blank? Is one the back up of the other? What happens to the referent before publication? Does
The glance of reading (Lacan)—look at instead of look up—retinal reading. Derrida, “I didn’t know where to start reading, looking , opening.” 209 Instead of WB’s essay made up entirely of quotations, one would write an essay with a list of words not keyed to anything, prior to any indexing. Glancing as somewhere between glossing and reading. Having recalled this, and having taken this precaution as a matter of principle, I am not doing what one ought to do and cannot do it with you in a seminar. I cannot do all that again with you here for at least two reasons, as I was saying. The one has to do with the obvious lack of time: it would take us years. The other, less obvious, is that I also believe in the necessity, sometimes, in a seminar the work of which is not simply reading, in the necessity, and even the fecundity, when I’m optimistic and confident, of a certain number of leaps, certain new perspectives from a turn in the text, from a stretch of path that gives you another view of the whole, like, for example, when you’re driving a car on a mountain road, a hairpin or a turn, an abrupt and precipitous elevation suddenly gives you in an instant a new perspective on the whole, or a large part of the itinerary or of what orients, designs, or destines it. And here there intervene not only each person’s reading-idioms, with their history, their way of driving (it goes without saying that each of my choices and my perspectives depends broadly here, as I will never try to hide, on my history, my previous work, my way of driving, driving on this read, on my drives, desires and phantasms, even if I always try to make them both intelligible, shareable, convincing and open to discussion) [here there intervene, not only each person’s reading-idioms, with their history, their way of driving] in the mountains or on the flat, on dirt roads or on highways, following this or that map, this or that route, but also the crossing, the decision already taken and imposed by you by fiat as soon as it was proposed to you, to read a given seminar by Heidegger and Robinson Crusoe, i.e., two discourses also on the way and on the path which can multiply perspectives from which two vehicles can light up, their headlights crossing, the overall cartography and the landscape in which we are traveling and driving together, driving on all these paths interlaced, intercut, overloaded with bridges, fords, no entries or one-way streets, etc. Jacques Derrida, The Beast and the Sovereign, Vol. 2, (2012) 206 Reading in Color: Kindle with and without color images. Facsimiles in The Post Card as well. Description of it “I didn’t know where to start reading, looking, opening.” PC, 209 when he gets the book without the frontispiece and things he got the wrong book, then holds it again with both hands and finds the right page with the image of Plato and Socrates and describes the image, the blue and the red lettering—non-signifying patterns "Sherlock Holmes rose and lit his pipe. 'No doubt you think that you are complimenting me in comparing me to Dupin,' he observed. 'Now, in my opinion, Dupin was a very inferior fellow. That trick of his of breaking in on his friends' thoughts with an apropos remark after a quarter of an hour's silence is really very showy and superficial. He had some analytical genius, no doubt; but he was by no means such a phenomenon as Poe appeared to imagine.'" Study in Scarlet Repetition—structure is not only about a sequence, first Queen, then Minister; first Minister, then Dupin—but also about reversibility, from inside to outside, from outside in (Invagination) or top to bottom or upside down. Dupin’s signature in Facteur is not “Dupin,” it’s the citation from Astree, a note left behind by which the Minister will know Dupin found it and found him out. But will the minister ever read it? Will the facsimile arrive at its destination? Is Poe (and Derrida) making an exception-due to different kinds of marking (support of the facsimile) and re/marking (citation as signature), both of which are easily misrecognized or not recognized at all? Will the Minister repeat Dupin’s recognition, or has Dupin duped himself? “Purloined Letter” cited in an endnote to Oxford Worlds Classics “Scandal in Bohemia.” In The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. Ed Owen Dudley Edwards, 299, n4 It’s one of A.C. Doyle’s sources. Derrida forgets to mention Lacan’s “Overture to this Collection,” 3-5, which explains the order of the Écrits as well as the first sentence of ‘The Seminar on ‘Purloined Letter’” begins with the repetition compulsion, which Lacan idiosyncratically translates as “repetition automatism.”21 “My research has led me to the realization that the repetition automatism (Wiederholungszwang) has its basis in what I have called the insistence of the signifying chain.” 6 The opening section of the essay ends at a page spacing by returns to repetition compulsion. “This is what will confirm for us that it is repetition automatism. P. 10 “This is what happens in repetition automatism.” 21 “The idea here is that one will already find in Lacan’s 1956 “Seminar on the ‘Purloined Letter’” ideas that were not fully developed until the 1960s. Bruce Fink, 766, n (10, 5). In other words, Lacan is not relineazing his collection , putting a master text at the “head” of the book, but staging a reading as a rereading, a circular process “Exmplified” by this text. This text doubles back on itself. Unlike most revisions, it includes the alternate drafts. The first version brings over, placed and dated: Guitrancourt and Sans Cascinao, mid-May to mid-August 1956 and then a new italicized subtitle represents the second version tat followed “Presentation of the Suite” 30) followed by an identically italicized subtitle “Introduction” on p. 33 which begins “The class of my seminar that I have written up to the present here was given on April 26, 1955. It represents a moment in the commentary that I devoted to Beyond the Pleasure Principle for the whole of that year.” 33 This section is undated in the text presumably because the edition in which it was publishes establishes the date on the copyright page. . A final section is subtitled in italics “Parenthesis of Parentheses (Added in 1966).” The last paragraphs constitute an intellectual autobiography of the essay’s non-linear composition. 45-46. The endnotes have been updated so that the default reference is to the 1966 edition. But Fink’s translation records the dates of footnote added later “[Added in 1968:] and even “[Added in 1966].” Some endnotes offer more bibliographical information. The second to last endnote reads: “[Added in 1966] The text written in 1955 resumes here. The introduction of a structural approach through such exercises was, in fact, followed by important developments in my teaching. Concepts related to subjectivization progressed hand-in-hand with a reference to the analysis situs in which I claim the subjective progress.” 48, n. 29. The break is not graphically consistent. The endnote occurs roughly four pages before the essay ends. When Lacan talks why he “is publishing a version of it here,” both the referent of “version” and “here” keep the published text in an unfinished state. When Lacan writes about why he reworked the essay in accordance with the requirements of writing” and “increasingly promoted the notion of the symbol here,” To obscure its historical traits through a sort of historical feint would have seemed, I believe, artificial to my students.” Lacan may make the “historical traits” apparent, but he does not make tem clear, he does not follow the biobibliograhical conventions which would provide a clear, progress narrative. Instead, the apparence of the essay’s historical traits” is inseparable from the graphic appearance and variations in its paratexts, which apparently demands recursive reading. Compare “version” when used by Derrida. The epigraph from Goethe’s Faust is kept in German, translated in the endnotes, 767 (11,2) “Was Hiesst Lesen?” “Was Hiesst Lesen?” Das Tragende (support for carrying, like a strecher) und Leitende (Leader, Head) im Lesen ist die Sammlung. Worauf [What drives] sammelt sie? Auf die Gescrhiebene, auf das in der Schrift Gesagte. Das eingenliche Lesen ist die Sammlung auf das, was ohne unser Wissen einst shchon unser Wesen in den Anspruch genommenon hast, moegen wir dabei ihm entsprechen oder versagen. Ohne das eigenliche Lesen vermoegen wir auch nicht das uns Anblinkended zu sehe und das Erscheinende und Scheinedne zu schauen. “Was Hiesst Lesen?” in Denkerfahrungen, 1910-1974. Ed. Hermann Heidegger. Vittorio Klostermann: Krankfurst am Main, 1983, 61. Bruce Fink’s endnotes—a kind of glossary sensitive to the repetitions of Lacan’s terms precedes the endnotes, which gloss a particular word. Do these various bibliographic recursions constitute a structural repetition akin to the structures of repetition that Lacan and Derrida debate and that differnitate them (the letter is indivisblle, the triangle intersubjective, the letter is pre-graamatoligcal, and the letter always arrives at its destination, versus the letter is always divisible (because material), the letter is always already grammmatological, and the triangle is not intersubjective, and the letter is subject to disinterrance such it does not always arrive at its destination? Does Lacan particular staging of his argument have any relation to the way Derrida restages le facteur de la verite by placing it at the end of The Post Card (inverting the place of the Seminar?), including of an already published article to which Derrida appends to a “pre-note” about his setting it adrift? Is this republication a new version of the essay? And would be reading it mean making it a symptom, reading symptomatic? Is this a structure yet to be read? Does it bear on the repetition compulsion? Is it a variation on compulsive reading? Where does the deconstruction of a text’s parergon, its title and its borders begin and end? What does Derrida do to reconfigure a text have to be re/configured for Derrida to read it? Look at For the Love of Lacan. Says he is not standing outside the text, but still in a scene of reading. Yet derrida does not deconstruct his own reading and Lacan’s. He does not show how his own reading repeats the kinds of msrecognitions he finds in Lacan, even if he does nto calim to have “corrected,” as it were, Lacan’s reading. Does orienting ourselves through page design nad paratextss, philogical and bibliographical issues pt us on a path to such a deconstruction? Must these questions beheld in suspense? Are they yet another aporia? I propose to address these readings in a preliminary way by turn to For the Love of Lacan, a passage in Le facteur in which Derrida unlocks his reading, and a passage in Poe’s Purloined Letter regarding the facsimile. The facsimile in Poe is a particular kind of copy, a particular kind of supplement. In Poe’s letter, it is a supplement. But Derrida uses an actual facsimile of his signature, “J.D” several times in “Signature, Event, Context.” Memoirs of the Blind, Artaud le Moma, The Sense of the Subjectile, Hantai, Correspondence, Truth of Painting all make use of facsimiles. Bok on Derrida turning his publications into facsmiles. Neither Lacan nor Derrida read the facsimile in Poe’s story. Is it one kind of iteration among others, or does its particularity, a matter of verbal description in Poe’s story, of course, make a difference to difference, the trace, arche-writing, the impression, and so on? Hand Delivered Reading Derrida uses “internal reading” in Memoirs of the Blind
“This question cannot but resound when we know we are caught in a scene of reading” On the Name, 98. Cite first sentence of Envois First sentence of Envois Cite unbearable First page of envois Have we begun at the beginning? Are we already reading too quickly? Philology versus philosophy Derrida on the bad reader, next page Because I still like him, I can foresee the impatience of the bad reader: this is the way I name or accuse the fearful reader, the reader in a hurry to be determined, decided upon deciding (in order to annul in other words, to bring back to oneself, one has to wish to know in advance what to expect, one wishes to expect what has happened, one wishes to expect (oneself)). Now, it is bad, and know no other definition of the bad, it is bad to predestine one’s reading, it is always bad to foretell. It is bad, reader, no longer to like retracing’s one’s steps. Jacques Derrida, The Post Card, 4 Yet he says he is not using bad in a moral sense but in a literary sense in Resistances. Is glossing a form of extreme close reading, a line by line commentary? Is glossing not reading insofar as it takes the text as a given, as complete. The text entitled "The Purloined Letter" imprints / is imprinted in these effects of indirection. I have only indicated the most conspicuous of these-effects in order to begin to unlock their reading: the game of doubles, the endless divisibility, the textual references from facsimile to facsimile, the framing of frames, the interminable supplementarity of quotation marks, the insertion of "The Purloined Letter" in a purloined letter that begins with it, throughout the narratives of narrative of "The Murders in the Rue Morgue," the newspaper clippings of "The Mystery of Marie Roget" ("A Sequel to 'The Murders in the Rue Morgue' "). Above all else, the mise en abime of the title: "The Purloined Letter" is the text, the text in a text (the purloined letter as a trilogy). The title is the title of the text, it names the text, it names itself and thus includes itself while pretending to name an object described in the text. "The Purloined Letter" functions as a text that escapes all assignable destination and produces, or rather induces by deducing itself, this inassignability at the exact moment in which it narrates the arrival of a letter. It pretends to mean [vouloir-dire]and to make one think that "a letter always arrives at its destination," authentic, intact, and undivided, at the moment and the place where the simulation, as writing avant la lettre, leaves its path. In order to make another leap to the side. At this very place, of course. YFS, 110
PC, 4-5
The misrecognition of the failure to account of the literary structure of narration, Cite Derrida, For the Love of Lacan, I do not think of Lacan as a homogenous body. Same could be said for Derrida’s own works. Derrida does not read line by line and provides his own directions for reading. Nevertheless , we may ask where glossing ends and reading begins, whether glossary is a kind of non-reading, a supplement that is continuous or discontinuous with the text (more corridors in a labyrinth or the thread that takes one in and out of the labyrinth of the text it is graphically marked off from? Let’s start over. Let’s begin with the paratexts of the Post Card, the translation’s introduction and glossary, entitled “L before K.” Is the glossary a kind of reading of the Post Card, a reading that is also a non-linear reading but instead gives the reader a network before rather than after the text? And where is that reading? Is the glossary separate from the introduction, as it is in the table of contents where the glossary is printed in the same font size as the introduction, or is it part of the introduction, in which Glossary appears as a subheading, not the title at the head of a new page in the same size as the font used for the Introduction, but in a smaller font on the same page of the introduction? Consider Derrida’s reading of the small , barely noticeable but nevertheless significant differences between title of Maurice Blanchot’s La folie du jour (The Madness of the Day), reproduced in facsimile images of the table of contents and in Parages. (Is John P. Leavey’s Glassary a reading of Derrida’s Glas? How does one gloss these paratextual differences in a paratext not in Derrida’s French edition? How should one gloss, how does one read the paratexts in Derrida’s text? Should we read the notes that precede Speculations and “Le facteur “on facing pages the same way we read Derrida’s preface? Are these unsigned notes written by Derrida? Consider Derrida’s note to the translator in his extended footnote running across the bottom of each page of “Living On: Borderlines?” And does glossing exclude the reprinting in a smaller font and repagination as Living On,” dropping the subtitle? Is glossing restricted to alphabetic lettering without regard to the support or substrate? How should one account for the variation in the placement of notes in translations Derrida’s works? Stanford University Press Notes precede each of the endnotes to the three reprinted essays in Resistances of Psychoanalysis. Chicago UP favors putting them before each essay (See The Truth in Painting). Are these to regarded as meaningless vagaries of publication? Is Stanford’s more awkward in having to include references in the text to the notes (See Headnote one)? Or should the so-called materiality of any edition be read? Should the medium be read, the different stocks of paper for the printed text and for the facsimiles in The Post card? The pronoun “I” is used in the first, “we” and “I” are used in the second? And what are we to make of “first version” or the “first version was initially published?” Should we track down these different versions and catalogue their variations? In the second endnote, the author, apparently Derrida, recommends we read two essays given at a conference to which his paper responds? Should we read these notes differently from the way we read Derrida’s autobiographical anecdotes about how he arrived at the title of his work (Archive Fever, Typewriter Ribbon, Memoirs of the Blind, and so on? Derrida’s own rereading of Envois and The Purloined Letter in For the Love of Lacan. Derrida writes in “Restitutions,” And Shapiro [Meyer] quotes these two paragraphs which you all find so ridiculous or so imprudent. Lets reread them first, in German, in French, and in English. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --It’s done. (294) Or two pages later, In other words, would it not be on the basis of thing as work or product that is general interpretation (or one that is claimed as general) of the thing as informed matter was secretly constituted? Now reread the chapter. 296 Should one read such moments? Or are they to be gathered and shelved under the rubric of Derrida’s rhetoric? Does anything go missing between glossing and reading? In addition to what Derrida calls “unreadability” in Living On: Borderlines?” is there also non reading, nto be confused with not reading? And where would this nonreading be situated in relation to reading and unreading? --Do you think you need to start over again? What happened to passages from The Post Card you cited at the beginning of your essay? Can you do what Derrida calls in various places an “internal reading” of that book, even if the limits of that reading are artificially and arbitrarily imposed, for the sake of clarity? --Of course. One always “does” such readings. My purpose thus far is slow the speed of such reading or what Derrida calls the rush in Memoirs of the Blind. My reading has thus far been radically empiricist in ask a basic bibliographical question about The Post Card: What is it? We have already put deconstructive pressure on reading, on its difference form glossing and from nonreading. Let’s take a leap, then, and examine the title of my essay, “What is Called Reading?” My question alludes to Martin Heidegger’s “What is Called Thinking?” Derrida pairs Freud and Heidegger in The Post Card in order to establish the end of an epoch. Derrida also mentions “the hermeneutical circle,” which orients Heidegger’s orientation of thinking as questioning, without mentioning Heidegger. (Derrida returns to it at length in Beast and the Sovereign Part Two). Derrida obviously does not omit Heidegger, but he arguably does delivers a nonreading of him. Focusing on repetition in Freud, on the repetition compulsion , on psychoanalysis as the finding of the refound, Derrida forgets reception in Heidegger. The question of Being in Being and Time is the repetition. Division Two is at points overtly a repetition of Division One, and passages about Descartes and Kant appear in almost the same place in both divisions. Moreover, the passage on the hermeneutical circle in division one is repeated in division two. To the earlier questions about reading we may now ask what is rereading? Following Heidegger’s move in Introduction to Metaphysics, in which he sows that metaphysics is the question “What is metaphyics?,” not any particular answer to that question, I want to suggest that re/reading Derrida and the texts he reads and does not read, always happens at the threshold of the question waiting to be asked, namely “what is called reading?” Derrida is not exemplary nor is he just an example. But he does reward reading. ---OK. I’m beginning to get it. You want to stay with the text in a radically empirical way, maybe a hyperglossative way, and, at the same time, you want to push close reading to its limits—how close is close? How slow is slow? What is the proper speed of good reading? Does good reading does not mean merely linear reading, word by word, page by page, but a recursive return from later to earlier passages, scanning the book like a flip book, indexing it, and random accessing it. And you want to push the, as Derrida frequently does, the limits of writing and drawing (Memoirs of the blind) to the consider the reprodocution of images in his works, including The Post Card but the way the printing of some his texts begins to turn them into images (Living On, Glas, etc)?. Mes Chances—reading by chance—I remembered a line when reading Foucault, then In Love of Lcan by chance? Reading not something that can be folded into a mise-en-abyme, or a parergon—reading derrida reading. Or my autobiographical narrative. Quesiron about narrative. Can you tell a story that is already about retelling?
First page First word same as the first page?
Here I am asking question in the dark. PC, 278 Not to frame Derrida, not parergonalize him , not to shrink-wrap him, is to read sideways, glancing from passage to another, a kind of comparative philology that freely associative reading in that it has not predetermined limits about what constitutes writing in the ordinary sense(as opposed to arche-writing, the mark, the trace). Not be spaced as in Glas under two columns and two texts as in Borderlines, two running texts or in Jacques Derrida (Bennington and Derrida), which licenses a kind of key words Derridabase repackaging, reshelving, hack job, complete with photos from the family album. As for the 52 signs, the 52 mute spaces, in question is a cipher that I had wanted to be symbolic and secret—in a word a clever cryptogram, that is, a very naïve one, tat had cost me long calculations. If I state now, and this is the truth, I swear, that have totally forgotten the rule as well as the elements of such a calculation, as if I had thorn it into the fire, I know in advance all the types of reaction that this will not fail to induce. 5 “Who is writing? To whom? And to send, to destine, to dispatch what? to what address? Without any desire to surprise, and thereby to grab attention by means of obscurity, I owe it to whatever remains of my honesty to say finally that I do not know.” 5
Jacques Derrida, “Passions: ‘An Oblique Offering,’” in On the Name, 13-14 [Kant is the critical reader, see p. 8) Jacque Derrida’s On the Name compromises three essays . . . the three essays appeared in France as a Collection of three separately bound but matching books published by Editions Galilee. On the Name, the title this book published by Stanford University Press, thus is not a translation of any French book title by Jacques Derrida; it is a name given to what is a hypothetical book in France. The title On the Name would in French be Sur le nom. Thomas dutoit, “Translating the Name?” in On the Name, (1995) ix Not possible to bring these threads together into a htematic unity, under a signature, attached to a single proper name. “Biodegradables”—have not read me-vitriol at Spivack in Ghostlier Demarcations Can deconstruction deliver? Oronly pomise? [For the Lacan Saying Lacan is right or doing right by Lacan . . . makes my text still more unreadable for readers in a rush to decide between the “pro and the con,” in short, for those minds who believed I was opposed to Lacan or showing him to be wrong. The question lies elsewhere: it is the question of reason and the principle of reason. Thus, not only was I not criticizing Lacan, but I was not even writing a sort of overseeing or objectifying metadiscourse on Lacan or on a text by Lacan. My writing involved me in a scene, which scene I was showing at the same time (no doubt inn small phrases (no doubt in small phrases that no one reads) could not be closed or framed. All of this has since been constantly put back into play other scenes of en abyme that have been deployed here and there, more often there than here, which is to say, once again, abroad. Moreover, for all these reasons, the argument of “Le facteur de la verite” does not lend itself to being framed [the TN note on the French title awaits the reader of the PC, 413] in the text bearing this title; it is played, set adrift in The Post Card, the book with that title, which inscribes “Le facteur de la verite” like a piece in a borderless fiction, neither public nor private, with and without a general narrator. It is inscribed first of all in the “Envois” 63 And above all the (duplicitous and identificatory) opening set off to the side, in the direction of the (narrating-narrated) narrator, brings back one letter only to set another adrift. The Post Card, Facteur, 492 This is why we have insisted on this key or theoretical safety lock of the Seminar 469 Therefore nothing begins. Only a drifting or disorientation from which it one does not emerge 484 Derrida talks about the opening that Lacan does not read, 484 Hermeneut interested in the center of the picture 484 “invisible framing” 483 One cannot define the ‘hermeneutical circle’” Post Card, 474 It hears itself say what it cannot hear or understand. MEETING PLACE: THE DOULE SQUARE OF KINGS But it cannot read the story it tells itself. 483 The double, repetition, recording, and the mimeme in general are excluded from the system, along with the entire graphematic structure they imply” 472 “Unpublished Journal” 468 empirical versus unconscious letter, 467 empirical versus or transcendental, material or ideal signifier, 464; 466; 477-79. Dessein—“design,” as in deliberate, intent-but also graphic design, even drawing. Typographical marks as part of design. (Joyce, Restored Finnegans Wake—Derrida on Joyce) “What is a signature between quotation marks?” 495 It’s the graphology that Dupin depends on—“he knows my hand”—not the quotation itself. Hermeneutic deciphering 441 Derrida’s apparently useless footnote versus Freud’s “completely useless footnote,” p. 495 on a change made to the first edition that concludes: “The deletion of this phrase (which is inconsequential) is the only modification of this essay since its first publication.” Is the note completely useless? Or is there, on the next to last page of the essay in order to contrast his account of Lacan to Lacan’s revisions and re-editing of the Seminar? See Heidegger’s preface to the second edition of his book on Kant. Is the note a symptom? Another open secret there to be deciphered? Doesn’t Derrida decipher Dupin’s “signature” in the fac-simile? The “signature” is not a proper name; it is a quotation, between quotations and placed in the middle of the blank (like the center at which the hermenut looks) Going from Derrida on Pascal—posthumous to cremation versus inhumation—to cremation in PC to “For the Love of Lacan”—to Derrida’s own mocking self-deconstruction of his account of Poe and Lacan’s, to publication and editions, paratexts—to repetition and reading—to destruction—to dessein / design, to drawing, to icon, image and writing support, to facsimile. Unrevealed contents of purloined letter; unnamed book Dupin and narrator are both looking and that Poe, as Derrida, never makes clear whether they find it. “And they publish everything.” 132 signature, proof, 136 The post is a banking agency. 139 “’I just copied into the middle of the blank sheets these words’” Citation from Poe, 494 Is the middle like the hermenut’s center? Is the Minister a hermenut, like Lacan? The narrative which follows will appear to the reader somewhat in the light of commentary upon the propositions just advanced. Citation from Poe, 487 And the voice retains [garde] all the more in that one believes one can retrain [garder] it without external accessory, without paper, and without envelope. 465 . . . without quoting myself, 63 “dessein”—design, plan; subtracting a letter, “dessin” –drawing, cartoon, sketch and also design (a pattern), grid, layout; “dessiner,” “to draw” ; to sketch; to trace; there is no audible difference in the pronunciation of “dessein” and “dessin,” like “je nous” and “genoux.” Closeness in spelling, allows for a pun, rather than two meanings present in “design.” Poe uses “design” to mean “plan.” “Un dessin si funeste” translated as “plot” Relation between sight (pun) and sound--what you hear—noise versus silence (Prefect says nothing after writing out the check in PL), in Purloined Letter. Can one ever finish with obliqueness? The secret, if there is one, is not hidden at the corner of an angle, it does not lay itself open to a double view or a squinting gaze. It cannot be seen, quite simply. No more than a word. As soon as there are words--and this is true of the trace in general, and of the chance that it is—direction intuition no longer has any chance. One can reject, as we have done, the word “oblique”; one cannot deny the disinterrant indirection [indirection distinerrante: see Derrida’s The Post Card . . . Tr.] as soon as there is a trace. Or if you prefer, one can only deny it. “Passions,” On the Name, Trans David Wood, Ed. Thomas Dutoit, 30 Green spectacles like the cover of he mystic writing pad, the protective sheet, in Poe, a “cover.” “When is a pun not a pun?” Finnegans Wake, cited by J.D. Poe writes the address in French at the end of the first sentence of the Purloined Letter: “au troisieme, No. 33. Rue Dunot, Faubourg St. Germain.” 680 citation at the end: “Un dessein si funeste, s'il nést digne d'Atrée est digne de Thyeste" [Derrida says he doesn’t want to translate the German passage he cites at length from Nietzsche at the end of “Speculations on ‘Freud’” p. 408-09: but in sudden falls, if observed closely, the countermotion comes visibly earlier than the sensation of pain. It would be bad for me if I had to wait when making a misstep until the fact rings the bell of consciousness and a hint of what to do is telegraphed back. Rather I discern as clearly as possible that first comes the countermotion of the foot that prevents the fall, and then ... “ . . . aber in plotzlichichen Faellen kommt, wenn man genau beobachtet, die Gegenbewegung ersichtlic frueher als Schmerzzempfindung. Es stuende schlimm um mich, wenn ich bei einem Fehltritt zu warten haette, bis das Faktum an die Gloeke des Bewussteins schluege und ein Wink, was zu tun ist, zururcktelegraphiert wuerde. Vielmehr unterschiede ich so deutlich als moeglich, das erst die Gegenbewugung des Fusses, um den Fall zu verhueten, folget und dann . . .” This is to be continued.
Yüklə 1,02 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|