 |
 |
Diana Manister wrote: > Well Ken it's too bad Heidegger didn't have the benefit of your advice > before he spent his life dismantling dualism with phenomenology. Or > believing he had. All those Heidegerrians out there will be upset to > get your news too. > > Had you spoken out sooner, you could have headed off poststructuralism > as well! > > Diana > > Sent from my iPod Diana, Perhaps you haven't noticed your own attachment to binary thinking in these very posts. You could be named The Binary Queen of 2010. Binary vs. differance. Diana comes down on the side of the latter. Repeatedly. I use the term advisedly, since I've never used it before. Binary, that is. Thanks for the Heideggerian nod, though I think Mr. H had plenty of volunteers to point out to him his deficiencies. Apparently it didn't take. The young Paul Tillich and some of M. Heidegger's other colleagues in Marburg took some fun in joshing him, while he lectured, about his non-concept of history. Rough business philosophy. What was Pound's line? Something like, "Aristotle, which way in a vacuum." Or pick the philosophe of your choice. No one, I think, could have headed off poststructuralism. Things fall apart. Cheers, Ken Lightly spun from mypad > > On Jan 16, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > >> Diana, >> >> If I understand what you are claiming, I disagree. Either/or is a >> stage at which you arrive in your thinking -- it is constitutive of >> thinking -- and around which you cannot go. There are no substitutes >> and no alternate routes. It doesn't make any difference what Derrida >> or Foucalt think (or what they think they think). You can give up and >> walk away (or make a scene), but you can't surmount the situation by >> uttering "dualism" or "binaries." >> BTW, obviously there is such a thing as progress, and painfully >> obviously much more is wanted, but there is no progress in the arts, >> and criticism rightly understood is the art of understanding the arts. >