irresponsible comments on Derrida and other things

I attended Jaques Derrida's lecture in Reykjavík many years ago. The lecture was titled 'I have only one language and that language is not my own'. The most memorable comment was when he said that being invited somewhere by friend was in fact an act of violence - adding that he had nothing against violence.

I have a curious and complex relationship with philosophy, as may possibly gleaned by checking out the very few posts in this blog devoted to the subject. I have tried reading Derrida but have found this to be quite excruciating. On the other hand, listening to him all those years ago; reading bits and pieces by others about him, and watching clips of him on YouTube I always feel strangely fascinated -  I'm not sure why.

The most interesting and fulfilling way to do philosophy is in my opinion the conversation. I had the good fortune to have a conversation with someone who actually met Derrida and has read him extensively which to some extent was enlightening in other ways not.

In a way I think that what (some) philosophy, and authors like Derrida, in particular, can offer us is
-patience (you have to wait for it; and it may not come)
-respect (respect the fact that even if you do not understand this may be your problem and not the others)
-precision (A) (every single statement and avenue into thinking is already situated and based on assumptions that can, and will, be questioned, queried and eventually if really interesting deconstructed)
-mindfulness (staying with the flow of the arguments and ideas from all over with an acute feeling for the circumstantial, physical, psychological 'reality' at play)
-precision (B) (always defining your terms until you are maybe left with nothing)
-unfinished (the business of thinking and being is clearly, utterly and always open-ended, deeply fascinating and is a challenge we all must face as individuals)

... I think you could possibly connect a Buddhist idea of the non-binary; where dualism is rejected but not in favour of a clear monism - nevertheless non-binary....


.... the philosophy of Derrida is in this context firmly situated in the Platonic-Socratic traditions and thus anti-Aristotelean (not my theory - but it makes sense to me) .... there is clearly a hint of something a wee bit zen in his approach as well...

.... you do not have to read everything ever read to start writing (just almost everything) - you can always start with what you have read, pretend and also base your stuff on what you will read (avenir)....

... deconstruction is thus non-relativism....

Philosophy as clarity

Oscar Brenifier has an interesting approach to philosophy and its practice. One of his basic tenets is that philosophy is about creating concepts; an idea he connects to Deleuze. To create concepts we need to think. In order to think we need to be clear. If we have an idea we can put words to it; a useful thought can be put in one sentence or one word. If you are unable to formulate your thoughts clearly your thoughts are confused. If you think you understand something but are unable to say it, find words for it, you have not understood it. Thinking is difficult so people avoid it as hard as they can, hiding behind feelings, authority and whatnot.

And taking it further; thinking demands that you abandon your self, that you die and move into the sphere of thinking. This actually works and working in this manner gives interesting and weird moments of clarity.

My next step will be to revisit philosophy texts with this methodology and idea in mind.

Experience - reading

Well, now I'm in France and then all the environment in Blogger turns French - c'est ci bon! Anyway, now I have two blogs to write and the first one is very simple. I find that development, personal, professional, whatever is achieved through experiences and challenges - well of course this is rather a platitude I suppose, but my idea is that these experiences can not be planned and organised, they arise as a kind of a, well, cooperative process of self and being - I can not express it more clearly - Feyerabend somewhere says that if address Being it answers - interesting from that profoundly atheist and materialist guy - .... a rather convoluted introduction to explain my presence in a house in Argenteuil outside Paris preparing to enter a few days of fierce introduction of Philosophical Practice with people from all over the world under the guidance of Oscar Brenifier and Isabelle Millon ....

I'll fill you in on this as we proceed....

Now on a different note I have a similar concept of reading. I for example went to the library to find a specific book (incidentally on Philosophical Practice) but decided to pick up a copy of Colin Wilson's book on Jung. A rather weird but highly readable book - I'm almost finished with it - I find Jung to be rather obnoxious guy, but I admit to being deeply intrigued by his thinking - and - as Wilson clearly makes the case and sentences Jung to be  a Romantic, I'm afraid am guilty of that same charge.

Part of what explains my lack of patience and even fear of the modern version of atheism ....

More, or not, on all these things at a later date....

Thinkers and practitoners

Watched this great Ted talk and was deeply inspired.... I just love the way this guy uses philosophy in a practical way .... I fall firmly into the Dionysian category as he presents it there. His thoughts on how our obsession with perfect forms are dangerous for the environment tie very well in with Taleb's thoughts on our tendency for platonicity and its dangers. I personally find that a lot of what makes for problems in my professional life stems from this problem (in others) ....