Subject: Re: [Fwd: The scandal of obligation]
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 12:37:14 -0500 (EST)


> 
> Thankyou for your thoughts. I would like to question you a little
> further on the first couple of lines.   .  
> 
> 
> > 
> 
> 
> Ariosto Raggo wrote:
> > 
> > some thoughts with regards to the chapter on obligation and Levinas.
> > 
> >         Interiority is accomplished in a move that founds the I in the
> > position of _you_, of being addressed which is an "event of feeling"( _The
> > Differend_ pg. 111).> 
> 
> Now as I read p.111 of "the differend" and especially p. 278 of Reading
> Lyotard, what you seem to be saying is the complete opposite of what is
> said there.  Interiority, as I understand it, is accomplished by the
> self - without the need for the prescriptive or ethical moment.   So
> perhaps we have to explain what we think by the term "interiority". I
> equate this term with that which is described as the impassse of
> Husserl's fifth Cartesian Meditation (D:110).  Namely it is that
> situation where the 'I remains enclosed within its domain of
> constitution just as the ego is locked within its domain of expereince,
> namely, the enjoyment of being and of having". This "interiority" is
> defintely not accomplished by the I being placed on the addresse
> instance of a prescriptive phrase.

Hi Wiliam, thank you for your remarks on what I wrote. You raise important
questions that require close readings in the texts in question. There is
an ambiguity in _Totality and Infinity_ with regards to interiority or as
I read "separation" which has to do with the practice that the I bears against
totalization that involves an ability to remain at home with oneself and
yet the ethical or justice involves a conversation where the I welcomes
the face of the other by allowing a "breach" to occur in the I. Such a
breach can only be a surprise that "befalls the ego" so that the
"allowing," welcoming or letting be of the idea of infinity involves not a
comprehensive grasp or any kind of understanding captured by a horizon (I
probably could defend Heidegger more than I am doing here but for now I'll
express myself in Levina's terms). This welcoming implies a "distance"
that is upheld. In other words, as I 'understand' this, this implies
furthermore an ability to "remain the same" and yet a breach occurs -- and
yet the I while remaining at home and resisting being brought under the
governance of a third term that would sublate the "distance" experiences a
perturbation that shakes us and throws the I into the situation of the
uncanny, of no longer being at home - such is the 'position' of
"destitutution". Excuse me for not refering to the text closely and giving
you some pg. numbers etc., -- but I am busy today and tommorow  and can
only go with what comes from my memory. I'm trying to think about such
thing as a "disjunctive logic" in _Levina's Logic_. I'm very interested
in exploring further wether this logic may or may not have something to do
with going from determinant judgements to reflexive judgements where one is
attentive to the befalling of chance -- the throw of the dice that passes
through the "fracture" in the I.


  As para 172 points out - the "I"
> placed on the "you" instance is an "I" that is deprived of experience -
> and by definition (as I understand it) it is an "I" deprived of
> interiority.   Thus, what "I" would say, contrary to "you", is that what
> is "accomplished" by the prescriptive event is the presentation of an
> exteriority.  Interiority is only accomplished by linking onto this
> event in such a way that the "I" is placed back on the addressor
> instance of a phrase - most commonly a cognititive phrase. 
> 

Your equating interiority with egoism as the expression of cognitive phrases?
My suggestion is that we look closely at the section in _Totality and
Infinity_ where Levinas writes about separation, interiority, and economy.


> I think that both Levinas and Lyotard say that transcendental sameness
> (interiority) is the necessary condition  for the surprise, marvel etc -
> of the other befalling the ego. This is not to say the befalling itself
> 
> 
> 

I'm missing the rest of your post? This is all I received...

Ariosto


--