Comments on: Expression and Essence: The Metaphysics of Writing http://fractalontology.wordpress.com/2008/01/12/language-and-difference/ refracting theory: politics, cybernetics, philosophy Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:04:27 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Twitch of the death nerve http://fractalontology.wordpress.com/2008/01/12/language-and-difference/#comment-1963 Twitch of the death nerve Mon, 14 Jan 2008 02:27:40 +0000 http://fractalontology.wordpress.com/2008/01/12/language-and-difference/#comment-1963 Prolific comes to mind...although I sit hear and wish that you could be more concrete. It is a sinful thing to ask, but...what else can you expect from me. The blueprint is a nice move, you could Deleuzianize and say diagram instead. Heidegger, however, is currently wishing his beloved sharers in the "inner greatness" of certain political movements might have won to save language from such an obvious understanding in "standing-reserve." One wonders how it could be possible to see language differently than you express it in such a techo-philic culture as our own. It would seem that ol' H was on to something. You say: "The essence of language is immanent, and not clearly or rigorously grasped in anticipation, but rather in creativity, in improvisation and the positivity of pragmatic variation." And what of the hearer? How can one find the essence of language while only looking at half? The monad is lonely without windows or doors. To end...a warning: You are combining things that do not fit together as easily as you would like them too. I have already hinted at above. It would be nice for Spencer-Brown (yes I see him) and Heidegger to work together but I do not think this will turn out for the best. The logical and the mystical will remain enemies until the end...no matter what we do. Prolific comes to mind…although I sit hear and wish that you could be more concrete. It is a sinful thing to ask, but…what else can you expect from me. The blueprint is a nice move, you could Deleuzianize and say diagram instead. Heidegger, however, is currently wishing his beloved sharers in the “inner greatness” of certain political movements might have won to save language from such an obvious understanding in “standing-reserve.” One wonders how it could be possible to see language differently than you express it in such a techo-philic culture as our own. It would seem that ol’ H was on to something.

You say: “The essence of language is immanent, and not clearly or rigorously grasped in anticipation, but rather in creativity, in improvisation and the positivity of pragmatic variation.” And what of the hearer? How can one find the essence of language while only looking at half? The monad is lonely without windows or doors.

To end…a warning: You are combining things that do not fit together as easily as you would like them too. I have already hinted at above. It would be nice for Spencer-Brown (yes I see him) and Heidegger to work together but I do not think this will turn out for the best. The logical and the mystical will remain enemies until the end…no matter what we do.

]]>