Comments on: Ipseity and Illeity, or Thinking Ethics without the Other of the Other http://fractalontology.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/ipseity-and-illeity-or-thinking-ethics-without-the-other-of-the-other/ refracting theory: politics, cybernetics, philosophy Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:04:27 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Joseph Weissman http://fractalontology.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/ipseity-and-illeity-or-thinking-ethics-without-the-other-of-the-other/#comment-3013 Joseph Weissman Sat, 09 May 2009 00:01:42 +0000 http://fractalontology.wordpress.com/?p=1109#comment-3013 I cleaned up your paragraph breaks a bit for readability. This is a beautiful reading, Taylor; I especially like the direction you're going in this passage: "It is this illeity immanent to the ethical relation that guarantees the overcoming of a spontaneous ipseity: in other words, the movement from an I to a You in relation to a Thou (the holy Other) is guaranteed by the existence of a he or she, or maybe even it, if we consider Levinas’ penchant for the impersonal aspect of existence..." Indeed! It sometimes seems as though Levinas' entire oeuvre could be understood as asking: In what sense does illeity pose a 'logical' objection to conventional ontologies? I cleaned up your paragraph breaks a bit for readability.

This is a beautiful reading, Taylor; I especially like the direction you’re going in this passage:

“It is this illeity immanent to the ethical relation that guarantees the overcoming of a spontaneous ipseity: in other words, the movement from an I to a You in relation to a Thou (the holy Other) is guaranteed by the existence of a he or she, or maybe even it, if we consider Levinas’ penchant for the impersonal aspect of existence…”

Indeed! It sometimes seems as though Levinas’ entire oeuvre could be understood as asking: In what sense does illeity pose a ‘logical’ objection to conventional ontologies?

]]>