What withdraws from us, draws us along by its very withdrawal, whether or not we become aware of it immediately, or at all. Once we are drawn into the withdrawal, we are drawing toward what draws, attracts us by its withdrawal. And once we, being so attracted, are drawing toward what draws us, our essential nature already bears the stamp of ‘_’drawing toward.” As we are drawing toward what withdraws, we ourselves are pointers pointing toward it. We are who we are by pointing in that direction-not like an incidental adjunct but as follows: this “drawing toward” is in itself an essential and therefore constant pointing toward what withdraws. To say “drawing toward” is to say “pointing toward what withdraws.” (Heidegger)
Will and obedience are connected in as much as the
will is the foundation and obedience marks a second phase
in a process of development. Obedience has thus a higher
meaning than is generally realized in education. It
may be considered as a sublimation of the indivi-
dual will.
Also obedience must be interpreted in a way which
places it among the phenomena of life and can then be
considered as one of the characteristics of nature.
In our children, in fact, we witness the develop-
ment of obedience as a kind of evolution. It appears
spontaneously, as a surprise. It represents the destina-
tion of a long process of perfection. (Montessori)
To put the old names to work, or even Just to leave them in circulation, will always, of course, involve some risk: the risk of settling down or of regressing into the system that has been, or is in the process of being, deconstructed. To deny this risk would be to confirm it: it would be to see the signifier-in this case the name-as a merely circumstantial, conventional occurrence of the concept or as a concession without any specific effect. It would be an affirmation of the autonomy of meaning, of the ideal puri ty of an abstract, theoretical history of the concept. Inversely, to claim to do away immediately with previous marks and to cross over, by decree, by a simple leap, into the outside of the classical oppositions is, apart from the risk of engaging in an interminable “negative theology,” to forget that these oppositions have never constituted a given system, a sort of ahistorical, thoroughly homogeneous table, but rather a dissymmetric, hierarchically ordered space whose closure is constantly being traversed by the forces, and worked by the exteriority, that it represses: that is, expels and, which amounts to the same, internalizes as one of its moments. (Derrida)
an infant in a certain setting provided by the
mother is capable of conceiving of the idea of something
that would meet the growing need that arises out of
instinctual tension. The infant cannot be said to know at
first what is to be created. At this point in time the mother
presents herself. In the ordinary way she gives her breast
and her potential feeding urge. The mother’s adaptation to
the infant’s needs, when good enough, gives the infant the
illusion that there is an external reality that corresponds to
the infant’s own capacity to create. In other words, there is
an overlap between what the mother supplies and what the
child might conceive of. (Winnicott)
I continued to grapple with the problem of the relation between the quantitative concept of “drive” and the qualitative concept of “pleasure” (Wilhelm Reich)
Just as a mold gives shape to a substance, words can shape an
activity into a structure. However, that structure may be changed or
reshaped when children learn to use language in ways that allow them
to go beyond previous experiences when planning future action. In
contrast to the notion of sudden discovery popularized by Stern, we
envisage verbal, intellectual activity as a series of stages in which the
emotional and communicative functions of speech are expanded by the
addition of the planning function. As a result the child acquires the ability
to engage in complex operations extending over time. (Vygotsky)
“Queen of the vales ,” the Lilly answer’d, “ask the tender
cloud,
And it shall tell thee why it glitters in the morning sky,
And why it scatters its bright beauty thro’ the humid air.
Descend, O little Cloud, & hover before the eyes of
Thel.”
(William Blake)
All phantasms are projected onto the screen of this ghost (that is, on something
absent, for the screen itself is phantomatic, as in the television of the future which will have no “screenic” support and will project its images-sometimes synthetic images–directly on the eye, like the sound of the telephone deep in the ear). (Derrida)
11 He replied, “The man they call Jesus made some mud and put it on my eyes. He told me to go to Siloam and wash. So I went and washed, and then I could see.” 12 “Where is this man?” they asked him. “I don’t know,” he said. (John 9:11-12)
This is why deconstruction involves an indispensable phase of reversal. To remain content with reversal is of course to operate within the immanence of the system to be destroyed. But to sit back, in order to go further, in order to be more radical or more daring, and take an attitude of neutralizing indifference with respect to the classical oppositions would be to give free rein to the existing forces that effectively and historically dominate the field. It would be, for not having seized the means to intervene,6 to confirm the established equilibrium. (Derrida)
17 The servant hurried to meet her and said, “Please give me a little water from your jar.” 18 “Drink, my lord,” she said, and quickly lowered the jar to her hands and gave him a drink. (John 9:17-18)
All activities are carried out by the three modes of material nature. But in ignorance, the soul, deluded by false identification with the body, thinks itself to be the doer. O mighty-armed Arjuna, illumined persons distinguish the soul as distinct from guṇas and karmas. They perceive that it is only the guṇas (in the shape of the senses, mind, etc.) that move amongst the guṇas (in the shape of the objects of perception), and thus they do not get entangled in them.(Bhagavad Gita 3:27-28)
In the face of this threat of total weightlessness, of an unbearable lightness of being, a universal promiscuity, a linearity of processes which would pitch us into the void, these sudden whirlwinds we call catastrophes are what keep us from catastrophe. These anomalies, these extreme phenomena recreate zones of gravitation and density which prevent things from dispersing totally.
(Jean Baudrillard)
At some anonymous crossroads. the sky calls
To the deaf earth. The proverbial disarray
Of morning corrects itself as you stand up.
You are wearing a text. The lines
Droop to your shoelaces and I shall never want or need
Any other literature than this poetry of mud
(John Ashbery)
You need not eliminate any false ‘I’. How can ‘I’
eliminate itself? All that you need do is to find out its origin
and stay there. Your effort can extend only so far. Then the
Beyond will take care of itself. You are helpless there. No effort
can reach It.
The Self/Atman does not come from anywhere nor does it enter the
body through the crown of the head. It is as it is, ever shining, ever
steady, unmoving and unchanging. The changes which are noticed
are not inherent in the Self/Atman, for the Self/Atman abides in the heart and is self-luminous like the sun. The changes are seen in Its light. The
relationship between the Self/Atman and the body or the mind may be
compared to that of a clear crystal and its background. If the crystal
is placed against a red flower it shines red, if against green it shines
green, and so on. The individual confines himself to the limits of
the changeable body or of the mind which derives its existence
from the unchanging Self/Atman. All that is necessary is to give up this
mistaken identity and, that done, the ever shining Self/Atman will be seen
to be the single, non-dual Reality.
(Sri Ramana Maharshi)
To the extent that man is drawing that way, he points toward what withdraws. As he is pointing that way, man is the pointer. Man here is not first of all man, and then also occasionally someone who points. No: drawn into what withdraws, drawing toward it and thus pointing into the withdrawal, man first is man. His essential nature lies in being such a pointer. Something which in itself, by its essential nature, is pointing, we call a sign. As he draws toward what withdraws, man is a sign. (Heidegger)
There is no such thing as a “metaphysical-concept.” There is no such thing as a “metaphysical-name.” The “metaphysical” is a certain determination or direction taken by a sequence or “chain.” It cannot as such be opposed by a concept but rather by a process of textual labor and a different SOrt of articulation. This being the case, the development of this problematic will inevitably involve the movement of differance as it has been discussed elsewhere: a “productive,” conflictual’ movement which cannot be preceded by any identity, any unity, or any original simplicity; which cannot be “relieved” [releve1,8 resolved, or appeased by any philosophical dialectic; and which disorganizes “historically,” “practically,” textually, the opposition or the difference (the static distinction) between opposing terms. (Derrida)
FOOTNOTES :
We have still not come face to face, have not yet come under the sway of what intrinsically desires to be thought about in an essential sense. Presumably the reason is that we human beings do not yet sufficiently reach out and turn toward what desires to be thought. (Heidegger)
It is by studying the behaviour of these children
and their re-actions to each other in this atmosphere of
freedom that the real secret of society is revealed. They
are fine and delicate facts that have to be examined
with a spiritual microscope, but they are of the utmost
interest since they reveal facts inherent in the very
nature of man. These schools, therefore, are thought
of as laboratories for psychological research, although
it is not really research, but observation that is carried
out. It is this observation which is important. (Montessori)
Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (Mathew 6:19-21)
The duality of subject and object and trinity of seer, sight, and seen can exist only if supported by the One. If one turns inward in search of that One Reality they fall away. Those who see this are those who see Wisdom. They are never in doubt. (Sri Ramana Maharshi)
… a structure of alteration without opposition. That which seems, then, to make the belonging — a belonging without interiority — of death to pleasure more continuous, more immanent, and more natural too …
(a sentence which condemns to death and an interruption suspending death)
(Derrida)
The theme was articulated, the brightness filled in.
And when we tell about it
no wave of recollection comes gushing back …
There’s a smooth slightly concave space there instead:
not the ghost of a naval.
(John Ashbery)
To the extent that man is drawing that way, he points toward what withdraws. As he is pointing that way, man is the pointer. Man here is not first of all man, and then also occasionally someone who points. No : drawn into what withdraws, drawing toward it and thus pointing into the withdrawal, man first is man. His essential nature lies in being such a pointer. Something which in itself, by its essential nature, is pointing, we call a sign. As he draws to ward what withdraws, man is a sign. (Heidegger)
There is no such thing as a “metaphysical-concept.” There is no such thing as a “metaphysical-name.” The “metaphysical” is a certain determination or direction taken by a sequence or “chain.” It cannot as such be opposed by a concept but rather by a process of textual labor and a different SOrt of articulation. This being the case, the development of this problematic will inevitably involve the movement of differance as it has been discussed elsewhere: a “productive,” conflictual’ movement which cannot be preceded by any identity, any unity, or any original simplicity; which cannot be “relieved” [releve1,8 resolved, or appeased by any philosophical dialectic; and which disorganizes “historically,” “practically,” textually, the opposition or the difference (the static distinction) between opposing terms. (Derrida)
mark forshee 