Something About
So, astute readers will notice, I’ve deleted a recent post. Why, Mitch? I expect those same astute readers to ask.
Some bits of my rationale:
- I want to note it wasn’t a political decision. That is, I didn’t remove the post because I was fearful of rubbing someone the wrong way or because I felt I was crossing some line I hadn’t intended to. In turn, I’m not stressing this point in order to make myself seem like some fearless crusader for grad student autonomous speech or anything like that–’cos I’m not. The post in question was carefully composed in order to show respect and appreciation for those faculty and colleagues to whom I made reference–so what I’m saying now is that I don’t think I crossed any line.
- Faithful readers will no doubt recall the early days of FoolsCap when every other post was devoted to self-pity and professional anxieties. Although I maintain that neither was my goal in the deleted post, several responses to that post felt like–and that’s my own feeling about them, not the authors’ intentions nor their motives–I had been reduced to a blubbering sop and needed consolation. Having said that. . .those who responded to the post (all both of you), your words of encouragement etc. are greatly appreciated.
- Nevertheless. Grading student papers, I came across a fascinating typo that’s been stuck in my craw: "I happened to me." There’s something there that I find compelling–that subjectivity/selfhood is an event that befalls us. Heidegger writes: "A mood assails us." I think there’s something like that Heideggerian moment happening here: there are times when, despite our best efforts to maintain whatever composure we fancy, moments of blatant self-concern and self-involvement and self-interest overwhelm us. I think that is what sort of got reflected in the deleted post: I happened to me.
- And, finally: I have sort of a fatalistic outlook on things: que sera, sera and so on. Yet although I feel like our control over our fates and destinies is somewhat limited, one thing I think we have some control over–or at least I like to think we do–is how we represent ourselves. And, in the end, that’s the most important reason behind the deletion: I just didn’t like the image of Mitch that post presented. Two thoughts connected to this: First, a return to earlier comments about Meish.org … the blog is me(ish), it’s sort of me, parts of me etc. And I want to control how much of me it is. Second, and connected to that, the blog–or any writing space, really–is thus a metaphor for the writing subject. Writing is the space where I am (me)diated. Now there’s an idea to dig into. There’s a potential something there, right, yo? Assuming noone’s beat me to it.
Oh, and a shout-out to Rice: My copy of More than Cool Reason is on its way from the friendly folks at Amazon, along with Of Grammatology and A Derrida Reader: Between the Blinds. I’m planning a very theory summer reading list.
Cool (no pun intended). That’s an important work - as is all of Lakoff’s - on metaphor.
Email back channel about the conference if you want. I’m curious what you were submitting to.
I seem to remember some posts last semester when you weren’t feeling Derrida…..and now you are buying his work!
Comment by jeff — 13 April, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
Hey Jeff:
I’m still sure I’m feeling Derrida . . . but realize that I can’t really say why until I’ve done more reading. Also, something I said to Mary Karcher yesterday about Shaviro’s Connected made me think it time to read Derrida. About Shaviro, I said something like: “What really fascinates me is the way he does theory through textual analysis”. Two correlatives: I didn’t really have that in mind when I read Shaviro, so in retrospect it’s like I hadn’t read it at all. But, too, from bits and pieces I’ve read of/about Derrida, theory through text work is part of his bag. (Not his exclusively, but I think you’ll pick up what I mean.) I think until that convo. with Mary I hard sort an idea where first you write theory: “Most people think text is supplement to speech, but. . .” and then turn into textual practice: “So when Rousseau writes x, he’s actually saying anti-x.” But it doesn’t have to be that way: theory can be done through practice and vice-versa . . . I’ve been planning a post about various deconstruction things I’ve been picking up lately (most from J. Flatley), it just hasn’t materialized yet. I’ll shortly send you an e-mail about the conference I didn’t get into.
Comment by Administrator — 13 April, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
Is it bad that having missed the original post that I now want to read it? At least, I think I missed the original post….I haven’t been keeping up with blogging much lately.
Comment by Jill — 17 April, 2007 @ 9:48 am