language poets
Jon Ford
austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net
Fri May 21 23:42:45 2004
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE>
<P>Wayne-- I never could get into the language poets. Maybe they are more fun to party with than to read. Michael Palmer is probably the most accessible, and I read a lot of his work last fall, which is uneven but clear and powerful in places. He actually feels things; it's not just about language.</P>
<P><BR>Jon<BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: "Wayne Johnson" <cadaobh@shentel.net>
<DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net
<DIV></DIV>>To: <austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net>
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: Re:Julia K.
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 07:34:42 -0400
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Jon. I think the thing I like most about Kristeva is her passion for the
<DIV></DIV>>subject. I have read around the Frog Literary scene, Barthes, Derrida,
<DIV></DIV>>Foucault, Lacan, Levi-Strauss, Saussure, et al for about twenty years. Some
<DIV></DIV>>write well, some reason well, some do neither, some are
<DIV></DIV>>hysterical...actually many are hysterical. Same for many acolytes, like
<DIV></DIV>>Jonathan Culler. But they have the advantage of not being more
<DIV></DIV>>Harvard-Oxford clones, they are more like Socio-linguists and I like that.
<DIV></DIV>>It is interesting that one of her major influences was Charles Sanders
<DIV></DIV>>Pierce!!!*
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Kristeva doesn't have the same "take" on French or German phenomenology
<DIV></DIV>>(sp?); probably because she is, at heart, a Marxist. Probably why I like
<DIV></DIV>>her. I also like Terry Eagleton, a Brit critique, for similar reasons.
<DIV></DIV>>Derrida and Barthes, both, have amazing insights into things; but then
<DIV></DIV>>really smart people usually do. Don't have to agree with their conclusions
<DIV></DIV>>and I certainly can not agree with many of their "after market" conclusions
<DIV></DIV>>pandered about by various American Literati. This is, incidentally,
<DIV></DIV>>especially annoying in the Architecture profession, where there is more
<DIV></DIV>>mis-understanding of French criticism than real knowledge. Roman Jacobson
<DIV></DIV>>liked Kristeva and we all know who he spawned.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>The most interesting people to work with this material were the SF "Language
<DIV></DIV>>Poets" in SF like Carla Harryman, Michael Palmer, Barret Watten. And they
<DIV></DIV>>weren't "slavish" either, picked and chose. Many of these people moved off
<DIV></DIV>>to UC San Diego. Knew them, read with them, partied with them, liked them.
<DIV></DIV>>I am probably prejudiced.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Want to read someone interesting? Read Jerry Fodor.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Cheers.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>wj
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>* Charles Hartshorn (late...I trust...of UT) and, I think Paul
<DIV></DIV>>Weiss....essentially stole C.S. Pierce's papers from his, literally starvig
<DIV></DIV>>French widow. They made their academic reputations and she died in poverty.
<DIV></DIV>>Pierce, had he known, would probably have killed them both. Hartshorn was a
<DIV></DIV>>mumbling idiot and Weiss a fool. Personal opinion. Either way, they acted
<DIV></DIV>>in an evil and despicable fashion toward her.
<DIV></DIV>>----- Original Message -----
<DIV></DIV>>From: "Jon Ford" <jonmfordster@hotmail.com>
<DIV></DIV>>To: <austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net>
<DIV></DIV>>Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 10:51 PM
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: Re:Julia K.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > Nothing wrong with being an old hippie-- I am in no way ageist, since I
<DIV></DIV>> > could be called an old hippie myself. I have just begun to read Kristeva,
<DIV></DIV>> > and I think her focus on emotion and revolt (not revolt in a specific
<DIV></DIV>> > ideological dimension, but more as a total perspective on life, revolt as
<DIV></DIV>> > renewal), as well as her feminist perspective that includes motherhood
<DIV></DIV>>could
<DIV></DIV>> > be classified as rather "old hippie." She is also decidedly
<DIV></DIV>>anti-Freudian--
<DIV></DIV>> > I never met a hippie yet who liked Freud. I would say she's worth reading
<DIV></DIV>> > more than two pages before dismissing her. I intend to read more.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > Jon
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;From: &quot;Wayne Johnson&quot; &lt;cadaobh@shentel.net&gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;Reply-To: austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;To: &lt;austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net&gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;Subject: Re: Re:Julia K.
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 08:40:08 -0400
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;So, Jon, are you using the phrase &quot;old hippie&quot; in a
<DIV></DIV>>pejorative
<DIV></DIV>> > sense?
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;Some people, who were once &quot;young hippies&quot;, had some rather
<DIV></DIV>> > interesting experiences and made some rather intriguing contributions to
<DIV></DIV>>our
<DIV></DIV>> > culture, some good, some bad. Many actually contributed a great deal to
<DIV></DIV>> > visual and poetic arts, music, intellectual culture and, egad, computer
<DIV></DIV>> > programming.
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;Alas, I guess you mean aging erases all in America, leaving all
<DIV></DIV>> > &quot;good&quot; things in the hands of.....others.
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;wj
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;btw. Have you actually read anything Kristeva has written?
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; ----- Original Message -----
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; From: Jon Ford
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; To: austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 6:24 PM
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; Subject: Re:Julia K.
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; Michael-- sorry you didn't get past page two, but here is an
<DIV></DIV>> > interview with Julia which might set you right. She sounds like an old
<DIV></DIV>> > hippie to me!
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; JON
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; Julia Kristeva is a world famous semiotician, feminist
<DIV></DIV>> > theorist, psychoanalyst and at the same time an interesting creative
<DIV></DIV>>writer.
<DIV></DIV>> > She was born in Bulgaria in 1941, but came to Paris in 1965 where she
<DIV></DIV>>became
<DIV></DIV>> > immersed in Parisian intellectual life. Her acclaimed novel &quot;Les
<DIV></DIV>> > Samouïs&quot; (1990) analyzes the Parisian intellectual avant-garde to
<DIV></DIV>>which
<DIV></DIV>> > she has belonged ever since. And though psychoanalysis remains one of the
<DIV></DIV>> > major orienting and formative
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; An Interview with Julia Kristeva
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; by Nina Zivancevici
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; Parisian intellectual avant-garde to which she has belonged
<DIV></DIV>> > ever since. And though psychoanalysis remains one of the major orienting
<DIV></DIV>>and
<DIV></DIV>> > formative dimensions of her work, especially as regards her reflections
<DIV></DIV>>upon
<DIV></DIV>> > the nature of the feminine, she has also continued her research on the
<DIV></DIV>> > nature of language and examined the processes leading to the emergence of
<DIV></DIV>> > the work of art. As the theorist John Lechte points out, &quot; because of
<DIV></DIV>> > the intimate link between art and the formation of subjectivity, Kristeva
<DIV></DIV>> > has always found art to be a particularly fruitful basis for analysis.
<DIV></DIV>> > &quot; Since the 1960s, she has
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; been a leading force in the critique of representation and
<DIV></DIV>>her
<DIV></DIV>> > most recent book is a critical study of Colette's work and life, that is
<DIV></DIV>>to
<DIV></DIV>> > say, one of the numerous projects that she has been energetically working
<DIV></DIV>> > on.
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; Q: When did you start getting interested in the notion of the
<DIV></DIV>> > &quot;feminine&quot;? Was it with the exploration of the notion of
<DIV></DIV>>ÒchoraÓor
<DIV></DIV>> > the female voice in linguistics and semiology? Or rather, from that point
<DIV></DIV>>on
<DIV></DIV>> > how have you arrived at the so-called feminist studies and writing
<DIV></DIV>> > understood in terms of their sociological and/or aesthetic significance?
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; J.Kristeva: It is very difficult to trace back my interest in
<DIV></DIV>> > the &quot;feminine&quot;. I suppose that at the very moment in which I
<DIV></DIV>> > started asking questions about myself the question of the ÒfeminineÓ had
<DIV></DIV>> > already been formulated in my mind, so one could say perhaps it started in
<DIV></DIV>> > the period of my adolescence when I became interested in literature which
<DIV></DIV>> > necessarily asks questions about the sexual differences. But, you are
<DIV></DIV>>right,
<DIV></DIV>> > in my theoretical work, this question is raised in a more succinct manner,
<DIV></DIV>> > perhaps also more discreet one, but which was nevertheless very intense
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; It must be said that this question is related to the notion
<DIV></DIV>>of
<DIV></DIV>> > &quot;chora&quot; which directs us back to the archaic state of language .
<DIV></DIV>> > This state is known to a child who is in a state of osmosis with his/her
<DIV></DIV>> > mother during which language manifests itself as co-lalia , a melodic
<DIV></DIV>> > alliteration that precedes the introduction of signs within a syntactic
<DIV></DIV>> > order. The period during which I started developing this notion was that
<DIV></DIV>>of
<DIV></DIV>> > the writing of my Ph.D on the avant-garde of the 19th century (Mallarmè
<DIV></DIV>>and
<DIV></DIV>> > Lautreeamont) and I had understood how much of that, what we call
<DIV></DIV>> > hermiticism in literature, is connected to the rehabilitation, more or
<DIV></DIV>>less
<DIV></DIV>> > conscious, of that archaic language. By the way, I was also at that time
<DIV></DIV>> > undergoing an analysis myself, and so became convinced that what we have
<DIV></DIV>> > discussed was really true.
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; Q: Is it difficult to &quot;abandon&quot; or at least to set
<DIV></DIV>> > aside one's mother tongue and write in another language ?
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; Kristeva: No, I haven't had the impression that I had
<DIV></DIV>>abandoned
<DIV></DIV>> > my mother tongue by coming to France because I had learnt French when I
<DIV></DIV>>was
<DIV></DIV>> > four or five and had been bilingual. It is true though that the transition
<DIV></DIV>> > from one mother tongue to the other is a real matricide particularly when
<DIV></DIV>> > one ends up expressing himself only in this second language and oneÕs
<DIV></DIV>> > rapport to the first one remains extremely limited, which is my case, but
<DIV></DIV>>it
<DIV></DIV>> > didnÕt happen with me in that era (of coming to France). It was quite a
<DIV></DIV>> > gradual change.
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; Q: Given the fact that you have written a lot about the
<DIV></DIV>> > importance of the so-called &quot;sick&quot; states of mind, could you
<DIV></DIV>>tell
<DIV></DIV>> > us whether they are related in any way to Art ? Would you see Art as the
<DIV></DIV>> > means of healing them or do you see it as an independent entity? Is Art a
<DIV></DIV>> > sort of &quot;love&quot; for you (the way Freud would have it) and a sort
<DIV></DIV>>of
<DIV></DIV>> > human cure?
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; Kristeva: It has always shocked commentators when I affirm my
<DIV></DIV>> > agreement with the ancient Greeks who viewed art as catharsis or
<DIV></DIV>> > purification and I would add that it is a sort of sublimation for the
<DIV></DIV>> > &quot;borderline&quot; states, in the broadest sense of the term, that is,
<DIV></DIV>> > it comprises those characterized by fragility. If we analyze contemporary
<DIV></DIV>> > art, we get the impression that two types of fragility are examined by
<DIV></DIV>> > contemporary artists. On one hand, we have perversion, that is, all sorts
<DIV></DIV>>of
<DIV></DIV>> > sexual transgressions. To this effect, it is enough to just browse through
<DIV></DIV>> > contemporary books or simply look at the &quot;culture&quot; pages of
<DIV></DIV>> > &quot;Libèration&quot; which review exhibitions to see that the form and
<DIV></DIV>>the
<DIV></DIV>> > content of the experience serve as means of overcoming these states. They
<DIV></DIV>> > testify to the existence of these states, as well as that of a certain
<DIV></DIV>> > desire to make them public, or even share them with others, that is, to
<DIV></DIV>>take
<DIV></DIV>> > them out of their closet which is! a soothing action after all despite its
<DIV></DIV>> > commercial aspect since one turns a &quot;shameful thing&quot; into
<DIV></DIV>> > something positive. So you see, here we have something that transcends the
<DIV></DIV>> > notion of &quot;cure&quot; and is at times something gratifying.
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; Q: Does contemporary art have to do with Voyeurism, as is the
<DIV></DIV>> > case with the most recent literature nowadays which purports to describe
<DIV></DIV>>the
<DIV></DIV>> > most intimate states of the body and the soul ?
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; Kristeva: Absolutely! This is ever the case with literature
<DIV></DIV>>and
<DIV></DIV>> > when it does not try to treat perversion, it is deals with psychotic
<DIV></DIV>>states,
<DIV></DIV>> > that is, the states of identity loss, the loss of language, the borderline
<DIV></DIV>> > cases which cohabit and coexist with delirium and violence, but all of
<DIV></DIV>>this
<DIV></DIV>> > does not have to bear the imprint of something negative. Some think that
<DIV></DIV>> > these works are scandal-oriented, others think that they rejoice in
<DIV></DIV>>ugliness
<DIV></DIV>> > , yes, certainly there are elements of such orientations in them, but, on
<DIV></DIV>> > the other hand, the existence of these works is also a research -- often
<DIV></DIV>>in
<DIV></DIV>> > a very specific manner -- on the anticipation of difficulty of living. And
<DIV></DIV>> > Art can play an important role here since it can contribute to a certain
<DIV></DIV>> > creative assumption of such a difficulty. Nevertheless, I personally
<DIV></DIV>>remain
<DIV></DIV>> > a bit skeptical of a certain drift or tendency of contemporary art to
<DIV></DIV>> > content itself with such, so I believe, feeble appropri! ations of these
<DIV></DIV>> > traumatic states. We remain here at the level of the statement of the
<DIV></DIV>> > clinical cases with an almost documentary style photography of these cases
<DIV></DIV>> > wherein the investment and the effort made in the exploration of new forms
<DIV></DIV>> > or new thoughts remains less visible. So, it is something regrettable
<DIV></DIV>>which
<DIV></DIV>> > every so often leaves me with the impression that when I visit museums or
<DIV></DIV>> > read certain art books, I am looking into psychoanalytic or even
<DIV></DIV>>psychiatric
<DIV></DIV>> > archives. But, perhaps this is an indispensable experience.
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; Q: But you haven't always felt this way- we remember the time
<DIV></DIV>> > when you wrote about BelliniÉ
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; Kristeva: That's right, I haven't always felt this way --
<DIV></DIV>>this
<DIV></DIV>> > is a very particular moment in art history which deepened and probed a
<DIV></DIV>> > certain aspect of a widespread existential malaise and discontent while
<DIV></DIV>> > neglecting the possibility of its overcoming.
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; Q: Well, along this line, you wrote in &quot;Tales of
<DIV></DIV>> > Love&quot; that &quot;the psychoanalytic couch is the only place where the
<DIV></DIV>> > social contract authorizes explicitly psychoanalytic investigation, but
<DIV></DIV>> > &quot;leaves Love out of it.&quot; However, we find this type of
<DIV></DIV>> > investigation in literature and art as well. You have recently analyzed
<DIV></DIV>>the
<DIV></DIV>> > &quot;investigation&quot; of the writer Colette whose work deals
<DIV></DIV>>extensively
<DIV></DIV>> > with love and emotions. Why Colette ?
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; Kristeva: Why Colette? Because in my trilogy on the feminine
<DIV></DIV>> > genius I tried to analyze the works of two dramatic women who represent
<DIV></DIV>>the
<DIV></DIV>> > tragic aspect of our (20th) century, Hanna Arendt's on
<DIV></DIV>> > &quot;Totalitarianism&quot; and Melanie Klein's on psychosis, especially
<DIV></DIV>> > children's psychosis, and it seemed to me important (not only to me
<DIV></DIV>> > personally but also for the sake of objectivity) to pay homage to the
<DIV></DIV>>other
<DIV></DIV>> > aspect of our civilization which is notably our century's source of joy,
<DIV></DIV>> > that is, the feminist liberation and &quot;joie de vivre&quot;. And
<DIV></DIV>>Colette
<DIV></DIV>> > excels in that appropriation of the national language in which she
<DIV></DIV>>delights
<DIV></DIV>> > and leads to paroxysms of beauty that trace a path which goes beyond the
<DIV></DIV>> > scandal of a woman who asserts her liberty and authority. So, for me, she
<DIV></DIV>> > has become indispensable.
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; Q: In your novel &quot;Les Samoura.s&quot; you have shown a
<DIV></DIV>> > great literary talent and a certain sense of humor which is certainly
<DIV></DIV>> > lacking in your analytic work. Why have you stopped your literary
<DIV></DIV>> > production, that is to say, writing of novels ?
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; Kristeva: Oh, I haven't stopped it for after &quot;Les
<DIV></DIV>> > Samoura.s&quot; I wrote &quot;The old man the wolves,&quot; then
<DIV></DIV>> > &quot;Possesions,&quot; and now I am going to write yet another thriller
<DIV></DIV>> > which will be called, as it seems now, &quot;Our Byzantium&quot;. IÕd like
<DIV></DIV>> > to continue writing in this polar style and with a certain political
<DIV></DIV>> > motivation. It will be concerned with the possibility -- or the
<DIV></DIV>> > impossibility -- of unifying Eastern Europe with Western Europe. It will
<DIV></DIV>> > deal with the Crusades and in it the modern characters would reveal their
<DIV></DIV>> > ancestors who had been in the Crusades, a catastrophic enterprise which
<DIV></DIV>> > eventually failed as you know, but which has been in its essence an
<DIV></DIV>>attempt
<DIV></DIV>> > at unifying Europe, an unhappy attempt though. So, I am going to ask a
<DIV></DIV>> > question about the tragedy of this Europe which is now divided, and also
<DIV></DIV>> > this would be a way for me to visit my orthodox origins where I'd also
<DIV></DIV>> > attempt to revive some of my childhood souvenirs.
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; Q: That's right, the area of Eastern or Central Europe really
<DIV></DIV>> > belongs to &quot;Byzantium&quot;.
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; Kristeva: Yes, we are Byzantium, that is, the Balkans, and I
<DIV></DIV>>am
<DIV></DIV>> > very proud of the fact that I come from that region. And that's something
<DIV></DIV>> > which is unknown to the West. While it is true that what has survived of
<DIV></DIV>> > Byzantium is in a state of cultural decadence and terrible economic
<DIV></DIV>>poverty
<DIV></DIV>> > with nothing in it that could seduce the Westerners, it is indisputably
<DIV></DIV>>the
<DIV></DIV>> > treasure of our rich historical memory that is reflected, as far as I can
<DIV></DIV>> > see, in the dignified sensitivity of people who donÕt ask for anything but
<DIV></DIV>> > the minimum allowing them to continue living as the well-educated and
<DIV></DIV>>highly
<DIV></DIV>> > intelligent men and women who should be less exposed to mentally
<DIV></DIV>>exhausting
<DIV></DIV>> > pangs of melancholy and the socially debilitating impact of the economic
<DIV></DIV>> > predominance of the mafia that is the case nowadays.
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; Q: In your novel &quot;Possesions&quot; you started something
<DIV></DIV>> > quite interesting, something that you stopped pursuing after having
<DIV></DIV>>written
<DIV></DIV>> > the first chapter though, and that particular thing is the psychoanalysis
<DIV></DIV>>of
<DIV></DIV>> > art which also includes that of the artists and their respective works.
<DIV></DIV>> > Would it be possible to pursue research in this particular field, namely,
<DIV></DIV>>an
<DIV></DIV>> > analysis of the history of art by following different works of art from
<DIV></DIV>> > different epochs?
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; Kristeva: I have really enjoyed myself writing about these
<DIV></DIV>> > different works of art, notably, on representations of decapitation, and I
<DIV></DIV>> > believe that the novel as genre, especially thriller which is an open
<DIV></DIV>>genre
<DIV></DIV>> > and completely renewable allows for this type of digression in writing.
<DIV></DIV>>But
<DIV></DIV>> > they have severely criticized me for it and told me that the book was too
<DIV></DIV>> > intellectual, very brainy and that the reader who wanted to know how the
<DIV></DIV>> > crime was being developed and the murder had to suffer by having had to
<DIV></DIV>> > wait. That was the malevolent reaction of those who have known me as an
<DIV></DIV>> > intellectual and who did not like the fact that I was going to write
<DIV></DIV>>novels.
<DIV></DIV>> > So, there is a certain tendency in France, or perhaps elsewhere too, to
<DIV></DIV>>put
<DIV></DIV>> > labels on people- if you are a teacher, remain a teacher, and if you are a
<DIV></DIV>> > writer, remain a writer, but the two of them at the same time- that you
<DIV></DIV>> > cannot be! So, perhaps I will continue in that direction , that ! of novel
<DIV></DIV>> > writing, I don't know. I have just finished the book about Colette, and my
<DIV></DIV>> > new thriller is still in notes and scratches, it is not articulated yet,
<DIV></DIV>>but
<DIV></DIV>> > I am not sure that the fragments which deal with the so-called esthetic
<DIV></DIV>> > problems are excluded from it. It is true we cannot insert a dissertation
<DIV></DIV>>in
<DIV></DIV>> > a novel, but perhaps we could set a basis there for it.
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; Q: I believe that one could read your book &quot;The Intimate
<DIV></DIV>> > Revolt&quot; in the light of your dialogue with Hannah Arendt. In fact,
<DIV></DIV>>she
<DIV></DIV>> > was the one who has spoken of the misery of human beings who are not
<DIV></DIV>>allowed
<DIV></DIV>> > to have &quot;contemplative&quot; ( read creative) life and who are thus
<DIV></DIV>> > condemned to lead an &quot;active&quot; life, that is, to have a miserable
<DIV></DIV>> > job. Is it the problem of our times that there exist such individuals who
<DIV></DIV>> > revolt against the fact that they cannot realize themselves? That is, who
<DIV></DIV>> > are angst-ridden and end up revolting against themselves?
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; Kristeva: I believe that you were right to make such
<DIV></DIV>> > assumptions about my eventual dialogue with Hannah Arendt -- I have been
<DIV></DIV>> > reading her work for quite a while and I'd say, in all modesty, that a lot
<DIV></DIV>> > of my writing, consciously or unconsciously, is tied to her thought . The
<DIV></DIV>> > idea of &quot;revolt&quot; was an effort to put myself in relationship
<DIV></DIV>>with
<DIV></DIV>> > what we hear as &quot;her own thinking&quot; which, following Heidegger's,
<DIV></DIV>> > opposes and relativizes calculative reasoning. As she was very attentive
<DIV></DIV>>to
<DIV></DIV>> > the work of Heidegger, she conceived of thinking as an inquiry, as an
<DIV></DIV>> > interrogatory process and opposed herself to the calculative framework
<DIV></DIV>>which
<DIV></DIV>> > structures and characterizes contemporary behavior. My work has found
<DIV></DIV>>itself
<DIV></DIV>> > a bit within this horizon but I also derived my experience from the
<DIV></DIV>> > psychoanalytical approach which relativizes everyone's identity as well as
<DIV></DIV>> > his/her past. Moreover, I derived my experience from literary works, such
<DIV></DIV>>as
<DIV></DIV>> > Proust's &quot;Reche! rche de temps perdu;&quot; for instance, from his
<DIV></DIV>> > flexing of language, metaphors and the syntax. I tried to rethink the
<DIV></DIV>>mental
<DIV></DIV>> > disposition which helps us carry on, the one which is not a mere
<DIV></DIV>>repetition
<DIV></DIV>> > of a cliche, something which is like an act of rebirth, that is, rebirth
<DIV></DIV>> > which our thinking re-examines together with our interior life as well as
<DIV></DIV>> > the very opening of the inquiry. This is what I take &quot;revolt&quot; to
<DIV></DIV>> > be. So, it is neither an expression of simple existential anguish nor
<DIV></DIV>> > contesting a socio-political order, but re-establishment of things which
<DIV></DIV>>we
<DIV></DIV>> > start again. And, in this sense, revolt which engulfs the psychic space is
<DIV></DIV>>a
<DIV></DIV>> > form of life, be it the state of being in love, or an act of aesthetic
<DIV></DIV>> > creation or a project that could imply a very modest activity but which
<DIV></DIV>> > allows you to re-examine your past, that is, to interrogate it and renew
<DIV></DIV>>it.
<DIV></DIV>> > And I believe that we have very few occasions in our daily lives which are
<DIV></DIV>> > quite standardized and banalized to work in that direction. ! The work
<DIV></DIV>>that
<DIV></DIV>> > we do implies usually a repetition, the accomplishment o f a given task.
<DIV></DIV>>The
<DIV></DIV>> > type of mental functioning which I call &quot;revolt&quot; is something
<DIV></DIV>>that
<DIV></DIV>> > we lack and it is very dangerous because if it is lacking, we risk
<DIV></DIV>> > confronting two prospective pitfalls: one of them is 'somatization' when
<DIV></DIV>>the
<DIV></DIV>> > psychic space closes itself off and the conflict manifests itself as
<DIV></DIV>>bodily
<DIV></DIV>> > illness or, in the other situation, we get into violence, vandalism and
<DIV></DIV>> > wars. So, Vive la Rèvolte !
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; Interview conducted by Nina Zivancevic, In Paris, March-April
<DIV></DIV>> > 2001
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; &gt;From: &quot;Michael Eisenstadt&quot;
<DIV></DIV>>&lt;michaele@HotPOP.com&gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; &gt;Reply-To: austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; &gt;To: &lt;austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net&gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; &gt;Subject: Re: Win this lovely watch or left is right and right
<DIV></DIV>>is
<DIV></DIV>> > left
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; &gt;Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 11:30:21 -0600
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; &gt;Wayne wrote:
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; &gt; &gt; Oh. Go and find thyself a New Genre, Kristeva.
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; &gt; &gt; (One of Mike E. mostest favorite philosophers. Right,
<DIV></DIV>> > Mike?)
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; &gt;just to prove that i am reading your inspired spritzes i must
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; &gt;acknowledge that i know of and have read at least 2 pages
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; &gt;by Julia Kristeva.
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; &gt;she is a French intellectual from Eastern Yerp and writes
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; &gt;unreadable literary criticism some of which has unfortunately
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; &gt;been translated into English.
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; &gt;are you a leftie or a rightie, Wayne? wondering whether yule
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; &gt;be wearing the Chinese mickey mouse watch on your left
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; &gt;wrist (if a rightie) or the right (if a leftie)
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt;
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>>&gt;------------------------------------------------------------------------
<DIV></DIV>>------
<DIV></DIV>> > &gt; MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web
<DIV></DIV>>page -
<DIV></DIV>> > FREE download!
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > _________________________________________________________________
<DIV></DIV>> > Get 200+ ad-free, high-fidelity stations and LIVE Major League Baseball
<DIV></DIV>> > Gameday Audio! http://radio.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200491ave/direct/01/
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr> <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMAENUS/2755??PS=47575">Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security.</a> </html>