tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post2368349362448993848..comments2023-10-30T12:26:15.822+01:00Comments on Research as a Second Language: The BodyThomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-26890797205523463532012-05-05T19:42:30.124+02:002012-05-05T19:42:30.124+02:00I think there's two senses of "vain"...I think there's two senses of "vain" at work here. First, it's <i>no use</i> to expect the absolute to channel its eidos through your writing. Second, there's the kind of vanity that <a href="http://secondlanguage.blogspot.com/2008/12/vanity-and-higher-learning.html" rel="nofollow">Cyril Connolly said</a> keeps us from doing anything badly.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-67575928818645712762012-05-05T11:28:20.109+02:002012-05-05T11:28:20.109+02:00Yes, Heidegger was, of course, in some sense right...Yes, Heidegger was, of course, in some sense right that "language speaks through me", but the subjective identification with that idea causes "anxiousness", as you (warningly) and Foucault (proudly) point out. My point is that also causes something alike to vanity. <br /><br />The idea that something larger is speaking through me, when I write, is, as it were, the writer's analogue of the false humility of the statesman: "Destiny urges me to a goal of which I am ignorant. Until that goal is attained I am invulnerable, unassailable. When Destiny has accomplished her purpose in me, a fly may suffice to destroy me."(Napoleon Bonaparte, Correspondance with Joséphine de Beauharnais)Presskornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03480116067878605339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-30972802961527988422012-05-04T21:09:57.291+02:002012-05-04T21:09:57.291+02:00Yes, I agree with that. It reminds me of the openi...Yes, I agree with that. It reminds me of the opening of Foucault's "Discourse on Language". The way he would prefer to not have to begin.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-67474694403219206892012-05-04T11:48:01.438+02:002012-05-04T11:48:01.438+02:00You write of the idea that it is, really, discours...You write of the idea that it is, really, discourse that does the writing and reading. I take that to be the idea that, in a sense, something larger than me is speaking through me, when I write (i.e. what Greek rhetorics called prosopopoeia). While I agree that idea is romantic, mistaken, metaphysical and even dangerous, isn’t this idea really, properly speaking, part of the PHENOMENOLOGY of writing? That is, isn’t there some sort of distinct sensation corresponding to this idea, even if this sensation is shot through with vanity?Presskornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03480116067878605339noreply@blogger.com