There’s a running discussion between myself and Eli, here and here respectively. It’s not much of an argument, and it seems to have risen out of a misunderstanding on my end. I interpreted lament for the Library’s destruction as a loss of practical knowledge. Instead it was meant, and this clarification makes perfect sense of my undertsanding of that afternoon, as a lament for losses of consciousness. I have no beef with that, even though it reeks of sentimentality. Not that it comes as any surprise that Eli is more sentimental than me.
What then are we disagreeing about? Not much, and qualifying it as splitting hairs might be quite accurate. We both agree that the notion of ‘essence’ is a dangerous one. So, he requalifies it is to be a tendency. The acorn will be an oak, but clearly may not develop. I am not sure, however, that this escapes the danger of essence.
Let us look at the acorn. Again. Sure it has a tendency to be an oak. Sure it may not develop tree-ness. Hopwever, the notion of its oakiness is a reduction. To say that all oaks are alike is inaccurate. There are mutations. Oak is, after all, a human construction to reduce away differences into a set of similarities. Here we come to my criticism of essence. If I were to plant what I thought would be an oak and it grew into a different type of oak (maybe I am looking for a tree that I grew up with and climbed) then I might be tempted to cut it down that and try again. This is the danger of essence that Eli’s turn to tendency does not escape.
Maybe it’s an inescapable danger because we do, after all, have to navigate this crazy complex world. Eli’s reformulation clearly mitigates this danger but does not escape it altogether. Now here we come to Eli’s Third observation, where he makes some qualifications which are entirely consistent with the above. Here’s our disagreement: Eli finds more essence and less differentiation in language. That in itself may be a bit of a strawman on my part, but he does take a swipe at Derrida and being the glutton for punishment that I am, I feel inclined to defend.
Here’s Eli’s swipe: poo is never seen at the dinner table except by those people who are actively trying to disrupt the paradigm. Why this proves a non-differentiation is beyond me. If poo is seen at the table only in the act of denying its usual place on the floor, then doesn’t that prove it’s all differentiation? That when it is on the floor it is also on the table in a virtual way? The people by adhering to notions of cleanliness are metaphorically dealing with the poo? Yes there is a tendency that poo is only virtually on the table and actually on the floor, but this is another human construct. After all, where did the table come from? I would also refer to Pasolini’s Salo, or The 120 Days of Sodom. It’s a solid movie and there are extended scenes discussing poo and its place at the diner table. The tendency is purely cultural.
I’ll conclude there and just preempt the jokes. “StoopidNoodle is full of shit.” “StoopidNoodle tries to have his poo and eat it too.” “PoopidPoodle” There are more jokes to be made, but they’re like making fun of the Timberwolves: too easy. Those jokes are soft pitches and Eli would gain nothing by making them.
I bet he goes for it, anyways. Sentimental biyatch that he is.