2 Comments

  1. At our second and last encounter, during a dinner offered by his in-laws, he insisted on publicly archiving in his own way, with regard to something I had told him, the disregard of the Other that I had supposedly attempted “by playing dead” … Lacan’s phrase speaks of a “father,” and that’s me, a father who “does not recognize … the way he himself disregarded the Other [big O] by playing dead.” I am still not sure I have fully understood the ventured interpretation in what was, we should not forget, a signed publication … I have always wondered whether he did’nt mean to say the son, if he didn’t want to play the son, to make me or himself into the son, to make of me the son who disregards the Other by playing dead, as he put it, or make himself into the son. As always, Lacan left me the greatest freedom of interpretation, and as always I would have taken it even if he had not left it to me, as it will have pleased me … Lacan left me this freedom to interpret as I please on the flyleaf of Ecrits when it was bound, because the dedication that accompanies it says : “to Jacques Derrida, this homage to take as it may please him.” Message received : I have always, and again today, used this homage as it pleases me and as it pleases me and as it pleases me to give it and to give it back [le rendre].

    excerpted from : Jacques Derrida , “For the Love of Lacan” ( pg. 51 , Resistances of Psychoanalysis)

    ” Narcissism! There is not narcissism and non-narcissism; there are narcissisms that are more or less comprehensive, generous, open, extended. What is called non-narcissism is in general but the economy of a much more welcoming, hospitable narcissism, one that is much more open to the experience of the other as other. I believe that without a movement of narcissistic reappropriation, the relation to the other would be absolutedly destroyed, it would be destroyed in advance. The relation to the other – even if it remains asymmetrical, open, without possible reappropriation – must trace a movement of reappropriation in the image of oneself for love to be possible, for example. Love is narcissistic. Beyond that, there are little narcissisms, there are big narcissisms, and there is death in the end, which is the limit. Even in the experience – if there is one – of death, narcissism does not absolutely abdicate its power.”
    (Derrida)

    The point is that the eternal return is not a new metaphysics of time or of the totality of being, et cetera, on whose ground Nietzsche’s autobiographical
    signature would come to stand like an empirical fact on a great ontological structure. (Here, one would have to take up again the Heideggerian interpretations of the eternal return and perhaps problematize them.) The eternal return always involves differences of forces that perhaps cannot be thought in terms of being, of the pair essence-existence, or any of the great metaphysical structures to which Heidegger would like to relate them. As soon as it crosses with the motif of the
    eternal return, then the individual signature, or, if you like,the signature of a proper name, is no longer simply an empirical fact grounded in something other than itself.
    (Derrida)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s