Are those involved in the “game” so insecure, they cannot tolerate anyone who chooses not to participate in it? What does this say about them? Consensual reality can be mistaken.
The mystic Nihilist—and I admit of no other sort—in assessing and configuring sentience, transcends—obviously, as all wisdom must—the phenomenological realm of the self-given, towards the theoform domain of cosmolony: The vision of ultimate valuation.
In denying the viability of all inherited value systems, in extremis of all possible value systems, the Nihilist, as the wisest of his ranks know well, has merely deranged, reconfigured, revaluated, the Cosmos to which he is (unfortunate) heir. It is an instance not of whole Cosmic nihilation, cherished so dearly by the iconoclast nihilist in his heart; rather it constitutes a simple projection of a contrary, anti-Visionary, highly negative, highly destructive, system of anti-values—as arguable in conception, I should add, as the most chimerical of history’s dogmatist slumbers.
This revaluation apprehended as such constitutes an evidence of the intentionality of sentience, as fantastic and a fortiori unEnlightened (qua irrational—strange error for such beasts of rationality as the nihilists presume themselves to be), as the wildest lycergesque [sic] phantasias of Christendom: A faerie Hell, in short; & for whom had not the cosmological stomach for Heaven.
Yeah, I agree with this quite a bit. In fact, it is one reason why I tend to have socialist leanings.
First off, thanks for the book recommendation, I needed one. It’s very interesting to think about how, in the first instance you put forth, people not only so readily gave up age old games and traditions, but in fact allowed such games and traditions to flourish for so long against even their own sensibilities. I wonder if there’s something to be said for that.
This is an amazing quote and has pushed Derrida higher up on my list of must-reads (I need to start delving into French postmodernism). My friend and I were just now discussing economics and how there are the subfields of normative economics, which is bound by ideologies and social norms, and positive economics, which attempts to divorce economic science from petty social upheavals and norms. We both agreed that the latter is a fairly futile effort because all thought, in truth, is normative, is based on precedent and value judgments, and has a structural center that is both within and without, as Derrida postulates. Positive economics tries to capture this center in its rightful place, which is nigh impossible. This effort never takes into account that cause and effect makes it so that one structure, as it exists wholly, in itself often becomes the center of another structure, and so and so forth so that a continuum of structures comes out of it.
Shit, I need to read Derrida. With whom should I begin: Deleuze, Foucault, Baudrillard, or Derrida?
Sim, there really is, in my view, absolutely no substitute (!) for reading Derrida himself - I honestly get a little giddy when I think about it, and even more so when someone agrees with me! You have to really invest in it, but I think the rewards are extensive. From the same website, the following are in the same vein (and from the same historical moment) as ‘Structure, Sign & Play…’:
It is also worth trying to find some of his interviews, if you can. The three in Positions are a good start. I could certainly recommend some stuff on the others (Foucault especially), but you might want to start with Derrida as he seems most pertinent.
The point you make about centres is interesting, because the idea of an endless chain of structurations is what I have always taken from Derrida. He called this process an “economy” in a number of texts - we build up structures (games, if you like) to make life coherent, so that we can manage (economise) our existence. Likewise, we might be able to de-construct those games to see how they function, but it won’t allow us to escape, other than perhaps to a different game. Freeplay, then, would be the closest thing to a democratic process we could hope to achieve within our game-playing metaphysical existence (cue Faust…).
in my opinion the ideas of one who would classify thereself as a nihilist are like post-operative instructions for a hand-grenade written on the explosive.
