[MD] the Romantic/Classical split

[MarshaV]

The following is removed from its embedded context, but still says something 
important about the spin and the box:    

---
    "Luce Irigaray offers a more detailed picture of women's pleasure in language.  
In "This Sex Which Is Not One," she  argues that woman's desire cannot "be 
expected to speak the same language as man's; woman's desire has doubtless 
been submerged by the logic that has dominated the West since the time of the 
Greeks".  Woman has often been defined by lack, lack of a penis, lack of logic, 
lack of power.  Irigaray, however, contends that woman lacks no/thing.  For 
example, she has multiple sex organs, beginning with her labial lips.  Indeed, 
"she finds pleasure almost anywhere. [. . .]  The geography of her pleasure is 
far more diversified, more multiple in its differences, more complex, more subtle,
than is commonly imagined.

Women's Language, Irigaray asserts, registers her multiple sources of pleasure:
    
     [In her language,] "she" sets off in all directions leaving "him" unable
     to discern the coherence of any meaning.  Hers are contradictory 
     words,  somewhat mad from the stand point of reason, inaudible for 
     whoever listens to them with ready-made grids, with a fully elaborated 
     code in hand. [. . .]  She steps ever so slightly aside from herself with 
     a murmur, an exclamation, a whisper, a sentence left unfinished . . .
     When she returns, it is to set off again from elsewhere.  From another 
     point of pleasure or of pain.  One would have to listen with another 
     ear, as if hearing an ---"other meaning" always in the process of 
     weaving itself with words, but also getting rid of words in order not
     to become fixed, concealed in them.---"

---

And she twirled and whirled and she tangoed...   


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--T_z-ftbts&playnext=1&list=PL41C251D6C0F3549B




On Mar 10, 2011, at 6:02 PM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote:

> Am i making sense? (Marsha.)
> 
> Lately I've been thinking about RMP's adamant statement that between
> ZMM and LILA, LILA is the more important book.  Why?  What is the most
> profound difference?   It is the transformation from Classical/Romantic to
> Dynamic/static.  In leaving behind the literary-historical terms "romantic"
> and "classical" the emphasis has transformed from one of form to affect.
> The Dynamic/static represents the affect, the experience, the intensity in
> the response, regardless of the form.
> ----------------------------------------------
> 
> Classic/romantic=> hybridism in philosophy
> Dynamic/static=>  hybridism in philosophy
> Form/affect=> hybridism in philosphy
> Radical empiricism/pragmatism=> hybridism in philosphy
> Direct expirience/conceptualisation =Hybridism in Philosophy,
> (Pirsig)
> Dynamic Quality/static quality=>stepping away from
> hybridism in Philosophy by placing Quality itself on top of the pyramid.
> 
> (James),Empiricism/pragmatism, never moved out of the hybrid form, Pirsig
> actually improved William's work.
> 
> Now , Marsha ,
> Yin/ yang.=> hybridism in Buddistic philosophy,particle wave duality at the
> core
> is it static quality or dynamic quality?
> 
> Print out the symbol representing yin and yang, cut it out of the paper with
> a scissor, ..now put a needle in the center and hold it between your finger
> and thumb, spin it around fast, it will move up to dynamic quality as the
> opposite of
> static quality.
> You stepped it out of the hybrid form. This is what Robert did with quality.
> 
> So yes you made sense, more than you think.
> Try it
>