So at ACLA I walked up to this presenter and asked if his paper were coming out anytime soon, so I could cite it. It was Lee E., although I had no idea who it was at the time since I had not read the program closely. The paper is not coming out anytime soon but he did know of the philosopher I am writing on and said “e-mail me.”
So I have to e-mail, which means I have to be randomly coherent about what I’m interested in. I can paste in my abstract, below the fold as they say, and of course I can also trade manuscripts. I have two finished ones even though I don’t really have a readable one from ACLA, either.
But to say why I am interested–here are my notes, which are very fragmentary:
- Is the comparison of [globality] violent? cf. Wilderson
- Spillers // other theorists // Warren
- Blackness is historically produced by a grammar that excludes it
- The unconscious is not structured like a language but like something in set theory
- Blackness allows non-being to appear
- Lacan: “ce n’est pas ça”
- Fanon – who is also a psychoanalyst
- “Cut off from intellectual life” – who/what
- Lacan gets us out of exceptionalism
- Figures vs. the thing in itself: we take the figure for the thing in itself and we get exceptionalism
In the meantime I might as well write down some other notes, on the organizer from Oxford.
- Yale French Review 1977, Shoshana Felman, literature and psychoanalysis go together — IT IS A QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION
- Derrida, 4 essays, Geschlecht
- Derrida on psychoanalysis, 1981
- [Derrida], torture in Latin America and the axiomatics of presence. Temporary torture and a flourishing psychoanalytic culture. Me: so he was talking about Argentina. What did he mean here, what was the essay, will it irritate me no end or will it be illuminating? Why did I never trust Derrida? (Was I onto something? Look at his relationship with Avital.)
Axé.
coldhearted scientist وداد 