Ealited by ‘Thomas Dutoit Univery Seoford California es ON THE NAME Jacques Derridaspi form ele ithe sae ef aeconnston of a ieee habe ef be aon fli He a ‘Seale er rn de es eos Wh ne Seperate ie a ‘el or sehr eo ew The le ih drawing up in conclusion this statement of deficit, snd 10 heli ng eee cy ‘apply hi with te tol he lcd de ruc modelo cyte en ofthe ot tm age a ~ Siri arora Mh tind Ge § Khora ira eaches ws, and asthe name, And when a name comes, immediacy says more than the name: the other ofthe ame ead tite simply the other, wos ruprion the mame announces, Ths ‘announcement doesnot yet promise, no more than i heaton, Te nether promises nor threaens anyone, ltl emis alien tothe ervon, only naming imminenes, even only an imminence thats alin to the myth, the time, and the history of every posible promise and cree. is wel knowns what Po in the Timaene designates by the ‘name of Ahir cems ode tha "logic of nonconteaiction ofthe philsophes” of which Vermant speaks, cha loge“ binary of the yes oF no.” Hence ie might pechps deive fom tht lose ‘ther than the logic of the Jeoe” The Bhina which i acter “Sensible” nor “ili,” belongs to a “hind genus” Coon eas 48 52), One cannot even sy oft tha iis acter hit or ‘har or thc ii och his and that, I snot enough to eal tag ‘hire names neiher his or that, og that bhi maya thi and has ‘The diiculydecared by Timaeus x shown in dfeent way. at times the Ad appears tobe nether thie noe th, at times bath this and chat, but this alteration berween the logic ofexlsion snd that ofparcicipation—we shall earn to this at lenght pethaps only from a provisional pearance and from the cot Steins of heroric, even from some incapacity for axing, %| Kine ‘The bir scm tobe alien othe onder ofthe paraign,” dat ineligible and immusable model And yet, “invisible” and with ‘out sensible form, ie “paniipst” inthe ineligible in a very twoubleome and indeod aperctic way (porate, sb). A least we shall not be lying, adds Timacus, at Last we shall not be saying what sas (ou pedomesba) in deelatng this. The prudence of ‘this negative formulation give reaon fo ponder. Not lying, not saying wha file this necessarily eng the tah? And, his respec, what about etimony, bearing witness sonoinngel? ‘Ler us reall once more, under the heading of our preliminary approach, that he discourse on che thin ais pete doesnot proced from the nature of lgcimte lg but eather fom a bybrid, baad, or even corruped resoning (lpi net) Ie comes “ain a dreamt (3b), which could just a wall deprive io Tuc 2s confer upon ia power or divination. DDoes such 2 discourse derive, thea, from enyh? Shall we gin ces to the thought ofthe Abe by continuing ro place ou ust inthe akernativelgs!myts? And whatif his though called fora hind genus of icone? And whit if erhap ain the case of ‘the Ahir this appeal othe chin gence was only the moment of 3 etour inorder signal coward a genre Beyond genre? Beyond categories, and above all beyond categoria oppositions which in ‘the Bi place alow ic wo be approached or ud? ‘Asa token of gatiude and admiration, here then i homage in the form of a gueton co JeanPiere Vernant. The question ie ‘aressed ro the one whe taught ws so much and gave us so much, pause for cought bout the opposition myth ages cereal, but also about the uncesing inverion of poles 9 the suthor of "Raisons du mythe” and of Ambigid trensercements how ae we to think dat which, while going ouside ofthe realty ofthe ego lav ts natal legate genealogy, nevertheless docs not belong src smn to mela? Beyond che retarded or johnny come lately opposition of lgerand mtho, how sone to think the ‘scsi ofthat which, while ing placeto that oppiion a0 %0 ‘many others, ems somesimis to be itl no lange eubjct othe law of che very thing which i imate) What ofthis pce? Tee Kine ot rnameable! And woulds it have some impossible relation tothe Posiiliy of naming? Is there something to think there, a hare js so hastily sid, and to chink according to nce? ‘The scion of which we have just spoken is nt an osilation among other, an ociltion berween two poles. It oclates be- ‘een owo types of osilation the dale exclusion (chao) and the participation (boo hit and thar). But have we the igh 0 ‘eznsport the logic the par-logic a the mete-ogi of this supe. ‘xii from one set to the othe? Feconcered fis ofall ypes of exinent thing (ensble/intligibe, vsble/invsble. form! formless, icon, of mimeme/paradigm), but we have diplaced it ‘ovard types of discourse (mya lage) of elation to what sor ‘snot in general. Nodoubr such displacement i not seeder 1 depends on 2 sor of metonymy: such 2 mewnymy would displace ive, by displacing the names, from ype [gene] of being to rpes [gene of discourse. But on the one bund eis slays dificult, particulary in Pato, ro separate the two problen stics the quality ofthe discourse depends primarily on the quality ofthe bing of which speaks. Ie ialmoet ss ifa name shold oly be given 10 whom (orto what) deserves it and cals for ity The Aiscouze, ike che telaton to hat which sin generis qualified ot Alsquale by whac ie relates to. On the other hand, the metony ‘ny is authorized by passing through gow rom one gene othe oer fom the question ofthe genes ype of being tothe quer tion ofthe pes of discourse. Now the disourte om the Bhi also a discourse on genteltype (gens) and on diferene tper of ‘ype. Later we will gon to gence gens o people (gnos ede), 4 theme which appears ac the opening ofthe Tinaeus ln the nartow context on which we are doling at preset, that ofthe Sequence onthe Bhs, we shall encounter two further genres of gence or typeof type. The hina ton gear view ofthe two ‘ypesof being (immutable and incligbe/eoerapeble, inthe pro ‘sof becoming and sensible), bat seems to be equally deer |a Kira ‘ined with regaed wo the seal ype: Timaeus speaks of mothe” 2d “ure”in garde this subject He doce hisin a mde which ‘weshllnorbe ins hary zo name. Almost al the interpreters ofthe Tims gamble here on the sources of rhetoric without ever wondering about them. They speak tranguily about meaphors, Timages, simile! They ade themecires no querions about thie tradition of sherri which places at thir disposal a reserve of ‘concepts which ae very ureful but which ae al but upon eis scincion berween the seable and che ineligible, which is precely what the thought ofthe Bin an no longer get along ‘with- disineon, indeod, of which Pao unambiguous les it bbeknown that his thoughchas the geste dificly geting slong, ithe This problem ofsherri—parculaly ofthe possibly af ‘aming—Is, here, no mere side se, Nor its importance limited to some pedagng, ltentve, or instrumental dimension (hose ‘wh speaeofmeraphor with gard othe bhineoen add didacsc ‘netaphor), We sallbe conten for the moment wth indiccing i, and siceting it, Bu it ileal clear dat, jus Uke che Band with ura much neces cannot eal besuated, assigned co A residence: itis more stating than tated, an opposition which ‘ust ints tu be shielded fom some grammatical or ontological slreative benven the active and the passive. We shall not speak ‘of mets bur notin onder hae, for example, shar the hon is propria mothe, nuse a receptacle, abeare of mprines orgld Tris peshape beaut itr sope goes beyond or falls shor of the Polar of metaphorical sense vesus proper sense thatthe thought ‘ofthe tira exceds che poarcy, no doubt analogous, of the mythor andthe lpr Soch a least would be the question which we should like here to puro the es of reading, The consequence which we cnvisage would be the felling: with these to polarities, the thought of the fom would trouble che very onde of pola of polarity in gener, whether dialectical oF not. Giving place ro ‘positions it woul telf not submi any reer. And tie, ‘which is another comequence, would not be because it would Inaterably be duff beyond it name bur Because in easeying be- yond the polarity af sense (metaphosel or proper it would no Hr 93 longer belong throm fet noo that of eating he ‘meaning of being. ee ‘Ace these precautions an these negative hypotheses, you wi unestand iy tha eel he mae se iced Sony ulation, A arson, amined scm to bales war, both the Giecklangaageand fom the ie ange ate ome otic Lets ocr an often ae Thing ae inghere mene the same experince, it mus beaempec ich an perience or experiment epee inna only bt fone focaword ofan am of esning bso fora whole poli ste ust yea iat, and fr wan of pent inorder © mame them the ement of this ‘wopalogr® Wath, they concern the word fs nl pee” “enon” vegan” country) o& what wadidon el the fguree—comparvons i ages and meaphoo propose by Tinaess Cmoticr” "arses sepale” “prin bene), he anton rer cg a sesvors of inepreaon.They a led ay by fevepetie rojecons, which can alway be suet of big enchrotic ‘Thi anachronism i nor nary now aay td 0 ely veakes flom whics vila goo inerpren wld Beale to cape ently Weslo show ta vrane pes Som Bren Hedge who enone one oe ely oer nee tspeak of metapor” ei ous told ots eeog launched bythe very thing tht appears to give ic place. Even then ‘we shall have to cea! ate, isising oa i in 2 more analy ‘manne, tha here place, scoring to our idiom, place given, to give place ere does nor come tothe sume ching at to make @ present af pace. The expression ge play doesnot eer othe gesture of a danorsubjees, the support or orgin of something ‘which would comet be given to someone Dept thee tmidly preliminary character, these remake per- rit us perhaps to glimpse the slhouete of “loge” which seme irually imposible to formalie. Wil his "logi”ellbe logic “a foun of lagi,” to take up Vemant’s saying when he speak ofa “form of logic’ of myth which must be "formulated, of cven formalized”? Sach loge of myth exis, no doubt, but Our que tion earns: does the thought of ing, which obviouly dose not etive fom he “logic of aoncontraditon of che philosopher,” belong tothe space of mythic thoughe Is the "basear” gr which is regulated according to i fe, scordng to mythic thought— ‘Tela a mast ‘Lt us tke the time for slong detour. Lee ut consider the manner in which Hegel specalaive dialectic inscribes mythic ‘hough in lelogcl perspective, One can sty of his dice ‘that sand chat cis nota loge of noncontaditon Ie inegrats and sublacscontadiztion as rach. Inthe same way it sublats tthe dcoune ar rich into the piloropheme, “According 1 Hegel, philosophy becomes serous—and we ae also thinking afr Hegel and acconing 19 him, flowing his thought—only fom ce moment when itenesinta the sure pth of loge: that is after having abandoned, or let ur rather ssy sublaed, its mythic fom: after Plato, with Plo. Philosophical logic comes to its seses when the concept wakes up fom ie mythological slumber Sleep and waking, forthe even, consi ina simple unveling the making explici and taking cognizance ofa plilosopheme enveloped in ts irl potene. The myrheme will Kine ror sare bes ot + pehinpheme ofc and pried 1 Gidea Ahlan Tle ele fare ane ais the ine of naratve butane of the ung sae of arama ten of nae Reson Hele hledctnding is "end Cra ands book, plain nd play ofc Pope pel of the Gato) The tog les of enn, neh pecan of ng specie “plilsophsng” (io) Thee phonons eho Ive ued inode to bang pilopemes dae oe imognaon (Phot) Bo "ie corn of mp gi (ii). The myc dmenon tin femal ind exit Pack my te "bw" one wuld be wong wo th hat ints ae mori (ofc than he at ae ‘expen ny Pt cue to my ny ie ‘eno “inporns” (Unrest Pe moda of though” Ra twain pn bere das Sonlyin eh inseduton othe dogs an inodacton i noe pur phils you heow what Hegel is oF inaedsconsand pein gel When eos eng inal othe pcp bjs Rat xpress que the ve et arin ofthe ements for tangle the spl Scemizasos of hough do without inage and my Hoge Siecle bres ach cents he mete Burne or th be. The Prisionero he snus o myth ance on fri whch ly Shc eposton damintr 0 many eon tel ‘oval Aaglo Son ought opostion beeen the “outst the nonstop heh tht of plop ‘nc and of Ino mye i. The mt ot Plsophial hough, wih soto say sur mee Sucdby the sonny chante oss Hag he pn Sasa acount tee oso and Ao ss fanmae For afer ing deed sha" rae of Pla Sve das ot din yt lr Wer Pong se ic inden My.) Hegel quoter and ea ee Is ‘pprprie fo don thc We Know le sree in ping a it,or Rhine before approaching his problem directs how greta wright the ‘Aristotelian interprecaton of the Timaeus aren in the history of the interpretacions, Hegel wants then, or paraphrses, the Msp ott ty pods eopontvn ce dir pnd exons ony Yon denen, welche mytichphloopiee, i nicht der Mie swe ech 2 handel ‘Thos who philosophize with eoune wo myth ate at wrth eating seriou. “Hegel scems to oxclitebeoncen sno interpretations. Ina philo- sophical vex, the Function af myth ia cme sgn of pulosophi- cal impotence, the incapaciy to acede to the concepts ach and to keep co it a ther times the index ofa dialectic and above all Aidsctic potency the pedagogic marery ofthe setious philosopher in fll posasion of the philoeopheme Simultaneously or sc- cessive, Hegel seems to reengnize in Plato both this impotence tnd this maser. These wo evaluations are only apparent conea- Aicory or are so ony up co a certain point. They have this in common: the subordination of myth, a a dscusive frm, tothe cetens ofthe signified eonecpt, to the mening, which ini essence, can only be philosophical. And the pilosophca theme, the signified concept, whatever may be is formal presentation philesophicl or mythic—alwaye remains the force of lam the mastery or the dynasty of discourse. Here one can sce the thread af ur question pang by: if bhonrhas no meaning or etence she ‘snocaphilsopheme and if neverhels, she neither the abject nor the form of ible of mythic type, where can she be sisated in this schema? Apparently contactor, but in fc profoundly coherent, thi logico-philosophieal evaluation is not applied to Plato Ie derives already from a cerain "PLtonism.” Hegel does not rad Plato ‘through Asoc asf doing someching unknown to Pat, a ithe [Hegel were deciphering s praticewhote meaning would have remained inacesible to the author ofthe Timaew A. cerain Kine i programme ofthis estion ems lea lle in ti work, a ‘weal vei Be perhaps wih one revatio, and hsp sentry reseration could dg, tlc, and theby ace he ‘ai progamie. Fi, the programme. The comogony ofthe Tae ans through he le ofnowleeon ll hinge I englopedi end smusimack tht, th tb os ron the nite of ering thai "tcl 2g ep 70 vib wn tn No 4» Ee "And now a ng we my tha our douse oncrning the Universe ha reached i emanation (2). ‘This engylopdie ois a gene ontology esting all he ‘ype fein, includes a helogy cosmology psiolgy 2 pycholgy, & ology. Moral or local, human and dive, Ville and invisible things ae stated there. By reling tn Concison, on ick up the dsincion beewen the vise ving thing, for ample, the sensible go, and the ineligible gol of hich cs the image (cn. The esto thc heavens (omens) slving vile thing end ses god is unique and lone oi rez, "monogenic” ‘And yet tl-may trough the ce, wot the dscouse on Abie kav opened, betwen the sone and the inaligblebe- longing neither to one nor w the ote, hence nether tothe cosmos a sensible god nor the inte god an appucly expt sace—eren though no doubt not enpines? Dit name a gaping opening, a aye ora cha To arin ot foes thi chasm i ich the clewage betwen these theinellighle,nded,berwees body and sol ca have place and take plac? Let us not be to any abou binging th chan tamed tire lst the chon which i opens he ying al fe sys Ler said hinge cheahopocorphic fom tnd the pas of igh Nota order to inealni place he sscuty of a foundation, the “act counteract of what Cala ‘epesens for any erature, ce her appearance, the on of the word asable foundation, sre foral cri, opposed othe fPping ond booms opening of Chaos”* We sal iter cnoane {Sra bie allson of Fieger o hn noe othe ein the | |104 Kine imaeusbt, ouside ofall quoraton and all precie reference, the ‘one which ia Plato would designate the place (On) berween the ‘xen and being? the “ference” or place bereen the m0. ‘The ontlogico-eacydopedic conclusion ofthe Timea seems ‘o cover over the open chasm inthe middle ofthe book. What it would thus cover ovr, closing the gaping mouth of the qus- bunned discourse on Hii would perhaps nor only be ce abs between the sensible andthe inthe, been being and noch ingnss, berseen being and the leit being, nor even pesaps between being andthe exient, no yet between lige and mos, burbeeneenal hes couples and snotherwhich would no even be ‘eirother If hee is indeed a chasm in the middle of che book, «sort of abyss “in” which chre ian steempr to tink of sy this abyseal chusm which would be ira, che opening ofa place “is” which everything woud, atthe sume time, come to take place and be flee oe hese ate images which are insted cher), eit Ingnifcane that a mie on abyme regulates a cerain order of composition of the discourse? And tha i goes ofa 0 regulate even this mode of thinking or af saying which mrt be similar ‘without being identi tothe one which practiced onthe ederof the chasm? Is i insignificant that this mae en bye ales the forms of a discoune on placer [lan notably plcal places, 2 polis of place entirely commanded by dhe consideration of tes Uline) Gobs in the society, region, territory, county), a see signed to ype of forms of doar? Mise en eye of the discourse on Bia sie (e of polis, police of sites [dew], such would be, then, she seuenure ofan ‘overpriting without a base [At che opening ofthe Timaews thee ate considerations ofthe guardians ofthe city the curators and the arian, the division of labor and eduction. Let ut note in puting, although ie i an analogy whose structure is formal snd extemal: those who ate Kone ta rained as guardians of the ciy will not have anything that is ropely ther own (iin), neither gold nor aies, They “will recive he slay of thee rank rom those they proses” (8). To Ihave nothing chat sone own, not even the gold which sche only {hing comparable ot (00, ise thie lo the sation ofthese, the condition of #hint? This question can be asked, cren if one docs not wis ro take i sesioulys however formal it nay be the analogy is scarcely contesable, One an ay the same thing shout ‘he remark which follows immediately (fe) and touches on the ducation of women, on marriage, and above all, withthe most pronounced insistence, onthe community of cilden All posible ‘measures mest be tale in onder to ensue that no-one can know and recognize ahs own (ide the cilsen who ate bora (8), In proceeation (paidpotie), any aewibuion or natural o legit ‘mate propery should find its exhadd by the very milieu ofthe «gt Ione bears in mind the firth moment ag the eet had prescribed a similar education for men and fr women, wo mst ‘be prepared for the same activities an forthe ame functions, one an sl follow the ctead ofa formal analogy, namely, that ofthe said “comparison” of bine with che mother and, a supplementary sign of expropriation, with che nurse. This comparion does not assure e/he of any property, inthe ene of the subjective genitive ‘orn the sense ofthe objective genitive: either che proper oft senewix (he engenders nothing and, beds, poets no prop ‘xy atl), nor the ownership of children, those images ofthe father who, bythe way is no moe thet owner than ithe mathe, This is enough to say about the impropriety of the wid coe Parioa. Buc we are pethapslreay in sit lis where del ‘he proper no longer has any meaning. Let ws consider even the pola strategy of marige,Iaanifestsatlaton of sbyal and analogs tefl with wht willbe sid ater about kre about ‘the “tides” oseves(siomena se, a) shake in oder 0 sore or select the “gran” andthe “sed the law ofthe beret is cossed ‘witha cectsn chance. Now from che frst pages of the Times ina Purely political discourse, are described the spparatines intended ‘to bring about in secrete aeanging oF mattiages in oder ha the106 Kine children will be born with the best posble naturales, And this docs not happen without some drawing of lots (bey 18d) Tet usexplain ieaconce. These formal analogies ofthese mit on aly, refined subtle (0 subtle, some wil think) ae nt consid ‘xed ere, in he fr place on premier as acs boldness oF secrets of formal composition: the at of Plat the weer! The are Inceests sand ough odo 2 more el, but whats importa in ‘his very place ie} mame), and fst of al independently ofthe supposed intentions of a compose, are the constints which protkce these analogs. Shall e say tha they constte a pr “gramme? A lgewhose athorey was imposed on Plt? Yes, upto point only nd this limit appears in the abys ie the being- programe ofthe programme, ts sructre of pre inscription and ‘of typographic prescription forms the explici theme ofthe di ‘course en abymcon Ain, The late gues the place of scription, ofall she marked om the world ike the beinglogial of Tog its essential lous whether ie be ee, probable, or mychi, fms the explicit theme ofthe Timaeus, 36 we shall ye have ‘occasion wo explain, Thus one cannor ily, with no further ado, call bythe name pragane ot lp the form which dcees to Piao the law of uch a composion: progamme and logic are spprehended in it, ar uh, chough ic bein a dream, and pat en thyme. “Having esken this precstion with regard to analogies which righ sem imprudent, le us seal che most general ult which och gathers and authorizes thes displacements, rom one place t0 the other “i” the “tame” place [liu] eis obvious, roo obvious cen whe novced, and ts generality has, to pea no othe limit ‘han tel iti precnly thf the gnos of he gens in all genders and geners, of seal dference, ofthe genestion of cldren, of ‘he hinds of being and of tha rion genr which bhai (either sensile nor intl, “ie” a mother ora nurse, et). We have justalluded wall these genres of gents, but we have not yet spoken ofthe geseas race’ people, group, community, afiniy of biz, raion, et, Now wee thre, Sl the opening of the Timae there i eiled an cater Rhine ae roaching the enigma of hr. ° Fir ecurece 0 write forte chil Sach 8 reaches us, bornem4 Kiva bys fon wih el ola se pec of ic old Erpin pis ps Gmething foral n ype ‘oalwring Hep my ques ou Gee he 4p Solon, you ae Hie cen, fr you have no writen teal, Aes eta you hve o iment eethng Hoe in Bere certing is writen (poe grammer sins te mom cin ne (ck pln) (23, ads 0 en Jour ow Keo the history of you Grek You dot kaow where yout pret iy come es othe wh orice equ case trope din herr wchow ving ben capable of expresing themes in wating G3). Deprived of wien archives ou are trou in your genealogist chdih mh” (9), ce you Have no wing ou ned myth “This xchange or widow oe fra pardon. Asche thot ison the memory facts oe ented oe cnlyoavting buco the wing of ects tothe carat Sots ci ta tsb made tre oe one Be tard, and isndeoqusion olan, of rings metry (a0 by witng on the wal fees, Te Bing meron nar. te exiled wo de gape wets of enter plat wich I io tothe cy and another polite space, Bu the techno gapic ‘peony of the gpa i nonce borne the sere ofthe Grek you Geko sep all enn all Sot us i sd pf Nutrosand gear wer your expla thw your i they sr ee by wg Lemmon] and sine The tmemory of pope nse, ppropeatedby another peopl or even by aot ears phenoreon inte btry of canes wll known ashe Hr a sonntion. Bu he ex apes Tiphly cise here the memory e dponted, ensued vo 8 pot onthe shor of people ich dere bre met sation, hv dependence, ks bord, The Een ‘appa! co hve spproprated the ctr ofthe Ges en, tho now depend on tit porno heer wring {nthe nomen Thoth o Heme chore ou pee er ths dour of the pes—or Egypan inepreer—i nerd hina = there and interpreted in Greek, for the Gres, Will we eve know ‘io is holding his scourse onthe dialesc of the maser and te slave and on the wo memories! Second eccirrenc: mcie and perpetuate cided. So Cie ‘spore tle of Solon, who himlfrepors the tle which an “Egypian pies told him on the subject ofthe mycological found sion, precisely inthe memory of the Athena. Sul more pres cisely: Cis repeat a ale which he had already cold che nigh before and in the couse of which he reported « convenation besween Solon and Crs, his gree grander, «conversion hich had been recounted to him wea he was a child by has sncrsor Crt, who himself ha herd from Solon the account of ‘he alle which the lates had had in Egypt with theo pis, the same one who explained co im inshore wy all he Grech area the mexey of ota alereling of the oral tradition which, by iibon eno the pon on, het wpb gear ats, tomenbat ke Soca, nepal of Hea iin locators a diferent ens nd this postop wll me them spa wile according tem te neesary ight nd compete fort In lacngMiaelfand in endring up the word Soc sexnsalo to induceand prog he disoutse oftinadrer,ma Kine howe lintener and receiver he aes to become. Who will speak henceforth through their mouths? Will it be ehey, Sora ad- Adresses! Or Socrates, their addres? The goer of those who by ature and by education pariciate in he ewo order, philosophy and polices ‘ua éugorépov gee xa pooh westyr,” 208, sees ‘ul thar being asigned the word by the one who eclades hse fom thee genrand pretends wo belong co the onorf he simula So young, Citas aceps (F4) to recount a tale which he had slready told the night before, on the eoad, scoring to od oral tatons (pales abos, 20d). Inthe couse of thistle, which, ‘he night befor, already repeated an od and illdetermined tad tion, young Cras recounts another tl (Fs), which old Cit, his ners, ad himself wd of a conversation Which he (aid he) Jan with Solon, 2 conversation ia the course of which the ler ‘elazes(F) in is turns convertion which he (sid he) had with sn Egypian pie and inthe course of which theater rates (F7) in his tum the orga of Ashen according to Egyptian spc "Now itis inthis las ale (he fis one in the Series of narrative reas, che lst one tobe ported thistling of eling ha the reference o Egyptian wing reruns. Inch course ofthis clase tale the mos mythic in i form ie ia matter of reminding the Greeks, who have remained childven, of what the childhood of ‘Ahens wat. Now, Athens ira figuration of cy which, though it Aid noe hve the comec sage OF writing, nonetilee served 36 ‘model co dhe Egypian city ffom which the pis catne—hence ax an casmplary paradigm inthe place fom which, in shor, he sdvances this ae. Thar place, which seems inspire or produce ‘he le thus has another place, Athens, ses model, So itis Athens or its people who, a5 the apparent addrestees or receptacles of the tale, would thus be, according to the priest himself its uneres, producers, or inspites is informer. Tnfction Frise writen, lee us never forget that—there thos ereloped a theory ofa prcesion of wring refering, in wring, to an otigin older than ise (F). TInche center berween Fs and Fs sort of reves an apparent Kin ss cxtatope and happen th we thik wee ping hen 4 lt into ely extng fon the snare eke ‘hing laine enfin inthe pce ofthe soopapie ‘eta sh gay at Sone me nr congrats hief hee on pang oe to ns og ead sping beyond te inanimate ptcing open tore ovn ag Tedd, aplas when Cras anounces to hm that be Beng ely to reount what his gander al kim Seo fa told him on he bjt of whan pian peat ad one os tim sout “he manos caplet scoped by te i (onthe bing he petal” pom dor eto). Theor we wiley nicking te argent Se Ans nest be th af Gane an See which tae been mc or ee wuld nore been the pate of Thast wel pies Soom ini cam, cles ke pg onto akat once whet i thie chs fre work (ap) hich war not eer only a on,» oe someting tomething ones coment oak about loner) br re igh ft ral sccompled (om) by at yn oer ins about whch Slo hashed el ‘Weught ten, pst lt of fx (on vey ely accomplished. Now whatkuppen Lew nts tarts coe, ‘il would come from Sons mouth, him gute by oe frvcmton of Crinee Now whois Slo? isha rete pot of ei If pola gency ade him he vr ode him it eins he old hve srs Heo omer ee). Res the Socrates hs js sour poc fer te “reas which he tex prewndd oa sr faer ec of uy hich debs even more th fms ofthe tees andes Icaccensnes the mami econ beeen he ht fit rad she etal fein beeen on hoe had the peng the lis which her sited with hice fen, « Sable and wasmisnble meanings let enoy f+ knoe ‘dlge—and onthe ther and eal it aie heh ae thefocm of yt many ees oF -hying”Cegomeno) wne4 Kiva cotgin appeuts aways undefined, pulled back, ented to 2 re sponsby hat ie forever adjourned, without a fed and deer minable subjec. From ane tling tothe next, the author gets fares and further away. So the mythic sping resembles a di course without a lgtimaefaher. Orphan or baad, te distin {ished from the philosophical laos which, as is said in the Phaedra, mst have a father wo answer fos ie and about i. Tie familial schema by which one situates dicoure wll be found agin at work t che momencofsuatng iF wean el my tithe place (a) af any sce [ie] namely ha On the one hand, Hee ‘would be the “reaeptaclea i were, the nurse—of any bir” (aon even yee boBoxiy dusiyofov Oy" 42). Asa nurse, She thus drives fiom that tersiam quid whose loge come ‘mands al that is atcbuted tit, On che othe hand, ice arr ‘0, another sable “eomprizon” is proposed eo wi “And itis convenient to compare [prise pepe] the reepacle 0 = mother, the paradigm to's fier, and che intermediary mature Deoween therwo rac [lgonon ed)-And yet, wo follow chis ‘othe igure, although ic no longe has the place ofthe nurse but that ofthe mother, Bhne does nx couple wih che father in exer ‘words, withthe paradigmatie model. She ira thd gender] gent (480) she does nor belong wo an oppesional couple, for example, to that which the ineligible paradigm forms with the sensible becoming and which looks rater lke afaher/son couple. The “nother” issupposedly apart. And since ie only a figure aschera, therefore one ofthese determinations which Bhonrecives, hire rrmore oF mother than a nurse no more than a woman. Tht ‘ton gnass nota gens, is ofall because ia unig individ tal She doc noe belong to the race of women’ (gem gma)? ‘Rhine ate place spat, the pacing which keeps a desymts- cal relation tall ha which, "in heel” beside o in adi to herlf tems to make a coupe with het Inthe coupe ouside of the couple this erange mother who gives place without engende- Jing en no longer be considered at an origin. Shit cher all anthope-theslogial schemes, all history, al teelation, and all ‘rath. Preoriginany, bie and outside ofall generation, she no Kine ny loages een has the meaning of past, of «pron ds pas fre sis vo tempor ane The Wn of ncsper dene. onan ols re ik elation oft ace Orchestre init to be ae And ete dco on Ann conde by tu retane ing witht leimat ber los stmt), nog ‘ted by sew eum wou tthe gin new ig of ic ‘aks inthe nlc rpacon, Harr es fois ne) fe tothe le of the Tinane its ayn In popes tne by Arete! by tnovements which reume from een Eat ack the hing aed de ih face ack, Ths en ery a lie wo ata, ee rites eon Cae ft pha aa san wha mune i rr te ce mano Some a eee nape eer Sr Stone hen fot ce dna oven hor ws Sevarice evil nobega aint hegnning. We illo go back si stemmed ae fie pipe cements ogy (ia pam. We ms go fats one ke opto ‘reorhing th we were ao one ee she ne brctkindandclw nde neces Shodan bow he oppron fe pup ae a so ‘Ande in nr todo thi ts anon i cut ihe ‘mad ol proba Bian Cay et ef torn iv eb Ba” dein ones repose olvidarte plc Now ets de ‘hs nw beginning more amy than sr fa We thes de fed er ome Bn of ing now me ms pn cos hid opt do ye bani Lec us take things up again from farther back, which can be “ antl tha le go bk bind and bow the sed Scour of hal which cet by opens of pn26 Kine ple and counts on the origin as on 4 normal couple, We must go buck coward a preoign which deprives ws of cis ssrance and fequire atthe same ime an impure philosophical dscouse, ‘hreatened, bastard, hybrid. These ais ae noe negative They do not dscedia discourse which woud simply be interior to philor ophy, for ic is admiedly not teu, mecly probable i lel wha is necesary’ on the subject of necessig The strange ificaly ‘of his whole tet lis indeed in the distinction berween thee v0 modalities the true andthe necesary. The bod stoke consis het in going back behind and below the origin, or othe bist, ‘ovrard a neces which e neither generative nor tigendered and hich caries philosophy, precedes” (psioe wo de rime thas passe octheceeral imebefore history) and “receives he eee, hee the age ofopposions (ineligible and sensible philoopty. This ccs (hires surname) sems 0 virgin that doesnot cen have the igite oF ign any Longe ‘The dscouse on hint thus plays fr philosophy role anao- fous tothe role which Aha “hersl™ plays for that whic piloso- Phy speak of namely, the cosmos formed o given form according to the paradigm. Neverheles, tis ftom thi coumor thatthe proper—bur necessary inadequste—igures wll be taken for de- serbing hin: receptacle, imprine bearer, mothe, o ure. These figues are not even tre ures, Philosophy cannot spel dey, whether in the mode of wiglance or of truth (rue or probable) shout what these figures approach. The dream is etwec the cvo, ‘either one north other, Philosophy ean speak philosophical ofthac which looks ike ts “mothe, ts “nure” ie reopracle,”o its “imprint bearer” As ruc, i peas ony ofthe fter and the ton, 8 he fther engendered ital on his ova, ‘Once agin, a homology or analogy tha isa ett formal: in ‘otto hin thn is necessary to go back toa beginning hai ‘older than the begining, namely the birch of the coum, jus the ogi of the Athenians must he reclled to them rom beyoad thei ow memory In tha which s formal about precisely the analogy is declared: concern fr archiecarl text (hielo ‘al) and even organi composition is presented ar such alte Kone “7 fuer on. reli he opin mai ofthe Phan: «well compo le us ok es rig body. Tinea -Now to, lhe the bile). we bane te marie ir cee ood: nw mate wor ha ao ace wed ul iy le shat be din psing aon te protem pnd ie Aint intepreion of ont matee-JD) ty ned our hand name the Kinds of eu aces eae, de ause—JD] we hve dsingued, whith we be salon th ise Lmphonhna of ening lg wc ema wd Le ncn nee bh he beng ul ern, and py cep taeda de poe fom whic we live now ached he sine poon once ors tnd hen atempt wo rom or sy wih sampling that a gone ee el my ela).46 Notes to Bags 45-92 8. "Commence ps ples” in Poche 9, Focerample sbi, pp 68 and 87. to. Se] Det "The Plies of een” tans, Gabel Mow in, The furl of Pip, (November 99): 2-44, Tati ery schematic ume of enoing seach on the history and ee major for canonical of he concep of end. 1 Pp 4 and 7s. 1, CE “Nombre de "in yl A Number of Yen” tn Bran Himes, Qu oe, 90.2988) 120-3. 13. On Pltins, see above, p70. On Heidegger and Laan Danner le emp pt 0m wove Tio veo tc append or? ‘inti Os fe Ese er Ses Se oon 1 ehope incon ak hpi nf no ete on oc toon ston apn pe ig tc tn lef ison fie cere ‘Soy layo und rel opr to snes a a nore ehh ech pagan pened wince yans wpe opp SE Swen pen cel brio SaShmalnunteronelncpnrrcnnste hry St acopn opin eon neque va Nosema pe par ur Sect mensly tor fn’ ce Fe ice Canopy dt ding a nalighl eng) (Fiala ne ed ples alee re ‘Spo fan in uc seg ome nga mann hie Had a sf ES nephon nh cy apg (0 a ‘Setpoint en win pes ouni pon Zl hed eieph Tos beng Cle Toned bin ine Trine bre darn mati sc Bian atu a fie mea Sam ed ‘in lei cine mie a de et Nieto Page 95 ur onmleiguea Toned Plato 97 p19 ao 196, 207). He ven systematics operative eoue tothe concept of epics ropors chsifngal the ld meaphore a th moment of detain, ‘whit he els “he onologil atute of te “ial lew (we shall came back ner thistle and eo the prose deverbes: “This [deeming the “nls nae” of the “pail lc] pons ‘oie problen fr Plo onl speak of th spa mies by sig 4 tony metaphor language which gt away fm any elaied ‘uli: Thats why we hl isan ew sequences of iages one ‘fem beating on sexual elation and th heron atiasal hig” (208 eal pp. a, a4 a 333), ‘OF course tis aoc question here of cing the use of he words ‘macpor compan, o mage I oi neil, and fr feo which we sal yt explain br ewe smeie: bape that Wet wl have recourse ro them. Bur there 4 pot it tes, whet the reevance ofthis theta ade me lini nd ust be question 2 ‘chy must become a theme and cet tbe merely operate Ie recy the poi where the cocapr ofthis thetoric appt co be ‘onsucted onthe basis of"Patoic™ postions Gneligibeloensible wing a cide). oppsiions rom which bhi precy eo ‘apes. The appeene mull of meapore or aloo tienes a ser) signifies in thee plas aoe onl hae the proper meaning can ‘ony become itige va the drow, bur tht che oppstion be ‘ven he proper and he Sigurt, wihourxng lve, enous here i. 12 Heeger doer thie in pacar in x brief psu in face rents in his Fandom v Mewgpbyee. Lexus dono nore tan ‘quote ere the rasan pd we hal come back a eg inthe ise par f this work "(The efrence othe pana in Timer soda isintended not nyt the lak beween the prin andthe em between so-appeaing [dr Muenchrnen] nd bing a pete ‘ence, but atthe me time © suggest thst se xaomacon ofthe four appehende esenc of lc [pe Or and of Hin nto 2 “pac [Raw defined by exenson usdebnang mas prepared sor ‘eri by the Poni philosophy Le. ine nerrecon of ing ea Might hive not meas ae which aberacts il fon ey tcl tht which idea, andi ach away pce adits od Snakes plc” (lase mak) for something ee”) (Pp. 30-32 Eagiah stan by Ralph Manhein, Marin Heidegper, dn ras Heea8 Notes Page 20-15, pls (arden Ci Nts Doubleday, 1960, ptm) Among ll she ‘ueions poe fr us by this tex and content the mos eis wll fo doubt ba upon all se dss impli by shia" prepa” Gorberae 1 Vrlegen ser die Gahihe der Philo, Bing 8, 2 iris der Plophie exe Reon, Werke 8 kta Ms Sah keamp 105. ‘4 Masel Deena and Jeanie Verna, Ls Re de tlig, a mds der Gr, p 6. Gai is evoked bythe Eeypian rit of the Tina, ia dscouse vo which we hl rn es the manent when he recognise the ger ati of the cy of Athens whic, owever tas elys mye memory and whose wien scive elated ss ifon deposi in Ege ahd-e). CF al Heidegger, Mz 3: Chaos, an, thane sigs th ping (de Gene, thegxpng tharwhichispiin wo Ascinenderlfnd), We errand Rao lose connection with an orignal ierpeation ofthe ence o he llaisinasmuch siti teas which opens cE Hoa, hep) ‘The eprestation of Chaos, it Nice, has the fncion of prevent ing + humane! (Vermencung of exten In tty. Tae "Samanintoninclades a much th orl explanation of the wel on ‘hebasso th raion of Cresco ai terial explanation nl Isis of he activi of «ger aian (Handed be Demir) 5 “An inerprension dec (margelende Det] for Ween shovgh shar gen by Plo. He ays chat beeen beings and Bing, ‘hares [enh the Krona he bhsithe lacs the te he place (Or, Pato meus wo sy beings and Being ae in difen plas Paral binge and Benge dierent placed [sind enc ror 2). Thas when Pla gies thought wo the Korma the diene Ioaion of binge ad Seng ee aking fr he sori diferent place nach dem gan andown Or] of Being. ans the pace of beings” (sie Den? Tabigen Mae Niemeyer, 194) $R.174~7. Em ash cansaon by J. Glean Gry. Main Heep Wharf Called "Thinking? (New os: Harper 8 Raw 969,922, e2) Ltr weal rear at length this pasage ans comet 1. Tairisone of he oi which ink hi ey othe oe wrt on Goch in Heeger CE the intdacion o that ey,” Gece, zener wel crac ntl, in Pye enti de Fae ne (ari Gale, 187). "7. Capital ours ection, 5. I anoher cone tha of semiae Notes Page 24 49 ald tthe cole Normale Suptiurin 70 (Theory of Philosophie Discourse The Coniins fasion of te Tes of Pole Psy ply—the Example of Materialism) dee sefecions on she Timacs Jntenetd with oer queions which hee rma inthe bce and 0 which I shall urn ehewbere, Other ts ete stu paral thos of Mare and Hee fr che quesion oth lation to ‘he polis of asin general, oof the diva of aos o of myth ot of hea or of mati 1 The pss of war bres ints ei in she del dep. io ofthe el ince very pce feet tof his epee ‘io, The in ofthis problematic which we cane: fllow ere seems to ‘beamong the chee Ie might lea us in pata toward a origina form officio which is On the Soil Conta Aconing o Rousse, ‘the sate of war beeen Sexes cannot ie tony puta ply i aw le the one which mus reign inside te Sue Even ich it iia lw thelaw of the peopl (gros ce, people group) mae ‘makes us ome back to ar of specific sagen Ie igs the Soll contrac ur of isl. By this suspen, a shows the ie of the soci contace: it throws «cera gh onthe fore of the soci entre ie end ofthe theoretical fbulos dco which de- sibs it. Thu it is atthe ead ofthe book ofthis deal son hat Rousiea in felines ges ono the problems which he ct ping to el with. We would have analy eey this conlsion ad these ‘onsierations on way thes eatin which hey sani i he Inside ofthe wail eons the momen where rey open ne is ‘outside. Irs otha thems raion and formal ation pole of sompoion: Rosen seems orub his eps oan pec the utile af the fable of he de ges. He opens his es but he closes the brooks "Chap. Conlin Afr having ex down the te pence of Politi lw and wid wo found he Sue on this ba i esi o Supporti by i eral reaone wich would ince the lw of ton, commerce, the law of wa and congue, pli lo legac, epotatony, eas ee Bua ht ora ew jst io ra 9) ‘hort sgh I shoul have Bed ic cnr clones vo me” 9. Ck Nise Loran, “Sut le race der mmes” in Let Exfnts tsa Pate, p78 Inthe content which we are ere dle ing se a, inthe precoding chaptet."EAutochione: Une Tope ‘thinienne” ha which eoneres Athens in part “au (raph), faheand, and movber atthe ame ine” Pang els) wd he150 Nites Page 24 “ial and complemency pols, lo and myth” whi “sare the ‘hen stage mr cofontacen bua compli” (op. 67 72) Aer the ae of men (gear anape the Ep tie fe Tima assis pacer oi thes ate the plc propitious or memory, forthe conservation of achive, for witing and for tadton, toe ‘empeatezaneswhich provide pret im desacton by exces of heat and cold (ate, MERIDIAN Crossing Aesthetics gus Dede, On te Name David Will, Pr Maurice Blanchot, The Work of Fre ques Dede Pon... Ivins 974-96 |, Hillis Me, Tori Philippe LaeoueLabuhe, Mace Fs (Fe of Wigner) gues Deed, Aprir manuel Levinas, Oni th Sujit Je-Fanoi Lyuad, Lwon on he nab of the Slime eer Fees, “Chater Languae and Hiri Kregend Jes Lac Nancy The Espero of Fredo Jam Joseph Gous, Oi, Philapber aun Susy, The Polen of Chine thetic ean Lac Navy Te Bs Pre