The Violence of Communities/Boundaries – A Continuing Conversation

March 21, 2007

Dear Matt,

Thanks, once again, for the provocative questions you raised in your post, The Violence of Messages.

At the outset of your post, you comment on the sent and the unsent. My imagination was titillated by “unsent.” What is unsent? Your comments lead me to think that what is not sent is the (entire) meaning of the message. Is this accurate: you are arguing that it is the community, the 1 + 1 + 1, etc., that supplies the unsent (pieces of) meaning, that is, the words and directions not (did you mean to say) inscribed on the page…? If so, I think we are in essential agreement.

I assume ‘messaging’ has to do with the missing (pieces) and, therefore, that meaning is always being supplied by realities other than the ‘author’ or sender of a message. I do want to be sufficiently clear about this (and I admit I was not [these are words/directions missing from my initial post]): I do think interpretation or, if you will, the generation of meaning, is always-already a communal or, shall I say, interpersonal task. To argue otherwise, it seems to me, would make me unfashionably modern (haha).

Read More?

In fact, Matt, I tend to think that we are not free from community (and that slippery term is one I associate with [interpretive] boundaries). I go as far as to say there is no such thing as the ‘individual’—as thought in modernist terms (as you know). Therefore, in my thinking, community is always-already present—the laws that govern the writing, sending, receiving and interpretation of messages. There is no escape and, therefore, I cannot agree that a solitary ‘individual’ ever receives a message.

But the line (no matter if one imagines [as I often do] this line to be the beautiful, Spartan men of 300…attempting to hold back Xerxes) will not hold. Boundaries/Communities cannot ensure ‘orthodoxy’ and, in the end, produce that which they seek to prevent or delete: e.g,. the (figure of the) despised or outside(r):

These communities/boundaries/orthodoxies depend, strangely, on heterodoxies (the very naughty children that threaten to ruin everything the family has fought so hard to establish).

Of course, there is a great deal more to think about (e.g., what is sent and, as you noted, to whom?), and I look forward to continuing our chat and hope others will join! Thanks, Matt, and I hope my first reply was sufficiently responsive to your post.

* Art by Becki Jayne Harrelson and can be found @ Jesus in Love.

PS: I am going to create a category, ‘Re: Messages’, for our posts related to this matter. Speaking of violent messages, I think we should explore the following text together: 2 Sam 11ff – but esp.: 2 Sam 11:14-17.

Posted by Tony Posted in Continental Philosophy, Posts by Tony, Re: Messages