After finally taking a look at my blog stats and email after a rather demoralizing discussion this weekend, I find that the blog Faith and Theology linked to me today, rewarding me with around 150 hits. The post that they linked to? My remarks about my book last week. As Faith and Theology put it:

A devastatingly severe book review – by the book’s author!

I really cannot discern the intent or sense behind this brief link. Is it malicious? Merely vicarious? Gleeful? I don’t know. However, I will say that one of the dangers of being honest online is that people use it against you. This I will never understand. For every weakness, every insight into my psychology, every idiosyncrasy of my psychology I have revealed, every passion, there has been someone who has taken it up and used it to their own advantage. When I revealed that I had elected to use medication to treat my depression, certain “Lacanians” used this as an opportunity to attack me. When I discussed my hatred of things like homophobia, misogyny, racism, and those who use others as pure implements of their own jouissance or enjoyment like pedophiles destroying the body of young children and then killing them or Dahmer trying to turn others into zombies or Berdie Madoff destroying the lives of countless people in his own blind avarice, I was perversely taken to task for having a hatred of such people (what bizarre mind could find this problematic, I don’t know).

And now, apparently, I am taken to task for finding elements of my book problematic. For the record, it is not the scholarship of Difference and Givenness that I find lacking. On the scholarship end I think it is a terrific contribution to Deleuze studies that approaches his thought in a way that he had not previously been approached… As a philosopher attempting to make genuine arguments and to respond to the tradition from whence his thought had emerged. If I have a problem with the book, it is not with its scholarship or the rigor of its argument, but with the unconscious desire that animates it: A desire to police and regulate. Rousseau is, in part, great for his willingness to reveal himself in a raw and completely public way. So too with Freud, Nietzsche, Henry Miller, and so on. To make oneself public in the most intimate and shameful corners of one’s being, there is something great in that. There is something liberating in that. Not just for the person that does it, but for those who have been in that place as well and who can now see that others have been in that place as well. What is disgusting is the person that takes that uses that public presentation as a weapon for their own ends, poisoning public discourse, creating a sphere in which it must all be hidden behind a veil of affectation, and so on. I suppose those who abuse such presentations reveal more about themselves and the weakness of their own positions and self-regard than they reveal about the other that they abuse in this way.

About these ads