Being Different

Ancient Mediterraneanand Medieval Texts

and Contexts

Editors

Robert M. Berchman

Jacob Neusner

Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism,and the Platonic Tradition

Edited by

Robert M. BerchmanDowling College and Bard College

John F. FinamoreUniversity of Iowa

Editorial Board

JOHN DILLON (Trinity College, Dublin) GARY GURTLER (Boston College)

JEAN-MARC NARBONNE (Laval University, Canada)

VOLUME 16

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/spnp

Being DifferentMore Neoplatonism after Derrida

By

Stephen Gersh

LEIDEN BOSTON2014

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Gersh, Stephen.Being different : more Neoplatonism after Derrida / by Stephen Gersh.

pages cm. (Ancient Mediterranean and medieval texts and contexts)(Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic tradition, ISSN 1871-188X ; VOLUME 16)Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 978-90-04-26140-2 (hardback : alk. paper) ISBN 978-90-04-26164-8 (e-book : alk. paper)1. Neoplatonism. 2. Derrida, Jacques. I. Title.

B517.G485 2013141'.2dc23

2013034217

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual Brill typeface. With over 5,100characters covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable foruse in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface.

ISSN 1871-188XISBN 978-90-04-26140-2 (hardback)ISBN 978-90-04-26164-8 (e-book)

Copyright 2014 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing,IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored ina retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NVprovided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.Fees are subject to change.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viiAcknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

1 Neoplatonic CompulsionsAugustine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2 Derridas Paradigms of Negative Theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292.1 Bridging the Gap

Proclus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312.2 Prayer(s)

Pseudo-Dionysius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 752.3 Hearing Voices

Meister Eckhart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 972.4 From the One to the Blank

Damascius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

3 Philosophy [Space] LiteratureProclusMallarm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225Index of Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243Index of Terms and Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

PREFACE

This book is about Being because it deals with the Neoplatonists who writeabout being (to on). It is about Difference because it deals with Derridawho writes about difference (diffrence). It is about Being and Differencebecause it deals with the Neoplatonists and also with Derrida.

Being Different. More Neoplatonism after Derrida is the title of the secondpart of a project begun around 2000 of which the first part was entitledNeoplatonism after Derrida. Parallelograms and was published in 2006.1 Thereasons for embarking on such a project were explained in the prefaceto the earlier volume and, apart from mentioning that a certain crisis intraditional metaphysics and the response of various modern readers ofNeoplatonism to that crisis had given the broader project its initial impetus,we will not restate those arguments in detail at this point. However, it maybe useful to clarify the nature of the project a little further in the lightof misunderstandings that seem to have occurred in the minds of certainreaders of the earlier book.

Above all, it is necessary to grasp the significance of the phrase Neopla-tonism after Derrida that was the title of the first volume and is the subtitleof the second. The project was not labelled Derrida after Neoplatonismbecause it was not primarily concerned with Derridas response to Neopla-tonism or the influence of Neoplatonism uponDerrida: topics admittedly ofsome interest because Derrida is one of the few modern thinkers who havemade the effort to comprehend this tradition historically and creatively.The project was labelled Neoplatonism after Derrida in order to under-line the fact that, in considering the relation between Neoplatonic thoughtand Derridas writing, the possibility of Neoplatonisms future enrichmentby an encounter with deconstruction is the paramount issue. Despite itscommitment to whatever is metaphysically prior, stable, and timeless, thethinking to which the label Neo-platonism has been attached during the

1 Stephen Gersh, Neoplatonism after Derrida. Parallelograms (Leiden: Brill, 2006). Foran analysis of this volume see the valuable study of D. Gregory MacIsaac, Platonic Decon-struction. A Review Essay of Stephen Gershs Neoplatonism after Derrida. Parallelograms, inDionysius 27 (2009), pp. 199225.

viii preface

last one hundred and fifty years has always been an evolving tradition.2

When Plotinus turned towards the philosophy of Plato he penetrated to itsdepths but also changed it radically. Augustine took the transformed legacyof Platowhich was by now a Platonism (or really a Neo-Platonism)andmade itChristian.Marsilio Ficinouseda synthesis of thePlotinianadAugus-tinian versions to initiate a new style of thinking that became an authorita-tive commentary on Plato himself. Moreover, the philosophies of Plotinus,Augustine, and Ficino simply represent three of themain stages of an evolv-ing tradition that contains many subordinate phases, many interruptionsand reprises, and many deviations. There have also been related and par-allel traditions of thinking that, although they are not normally describedwith the term Neoplatonism share many of that traditions philosophicalassumptions. This is particularly true with respect to Germany in the lateeighteenth and early nineteenth centuries and to European Romanticismmore generally. The reappearance of Neoplatonic concepts or themes canthus be noted in obvious places such as the objective Idealism of Hegel or inboth the earlier and the later philosophies of Schelling and in less obviousones such as Schleiermachers reading of Spinoza and Jacobi. If the thinkingto which the label Neoplatonism has been attached during the last cen-tury and a half is indeed an evolving one of the kind just described, thereis absolutely no reason to think that this will not continue to be the case.One could therefore seeDerridas quasi-method of deconstruction as simplythe latest stimulus towards the continuance and transformation of Neopla-tonism. The project of Neoplatonism after Derrida is designed preciselyin order to facilitate Neoplatonisms possible future enrichment from thatsourcehowever radical the transformation of Neoplatonismmay turn outto be.

As explained in thepreface toNeoplatonismafterDerrida: Parallelograms,for anyone attempting to think the relation between Neoplatonic thoughtand Derridas writing, two basic strategies seem possible. A first approachto the relation between Neoplatonism and Derrida is represented by theendeavour to disclose Neoplatonic elements within the Derridean enter-prise, the most striking example of this approach being the discovery of asemiotic square as a habitual concomitant of the play of diffrance. Themanner in which formal necessity here seemingly intrudes into a discour-sive practice based on contingency can be understood against the backdrop

2 On this question see Stephen Gersh, Platonism, Platonic Tradition, in The Encyclope-dia of Philosophy, 2nd. edition, ed. DonaldM. Borchert (Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 2006).

preface ix

of Neoplatonic thought. The semiotic square had always been familiar tostudents of Aristotles logic where it governs the distinction between uni-versal substances, universal accidents, individual substances and individualaccidents within the theory of categories, and that between universal affir-mative, universal negative, particular affirmative, and particular negativewithin the theory of propositions. It later became crucial to the understand-ing of Neoplatonic metaphysics, since the logical aspect of the process ofcausation that consists of an effects remaining in its cause, an effects pro-cession from its cause, and an effects reversion is seen to imply a similarfourfold pattern when the doubling of an effects reversion to itself andto its cause is taken into account. A fourfold structure of this type can bediscerned as underlying Derridas discussion of negative theology in termsof three paradigms in a text to be examined later in some detail. In thepresent volume, however, we will primarily consider how this Neoplatonicelementwithin theDerridean enterprise is developed a. as a sub-textwithinthe writings of the Neoplatonists themselvesHere, Damascius interpre-tation of the nine propositions in the second part of Platos Parmenides andits relation to the aporetic dialectic through which the Ineffable is experi-enced will be among the focuses of attention; b. as an ironic motif in thewriting of Heidegger: that is, where the Ereignis (Enowning) is character-ized as a fourfold mirror-play. A second approach to the relation betweenNeoplatonism and Derrida is constituted by the project of revealing Der-ridean elements within Neoplatonic thought, the most notable example ofthis approach being the discovery of a performative utterance as a neces-sary complement to the theory of Being. The manner in which contingencyhere seemingly intrudes into ametaphysical system based on formal neces-sity can be understood against the background of Derridean writing. Thenotion of a performative utterance in general implies some kind of inten-sified relation between description and enactment that has the effect ofundermining the conventional distinction between language and reality,and Derrida understands this performativity as including more specificallyon the one hand a linguistic item such as the first person, present tense,verbs I promise and I bequeath where description is actually identi-cal with enactment, and on the other hand a linguistic item such as theanagrammatic general structure trace-cart (trace/track-deviation) wheredescription is merely parallel with enactment, the first type of performativeoftenbeing called the Austinian performative inhonour of thephilosopherJ.L. Austin who first drew attention to it. The notion of a performative utter-ance in general can be seen as underlying Derridas discussion of the secondof the three paradigms of negative theology in the text to be examined in

x preface

detail later on. However, in the present volumewewill again bemainly con-cerned with how this Derridean notion is developed a. as a sub-text withinthe writings of the Neoplatonists themselveshere, Proclus understand-ing of the theurgy enjoined by the Chaldaean Oracles and its relation to thegods whomediate between the One and Being will be among the focuses ofattention; b. the parody of this idea in Heideggers writing: that is, wherethe Ereignis mentioned above is characterized as the mutual encounter ofgods and men in approaching the sway of Being.

In the light of these remarks, it is perhaps already obvious that Heideggerintervenes prominently in our project of reading Neoplatonism after Der-rida. He intervenes because Heidegger has a specific view of Neoplatonicthought according to which he locates the rise of the so-called metaphysicsof presence to dominance within European thought in the era of PlatoandAristotlewithout conceding that theNeoplatonists increased emphasison transcendence and ineffability in any way challenged this metaphysicalprejudice, and Derrida reads Neoplatonism through this Heideggerian lens.In the present volume, it will be argued thatHeideggers thesis regarding themetaphysics of presence is correct with respect to Neoplatonism in generalalthough it fails to take account of certain marginal tendencies such as theaporetic experience of the Ineffable in Damascius and of the wholesalemir-roring of Neoplatonic structural motifs in Heideggers own Being-historicalthinking. These last points will emerge particularly through the applicationof a method of juxtaposition.

In fact, a major part of the present volume has been written by employ-ing the method of juxtaposition that was explained and implemented forthe first time in an explicit manner in Neoplatonism after Derrida: Parallelo-grams.3 Put in the simplest terms, the method of juxtaposition envisagesthe designing of a number of independent textual segments any of whichmay consist of derivative materials, or newly-composedmaterials, or a mix-ture of derivative and newly composed materials. Textual segments of thiskind are designed to embody, in addition to whatever is stated or arguedin the conventional sense, sets of latent meanings that would remain latentif the segments were left in isolation. When these segments are juxtaposedwith one another, meanings shared by the two segments may pass from thelatent to the apparent state, especially when the orientation of the juxta-posed terms produces a semantic contiguity. A certain analogy between a

3 See especially Gersh, Neoplatonism after Derrida, pp. 2428.

preface xi

textual segment and a musical timbre emerges here, given that the relationbetweenmore overt and less overt meanings within the semantic spectrumof a textual segment and the dynamic curve represented by changes in thisrelation are somewhat parallel to the relation betweenmore prominent andless prominent overtones within the timbre spectrum of amusical note andthe dynamic curve represented by changes in that relation. Moreover, justas the ear ignores the relation between the individual overtones and con-centrates on the resulting musical timbre similarly the mind ignores therelation between the individual meanings and concentrates on the textualsegment. Themethod of textual juxtaposition also has a naturally close rela-tion simultaneously to deconstruction and to Neoplatonism. It relates todeconstruction in exemplifying the play of diffrance especially through itspreoccupationwith the transition betweenmeaning and non-meaning, andto Neoplatonism in reflecting the hypostasis of Intellect through its empha-sis on the primacy of non-discursive over discursive thinking. Given thatthe Egyptian hieroglyph is a symbol of differential play for Derrida and asymbol of non-discursive thinking for Plotinus, it seems reasonable for usto employ it henceforth as a symbol of textual juxtaposition. Now writing awork by designing a number of independent textual segments any of whichmay consist of derivative materials, or of newly-composed materials, or ofa mixture of derivative and newly composed materials has certain advan-tages. On the one hand it allows each individual segment to transmit theauthentic voice of the philosopher whose thoughts are being quoted, para-phrased, or developed without the invasion of anachronistic or irrelevantinterpretative criteria. On the other hand, the juxtaposition of segments andthe concomitant passing of certain meanings from a latent to an overt statepermit the emergence of the novel insights and perspectives that mark thegenuinely creative engagement with texts. The preferred starting-point forthe implementation of themethod of juxtaposition in the present work willbe Derridas articulation of what he terms the three paradigms of negativetheology as three textual segments of the kind described.

Some further observations should be made regarding the method of jux-taposition. First, the structure resulting from the juxtaposition(s) is not to beconsidered as a totality of some kind, since in such a totality the textual seg-ments would contribute to a clearly defined whole and would be sufficientto complete thatwholeinotherwords, such a totalitywouldnot admit thepossibility of extension with further segments and would contain no gapswithin the arrangement of segments. Second, the arrangement of the juxta-posed segments is to be understood as non-hierarchical and de-centered, sothat in many cases a given segment can be taken equally as a commentary

xii preface

on another segment and therefore as subordinate to it and also as com-mented upon by that segment and therefore as having the opposite relationto it. Third, the structure resulting from the juxtaposition(s) should not beconsidered as a constative utterance but rather as a combination of con-stative and performative elements in which the constative predominates inthe individual textual segmentswhere the assertion and argumentationof traditional academic discourse is mostly foundand the performativein the collectivity of the segmentswhere a reading and/or writing processis enacted.4

Considered in terms of its textual basis, the present volume Being Differ-ent: More Neoplatonism after Derrida differs from the earlier NeoplatonismafterDerrida: Parallelograms in that the earlier work concentrated primarilyon a reading of the three essays Passions, Sauf le Nom, and Khra pub-lished under separate covers by Derrida in 1993, whereas the present book isbased primarily on the interpretation of a single essay: How toAvoid Speak-ing: Denials published in the volume Psych: Inventions de lautre in 1987.This reversal in the obvious chronological order of treatment has its ownrationale. Thus, the development of the present authors argument movesfrom an emphasis on deconstruction to an emphasis on Neoplatonism, andfrom relative pluralism to relative monism, being intended to mirror a dis-tinction in Derridas styles of writing between a more playful and a moreacademic engagementwith the dogmas of that which he summarizes underthe rubric of negative theology.

A brief analysis of the contents of this volume, noting its structural seg-mentation and thematic motifs, might perhaps be presented as follows:1. Neoplatonic Compulsions. This chapter begins the commentary on Der-ridas How to Avoid Speaking: Denials by concentrating on part I of thatessay in which the relation between negative theology and deconstructionis approached in general terms. The commentary proceeds by juxtapos-ing a discussion of material from How to Avoid Speaking: Denials with adiscussion of material in Derridas Circumfession. Fifty-Nine Periods andPeriphrases and thereby confronting a primarily constative with a pri-marily performative text. Especially through the reading of Augustine, theconfessional character of negative theology and the negative-theologicalcharacter of confession become apparent. 2.1 Bridging the Gap uses Der-

4 For a more compressed illustration of the technique of textual juxtaposition seeStephenGersh, TheFirst Principles of LatinNeoplatonism:Augustine,Macrobius, Boethius,in Vivarium 50 (2012), pp. 113138.

preface xiii

ridas first paradigm of negative theology in part II of How to AvoidSpeaking: Denials as the starting-point for an elaborate juxtaposition oftextual forays into Proclus and Heidegger, the conceptual link being Der-ridas insistence that Platos notion of the beyond (epekeina) of Beingthat initiates the tradition of negative theology exemplifies the preoccu-pation with metaphysics of presence. This chapter focuses on the non-discursive character of Neoplatonic philosophy. In contrast with the treat-ment of this issue in Neoplatonism after Derrida. Parallelograms in con-nection with the hypostasis of Intellect, the present analysis emphasizesthe Ones transcendence of the discursive domain (indirectly) through astudy of the descending relation between the One and the henads. Thenon-discursive aspect of Neoplatonic philosophy and the emergence of aperformative element are also described in connection with the theurgicpraxis that complements henadic theory; Chapter 2.2 Prayer(s) is a studyof Derridas attempt to read Pseudo-Dionysius in formulating a compo-nent of his second paradigm of negative theology in part II of How toAvoid Speaking: Denials.With reference to the rhetoric of prayer in Pseudo-Dionysius writing, Derrida has successfully highlighted the intrusion ofa performative discourse into a philosophical doctrinethat of ancientChristianNeoplatonismotherwise dominatedby themetaphysics of pres-ence. Performative discourse presents a challenge to the metaphysics ofpresence, and this chapter further explores the implications of this chal-lenge with a more historical analysis of Dionysius; Chapter 2.3 HearingVoices is a study of Derridas attempt to read Meister Eckhart in formulat-ing another component of his second paradigm of negative theology inpart II of How to Avoid Speaking: Denials. With reference to the layeringof quotations in Eckharts writing, Derrida has rightly drawn our attentionto the intrusion of an autonomous hermeneutics into another philosophi-cal doctrinethat of medieval Christian Neoplatonismotherwise dom-inated by the metaphysics of presence. Autonomous hermeneutics5 alsopresents a challenge to the metaphysics of presence, and this chapter pur-sues the further ramifications of this challenge with a more historical anal-ysis of Eckhart; 2.4 From the One to the Blank uses Derridas third paradigmof negative theology in part II of How to Avoid Speaking: Denials, as

5 The reference here to an autonomous hermeneutics is to a hermeneutic praxis that isnot orientated towards the discovery of a totally objective reality (or even a totally objectivetext) beyond the praxis of the hermeneutics itself. Heideggers thinking from Being andTime onwards and that of his followers would exemplify autonomous hermeneutics.

xiv preface

the starting-point for an extended juxtaposition of incursions into Dam-ascius and Heidegger, the conceptual link being Derridas suggestion thatHeideggers exploration of the meaning (Sinn) of Being that is designedto overcome the metaphysics of presence echoes the tradition of nega-tive theology. This chapter again focuses on the non-discursive character ofNeoplatonic thought. In contrast with the treatment of this issue in chap-ter 2.1 of the present volume in connection with the One and the henads,the present analysis emphasizes the Ones transcendence of the discursivedomain (indirectly) through a study of the ascending relation between theOne and the Ineffable. The non-discursive aspect ofNeoplatonic philosophyand the emergence of a performative element are also described in con-nection with the aporetic praxis that reflects the experience of the Ineffa-ble. 3. Philosophy [Space] Literature. This chapter combines all the methodspractised in previous chapters. It extends Derridas reading of Mallarmand therefore literatureas a differential counterpart of Platoand there-fore philosophywith an independent treatment of Mallarms Un Coupde ds. It juxtaposes extensive forays into the literary text of Mallarm andthe philosophical text of Proclus, using the quasi-theurgic ritual describedin Mallarms prose narrative Igitur as a mediating structure. Most impor-tantly, it constitutes a performative enactment of the idea of space that hereemerges from both Proclus and Mallarm as the primary thematic elementby means of the method of juxtaposition itself.

The present volume BeingDifferentcomplements the earlier volumeParallelograms in one further respect that was unforeseen at the beginningof the entire project. Jacques Derrida was still alive and working when thefirst volume of Neoplatonism after Derrida was written, the word afterin the title being intended to include the sense of offering an invitation tohim to respond. Indeed the beginnings of a postcard-like correspondencebetween Derrida and the present author had begun. At the time of writingthe second volume of Neoplatonism after Derrida, Jacques Derrida was asmuch part of history as are theNeoplatonists withwhomhe is juxtaposed inthe title,6 and the term after had acquired themeaningof temporal finitudeand closure. Nevertheless, it is to be hoped that the dynamic and differentialconnotations of the adverb of time will remainat least for the readers ofthis book.

6 Jacques Derrida died on October 8, 2004.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Chapter 1: Neoplatonic Compulsions has been published previously underthe title Negative Theology and Conversion: Derridas Neoplatonic Com-pulsions in the volume Derrida and Antiquity, edited by Miriam Leonard(Oxford: Oxford University Press 2010), pp. 101132. Chapter 2.3: HearingVoices has been published previously in French under the title Matre Eck-hart et Jacques Derrida: Entendre des voix in the volume Matre Eckhart,edited by Julie Casteigt (Paris: Cerf 2012), pp. 363392. The author would liketo thank the publishers for permission to reproduce this material.

chapter one

NEOPLATONIC COMPULSIONS

Augustine

The fact that Jacques Derrida cultivated a relationship with Neoplatonismthroughout his writing career is indicated by comments made in numer-ous seminars and interviews. On one occasion he was questioned about hisreasons for adopting St. Augustine as a philosophical interlocutor in Circon-fession, and replied that he did not remember the reasons for his decisionat the time.1 He added that he had always maintained an interest, albeit asuperficial and discontinuous one, in Augustine and that, after starting ontheproject, everything else followed.NowDerridawashere at the same timestriking a rhetorical pose of modesty and underlining the event-character ofhis ownwriting, since his previous dealingswithwriters embodying or influ-enced by Neoplatonism indicate more than a superficial acquaintance withthat tradition. Only a measure of genuine insight could have permitted himto inscribe its so-called negative theology within the syntax of diffrancein such a manner as to provoke the irritated response of a prominent mod-ern theologian.2 This response was made in the name of Pseudo-Dionysius.It subsequently became the primary stimulus behind Derridas own discus-sion of the same question some years later within a more historically con-textualized treatment of Platonic, Christian, and Heideggerian thought.

But what is the relation between Derrida and Neoplatonism in pre-cise philosophical terms?3 This question can perhaps be answered by

1 See Confessions and Circumfession. A Roundtable Discussion with Jacques Derrida,in Augustine and Postmodernism. Confessions and Circumfession, edited by John D. CaputoandMichael J. Scanlon (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2005), p. 30[response to Mark Vessey].

2 Cf. JacquesDerrida, La diffrance, inMarges de la philosophie (Paris:Minuit, 1972), p. 6and Jean-Luc Marion, L idole et la distance (Paris: Grasset, 1977), p. 318.

3 We must here establish some clear conceptual guidelines before proceeding any fur-ther. It has become relatively common among postmodern theologians in recent years toconfront Derridas actual writing or some idea of deconstruction with Neoplatonic Christianwriters like Augustine and Pseudo-Dionysius. Unfortunately, these confrontations are oftenas philosophically imprecise as they are historically disembodied, since neither the relation

2 chapter one

establishing a relation of analogy and opposition between on the one hand,Platos understanding of reality as a structure of principles, involving abeing-transcendent and the distinction between non-temporal and tempo-ral terms, and as an implicit monism, according primacy to the logical uni-versal and to propositional utterancea prime example of what is termedonto-theologyand on the other, Derridas approach to discourse as astructure of the trace, involving the transition between transcendent andnon-transcendent terms and a becoming-temporal, and as an explicit non-monism, questioning the primacy of the logical universal and of proposi-tional utterance. Neo-Platonism performs the conceptual function of rein-forcing this analogy and mediating this opposition between Plato and Der-rida through its notions of dialectic and emanation. The question raisedabove can also be answered by comparing individual readings of Platos doc-trines by Derrida. Important among these are his readings of the Epekeinats ousias (beyond being) of Platos Republic in which a metaphysical firstprinciple is replaced by the general structures4 of deconstruction as a group,and of the Khra (place) of Platos Timaeus in which a metaphysical firstprinciple is converted into one general structure of deconstruction in partic-ular. In the former case, Derrida emphasizes the onto-theological characterof the first principle in theNeoplatonicmanner, although in the second casehe denies it. The question raised above can again be answered by consider-ing individual readings of Neoplatonic doctrines by Derrida. Of particularimportance is his reading of the Negative Theology of pseudo-DionysiusOnDivineNames in which ametaphysical dialectic is read in counterpoint withthe various general structures of deconstruction. In this case, Derrida bringsinto relief the dialectical character of the Neoplatonic doctrine but leaves itsemanative foundation completely out of the picture.

In order to understand the relation between dialectic and emanationthat is at issue here, some further preliminary remarks are necessary. Inparticular, we must note the pervasive occurrence in both Neoplatonismand Derrida of a fundamental dialectical-emanative structure consistingof 1. a positive term (affirmative seme a, negative seme b), 2. a combined

of Augustine or Pseudo-Dionysius to Neoplatonism nor the nature of Neoplatonism as doc-trine and tradition is adequately grasped.

4 By general structurea term avoided by Derrida himself in his later work but sug-gested by him in some of his earlier writings and also utilized by some exponents of histhoughtone means such things as trace, supplement, diffrance, writing, etc. Thesemight also be called quasi-concepts (although not concepts in any psychological sense).

neoplatonic compulsions 3

term (affirmative seme a, affirmative seme b), 3. a negative term (negativeseme a, affirmative seme b), and 4. a neutral term (negative seme a, neg-ative seme b)when this structure occurs in Derrida we will call it thetrace-structure or the fourfold structure.5 In Neoplatonism and Derridaalike, the structuremay be considered as closed or conjunctive with respectto formsince it embodies a symmetrical arrangement of four affirma-tions and four negations, and also as open or disjunctive with respectto contentsince the neutral term falls outside the remaining threefoldstructure in certain cases.6 In applying this structure, certain further crite-ria must be establishedi. the selection of the semes, ii. the logical relationbetween the semes (contradictory, different, correlative, etc.), iii. the num-ber of terms, iv. the order of the terms, v. the combination of structures, andvi. the logical relation between the structures (contradictory, different, cor-relative, etc.)for these criteria influence the relationship betweenNeopla-tonism and Derrida.7 In Neoplatonism with respect to i. the semes includeunitary, affirmative, and causing, and with respect to ii. the semes maybe contradictories like unitary + multiple, differences like affirmative +universal, or correlatives like causing + caused. We may associate theresulting structures particularly with the concept of Negative Theology. InNeoplatonism with respect to iii and iv, a negative term may be followedeither by a combined term, or by a neutral term, or by both combined andneutral terms in a sequence. These resulting structures may be associatedespecially with the concept of Conversion. In Derrida with respect to i.the semes include marked, present, and this, and with respect to ii, thesemes may be contradictories like marked + un-marked, or differences

5 According to Derridas own criteria, it might best be termed a supplementary struc-ture. For a detailed discussion of this topic see Stephen Gersh, Neoplatonism after Derrida.Parallelograms (Leiden: Brill, 2006), pp. 4252, 6480. It may be suggested that threefoldstructures aremore typical of Neoplatonismthe impact of Trinitarian thinking being sig-nificant in the case of Christian Neoplatonismand one must admit that this argumentis true to a limited extent. However, even within structures that are overtly threefold, therelations between the terms are usually governed by the fourfold logic. To take some readyexamples fromAugustineGod the Son is begotten but not proceeding, God the Holy Spiritnot begotten but proceeding, and God the Father neither begotten nor proceeding; likewise,Body is both temporal and spatial, Soul temporal but not spatial, and God neither temporalnor spatial.

6 This always happens when the semes are contradictories.7 The question regarding the extent to which the organization of these structures in-

volves violation of the principle of non-contradiction will be reserved for the conclusion ofthis chapter. See pp. 2728.

4 chapter one

like present + future, or correlatives like this + that. In Derrida withrespect to v and vi a first structuremay be combinedwith a second structurecontradictory to it, or a first structure may be identified with the combinedtermof a second structure and then contrastedwith the latters neutral term.We may identify the resulting structures with the process of Deconstruc-tion itself.8 It should be noted that in speaking of Neoplatonism and Der-rida in all these instances, we are contrasting a Neoplatonism analyzed ina typically immanent manner with three phenomena which are ultimatelyinseparable: namely, Derridas description of the trace,9 Derridas descrip-tion of Neoplatonism, and Derridas enactment of the trace with respect toNeoplatonism.10 The first and second phenomena are inseparable becauseDerrida cannot describe the trace without referring to an intertext, andthe second and third phenomena are inseparable because Derrida cannotdescribe Neoplatonism without performing a deconstruction.11

The fact that Derridas relationship with Neoplatonism is well articulatedemerges clearly from a group of works published between that late 1980sand early 1990s. These are his essay Comment ne pas parler: Dngationspublished in the volume Psych: Inventions de lautre (1987),12 the text Cir-confession: Cinquante-neuf priodes et priphrases published in the volume

8 The first type of combination occurs when Derrida reverses the axiological priority of amarked seme over that of an un-marked seme in order to begin a deconstruction, the secondtype of combination when he says that a deconstruction evades the logic of the both andand the neither nor.

9 On the trace see n. 4.10 The reference to enactment is important, since in contrasting Neoplatonism and Der-

rida we are contrasting a philosophical world-view which is theoretical with a discoursiveactivity which is simultaneously theoretical and practical.

11 A final point with respect to the contrast between Neoplatonism and Derrida concernstheir respective attitudes to God. It should be noted that, in speaking above of the selectionof semes by Neoplatonism, the term God was not included. This was because such a conceptis necessary to the derivative Christian Neoplatonism but not necessary to the originalnon-Christian typewhich generally confines itself to speaking of the One, or the Good,or the First. On the other hand, when speaking of the selection of semes by Derrida inreading Neoplatonism, the term Godimplied by the notion of onto-theologytends tooccur via the Heideggerian intertext assumed. See n. 16 below.

12 Paris: Galile, 1987, pp. 535595. For English translation by Ken Frieden seeDerrida andNegative Theology, edited by Harold Coward and Toby Foshay, with a Conclusion by JacquesDerrida (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992), pp. 73142this translation hadbeen published earlier in Languages of the Unsayable. The Play of Negativity in Literature andLiterary Theory, edited by Sanford Budick andWolfgang Iser (New York: Columbia UniversityPress, 1989), pp. 370. In the remainder of this essay, we will cite the pages of the Englishtranslation as republished in 1992 followed by the pages of the French original after a forwardslash.

neoplatonic compulsions 5

Jacques Derrida by Geoffrey Bennington and Jacques Derrida (1991),13 andthe essays Passions, Sauf le Nom, and Khra published in separate cov-ers but forming three chapters or steps in an Essai sur le Nom (1993).14 Anyproject of understanding Derridas relationship with Neoplatonism mustprimarily depend upon these items. Since the present writer has alreadydiscussed the other works at some length in Neoplatonism after Derrida.Parallelograms,15 the analysis to be pursued herewill be based exclusively onComment ne pas parler and Circonfession. The dialogues between Derridaand Neoplatonism in these two essays will be considered both separatelyand in their interrelation, while the Neoplatonism of Negative Theologyand that of Conversion will be seen as the specific issues of the first andsecond essays respectively.16

Neoplatonism and Derridas How to Avoid Speaking: Denials

This essay in the form of a lecture originally given in Jerusalem is formallydivided by the author himself into two sections numbered I17 and II,18 thesecond section containing three subsections labeled A,19 B,20 and C.21

13 Paris: Seuil, 1991. For English translation by Geoffrey Bennington see Jacques Derrida,by Geoffrey Bennington and Jacques Derrida (Chicago and London: University of ChicagoPress, 1993). In this essay, we will cite the paragraphs which are identically numbered in theEnglish translation and the French original.

14 Paris: Galile, 1993 [all three items]. For English translations by David Wood, JohnP. Leavey, Jr., and Ian McLoed in a single volume see On the Name, edited by Thomas Dutoit(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995).

15 See n. 5.16 In these essays and elsewhere, Derrida tends to read Neoplatonism together with

certain modern intertexts, the most important by far being Husserl, Heidegger, and Levinas.On Derridas intertextual readings of Neoplatonism see Gersh, Neoplatonism after Derrida,pp. 2938. For Husserlian implications of Derridas reading of Neoplatonic doctrine seeJean-Luc Marion, In the Name. How to Avoid Speaking of Negative Theology, in God, theGift, and Postmodernism, edited by John D. Caputo and Michael J. Scanlon (Bloomingtonand Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1999) pp. 2053and especially pp. 3941;for Heideggerian implications see Catherine Malabou, The Form of an I, in Augustine andPostmodernism, eds. J.D. Caputo and M.J. Scanlon, pp. 127143.

17 How to Avoid Speaking 7396 / Comment ne pas parler 535558. The division given heredoes not include the important notes added to the essay. The majority of these deal with acontroversy over the meaning of Negative Theology between Derrida and Marion.

18 HTAS, pp. 96131/CNPP, pp. 559595.19 HTAS, pp. 100108/CNPP, pp. 563569.20 HTAS, pp. 108122/CNPP, pp. 569584.21 HTAS, pp. 122129/CNPP, pp. 584592. The volume God, the Gift, and Postmodernism

contains several essays dealing with questions raised by How to Avoid Speaking: Denials.

6 chapter one

The main discussion of How to Avoid Speaking: Denials I. applies whatone might term an ethical and a linguistic version of the trace-structureto Negative Theology, the reference to something that is as necessary as it isimpossible showing that the trace structure is to be understood here in bothits conjunctive and disjunctive forms.22 The ethical version occurs in Der-ridas numerous references to his promise to speak about Negative Theol-ogy: a promise which precedes the discursive event,23 already belongs to thetime of the parole,24 and has seized the I which will speak to the other.25

This promise which both precedes the event and constitutes the event ofspeaking about Negative Theology is described as the singular anteriorityof the obligation which will be the main theme of Derridas essay.26 Thatthe ethical structure of the trace is inseparable from the linguistic structureis indicated by Derridas comments that in being always about to speak ofNegative Theology he has already been speaking of it in two stages (temps),27

and that in supplying the title How to Avoid Speaking: Denials in advanceof his lecture the trace of his speaking will have preceded that speaking.28

The main discussion of section I. also relates Negative Theology closelyto the structure of this present text and the structure of its address. Thestructure of the text is delineated by the progressive establishment of theessays title in which the author shifts from a first formulation of his topic:That he will speak of Negative Theology,29 to a second formulation: Thathe will avoid speaking of it,30 and thenreplacing the statements withquestions, from a third formulation of his topic: How will he speak of

However, the notion of gift exploited in several of the contributions associates NegativeTheology with catholic theology and with Husserl rather than with Neoplatonism. TheNeoplatonic analogue of the gift, which does not seem to enter into any of these discussions,would of course be emanation.

22 HTAS, p. 84/CNPP, p. 547.23 HTAS, p. 82/CNPP, p. 545.24 HTAS, pp. 8283/CNPP, pp. 545546.25 HTAS, p. 84/CNPP, p. 547.26 HTAS, p. 73/CNPP, p. 535 singulire antriorit dudevoir. The ethical version of the trace-

structure is developedmore fully in some of Derridas other writings. See especiallyDonner letemps I. La fausse monnaie (Paris: Galile, 1991)translated by Peggy Kamuf as Given Time I:Counterfeit Money (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1992) and Donner lamort, in Lthique du don. Jacques Derrida et la pense du don (Paris: Mtali-Transition,1992)translated by David Wills as The Gift of Death (Chicago and London: University ofChicago Press, 1995). See especially GT 2431/DLT 3948, GD 4052/DLM 6378.

27 HTAS, p. 77/CNPP, pp. 539540.28 HTAS, p. 86/CNPP, pp. 548549.29 HTAS, p. 73/CNPP, p. 535.30 HTAS, p. 82/CNPP, p. 545.

neoplatonic compulsions 7

Negative Theology?,31 to a fourth formulation: Howwill he avoid speaking ofit?32 The structure of the address ismarked out in passages where the authorspeaks of Negative Theology or avoids speaking of it to certain earlier criticsof his writing,33 or else to the audience at his lecture in Jerusalem,34 andwhere this Negative Theology is described as something of which Dionysiusspoke or avoided speaking to his disciple Timothy35 or of which MeisterEckhart spoke or avoided speaking to the Inquisitors at Avignon.36

The main discussion of How to Avoid Speaking: Denials I. also clarifiesthe notion of Negative Theology bymaking important semantic distinctionswithin the notion of not speaking as such. Most of these occur in thepassage where Derrida first states the title of his essay in its final form.37

Here, he observes that not speaking can be understood as signifying a notspeaking or saying altogethera linguistic sense which might perhaps belabeled sigetic. Next, hementions a second linguistic variety of not speaking:namely, not speaking or saying in the sense of deferral. There is also anot speaking associated with situations where one must not speak or saysomething. This represents a kind of ethical sense of not speaking or sayingthrough obligation. He further notes that not speaking can be understood assignifying a not speaking/saying xa logical sense whichmight perhaps belabeled predicative. In another passage, Derrida mentions a second logicalvariety of not speaking: namely, not speaking or saying in the sense of denial(dngation).38 This sense of not speaking or sayinga negation whichdenies itselfis simultaneously a speaking or saying.

Finally, the main discussion of section I. emphasizes the singularity ofthe discourse about Negative Theology. Derrida notes that this singularityconcerns place in that he is speaking of his chosen subject at a colloquium inJerusalem,39 and time in that he is speaking of it finally aftermanydeferrals.40

31 HTAS, pp. 8384/CNPP, pp. 546547.32 HTAS, p. 85/CNPP, pp. 547548. In these formulations Derrida alternates between

French (Comment ne pas dire) and English expressions (How to avoid speaking).33 HTAS, pp. 7576, 8889/CNPP, pp. 537538, 551.34 HTAS, pp. 73, 84 /CNPP, pp. 535, 547.35 HTAS, pp. 116117/CNPP, pp. 578579. Derrida begins the citation of various texts by

(pseudo-) Dionysius and Meister Eckhart early in his essay. However, the most importantcitations occur in part II.

36 HTAS, pp. 113114/CNPP, p. 576.37 HTAS, p. 85/CNPP, pp. 547548.38 HTAS, pp. 9495/CNPP, p. 557. Derrida himself does not apply technical terms to what

we have here called sigetic and predicative.39 HTAS, pp. 73, 83, 97/CNPP, pp. 535, 546, 559.40 HTAS, p. 82/CNPP, p. 545.

8 chapter one

The inseparability of this place and this time in the taking place of the eventgives the discussion of How to Avoid Speaking a definite autobiographicalcharacter. Aswe shall see, this autobiographical character is further revealedin the tension between Derridas discussion of the Christian paradigmsof Negative Theology later in the essay and his silence with respect tonegative-theological tendencies in the Jewish and Islamic traditions.41

Section I. of How to Avoid Speaking: Denials also contains a detailedaccount of the relation between what the Neoplatonists call Negative The-ology and what deconstruction calls trace. This can be followed throughtwo preliminary notes42 and an insert in the main argument of section I.43

The preliminary notes provide some historical contextualization and a gen-eral definition of Negative Theology respectively. The insert replies to criticswho had accused him of resifting the procedures of Negative Theology inhis implementation of the deconstructive project.44 Derrida here providesstatements of how his critics had incorrectly identified Negative Theologyand the trace45 and of how Negative Theology and the trace should actuallybe distinguished fromone another.46Aswe are now informed, he had alwayswanted to speak of the network of questions set up in too hasty a mannerunder the rubric of Negative Theology.47

We may perhaps summarize what Derrida says about the relationbetween Negative Theology and the trace in the preliminary notes and theinsert. First, there is a quasi-definition of Negative Theology. This character-izes it as an attitude towards language and, more specifically, to the act ofdefinition or attribution or to semantic or conceptual determination whichassumes that everypredicative language is inadequate to the essenceofGod,and that only a negative attribution can claim to approach God and pre-pare us for a silent intuition of him.48 The argument of Derridas critics thattrace-structure is equivalent to Negative Theology is reported briefly. Thisstates that a. deconstruction imitates the mechanical technique of Nega-tive Theology, that b. it constitutes a purely rhetorical activity, and that c.

41 HTAS, p. 122/CNPP, p. 584. Cf. HTAS, p. 108/CNPP, pp. 569570.42 HTAS, pp. 7374/CNPP, pp. 535536.43 HTAS, pp. 7482/CNPP, pp. 536545.44 HTAS, pp. 7475/CNPP, p. 537.45 HTAS, pp. 7577/CNPP, pp. 537539.46 HTAS, pp. 7782/CNPP, pp. 540545.47 HTAS, p. 77/CNPP, p. 539 le rseau de questions quon noue de faon trop htive sous le

titre de thologie ngative.48 HTAS, p. 74/CNPP, p. 536.

neoplatonic compulsions 9

it transforms all discourse into theology.49 The argument of Derrida him-self that trace-structure is not equivalent to Negative Theology is given atgreater length. This states that 1. Negative Theology depends on utterancesof strictly propositional form,50 2. concerns a. an object which is a beingbeyond being, and b. a movement towards super-essentiality,51 3. concernsa. an object which is determined by presence, and b. the promise of thatpresence,52 and 4. balances affirmative and negative utterances,53 whereasnone of these features belong the trace. Finally, there is a quasi-definitionof the trace. This characterizes it as an Xfor example, diffrance, hymen,supplment, pharmakon, parergonwhich is neither a concept nor a namealthough it lends itself to a series of names, which exceeds the structureof predicative discourse, which is neither a this nor a that nor a subla-tion (Aufhebung), which calls for an alternative syntax, and which is notalthough it will have been.54

Of course, Derrida does not simply contrast Negative Theology and thetrace on the basis of these quasi-definitions. This is because an explicitproject of Negative Theology cannot be attributed to any thinker, and theunity of its archive (archive) is difficult to delimit.55 Also according toDerrida, there is indeed a more or less tenable analogy between NegativeTheology and the trace.56 The nature of this analogy is not specified inSection I. of the essay, although an initial impression of it can be gained froma further insert in the main argument.57

This insert is explicitly described by Derrida himself as a digression onwhat he terms the secret (secret). It performs the important textual func-tion of developing certain implications of the title How to Avoid Speak-ingnamely, the affirmation of a secret as such which, as affirmation, is

49 HTAS, pp. 7576/CNPP, pp. 537538.50 HTAS, p. 77/CNPP, p. 540 forme strictement propositionnelle.51 HTAS, pp. 7779/CNPP, pp. 540542untre au-delde l tremouvement vers lhyperes-

sentialit. Derrida also introduces the relevant Greek terms: hyperousios, -s, -ousiots.52 HTAS, pp. 7981/CNPP, pp. 542544 la prsence la promesse de cette prsence.53 HTAS, p. 81/CNPP, p. 544. Derrida indicates the last point by referring to a paradoxical

economy (conomie paradoxale). Points 1 and 4 of this account particularly emphasize whatDerrida sees as the formalistic aspect of Negative Theology. See further the concludingremarks of this chapter on pp. 2728.

54 HTAS, pp. 74, 79, 81/CNPP, pp. 536, 542, 544545. In these passages, Derrida comes closeto presenting a classical formulation of the trace-structure analyzed earlier. See pp. 24 andn. 9.

55 HTAS, pp. 7374/CNPP, pp. 535536.56 HTAS, p. 74/CNPP, p. 536 une analogie plus ou moins soutenable.57 HTAS, pp. 8696/CNPP, pp. 549558.

10 chapter one

the secret sharedwithin an esoteric social group58and also of establishingthe presuppositions of the subtitle Denialsnamely, the denial of a secretas such which, as denial, is the secret shared by Derrida and his allies59,the entire argument showing clearly that Derridas secret is not somethinghaving a unitary presence. In the course of this digressionwhich con-tains numerous allusions to Negative Theology60several important fur-ther points are made. First, the secret is associated with a place (lieu) inthe sense of a disjunctive trace-structure embracing the individual who pos-sesses a secret and the individual from whom it is withheld.61 Secondly, thesecret is said to be the modality (modalit)indeed the only modalityinwhich thenameofGodcanbeuttered.62Third, the individualwhowithholdsa secret fromanotherwithin thedisjunctive trace-structure is said to employa double theological language of concealment and demonstration.63 In con-nection with these points, Derrida introduces various motifs which will bedeveloped in How to Avoid Speaking: Denials II. These are: place in thesense of promise,64 place in the sense of rhetorical symbols or allegories,65

and place in the sense of event.66 In the same context, he also adumbratescertain themes of the later part of the essay: for example, the identificationof place with Khra and with the seal.

How to Avoid Speaking: Denials II consists of an introduction statingthat this part of the essaywill studyNegative Theology in terms of place, andin three stages (tapes, temps),67 and a main discussion dealing with thesethree stagesalso called signs (signes), paradigms (paradigmes), andplaces(lieux)in sequence.68 Given that place has now clearly become the privi-leged expression of the trace-structure, we can detect an important shift inDerridas argument at this point. Having explained how Negative Theologywas incorrectly identifiedwith the trace andhowNegative Theology and the

58 HTAS, pp. 8689/CNPP, pp. 549551.59 HTAS, p. 95/CNPP, pp. 557558.60 HTAS, pp. 9091, 9596/CNPP, pp. 552554, 558.61 HTAS, p. 91/CNPP, pp. 553554.62 HTAS, p. 95/CNPP, p. 558.63 HTAS, pp. 9495/CNPP, pp. 557558. Derrida discusses the secret in several other texts

written around the same time. See especially the treatment in the essay Passions. On thispoint see Gersh, Neoplatonism after Derrida, pp. 183196.

64 HTAS, pp. 9293/CNPP, p. 555.65 HTAS, pp. 9395/CNPP, pp. 556558.66 HTAS, pp. 9596/CNPP, p. 558. Derrida here speaks of an event, that which takes place

(un vnement, ce qui a lieu ou takes place).67 HTAS, pp. 96100/CNPP, pp. 559563.68 HTAS, pp. 100129/CNPP, pp. 563592.

neoplatonic compulsions 11

trace should actually be distinguished from one another in part I, he nowturns to an explanationor rather, an exemplificationof Negative Theol-ogy within the trace-structure in part II.69 Our comments on this part of theessay will focus upon what is said about place as such in the introductionand about the relation between the three stages or paradigms and place inthe main section.

In the introduction to part II, Derrida has much to say on the question ofplace as such. One of the main aims of this section is clearly to distinguishplace in the sense of rhetorical figures,70 in the sense of what we termed theethical and the linguistic versions of the trace-structure in part I, and inthe sense of event.71Most of thenewdevelopments occur in connectionwiththe linguistic version of the trace-structure which the writer comes close toarticulating in its most complete form. This consists of a. the being olderthan, the preceding, or the rendering possible of the linguistic act; b. dis-course in general, the distinction between meaning (sens) and reference(rfrence), specific forms of discourse like proposition or prayer, and thequestion How to Avoid Speaking itself; and c. the trace of the other or thecall of the other, language before language, the assumed origin of speech,and what is other than being (autre que l tre).72 Among these moments a.corresponds to thenegative term, b. to thepositive term, and c. to theneutralterm within the trace-structure. Derrida now introduces a further semanticstructure in contrasting a. the possible absence of a referent; b. referenceto the other, or the other as referent, reference and truth; and c. absolutereference (rfrent absolu), or first and last referencethese moments cor-responding within the trace-structure to the negative, positive, and neutralterms respectively. Derrida also introduces an analogous theological struc-ture in contrasting a. the effect of, the proceeding from, or the gift of some-thing; b. the power of saying or not saying this, or the power of speakingor not speaking at all; and c. what can be called God, Cause, or Gift, and thename of God (le nomdeDieu)thesemoments again correspondingwithinthe trace-structure to the negative, positive, and neutral terms respectively.

The introduction to How to Avoid Speaking: Denials II also considersthe relationbetween the three stages or paradigmsofNegativeTheology and

69 This recursive structure of exemplification will be developed further in Circumfes-sion. See our discussion on pp. 2223 below.

70 HTAS, p. 97/CNPP, p. 559.71 HTAS, pp. 9798/CNPP, pp. 559561.72 HTAS, pp. 9798/CNPP, pp. 559561.

12 chapter one

place.73 First, Derrida describes the character of these stages or paradigms.He explains that they are not phases in a dialectical or teleological pro-cess and not the moments of a history,74 and notes that they are somewhatakin to architectural models.75 He then turns to the interrelation betweenthe stages or paradigms. Here, he notes that they surround a certain void,the place of a desert, a resonant space of which nothing or almost nothingwill ever be said.76 These arguments continue in the main section of partII where Derrida shows that the three stages or paradigms of Negative The-ology will be based on A. Plato, B. pseudo-Dionysius and Meister Eckhart,and C. Heidegger. In the transition between stages or paradigms A and B, hecharacterizes the interrelationbetween the stages or paradigms as an event.Here, he explains that what happens between these stages is not a history ofinfluences, structures, or relations but rather the event of the event or thethought of an essential having-taken-place.77 In the introduction to stageor paradigm C, he inserts the stages or paradigms into the trace-structure bynoting that the first paradigm will be Greek, the second Christian withoutceasing to be Greek, and the third neither Greek nor Christian.78

In the main discussion of part II, Derrida shifts his discussion of therelation between the three stages or paradigms of Negative Theology andplace from the argument that the three stages or paradigms are delimited byplace or event to a demonstration that each stage or paradigm itself definesa place or event. Thus, paradigm A based on Plato begins with a discussionof the transcendent super-essence of the Republic and the notion of Khra(place) in the Timaeus, the second term being the Greek word for placeconverted into a proper name. Paradigm B climaxes with a discussion ofpseudo-Dionysius notion of the place ofGod andEckharts notion of a placein the soul. Paradigm C based on Heidegger begins with a discussion of themovement of transcendence in On the Essence of Ground and the notion ofkhrismos (separation) inWhat is Called Thinking?, the second term beinga verbal echo of the corresponding item in the first paradigm.

73 HTAS, pp. 96, 100/CNPP, pp. 559, 562563.74 HTAS, p. 100/CNPP, p. 562.75 HTAS, p. 100/CNPP, p. 563modle[s] de construction.76 HTAS, p. 100/CNPP, pp. 562563 un certain vide, le lieu dun dsert un espace de

rsonance dont il ne sera jamais rien dit, presque rien.77 HTAS, p. 109/CNPP, p. 570 l vnement de l vnement un avoir-eu-lieu essentiel. Also:

eventuality (vnementialit).78 HTAS, p. 122/CNPP, p. 584. Within the trace-structure, these paradigms or stages obvi-

ously correspond to the positive term, the combined term, and the neutral term respectively.

neoplatonic compulsions 13

The Platonic paradigm A,79 in that it raises questions about the onto-logical status and about the structure of address with respect to both theGood beyond Being and to Khra, exhibits a certain parallelism. Regardingthe ontological status of the Good, Derrida concludes that what is beyondbeing remains a being in Platos eyes at least in the sense that its causalityis assumed.80 He also notes that Plato entertains the possibility of address-ing the Good at one point in his text.81 Regarding the ontological status ofKhra, Derrida notes that Plato speaks of this principle in two concurrentlanguages (deux langages concurrents): the one underlining the relation tometaphysics by associating it with participation, allowing the neither/norto become both/and, inserting it anachronistically into the history of phi-losophy, and expressing it in metaphors, the other mapping it onto a trace-structure by denying all these features.82 Derrida also argues that Khra isprimarily not something that exists but something that is addressed.83

The relation to Neoplatonism emerges more clearly in Derridas treat-ment of paradigm B.84Here, a close reading of various passages inDe Ecclesi-asticaHierarchia,DeDivinisNominibus, andDeMysticaTheologiaof pseudo-Dionysius and in the sermons Like a Morning-Star and Be Renewed inSpirit of Meister Eckhart enables the writer to articulate the relationbetween Negative Theology and the trace-structure with considerable sub-tlety. The reading of pseudo-Dionysius focuses first on the texts exploitationof prayer. According to Derrida, prayer is a linguistic form having as its mostimportant characteristics a. that it establishes the objective referent of Neg-ative Theology, b. that it is a non-predicative language of address to theOtherin this respect it is similar to but different from encomium whichrepresents a mixture of non-predicative language of address to the Other

79 HTAS, pp. 100108/CNPP, pp. 563569.80 HTAS, pp. 102103/CNPP, pp. 564565. Strictly speaking, Derrida argues that other

things draw from the Good (tiennent du Bien) their being and their being-known. Thisentire discussion raises the important question of Platos onto-theology. See our discussionon p. 26 below.

81 HTAS, p. 103/CNPP, p. 565.82 HTAS, pp. 104106/CNPP, pp. 566568. This passage provides a very clear instance of

the contrast between Platos andDerridas different articulations of the trace-structure. Here,Derrida enacts the trace with respect to Plato by taking the first (Platonic) language and thenidentifying it with the combined term and contrasting it with the neutral term of the second(deconstructive) language.

83 HTAS, p. 107/CNPP, p. 569. Derrida discusses khra in several other texts written aroundthe same time. See especially the treatment in the essay Khra. Formore detailed discussionsee Gersh, Neoplatonism after Derrida, pp. 125137.

84 HTAS, pp. 108122/CNPP, pp. 569584.

14 chapter one

and predicative language of statement about the Other, c. that it pre-pares the union between subject and object sought by Negative Theology.85

The reading of pseudo-Dionysius then takes up the question of place.Whenpseudo-Dionysius prays to God, and then addresses his disciple Timothy,quoting his prayer, Derrida argues not only that there is a place in whichthese addresses occur, but that the places of prayer, quotation, and apostro-phe are inseparable.86 The reading of Meister Eckhart focuses on the textsmultiplicationof voices anddiscourses (dmultiplicationdes voix et desdis-cours). According to Derrida, the logical opposition between negative andaffirmative predicates applied to God can be understood as a hermeneuticopposition between meanings or voices, this opposition being simultane-ously with respect to the terms interpretedfor example, the phrase beingwithout being used by Augustineand the interpreters of the termsforexample,Meister Eckhart himself and theHermetic source of his teaching.87

The reading of Meister Eckhart also takes up the question of place. WhenMeister Eckhart describesGods creation of a hiddenpower in the soul capa-ble of achieving union with the super-essential Being of God, Derrida notesthat the use of the term receptacle for this hidden power recalls Platos useof the same term for the principle of Khra.88

TheHeideggerianparadigmC89 is perhapsmost notable for themanner inwhich it connects semantic distinctions within the notion of not speakingwith the notion of place. Here, Derrida selects for comment Heideggersdevice of placing the word being under erasure (sous rature)90i.e. wherea special written form Being having both the negative sense of not beinga being and also the affirmative senses of being readable, being divisibleinto four regions, and being a point of maximal intensity is introducedinto the discussionand also Heideggers proposed exclusion of beingfrom theological inquiry.91AlthoughDerrida argues that theGermanwritersarguments are often hard to follow, he notes that place is clearly at issue inboth these instances.92

85 HTAS, pp. 109112/CNPP, pp. 570575.86 HTAS, pp. 116118/CNPP, pp. 578581.87 HTAS, pp. 113116/CNPP, pp. 575578.88 HTAS, p. 120/CNPP, p. 583.89 HTAS, pp. 122129/CNPP, pp. 584592.90 HTAS, pp. 125126/CNPP, pp. 588589.91 HTAS, pp. 126128/CNPP, pp. 590592.92 HTAS, pp. 125126/CNPP, pp. 589590.

neoplatonic compulsions 15

The Structural Relation betweenDerridas Two Readings of Neoplatonism

Derridas engagement with the metaphysical tenets of Neoplatonism inComment ne pas parler: Dngations is complemented by his similarapproach in Circonfession: Cinquante-neuf priodes et priphrases. In fact,his readings of pseudo-Dionysius and Augustine may be seen as comple-mentary from a structural viewpoint, although the extent to which thisrelation was consciously promoted by the author is a matter of specula-tion. In terms of mode of approach, the relatively theoretical and genericresponse to the subject-matter of How to Avoid Speaking: Denials may becompared and contrastedwith the relatively practical and singular responseto the same issues in Circumfession.93 With respect to this subject-matter,the conception of the relation between the three paradigms and NegativeTheology as place or event in How toAvoid Speaking: Denialsmay be com-pared and contrasted with the conception of the relation between the 59compulsions and Conversion as place or event in Circumfession.94 More-over, the conception of the relation between the deconstructive and thePlatonic languages impliedby theGreek termKhra in HowtoAvoid Speak-ing: Denials may be compared and contrasted with the conception of therelation between circumcision and confession implied by the portmanteau-word Circon+Fession itself.95

Neoplatonism and Derridas Circumfession

Derridas Circumfession consists of 59 paragraphs of one convoluted sen-tence eachthe periods or periphrases of the subtitlewritten in the

93 Perhaps we should not over-emphasize the distinction between the two texts. In animportant note attached to his account of the three paradigms in How to Avoid Speak-ing: Denials, Derrida describes his text as the most autobiographical (le plus autobi-ographique) he has ever risked. He explains this by saying that he has been engaging in aprocess of self-presentation through a discussion of the negative theology of others, and thathe has so far been unable to speak of what his birth should have made closest to him: theJew, the Arab (HTAS, p. 136, n. 13/CNPP, p. 562, n. 1). The obviously autobiographical aspectof the Circumfession can therefore be seen as fulfilling the promise of How to Avoid Speak-ing.

94 Aswe shall see demonstrated below, Negative Theology and Conversionmay be under-stood as complementary realizations of the trace-structure or fourfold structure.

95 On the two languages of Khra see p. 13 above.

16 chapter one

margin of Geoffrey Benningtons book about Derrida entitled Derrida-base.96Theworkdiffers radically in style fromtheonepreviously consideredin a number of ways. Perhaps most obviously, it is articulated from the startin termsof its explicit inter-textual relationsornon-relationson theonehand to Augustines Confessions and on the other to Benningtons treatise.In addition to this, the expression-plane and the content-plane of Derridasdiscourse are designed to reflect one another in keeping with his interpre-tation of the Augustinian notion of making the Truth.97 Consequently, thetext deliberately avoidsand indeed explicitly sets out to questionthesystematical organization of a logical argument. In order to analyze it here,we shall reuse the conceptual structure deduced from the earlier essay.

Circumfession as a whole utilizes both the ethical and linguistic ver-sions of the trace-structure. The ethical version of the trace-structure isstated most fully in the authors report of his dream of conversing withJean-Pierre Vernant in an underground place about the principle of takingresponsibility for a crime that one has not personally committed.98 WhenDerrida refers to the subject constituted by the category of the acceptedaccusation, the hiatus finally circumscribed, and the subject configured bythe knife of the economy, he shows once again that the trace-structure is tobe understood in both its conjunctive and its disjunctive forms. The linguis-tic version of the trace-structure is articulated throughout Circumfessionbut is perhaps presentedmost graphically in a passage where Derridamedi-tates on the Frenchword escarremeaning a. (in anatomy), the scab on somepart of the body and b. (in heraldry), the compartment of a shield formed bya square enclosing one of the corners, and connecting metonymically withthe English word scar, etc. Here, the motif of his mothers bedsoresandhis own facial paralysisis associated with the notion of writing itself, andDerrida explains that he loveswords because he has nowords of his ownbutonly escarres: traces of other texts and genealogies en abme.99

96 On this work see the recent collection of essays: Augustine and Postmodernism, Confes-sions and Circumfession, eds. J.D. Caputo and M.J. Scanlon.

97 Derrida later modified his interpretation of making the truth in order to make thesense of its event-structuremore radical. However, themodification tends to reinforce ratherthan undermine the interpretation of his authorial intentions proposed here. See JacquesDerrida, Composing Circumfession, in Augustine and Postmodernism. Confessions andCircumfession, eds. J.D. Caputo and M.J. Scanlon, pp. 1927 and especially pp. 2021, 23, 26.

98 Circum/Circon. 56.99 Circum/Circon. 18. Derridas references to the escarre and mise-en-abme allude to

possible visual depictions of the fourfold trace-structure.

neoplatonic compulsions 17

Circumfession also discusses the structure of its own text and the struc-ture of that texts address. The structure of the text is at issue in passageswhere Derrida states a kind of theory of self-citation using the figure of cir-cumcision, for instance where he argues that in this process he is tearingoff his own skin while reading others like an angel,100 and in passages wherehe implements the practice of self-citation in association with the same fig-ure, for example where he quotes his own earlier notebooks for a projectedLivre dlie on the topic of circumcision.101 The structure of the address is atissue in passageswhereDerrida speaks variously of his relation to theOther:namely, as a relation to what I call God in my language,102 as a relation toGeoffrey Benningtonwho never quotes exactly fromDerridas corpus,103 as arelation to his mother who does not recognize him, or is silent towards him,or does not read him,104 as a relation to you whom Derrida will never com-pletely know,105 and as a relation to sA = saint Augustin or savoir absolu.106

Circumfession as a whole places considerable emphasis on the notionof singularity, as indicated in the complex interplay of Derridas readings ofAugustines writing, of Derridas comments on his own writing, and of Der-ridas readings of Augustines life, punctuated with many individual datesand locations.107 To cite a few instances: Derrida reads Augustines writingsingularly when, having quoted the latters insistence on the distinctionbetween things in the firmament and bodily works, he comments that hewill neverwrite like sA since he hasmore than these two languagesthe fig-ural and the otherand at least four rabbis.108 In fact, he constantly opposesthe universality of Benningtons book about him to the singularity of his ownwriting of Circumfession, noting that G = Geoffrey wishes to produce agenerative grammar of his writinga theological program (thologiciel)of absolute knowledgeand thereby deprive him of his events, but thathewhose writing cannot be pre-constructed from a matrix and admitsthe un-anticipatable singularity of the eventwill always destabilize or

100 Circum/Circon. 45.101 Circum/Circon. 11, 14 ff., 52.102 Circum/Circon. 30 ce que jappelle Dieu dans mon langage.103 Circum/Circon. 5.104 Circum/Circon. 5, 7, 12, 27, 34, 44, 51.105 Circum/Circon. 41.106 Circum/Circon. 1011, 20, etc. It is notable thatmany of these passages utilizewhatwe

have termed the sigetic sense of not speaking or saying in combinationwith a trace-structurewhich may be understood in both its conjunctive and its disjunctive form.

107 Circum/Circon. 3, 29, 49, 52, etc.108 Circum/Circon. 47. This is another reference to the fourfold structure of the trace.

18 chapter one

disconcert it.109 The singularity of Derridas own writing is stated in thenotebook mentioned above to be where its principle of thematic or formalselection is no longer two columns of text, the letters Gl, or the number 7used in certain earlier works but the idiom that makes or lets him write,110

and in the Circumfession itself to be where the writing is no longer tryingto rediscover itself according to some regular or geologically programmed(gologicielle) relation between chance and necessity but leaves itself tobe invented by the other.111 Derrida reads Augustines life singularly when,having described a facial paralysis which deprived him of the respite ofAugenblick and forced him to speak the truth sideways, he proposes thissurprise of an event happening to himself in which he is no longer himselfas a reading of Augustines famous conversion.112 The absolute singularityof this event is indicated by its association with a specific place and date:a clinic at Neuillyfrom which Derrida telephones Bennington, as thoughtelephoning God, before going into a tomb-like X-ray scanneron 29 June,1989.113

Circumfession has much to say about the relation between the decon-structive trace and metaphysical thinkingthe latter including whatevermight loosely be termed Neoplatonism, or Negative Theology, or Augus-tinismDerridas main purpose being to demonstrate the non-equiva-lence between the trace-structure and suchmetaphysical notions.Wemightsummarize the main points of difference as follows. Deconstruction a. isan activity which makes the truth114rather than a truth which is un-created; b. is both example and counter-example115rather thanpurely exemplary; c. depends on the future116rather than on the pres-ent; and d. is a truth of non-knowledge117rather than a truth which

109 Circum/Circon. 3, 56, 28, 51. The letter G also signifies Derridas mother Georgette(who is therefore substitutable with Geoffrey).

110 Circum/Circon. 52.111 Circum/Circon. 55. The term gologiciel has a metonymic relation with thologiciel

(both terms suggesting a computer program (logiciel)).112 Circum/Circon. 2425.113 Circum/Circon. 19.114 Circum/Circon. 9, 11, 27, 36, 53 veritatem facere = faire la vrit. With respect to

the eight points of difference to be listed here, Derrida only states the properties of thetrace-structure explicitly. However, the contrasting properties of metaphysics can easily bededuced.

115 Circum/Circon. 36 exemple contre-exemple. Cf. 50.116 Circum/Circon. 28.117 Circum/Circon. 28 vrit de [ce] non-savoir.

neoplatonic compulsions 19

is knowable. In addition, deconstruction a. is a series of compulsions118rather than the unity of a consciousness; b. is an activity of writing119rather than an activity of thinking; c. is a confession which gives beyondthe circle120rather than a confession limited by the circle; and d. isan experimentation of ones possible survival121rather than a convictionregarding ones definite survival.

Of course, Derrida does not simply contrast the deconstructive trace andmetaphysical thinking but implements the deconstruction of metaphysicsthroughout the text of Circumfession. This practice can be illustrated byseveral important passages which defy summary for obvious reasons. Onesuch passage deconstructs Negative Theology in terms of winning and los-ing, by connecting references to his mothers inclination towards poker andto his own game-playing relation to Bennington with the indefinite refer-ral, so-called negative theology, the play with the names of God, and thesubstitution of one bank for another.122 Elsewhere, Derrida deconstructsthe simultaneously transcendent and immanent relation between God andthe Soulwhere the One has always been more intimate to Jackelie thanhimselfbywriting of the four-stage escarre ofGod, thewoundof circumci-sion inwhichDerrida returns to himself, gathers himself, and colonizes hell,and the escarre as sponge absorbing and expressing blood.123 Another pas-sage deconstructs Negative Theology in terms of selection by the other, bymaking what happened at the rue saint-Augustin between 1929 and 1934Derridas birth as substitution for his dead brother Paul Mosethe objectof his non-knowledge in the night of learned ignorance.124These deconstruc-tions of metaphysics are implicit examples of theology in what he termedelsewhere themodality of the secret.125 In Circumfession, this structure issimultaneously a secret as such, in the formof a sealed text or an indecipher-able letter which is understood neither by Derrida nor by anyone else,126 and

118 Circum/Circon. 25 compulsions.119 Circum/Circon. 28 xriture.120 Circum/Circon. 45 donne au-del du cercle. Cf. 21.121 Circum/Circon. 36 l exprimentation de [ma] survie possible.122 Circum/Circon. 8. This passage again emphasizeswhatDerrida sees as the formalistic

aspect of Negative Theology. See further the concluding remarks of this chapter on pp. 2728.123 Circum/Circon. 2021. Derridas four-stage escarre at the same time constitutes a

trace-structure and substitutes for Augustines Trinitarian God.124 Circum/Circon. 52.125 See pp. 910 above.126 Circum/Circon. 48, 58.

20 chapter one

also a secret shared within a social group, as exemplified by Derridas nameof Elie which had been transferred to him without his knowledge from hisgreat-uncle Abraham and his uncle Eugne.127 Among explicit examples oftheology in the modality of the secret the following are particularly note-worthy. In one passage, Derrida deconstructs the fourfold model of Jewishexegesis: 1. Pshat: literality, 2. REmez: allegory, secret, divertedword, 3.Drash:morality, and 4. Soud: profundity, cabbalism by identifying it with a beehivesponge of secrets.128Elsewhere, he deconstructs the omnipresence of God bysaying that it is neither a transcendent law nor an immanent schechina, butthe properly theological hypothesis of a blank sacrifice sending the biddingup to infinity, and also that the secret from which one is excluded is thiscirculation of God among the un-avowable as he remains un-avowable inhimself.129 Another passage deconstructs the Christian notion of confessingoneself to God by identifying it with certain inherited secrets of which oneknows nothing but for which one confesses others: for example, the familialrelation between Esther and the two Elies.130

In addition to the structural parallels between How to Avoid Speaking:Denials and Circumfession whichwe have been silently exploiting duringthe last few pages, the relation between the paradigms A, B, C introduced inpart II of the earlier essay and the periods 159 seems important enough torequire a more extended analysis at this point. This analysis will be focusedon three primary questions: the relation of the periods to Circumfession asa whole, the structures of exemplarity and substitution and of the fourfoldplace-event, and the relations of prayer and of multiplication of voices tothe periods.

Although it is easy to collect passages dealingwith the relationof theperi-ods (priodes) to Circumfession as a wholethey are clearly marked bythe recurrence of the number 59 together with a term connoting circular-ity such as jar, band, pivot, circumference, rotation,131it is more difficult todetermine what the passages tell us about that relation. However, the con-nection between Derridas statements that he must learn to read himself

127 Circum/Circon. 35. The fourfold Jewish exegesis constitutes a trace-structure. It mayalso be intended to correspond to the Christian fourfold exegesis.

128 Circum/Circon. 21.129 Circum/Circon. 30. Schechina is a cosmological principle in the kabbalistic system. Its

mention constitutes a rare reference to Jewish Neoplatonism in Circumfession.130 Circum/Circon. 36.131 Circum/Circon. 27, 47, 49, 5051, 53, 58. Derrida also calls them prayers and conjura-

tions in 49, 51.

neoplatonic compulsions 21

from his compulsions,132 of which there are 59, and that each one is anAugustinian cogito133 seems significant. Given the nature of theAugustiniansubject as a circular movement to the self (and God), Derrida seems to beproposing a mode of reading the latter which is both circular and numeri-cal and both unique and generic. The circular aspect of the reading seemsto be exemplified by Derridas account of seeing the word cascade for thefirst time and turning around it in an experience which is like the birth of alove affair and the origin of the earth134clearly a unique occurrenceandalso by his statement that it is enough to pivot the six words: a narrive qumoi (It only happens tome) to have thewhole of this Circumfession135areference to the general structure of the work. The numerical aspect seemsto be illustrated by Derridas apparent reference to the yearly and weeklycycles in suggesting that 59 can be understood as 52+7a further refer-ence to the general structure of Circumfession136and also by his state-ment that he was 59 years old when he experienced the facial paralysis ofLymes disease,137 is visiting his bed-ridden mother in Nice,138 and embarkson the writing of Circumfession139clearly another unique occurrence.If Derrida is indeed proposing a mode of reading the Augustinian sub-ject which is both circular and numerical and individual and generic inthis fabric of interwoven motifs, it becomes possible to explain a furtherconnection that is implied. This is between the statements that he hasto learn to read the conversion while his mother is still alive140therebeing only one of theseand that he must learn to read himself from his

132 Circum/Circon. 24me lire depuis les compulsions. At 58 Derrida speaks of his repeti-tion compulsion (compulsion de rptition) and therefore links compulsion with the processof reading. See p. 27 below.

133 Circum/Circon. 25.134 Circum/Circon. 50.135 Circum/Circon. 58. Or: it is enough to pivot one word six times. Bennington masks

the sense of this passage by translating the French 6 mots with the English 5 words.achange which is of course justifiable in terms of the different syntaxes of the two languages.However, Derridas reference to 6 is intended to recall the six words uttered by God = sixdays of creation in Augustines interpretation of Genesis. In this manner, we can understandthe event-structure of the Circumfession as a deconstruction of the logos-structure of thebiblical cosmology.

136 Circum/Circon. 5051, 53.137 Circum/Circon. 23.138 Circon/Circum. 27, 29.139 Circum/Circon. 49.140 Curcum/Circon. 24 conversion il me faut apprendre la lire pendant quemamre vit

encore.

22 chapter one

compulsions. If our interpretation is plausible, the relation of the periodsto Circumfession as a whole is reflected in the connection between com-pulsion, the Augustinian cogito, and conversion which is simultaneously59-fold and one-fold.141

Now the passagewhere Conversion is explicitly associatedwith the facialparalysis shows clearly that we are dealing with both a place and an eventin the deconstructive sense of those terms. Derrida describes the visualeffect of this paralysis as a dislocation in which one has more places thanone should have the topology here both being and not being a figureand then goes on to speak of the paralysis as the surprise of an eventhappening to myself who am therefore no longer myself.142 Given thatthe relation of the periods to Circumfession as a whole is reflected in thenature of Conversion and therefore constitutes a simultaneously 59-fold andone-fold place or event, Derridas later statements to the effect that eachof the 59 periods encircles a Nothing in which God reminds Derrida ofhimself,143 represents a counter-example or counter-truth of himself,144

and contains four synchronistic or anachronistic moments,145 take on aspecial significance.

The structure of exemplarity and substitutionwhich appears here in Cir-cumfession parallels the structure of theparadigms in How toAvoid Speak-ing: Denials.146 In this structure, the exemplary is the X whichmay be pos-tulated as the primary example within a series of related terms, whereas thesubstitutive is any X which may be postulated as any example or counter-example within a series of related terms, the structure being recursive inthat the contrast between the exemplary and the substitutive itself can bestated in both exemplary and substitutive terms. The exemplary normallycorresponds to the sphere of the transcendent, the logically necessary, andthe universal, and Derrida here associates it specifically with the God who

141 It should not be forgotten that both the title of thewholework (circon (circonfession))and the subtitle referring to the constituent parts (pri (59 priodes et priphrases)) exploitthe notion of circularity. Circularity is therefore the feature connecting the two levels ofstructure.

142 Circum/Circon. 24 plus de lieux qu il ne faut la topologie tant et ntant plus ici unefigure la surprise dun vnement marrivant moi-mme, qui ne le suis donc plus.

143 Circum/Circon. 51 un Rien o Dieu se rappelle moi.144 Circum/Circon. 48 contre-vrits contre-exemplarits.145 Compare Circum/Circon. 21 synchroniser les quatre tempswith 29 lanachronisme

quatre poques distinctes. Cf. also 25.146 Compare the reference to the 59 periods as encircling a Nothing (see n. 143) with that

to the three paradigms encircling a Nothing (see n. 76).

neoplatonic compulsions 23

knows everything147 or the distinction between mind and body.148 The sub-stitutive normally corresponds to the sphere of the non-transcendent, thelogically contingent, and the particular, Derrida associating this specificallywith the God who stands for anybody149 or the distinction between himselfand his counter-examples or counter-truths.150

The structure of exemplarity and substitution may, in principle, be com-bined with the structure of the fourfold place-event.151 Here, the X whichhas been postulated as the primary example within a series of related termsmaybeunderstood as theneutral termof the fourfold structure,whereas theX which has been postulated as any example or counter-example withina series of related terms may be understood as either the negative, or thecombined, or the positive term of that structure. When the structure ofexemplarity and substitution occurs in its basic form, its combination withthe structure of the fourfold place-event in a disjunctive mode is possible,but when the structure of exemplarity and substitution occurs in its regres-sive form, its combination with the structure of the fourfold place-eventin a conjunctive mode is also possible. Derrida organizes much of his Cir-cumfession on the basis of these structures. In an important sequence, thefront-page of a notebook for the Book of Elie constituting a textual and visualrepresentation of the structure is shown.152 This leads to descriptions of theescarrea regressive version of the structure in which the emphasis fallsupon the static aspect of place153and of the spongeanother regressiveversionof the structure inwhich the emphasis falls upon thedynamic aspectof event.154 Descriptions of the methods of Jewish exegesis constituting atextual form of the structure,155 and of Derridas facial paralysis constitut-ing a visual form of the structure156 then follow. Several later passages in

147 Cf. Derridas first quotation from Augustine in 1 reads cur confitemur Deo scienti? Forthe topic of divine omniscience cf. Circum/Circon. 9, 11, 15, 42.

148 Circum