Helene Cixous

Your comments are what sound naive, and worse. How is the ability to cross boundaries of east and west in your work (Derrida) a naive example of universal thinking? Cixous spoke eloquently of the terms "intellectual" and "phallocentrism" in this whopping 51/2 minute discussion, and you're upset because she didn't mention Britney Spears?? Sounds like cultural imperialism to me.

Che, a mere poster figure? now that's not a naive comment, it's idiotic. Che has become a universal SYMBOL representing complexities of revolution, counterculture, martyrdom, etc. You are only proving Cixous point, MaximisedInsight. Sounds like you are stuck with the fallaciousness of your phallocentric belief that you are Cixous intellectual superior, what lunacy.

Ok, a universal symbol, then. Che's fame across cultures still doesn't reflect the greatness of his 'thought' since most admirers wouldn't be able to say much about that. What's phallocentric about critically commenting on someone's claims? I don't believe that seeing weaknesses in a particular argument makes me someone's intellectual superior. It is true, though, that I don't subscribe to authority worship that attributes infallibility to any intellectual - including Cixous.

This is only because Che wasn't a philosopher, he was an activist. His fight trumped his thinking in terms of notoriety and engagement. However, his actions stemmed from his thoughts and beliefs, which whether or not one knows specifically, one senses through his fight -because of the universal chord such actions struck. You'd have been better off citing Jesus for this useless and erroneous point. At least he went around thinking, and look what's been done with that. Che still proves her point.

Although not nearly as well Derrida, whose concept of Deconstruction has had a tremendous influence on our modern lives, undeniably. This is true despite the controversy that surrounded his views on politics, squabbles with his peers and untraditional writing style. To completely discredit this contribution is beyond naive. But that is beside the fact that you are missing the whole point Cixous is making. Let me explain. For example, most emotional displays are universal, meaning an Aborigine

By saying that Derrida's thought is controversial and very much part of a particular culture as opposed to universal, I am 'completely discrediting his contribution'? I don't think so. And I do get her point. I just think it pretty evident that thought, like the language in which it is inevitably cast and unlike, perhaps, certain basic aspects mimics of body language, is largely a product of its culture and historical situation.

What I find naive in this are comments such as 'A great mind/thinker is always universal'. To use Derrida of all people as an example, whose philosophy is famously controversial and by a large percentage of even Western philosophers considered anything but great, doesn't really support Cixous's point. I'm not 'upset because she doesn't mention B. Spears'. My point is that international fame does not necessarily say anything about the greatness of someone's thought.

would be able to recognize your European facial and verbal expressions of rage, pain, disgust, glee, etc. It is this meaning of universality Cixous is using, not popularity, which is subject to change at any given moment. She cites Gandhi because in his thought and teachings he is able to encompass other differing and opposing views and uncover a common ground. That he became of wide influence and value is the effect of this. Universality, in terms of great thinking, and international fame are

not the same thing. If philosophers had Hollywood publicists maybe you'd have something. What bothers me is your use of the word naive not only because it is dismissive, insulting, and unwarranted, but because it indicates your authority over her ability to think. This is what is phallocentric. Your motives are very apparent, your arguments weak, and your penis is showing.

Can you think of a way in which I can express my disagreement with Cixous that would bother you less? I'm always happy to learn about linguistic etiquette and your way of disagreeing with me is probably not meant as an example in this regard. As to my apparent motives - what do you think they are? Do you think they have something to do with the, I suppose metaphorical, penis you like to attribute to me?