Speculation, philosophy and the end of religion: Save the name 'God' and the folly of this name as the queen of the sciences or the jester of academia
In this article, Meillassoux and Laruelle were brought into conversation with Derrida concerning contingency, temporality, non-philosophy and God. The conversation between Derrida and Meillassoux focused on their respective views on trace and radical contingency, which opened towards reflections on God as either divinology (Meillassoux) or the endless desertification of language (Derrida), thus saving the name ‘God’ and keeping the name safe. One cannot think this desertification of language, ‘God’, without a reflection on khōra. This opened a conversational space with Laruelle’s non-philosophy. One of the major criticisms against Laruelle is that his non-philosophy has no worth in terms of the extra-philosophical (ethical, political or juridical) and the same could be said with regards to khōra and, specifically, Derrida’s interpretation of khōra. Therefore Derrida’s interpretation of khōra with its ‘unilateral’ relation to logos, the giving and receiving of khōra without giving and receiving anything and thus remaining indifferent, were brought into conversation with Laruelle’s unilateral duality. This unilateral duality, although indifferent to philosophy, makes all the difference to logos and thus to philosophy. The question is: what place is given to khōra and/or non-philosophy within academia? Derrida’s God can be interpreted as a kind of autodeconstructive divine violence or holy folly. What place is given to divine violence or holy folly within academia? What is the relation of non-philosophy to philosophy? Is it the non-foundational foundation that remains totally indifferent to philosophy as it does not engage in a dialectical relationship with philosophy and yet it is the theory or science of philosophy? Can academia afford to ‘give place’ to this holy folly, this non-philosophy, this khōratic theo-logic, but on the other hand, can it afford not to ‘give place’ to the queen and/or jester of academia?
The Purloined Letter
At Paris, just after dark one gusty evening in the autumn of 18 -, I was enjoying the twofold luxury of meditation and a meerschaum, in company with my friend, C. Auguste Dupin, in his little back library, or book-closet, au troisième, No. 33 Rue Dunôt, Faubourg St. Germain. For one hour at least we had maintained a profound silence; while each, to any casual observer, might have seemed intently and exclusively occupied with the curling eddies of smoke that oppressed the atmosphere of the chamber. For myself, however, I was mentally discussing certain topics which had formed matter for conversation between us at an earlier period of the evening; I mean the affair of the Rue Morgue, and the mystery attending the murder of Marie Rogêt. I looked upon it, therefore, as something of a coincidence, when the door of our apartment was thrown open
Experience of using rating scales for the assessment of vocational trainees in general practice.
For two years trainers in the northern half of the south western region have been asked to assess their trainees with a condensed version of the new Manchester rating scales for vocational training in general practice and to send copies to the regional adviser. The condensed version retains the 23 scales but does not include the subscales. Trainers' workshops and comments from individuals suggested that no radical improvements to the scales were required and that they were an adequate statement of what was required from trainees. The response rate of 89% for returning at least one assessment and 38% for returning all three suggested that use of this condensed version would be more feasible than using the full version of the scales. Analysis of 86 first assessments and 48 sets of three assessments showed a range of variation both in trainee ratings and use of individual scales that was consistent with expectations. A lack of significant rank correlations between the scales indicated that each of the scales measured a different characteristic of behaviour. We suggest that the most useful way to achieve systematic assessment of vocational trainees is by the use of the 23 main rating scales, with regional variations where appropriate.