Fido the Yak

Nancy writes:

The "with" is neither a foundation nor is it without foundation. It is nothing except for being-with, the incorporeal with of the being-body as such. Before being spoken, before being a particular language or signification, before being verbal, "langauge" is the following: the extension and simultaneity of the "with" insofar as it is the ownmost power of a body, the propriety of touching another body (or of touching itself), which is nothing other than its definition as body. It finishes itself there, where it is-with; that is, it comes to a stop and accomplishes itself in a single gesture.

(Being Singular Plural, p. 92.)

I'm perplexed. What is it about the as such that allows for this kind of negation? Is it only a case of the with of the being-body? For Nancy being is primordially being-with. That necessarily complicates the question of being embodied. But does he really mean to align the plurality of being with not having a body? Don't expect me to answer that. I'm perplexed.

Labels: body, language, Nancy, ontology

posted by Fido the Yak at 10:04 AM.