RE: not playing so nice

Jim, watch closely, see? nothing in either hand and nothing up the sleeves,
Ok? If the stability of language is questionable, then communication built
upon that language is questionable. If communication is questionable then
any meaning derived from that communication is questionable. If we
understand others primarily through language based thought (I am not
convinced of that) then our understanding of others is questionable. Now,
how can some one be confident enough to advocate a political course built
upon their understanding of the world based on questionable language? If
there is uncertainty in the data there is at a minimum equal uncertainty in
any conclusions drawn. If Derrida is certain in the form that government
should take but not certain that language is capable of communicating that
form then how does he think anyone who thinks differently than him can
agree? Is it an act of faith in my understanding of his words that leads
him to believe that his political epistle should be understood. I know John
says that there is a boundary to possible meanings but those boundaries
really depend upon the cleverness of the reader and without any universals
there can never be a clean demarcation of which meanings are valid and there
lies the seeds for Derrida's philosophical self denial. I know I am not
saturated with Derrida's thoughts and that somehow John knows what he
certainly means with all his unstable language and his vague appeals to
justice and messiahs but so far apart from appeals to authority I have not
seen an answer that stabilizes any judgment. Be it racism, politics, or
ethnocentrism. Be careful Jim, what is meant by ethnocentrism is often
little more than rhetoric for the new fashioners of the latest ideological
ethnos. Again, I advocate the separation of power, especially in Europe and
I prefer the elected leaders of Britain and Spain to some European strong
arm.
Daniel

 
I won't speak for John, but I don't see his or "Derridean" philosophical
assumptions as contradictory to a specific value system that could lead to a
political platform. In other words, we can still question the stability of
language and still think racism is wrong. My understanding of Derrida (from
my limited reading) is that these two things are very closely related, in
fact -- that logocentrism is the basis of ethnocentrism so to undermine the
latter you have to undermine the former.

Jim

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Mon Aug 11 16:49:28 2003