Re: not playing so nice

Logocentrism, as I understand it, is Derrida's idea, not mine, so what "I" think is a bit beside the point. I don't usually think in terms of that category.

But I think the way you're framing the discussion is wrong from the start.

See, this is completely besides the point:

> Still, Jim, I think I make a fairly convincing case that the rejection of racist speech/language and an ethnocentrist perspective can be achieved in a logocentrist world.
>

I never said it couldn't. I did say that according to the exergue of _Of Grammatology_, logocentrism is the basis of ethnocentrism. That doesn't mean that if your thinking is logocentric you're automatically a racist. It does mean that your speech and thought habits lend themselves to ethnocentrism.

Next, from your first post:

> Jim -- A rejection of logocentrism leaves no basis by which one can
> conclude that racism is wrong, absolutely. Denying the stability of language
> means that racist speech is not racist, as its absolute meaning is lost.
>

>From what I could tell, Derrida wasn't interested at all in "concluding" that racism was wrong. This was just taken for granted. But we're not talking about racism, we're talking about ethnocentrism -- the tendency to put one's culture and cultural referents at the center of one's cognitive universe. "Logocentrism," the association of "true" language with presence (this is a caricature, but good enough for now, I think) supports ethnocentrism because the individual's own culture will always be the site of "presence" in individual's own thinking. He will think he's talking about the entire human race and absolute truths, to use one example, and really only be talking about the people in his
neighborhood.

This doesn't deny that absolute truths exist; it's just an observation of a thought process. Whether or not absolute truths exist is another discussion entirely.

So this whole chain of reasoning has nothing whatsoever to do with some of the southern white guys I worked with in construction in FL using the "n-word" to refer to blacks -- nothing at all to do with "racist speech." This whole approach is wrong.

So by the time I get to this:

> Do people even think about what is True, or what we think to be true, or a coherent vision
> of what is Truth and what is the way to live?
>

I really wonder what the heck you're talking about and what that has to do with anything I actually said. I've never denied the existence of "truth" or even "Truth" here or anywhere else, and certainly not in my last post. I think you're applying your perception of John from your past conversations with him to me -- which is ridiculous.

I appreciate Derrida's critique of the western rhetorical tradition because I think it's "true" or at least expresses some "truths." I really don't care if that's consistent with his or yours or anyone else's philosophy. I see a good observation and I appreciate it, that's all.

Appreciating his critique doesn't mean I buy everything he says, and especially not your version of it.

Jim

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Mon Aug 11 22:07:34 2003