The real problem...

Oh, well.

Luke,

My comment about Derrida as a father (and as a spiritual writer) was in
regard to his autobiographical essay "Circumfession," and it was in the context of
delineating the differences between his perspective and philosophical position
and my own. It was part of an attempt to point out that my writing on this
list is not strictly from the Derridean perspective and that my positions about
such things were significantly different.

You write, inexplicably:

"So some professionals have, in the past, behaved very unprofessionally."

Who? When? I don't remember saying this. I mentioned that I had seen
psychiatric professionals, but I said nothing about how they had behaved. Perhaps
the real problem here is that you can't read.

You then write:

"But I guess the advantage of an intellectual hierarchy associated with the
interpretation of an author is that his interpreters can always claim the
opposition is simply ill-informed..."

No, that's the advantage of knowing what you are talking about and discussing
it with someone who does not. You are the one who wrote about
"deconstructionism " (something that, for Derrida, has never existed) and about Derrida's
work being "a technique of literary criticism" (something he has said over and
over again it must not and cannot ever be). The distinction in these posts is
not a hierarchical one, Luke. It's a scholarly one -- between someone who is
thoroughly familiar with and understands the subject matter and someone who
obviously does not.

You say:

"Deconstructionism is discussed, as if it exists."

Not by Derrida. And it was his work we were discussing. Find me one
sentence. One instance, anywhere in his work, where he does this. You won't. You
can't. You won't admit that you can't (because I've been right all along about
this being about rhetoric and power). But I happen to know that Derrida never
discusses this term as if such a thing exists. In fact, I happen to know
where he insists that such a thing, for his work, cannot exist. So you are simply
wrong.

And Derrida, by the way, "relies on reason" in everything he writes. The
fact that you think he does not is yet another piece of evidence that you either
refuse to read or simply have never been taught that Derrida's work is never,
in any way, a refusal of or a rejection of reason. You really should read the
debate between Derrida and Foucault on reason and madness -- or the essay
"The Principle of Reason."

You claim:

"The whole last paragraphs of your response are just one elaborate tirade
about how I don’t really 'understand' Derrida, because I don’t share your views
on his work. "

No, not because you don't share my views. Because you say things about his
work that are demonstrably incorrect, simply in terms of content. Because you
say things concerning what Derrida's work claims that Derrida's own words
demonstrate are simply wrong. Because, as is now clear, you just don't know the
material. Saying Derrida rejects reason or tries to escape presence or rejects
logos or writes about "deconstructionism" or creates a "technique of literary
criticism" is like saying Einstein rejects gravity or says there's no such
thing as time or is the author of a new Cartesianism or creates a method for
counting atoms. It's just not what the texts claim -- it's just wrong. And if
you make such claims, then my argument with you is not over what your views are
on this work, it's over the fact that you obviously don't know the work.

But, putting aside your admission of your own stupidity, I leave your post
with one much greater concern. You write, linking two very different things:

"...more realistic settings like literary criticism and human
relationships..."

Uh, Luke. We really need to talk. Perhaps this is the problem. I know some
women I could introduce you to.

In fact, I have an idea.

Tina?

--John

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Thu Aug 14 08:07:56 2003