RE: The real problem...

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.
John O.

Yes, John he does not use the word deconstructionism but he does something
to several texts in his texts and then claims that if we have read his text
carefully we can see something important about language but if we do what he
does then it is no method and all those Literary paganni out there are doing
that something with a method (well or poorly) he claims does not exist.
It's like the small print in those contracts signed at the crossroads.
Interesting, he claims all the power in his rhetoric while waving his hand
furiously if some one lights a rhetorical back fire. Interesting John it
almost seems dogmatic but I say almost seems because it is a one way dogma,
- the rule is good for you, the ignorant but we who know are not subject to
it, interesting (read that last word with a Col Klink accent). And then to
top it off, You claim that you and him are radically different yet your
rhetoric seems indistinguishable. Again, interesting. I had no idea that
doper wiener dogs knew so many tricks.
Daniel

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."
John O.

John he may rely on reason but reason is in trouble if it relies on him.
Some one can love something and abuse the hell out of it, yet despite your
insistence in the past that texts stand alone you appeal to the author's
motives namely a desire to be reasonable. Do we need one Derrida text to
interpret another? I thought that you claimed that the authorial intent was
a wil-o-wisp and that each text should stand on its own as far as meaning
yet you establish your picture of what Derrida texts mean by constructing an
argument based upon a method quite alien to your authorial intent of meaning
stance. Interesting.

I am interested (to a degree) in what Derrida, the man means in all his
writings including his revisions and it seems that so are you but that is
quite something different than what the texts do mean in your world, so how
can you slap Luke around and still be faithful to reason? Or since you like
reason over faith there is no requirement for faithfulness just powerful
rhetoric with apparent reason. Interesting.
Daniel

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.
John O.

Einstein did reject gravity John, he had to recast it before he was able to
accept it again. You could say these things only when you lump all the
texts together into a mega text but then in accordance with your past
reasonable allegiances you and Luke are then speaking about different texts.
You base your view of Derrida on all he has written and the type of man he
is when present while looks view is based on a text. Luke plays by your
rules and you don't. Or is that synthesis and we (Luke and myself) remain
antithesis ignoramuses. And all this time I thought alchemy was a thing of
the past, but Natchez's ghost keeps popping up in the most unusual places
and ironically it seems in an anti-specter embodiment.
Daniel

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 O.

Forgive me John for manipulating your text (deletion of the double spaces)
but since you have no problems with text manipulation you wouldn't mind.
Yes, literary criticism and human relationships are distinct but linking
them is not a problem for a person with continuity, but I must admit that
you are handy with your axe.
Daniel
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Thu Aug 14 11:34:58 2003