RE: The real problem...

"Does not Derrida limit his play in differences to the specific text at
hand?"

No.
John O.

>From what I read Derrida's differences were very specific to the text and he
did not refer to the larger context of those author's body of writings he
used in his examples to see if those apparent difference in meaning were
fixed. He may have done this in another text but he did not do it in the
text I read. Now, again your 'no' may apply to his body of texts but they
do not apply to that text in hand. I can't remember what the title of the
text was but I still have notes at home.
Daniel

You say that Derrida "has, with the body of his writings, marginalized texts
and privileged the person."

He has not. Anywhere.
John O.

The texts in themselves may have not but this whole process of Derrida
clarifying his meaning does. If the person is not privileged over the text
then why has he taken so much pain as you have often stated to re-assert
what he and the texts really say or don't say. Not all these people
including myself have not bothered to read the texts we just didn't
understand what he meant by what he wrote in those particular texts, maybe
because of the readers ignorance concerning the whole body of texts or his
ability in writing but either way he has shown by the refinement of his
meaning in further texts that it is the author that really counts and not
just the texts. We read texts to understand people, and it seems that
Derrida's process of interacting with his audience bears this out. So John,
Yes he has, or otherwise he would not elaborate what his texts mean or don't
mean like many other writers of texts have refused to do.
Daniel

And Derrida's work does not evolve according to the linear narrative you so
glibly sketch out.

It consists of a series of readings and re-readings, many similar, many
different, some referring back to earlier writings, some not. It addresses
many issues in many fields and reads many texts in many different
disciplines in many different ways. The essays are heterogeneous and
organized and related and unrelated and serious and playful and
philosophical and literary and political and aesthetic and developed and
sketchy and long and short. And they are always, each of them, singularly
and in groups, available to be read and re-read.
John O.

Of course, if we traced his path we would not find a straight line but when
the process you describe above is looked at topographically it moves away
from what Texts mean to what Derrida means. So, it only means that he has a
desire to be understood and that what he means is more important than the
latent textual meanings, he may not expressly say this but he does act it
out. And so do you, by the way. Some read some of the texts and you say
that the meanings we derive from them are invalid and you have often berated
us because we have not subsumed ourselves into the Derridean sea but how can
you tell if you had the right meaning of a Derrida text if Jacques never
elaborated as you say with re-readings, with references back to earlier
writings and organization between separate texts. Of course they are
available to be read and if some one were to read them all or singularly or
groups and see meaning in them that you don't, does that non-omlor meaning
exist? Or will we see the meaning that you see and if we do, is that
meaning True? Or are the meanings only _t_rue and the size of their t
relies merely upon the rhetorical skill of that meaning's purveyor? I am
sure that you will say that there is a boundary to the possible meanings but
again I say it as I have said it often before how do you draw those field
boundaries with only 't'ruth?

Now, is there anything in all of this that you still don't understand?
John O.

There is much that I don't understand but if we can keep you from falling
asleep we may get to know more.
Daniel

 
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Thu Aug 14 14:14:53 2003