Re: The real problem...

ha : )

Yeah, I think that's it, Sundeep. I think the problem is that _their
comprehension_ is being made equal to _Derrida's intention_ by some
readers of Derrida on this list. John has been arguing from other
Derrida texts that their comprehension is Not Equal to his intention,
fairly constructing probable intent the way these readers would
construct it themselves.

Daniel has been trying to argue that John's responses involve an
inherent contradiction with his own premises (as he understands them
from previous discussions). I've been saying that John's responses are
the expected types of response you'd see to claims about _a person_ and
not what they specifically said in their _writing_.

The writing, after all, is not the person himself.

I think if they'd just stick to the texts, quote them, and then say,
"Where the text says X here it seems to support the ideas Y, Z, and A"
we'd be a lot more productive.

Jim

Sundeep Dougal wrote:

>>The issue, as I see it, has never been what Derrida's _texts_ "mean" --
>>as you and Luke have framed it -- but what Derrida himself _means_ and
>>stands for.
>>
>>
>
>Ah, I see. The issue, then, is not what the above _text_ means but what the
>_writer_ himself means and stands (and presumably sits) for? Is it a problem
>in comprehension? Or articulation? Both perhaps, it would seem?
>
>Sonny
>requesting to be spared scornful and sanctimonious sermons, as he means
>something quite different from what this text says.
>
>
>

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Thu Aug 14 15:02:48 2003