RE: The real problem...

Then you have read very little Derrida. Many of his most important and
fully developed works are just such comparative studies. His long essay on
Freud's work in the Post Card looks at a large number of Freud's texts in
relation to each other and even and especially in relation to Freud's
autobiography. His book on Marx does the same, critiquing the entire
expanse of Marx's work. His essays in The Truth in Painting not only look at
a number of different texts by an author in each essay but also a number of
different paintings and visual works by each artist in question. Throughout
his career he has written essays that read single texts closely and also
written essays that compare a number of different texts by the same author
and some that compare texts by different authors as well.

In fact, perhaps his largest and most compelling work examines in detail the
writings of Hegel (and includes careful, critical comments on almost all of
Hegel's major works) and Genet (and compares and reads from all of Genet's
published novels and many of his plays and essays). All in the same book.
John O.

I was speaking to that text I read that I specifically referred to without
title. But again it seems that the meaning of that text requires me to
appeal to other texts to know what Derrida really meant. I have no problem
with that but that means that I can know what an author means by reading his
texts. Just so you would know for future reference.
Daniel

Again, I really wish you'd be careful about the claims you make.
John O.

I was careful but all the careful in the world changes not a thing when your
corrections are derived from truth John. If you have no universal standard
to appeal to then what does care matter?
Daniel

And Derrida is not engaged in any sort of "process" from one text to the
other. That's simply your convenient made-up narrative about a collection
of texts you obviously have not read.
John O.

So, I must read Derrida Texts to understand Derrida and other
Derrida texts but there is no continuity between them and no history of the
hows and whys his comments were made? Yet my a reference to your appeal to
their meaningful communicative whole termed process gets you undies in a
bundle. It is convenient for me but if your appeal to Derrida's whole body
of texts for meaning really matters then it is not only convenient but True.
John, haven't you figured out that this discussion is not about what Derrida
wrote or didn't write and whether I have read him or not but rather where
meaning lies and how that bears on truth or Truth. What Derrida did or
didn't do is immaterial what matters is where you source meaning and your
relationship with Derrida or any author concerning meaning. What makes this
ironic though is that Derrida is the perfect vehicle since he does not write
subjective fiction but rather he writes in the pursuit of the love of
wisdom.
Daniel

Then you assume:
"We read texts to understand people..."
I don't.
John O.

I know you don't but that is where meaning lies and the root of your
inability to access Truth.
Daniel

Finally, you ask, digging up an old chestnut:

"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?"

They draw themselves, within a discussion like this one, for instance. And
they do so with only 't'ruth because that's all that we have.
John O.

SO these boundaries draw themselves, interesting. And these boundaries
being self manifesting determine truth yet when we discuss them and do not
agree on them then you can appeal to your self evident boundaries and I
appeal to mine and all we have are the these texts yet I can't really know
what Derrida means in a particular text without reading the body of texts
yet these boundaries draw themselves. John, grab me a gold ring the next
your carousel comes around. If these boundaries draw themselves then why
appeal to any other text when written by these people discussing meaning.
So, the world and all the people are shit to be celebrated yet all this
cacophony of texts written by these shit based people are the only source of
truth for you. Now I know why you have no problem crucifying Ashcroft but
you shake in anger at the mention of burning a book. "That's all we have",
no John that is all you have but you could have so much more. Why more? to
slide that horizontal up the rest of the way to the top and the calls for
crucifixions may decrease.
Daniel

The rest is just your children's stories again.
John O.

Yes, children's stories, I am a father myself and I have learned that
children's stories can be so True. And the interesting part is that my 18
month old daughter is able to know what they mean without a PhD and many
adults can't comprehend them despite years of education. Imagine, you bank
your truth on intellect and it is all around like air for all to freely
breath. John, those maze walls are only hedges, come on through.
Daniel
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Thu Aug 14 15:20:39 2003