Re: Restored

"So it wasn't talking about Jardine, it was talking about a class she taught? Uh, OK."

Um, there's a difference... as in the difference between the statements, "Jardine is a feminist" (not said) and "This is what happened in Jardine's class on French Literary Criticism" (said).

"(And, incidentally, why is chaos necessarily inconsistent with truth anyway?)"

"Chaos" itself... maybe not, but "chaos" designed to obfuscate is certainly inconsistent.

"You then cite a passage from "Force of Law" which actually makes my point for me."

Of course you're going to say something snippy like that. The interpreter is empowered to say whatever he wants and make it consistent with a passage, when only internal truths may be imposed.

"It is a matter, says Derrida of the relation *between*... between force and signification... of persuasive force *and* of rhetoric... of *affirmation* of signature.
Please notice the relationships being described here. Show me where in this passage Derrida is rejecting anything, any absolute. You can't, because he's not. He's speaking in quite the opposite terms in fact, inclusive terms and affirmative terms. And he is saying, as I said originally, that the imposition of order comes *both* from internal force *and* external forces -- both/and -- between one and the other."

So the imposition of order comes BOTH from internal force AND external forces: persuasive force AND rhetoric. So one is internal and the other external? How about force AND signifiers? One internal and the other external? That must be true, if the grammatical construction you're emphasizing is to be a strikingly relevant point in this discussion. Nothing in my own argument assumes a different construction, or an alternative relationship between the words. I am arguing that both things in each "and" construction are internal, not external. Derrida's grammar can detract from this conclusion, but it can't deny an objective meaning of what "rhetoric" and "persuasive force" are.

"It's a huge leap! It's a tremendous leap! It's a leap over the Grand Canyon! Derrida is discussing very specific texts in linguistics and making very specific points regarding the relationship between signifiers and signifieds, and demonstrating those points as he goes, reading closely and citing along the way. Daniel is rambling incoherently and without any recognizable grammar. There can be no serious comparison."

"Very specific points regarding the relationship between signifiers and signifieds" means more than pointing out a grammatical relationship or arrangement of words. So Daniel's stuff has no meaning, because an "and" doesn't appear where you want it to, because there aren't signifiers over which to obsess? If one is to harp on language, then there cannot be a huge leap between words and ideas; the harping in the first place acknowledges that the words must have some powerful meaning/significance by themselves. If there is no idea that can be conveyed, the analysis is pointlesss.

"And citing Rorty in this discussion is another irrelevancy, since his take on this subject is completely different from either mine or Derrida's. Rorty is simply a pragmatist, and I think he is wrong about a great many things, but that's an entirely different discussion and not relevant to the one we were having here."

The quote seems relevant to me, since Derrida and you are emphasizing words and language. Rorty reinforces their importance
and denies anyone's ability to transcend words/language in effective communication.

"I still have not seen you offer a single moment when Derrida is rejecting absolutes or doing any of the other simplistic things you originally mentioned, including arguing in favor of exclusively internal anything (that would be Romanticism or pure psychologism in any case, and Derrida would stand and has constantly stood against such a single-minded epistemology and such a narrow reading)."

Who said Derrida says this? By arging for internal force, "rhetoric" and "persuasive force" being "the whole story," Derrida does emphasize internal imposition of truth, whether you like to say that is relevant to the passage or not.

To rehash what I said Derrida does (not say, does; grasp the significance of that difference?)
"Derrida advocates order, coherence, structure, meaning, and clarity that are all his own, and are not externally imposed."

To then rehash my interpretation of what this means:
"It's a power struggle between interpretations. It's a rejection of one absolute Order, Coherence, Structure, Meaning, and Clarity."

Your posts are demonstrative of such internal imposition; you purport to be the sole interpreter of authorities, hence the details of knowing Derrida and Jardine; you do not address any argument, but focus on a grammatical construction that is meaningless without further elaboration of its significance; any interpretation that is not consistent with your own internal truths must be "single-minded" and "narrow."

D'Souza links the imposition of internal truth with a political ideology on college campuses, and argues that it has a deleterioius effect. Therefore, a betrayal of the pursuit of <i>Veritas</i> at Harvard is relevant to a discussion of Derrida, and the pretentious fraudulence of mistaking internally-imposed truth as something that is external and incontrovertible.

luke

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH