Re: Restored

"Jim,"

I'm not Jim, though you might successfully invoke nondiscrimination to defend this error.

"You're still missing my point -- you cite D'Souza on Jardine (or Jardine's class, if you like) in response to something I wrote about Derrida's work. Your citation is simply irrelevant, not only because D'Souza's gossipy book is a shallow, ill-informed, simplistic reading that's wrong about almost everything, but because it has nothing to do with what we were talking about concerning the importance of order and coherence and structure in the written work of Jacques Derrida."

D'Souza's book is not "gossipy," as this would suggest that the incidents he recounts are unsubstantiated rumors. I recommend that you put down the Village Voice, read the book, and quit denigrating it ("wrong about almost everything," well then QED).

I already explained why I felt D'Souza relevant to this discussion. See the previous post, near the bottom.

"And yes, I know Alice Jardine, and she certainly does *not* use chaos "designed to obfuscate" either in her classes or in her writing. Ever."

We differ in our definitions of "chaos," then. How is allowing truths to emerge simply through power struggles not a form of chaos? And you, not I, are shifting the emphasis onto Professor Jardine to make it personal. I am speaking specifically of the discussion atmosphere that prevailed in her class on French Literary Criticism at Harvard College on November 22, 1989, as described in D'Souza.

"Concerning your reading of the passage from "Force of Law;" nowhere in it does Derrida, as you originally claim, either reject absolutes in any way or reject the external imposition of force or structure.
Remember, Luke, here is what you wrote, concerning Derrida's work:
"It's a rejection of one absolute Order, Coherence, Structure, Meaning, and Clarity..."

I will repost what I wrote in the last e-mail, to clear this up:

"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.""

Now, to address your further assertions re Derrida and absolute truth:

You're insisting that we all live in your world. Derrida demands analysis of language at the expense of static, objective, incontrovertible meaning ("the impossibility of its ever being <i>present</i>, of its ever being summarized by some absolute simultaneity or instantaneousness"). Derrida equates "beauty" with "force" (<i>Writing and Difference</i> 18, in University of Chicago 1978 edition). Is the possibility of one external Order, Coherence, Structure, Meaning, and Clarity rejected for the rubbish of an order, coherence, structure, meaning, and clarity to be imposed internally with "rhetoric" and "force?" I think so.

"You say you cite Rorty because he "denies anyone's ability to transcend words/language in effective communication." But since neither Derrida nor I have done this anywhere in this discussion, the quote is, like the D'Souza citation, irrelevant."

Why the retreat from your earlier tirade against Daniel for incoherence? How about the great leap between the juxtaposition of words and ideas? Why the denial of Derrida's emphasis on language and word arrangements? (perhaps on that last question, to de-emphasize that Derrida does nothing to "get back behind language" or try to "ground" it, to refer back to the highly relevant Rorty quote you insist on claiming irrelevant?)

"By the way, do you have any idea how to clearly demarcate the difference between internally and externally imposed truths?"

This has been the point. Absolute truth is external, and attempts to interpret it are internal. I'm talking about problems involved with demanding that one's own interpretation, or internal truth, prevail in the guise of an external truth... the problems involved with demanding that "beauty" be "force."

"Can you demonstrate for us how you would separate the forces, both internal and external, that participate in the construction of these truths?"

Any kind of human action to enforce a concept of truth must be internal: rhetoric, persuasion, violence and repression...

"Can you describe in detail how the delineation of the internal and the external can be recognized and formulated such that one can decipher it in writing independent of rhetoric?"

A statement of fact is external. A quote is external, in that it conveys the reality of what the speaker is saying (another one of my takes on Derrida that will doubtlessly piss you off is that he tries to get around this). Reasons that Daniel should express himself in a way that suits you, and reasons that I should just shut up and agree with you, are all internal.

Looking for objectivity, who can really know the ultimate goal? (But the flip side of this question is: How many people would claim not to know?) This is why encouraging the pursuit of <i>veritas</i>, a pursuit that this discussion has been a part of when we're not hurling insults at each other (and I'm guilty of this too; in reality, dreadfully unkind when it comes to debate) is important, not necessarily its identification and imposition. And I might hypothesize further that our mutual insistence on imposing our truths over this e-mail list is what turns this discussion bitter. I do not plan to back down. But let's be honest with ourselves, that any truth we might arrive at following a fight like this is an internally imposed one.

What exactly do you believe in, John, besides the inescapability of your own world?

luke

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