Re: Restored

Luke --

I think this is the key point in your argument with John O.

> it is my own interpretation of the consequences of
> Derrida's scholarship that to affirm such sovereignty is a rejection of absolutes.
>

You need to provide a coherent interpretation based upon the text before
you can elaborate on the consequences. You seem to have gone straight
from text to consequences. The argument isn't a matter of conflicting
interpretations yet -- or if it is, this is only secondary.
Interpretation hasn't begun on your part.

And while I agree with most people that Derrida is very difficult to
read, I disagree that he "tries to obfuscate an external meaning in
every sentence I have ever read in his work." You've merely asserted
this, rather than argued it directly from his text.

What you'd need to do is cite a paragraph, then demonstrate why it is
incoherent, or "obfuscates external meaning," with every sentence.
You'd have to do something like John O. did with Daniel's posts,
pointing out syntactical/grammatical structures that prevent "external
meaning."

You'd also have to more clearly define "external meaning." You have
defined this somewhat, but your definition was loaded with
presuppositions I just don't buy. I suspect you're really referring to
nothing more than language conventions accepted in certain types of
English, which Derrida has no obligation to follow, of course.

I've read _Of Grammatology_, a few essays, part of _Writing and
Difference_, and realized that most of my difficulty with Derrida
stemmed from three sources:

1. Unfamiliarity with his source texts. I drew up a list at least ten
books long that I went back and read during the process of reading _Of
Grammatology_.

2. His work is translated from French, and he employs a writing style
probably not too unusual for at least some of the French philosophy of
his day. He's writing, in other words, within a linguistic tradition
completely foreign to me. It's more than just writing in French, but
using the French in a certain way.

3. His writing attempts to demonstrate the principles of his philosophy
(we all know he's a philosopher, right, and not a literary critic?), so
employs word play (which is really only intelligible in French) and
other devices to actively demonstrate the seams in language rather than
just describe them.

When I read Derrida's source texts then returned to Derrida, I decided
he was making a valuable critique of the western rhetorical tradition
and its assumptions. I felt, in fact, that he stood at the end of the
line, that he was the natural end product of this tradition. As
important as critiques are, I don't think you can build a theory of
language or anything else on a critique, but that doesn't invalidate the
value of a legitimate critique.

Jim

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Wed Jul 16 20:29:56 2003