Re: try the real ideas

Eh...who said he can't be explained? Seems like there was a good effort
there to do so awhile back, get a few basic ideas through. You sound
pretty close to a basic understanding of at least one of his central
ideas below.

No, Derrida isn't a theist but, it's funny ya know, the theologians have
latched onto him these days like no one else. The problem is that the
God of the west has been over-rationalized and Derrida provides a good
countermeasure to that. These theologians like the idea that our truths
(big T) aren't ultimately dependent upon or represented by language,
because they'd just as soon worship God than dogma or other types of
ideas about God. This can be a denial of all dogma, or just a putting
of dogma in its place.

Anyway, I don't know what you're asking for by way of explanation. If
you want all questions answered I think you're being a bit naive -- no
human endeavor answers all questions, though some lie about that. There
comes a point when we do have to simply accept some things as being true
without really knowing why, in all disciplines (though not all admit it).

I'm not saying we should think this way about Derrida, of course. I
never argued he was preaching absolute truth, just making some good
observations we should try to understand and take into account.

As John pointed out, thar ain't no diehard deconstructionists here, or
anyone really engaging in the deconstruction of Salinger or other
literature.

Jim

Yocum Daniel GS 21 CES/CEOE wrote:

>Was not one of Derrida's pets the subversive-ness of all communication,
>there's the head and an imp on the shoulder, the down trodden Algerian
>wanted us to listen to the imp or at least tickle him under the shin now and
>then. But if this be true then all the handles to Truth (big T) are like
>the clown routine where every time we take hold it pops off like a rubber
>hand. He is right that subjective-ness is real but where does he say that
>there is anything more, I know he made some hand waving motions about a
>conceptual messiah and justice but they weren't arguments just deep seated
>some things. You say I misunderstand him but if 'meaning' can be (always is)
>marginalized by communicators then how is that not the threshold of the
>subject? And if you can't explain him then how do we know that you or even
>John understands him. It is very reminiscent to my leaving the Catholic
>Church, hard questions asked, direction to read certain things, I come back
>with the questions still unanswered and I am told to trust the Magisterium.
>If the priests don't know who do.
>
>Daniel
>
>Critiquing Derrida as a proponent of relativism is a misunderstanding :).
>
>I'm not much of a relativist myself, so when I see good observations I
>try to make sure I understand them.
>
>Jim
>
>
>-
>* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
>* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
>
>
>

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Wed Mar 5 14:11:32 2003