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.
Jim

Thank you, thank you very much.
Daniel

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.
Jim

No argument but who is guilty of over generalizations here? It seems that
it is the same 'body' of theologians that have latched on to Jacques are the
ones who did the over-rationalizations in the first place. Balance, the
balance of that worn out fiddler player on the roof.
Daniel

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).
Jim

No quite the opposite, I am saying that, in the modern dialogue, very little
is explained very well. Its as if Derrida is the language version of the
Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The principle does not keep us from
knowing, it only forces us to ask our questions carefully, and knowing the
strengths and limitations of those answers. It seems that it is the
penchant of some (not necessarily on this list) to focus on the limitation
side, seeing it as a license for bedlam. Some things do have to be accepted
without specific reasons but there is often collaborating reasons, stadium
walls of the ball park conclusion. I think (jump in to correct me John G.)
the failure to admit is one of John's grinding stones.
 Daniel

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

Again, I think Derrida has made some valid points but it seems he pushed
some of them to far, at least his latest garbled musings seem to be an
admission of that. Concerning diehards, I am not limiting my egging on to
the d word but like has been oft stated, the Author/meaning discussion. The
d topic just popped up as one of many of the hydra's heads.
Daniel

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Wed Mar 5 15:53:15 2003