Re: Before the Law

Robbie,

First, let me say that the page I posted so long ago on this list was written
for a seminar, for students who were already in the process of reading
Derrida, and therefore will be found by many on this list to be difficult and
assumptive. Nonetheless, I think everything in that little statement is
necessary for even the beginning of an understanding of what is a very
complex body of texts and a very complex moment in the history of philosophy.

I did not repost it here, and will not, because the reception it received the
first time around indicated a serious unwillingness to read it patiently,
closely, seriously, and with respect or to discuss it in any meaningful or
detailed way.

You say, that people here have asked for a definition of "deconstruction" and
that "usually the asker gets a list of thick and difficult books. "

Is this a complaint? If it is, herein lies the problem. You ask a
complicated question and then are unhappy when the answer demands that you
read. That is why no serious discussion of your question is really possible
in such a forum. Deconstruction is not alone in this regard, either. You
could have asked "what is phenomenology" or "what is existentialism," for
instance, and exactly the same problems would have occurred. And then there'd
be more "thick and difficult books" you'd have to read. Yes, you could go
out and find a dictionary definition of these terms, too (the high-school
student's approach to answering a difficult question in a lazy and mostly
misleading way), but in no case would such a definition be very useful or
accurate and in no case would it solve your problem.

Incidentally, you could have asked the question "what is literature" and
discovered the exact same problem.

I know I am in trouble in any given course when the professor begins by
asking the students "what is literature" and then actually writes a
definition on the board.

The page I offered you was my best attempt at the "summary" you are asking
for. If you read it closely, you will see that it answers your "what is..."
question in a careful and limited number of ways. If you can't understand
it, then you will have to be happy having read the dictionary definition, but
you will not be able to base any actual critique or any actual assumptions
about deconstruction on such a definition.

You say,

"I don't think there's anything else in the world -- no idea whatsoever,
however complicated or subtle or obscure or esoteric -- for which one who
knows it well enough cannot formulate such an explanatory sentence, with the
applicable warning. "

Fine, then, what is literature? I'd be interested to see how fair and useful
your "explanatory sentence" actually is, especially when considered in light
of all the things we call "literature."

All the best,

--John

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Fri Mar 7 07:13:34 2003