Re: Before the Law

John O. said:
<< 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. >>

It is a complaint, of sorts; but I am dubious as to whether that's the
problem. You have suggested -- correctly, no doubt -- that people here
would not know what a deconstruction is if it were presented. This seems to
me like it ought to be a wholly and easily remediable malaise.

It seems to me quite undeniable that most people will never spend very much
time reading Derrida. Many people, even, who might be interested in his
ideas will never spend so much time reading him. Many people even who are
very interested in and even quite well versed in philosophy will never spend
much time reading him. I have very little doubt that the world holds men
and women -- probably not a few of them -- who make a living reading and
teaching philosophy and who, even if they read a book or glance through some
essays, will never devote a great deal of time to reading Derrida. But it
does not seem to me that it ought to be necessary for all of these men and
women to live their lives never being able to recognize a deconstruction
that is presented to them.

I was sure to say that nobody expects anything approaching comprehensive.
Just something small, something basic, something over-simplified, providing
only a cursory and by no means finally satisfactory idea of what the word
means. I doubt that any idea exists for which such a thing is impossible,
and it might prove helpful to people -- Hell, it might even spark an
interest or two.

If you wanted to know what General Relativity is -- not everything about it
now, but just what the Hell it is -- I could tell you to start with the
thirteen books of Euclid's Elements, then on to the first three of
Apollonius' Conics, Ptolemy's Almagest, and Newton's Principia, before
finally reading a handful of Einstein's essays. Or I could give you a brief
and ultimately insufficient explanation, in plain terms. Or if I felt
particularly ambitious and you had the interest and attention, I could sit
down with you and draw some diagrams on a cocktail napkin and explain it a
little more comprehensively (I've done this, believe it or not, and I think
successfully). It still doesn't answer to that shelf of unread books, but
it would no doubt leave you with a much better understanding than you had
before, with a much better understanding that most people have, and you'd
certainly be no worse for it.

If you have the energy and time for the latter, I'm sure there are at least
a few of us with the interest and attention. If not -- which is perfectly
understandable -- the former doesn't seem like a whole lot to ask.

You then said, beginning by quoting me:
<<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." >>

Most loosely, literature refers to anything written. More usually, though,
it refers to something that is written with an ear toward beauty and depth
of meaning.

How's this? In a conversation with someone (say, a Martian) who had no
conception of literature and just wanted some idea of what I meant by the
word, who wanted some chance of recognizing literature when he saw it, I
could say something like this along with the disclaimer that it's a
difficult question and I just pulled out a quick and most probably
insufficient answer. Further questions could be explained further.

Incidentally, I thought that Scottie's post suggested a question that was
worth answering. I was happy to see that you did finally say something
about it, and something that seemed reasonable enough to me (although in
what I took to be an unfortunate tone), in a later post to Daniel. Even if
you hate Scottie and are convinced thoroughly that he hasn't and won't say
something valuable to a responsible conversation, I do think that it would
be helpful to some of us if such things as what Scottie raised could be
answered in a fair and balanced way.

And I was very happy to see what follows, which is not quite, but much more
like, what I was talking about:
<< "Deconstruction" is a term used to refer most specifically to a set of
diverse philosophical texts and readings written by Jacques Derrida between
the years of 1967 and 1980, roughly. Derrida himself uses the term quite
sparingly and emphasizes the fact that his readings should each be
considered on their own merits and not as part of any school or movement or
even any method. People interested in the history of the term and its most
accurate meaning are advised to read those texts. >>

Is it right that "deconstruction" in some strict and appropriate sense,
refers not to an action or a method, but rather to a series of texts? And
it is not that deconstruction happens IN them, but that "deconstruction"
refers to them themselves?

-robbie
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Sat Mar 8 03:04:52 2003