Re: The role of the teacher

Jim wrote:
<< [. . .] [P]eople [. . .] wanting a definition of deconstruction should
read [Diego's encyclopedia excerpt] and then ask questions about specific
ideas.

Still not holding my breath :). >>

I don't understand the last sentence. Are you suggesting that the curious
won't read the link? That they will start but give up? (Your posted excerpt
of a brief passage might suggest that you expect this last.) That they will
read and not understand?

I read it and didn't find quite so much difficulty as Scottie describes (I
expect that knowledge of Sanskrit was not especially helpful, but that
having read the major text(s) of most of the pertinent philosophers was),
though reading the summaries and descriptions, of course, won't suffice for
seeing actual arguments (and is thus informative, but not persuasive), which
I expect will require finally getting to the man himself. I will not,
however, be asking questions about specific ideas, but not for any of the
reasons above. Perhaps others read it and decided that the next step is
Derrida himself? Perhaps they read it and decided that the ideas weren't so
interesting or compelling (or offensive?) to them as they had previously
thought? Perhaps they read it and decided that whatever is next, a long
discussion on the list -- for whatever reasons -- isn't it?

-robbie

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Thu Mar 13 01:26:02 2003