Deconstruction/ GI and MIKE M sissy slap fest

[KlausFraktal]

And that theory says?

That any brief explanation of that theory will contain words and sentences whose intended meaning is obscured by a virtually infinite matrix of signs and associations that will, in all likelihood, lead most readers to continuously face a disjunct with my, John, and GI's  ramblings. Furthermore, myself, John, and GI would be among those misunderstanding readers, as fluctuating mental states, social contexts, and conversational demands may diminish, enhance, or merely alter the specific notion that we associate with the individual words/sentences/bullshit we express.

[Good Intentions]

Deconstruction isn't about wresting meaning from texts, though it employs texts in its examinations of the functions of language.

I don't know what this means.

Hi John! Long time no see!

I want to clarify this bit myself: do you mean wrestling meaning away from text ("No, Freud, what you actually meant was this" - the psychoanalysis of texts) or do you mean it isn't the way I've described it, a way to increase what we get out of our reading of a text?

But as for the functions of language part: the fact that deconstruction can happen at all is because of the signifier/signified relation, because we don't say things but rather talk about things - because language is a structure of signifiers. This structure distorts what enters it by pidgeonholing ideas, and if an idea comes along for which the structure doesn't have a pidgeonhole it creates one for the idea on the terms of the structure. An example of this is when one language absorbs words out of another - in Japanese there is a whole slang of English words being integrated into Japanese, but sentences from this quasi-English is incomprehensible to English speakers, making sense only to the Japanese because they work on the radically different Japanese grammar (this is one part of the Engrish phenomenon).
Deconstruction works by laying out these changes, these interactions between frameworks, on a case-by-case basis and thereby illuminates the functions of language that causes them.

[Good Intentions]

Klaus: I always try to seperate the practice of deconstruction from Derrida's writings. I'm more hostile to system building than most, and it seems to me that if you try to unite, say, ecriture with the analysis of logocentrism you are conflating mass with weight.

Of course, being a Heidegger man you might feel very different about this.

[KlausFraktal]

I was going to say something about language in this context encapsulates a number of more conventional concepts, but I'm really sleeping and my brain isn't working. I think I agree with you in terms of system building, at least as far as trying to tie together a whole of any individual or movement's group. Obviously, such an effort would be somewhat counteractive to the whole topic of discussion here. With that said, the means by which language/text permeates human consciousness, at least in this sense, renders any critique of language/text a broader system than a more conventional reading of these terms would lead an individual unfamiliar with them to conclude. Yawn.

[Good Intentions]

I didn't know there was more to consciousness than language.

(and other such frameworks of which it is an example)

[FreddyKnuckles]

I think for my paper, I'm just going to print out 6 pages of screenshots of lptj posts.

[andronicus]

I think you would probably get an A and an F at the same time.  I want to turn this whole thread into a two act play.

[Mike M]

You certainly are not in a position to pass judgement, not from a position of damn-near complete ignorance. Show some integrity.

You're right. So let me be absolutely clear. I am not passing judgement on deconstructionalism.

I am passing judgement on deconstructionalism as you describe it.

I'm not being dishonest with you, so I guess I must be misunderstanding. If it's important to you that I agree with you, or at least understand you -- and apparently, the two have become synonymous -- then I guess you'll just have to try explaining again.

One way to do that might be addressing my concerns rather than telling me you've addressed them.

[hannah]

I think you would probably get an A and an F at the same time.  I want to turn this whole thread into a two act play.

oh MAN. I wish I were awesome enough to do this, too, and then we could have your two act play and my googolplex react play.

[FreddyKnuckles]

there's no need to argue: mike M just don't understand

crosses arms.

[andronicus]

my googolplex react play.

   please to explain?

Also, I'm now really excited re:FreddyKnuckles that I get to write fresh prince into my play!

[Mike M]

It's true, there's a good chance I completely don't get this. I am not so insecure I can't admit that. I don't particularly need to, either -- really, this conversation is gonna go about as far as GI's abilities to explain his ideas can take it.

[hannah]

my googolplex react play.

   please to explain?

oh, a lame wordplay... two --> googolplex, act --> react.

gonna go self-destruct now. or self-deconstruct.

[andronicus]

You do realize you're going to have to write a googolplex react play now, don't you?  Eh?

Eh?

[Good Intentions]

So let me be absolutely clear. I am not passing judgement on deconstructionalism.

It's like testing a car for safety. From my perspective -- maybe his too, I don't know -- you're driving the Ford Deconstructionalism, and it's fucking unsafe. It's poorly built, the screws are coming loose, and there's a good chance it'll flip and explode if you try to take a turn sharper than fifteen degrees.

And I'm sitting here saying, "That looks pretty unsound!"

[Good Intentions]

andronicus - I sent you a mail.

[hannah]

oh god but that's a one followed by a googol zeroes worth of (re)acts...oh no, ok, if I start today and write a googol (re)acts per day, how will I do?

(re)act 1
Descartes: I think, therefore I am.
Derrida: You text, therefore you are.
13-year-old girl: I text, therefore I am!!1!1

(re)act 2
Fresh Prince of Bel-Air: Where's Jazz?
Old folky: Jazz is where the heart is.
Snide music reviewer: Jazz is where the Heart is.

[Mike M]

For fuck's sake, GI, I was talking about it as you described it there, too.

As you said, I'm operating from near-complete ignorance. I couldn't have been talking about anything else!

I mean, cute try at a gotcha, but completely and obviously wrong. Why does it bother you so much that I'm not into this?

[Good Intentions]

Perhaps I need more of an explanation of what you object to.

If you are talking about my explanation as the Ford Deconstructionism (rather than the real thing, perhaps the Shelby Deconstructionism) which is all rickety and falling apart. From where I'm sitting everything looks fine - will you tell me what the sloppy construction is that you see?

(And if you tell me again that I can read anything into a text with it I will have to blow a valve of my own. You understand that that is true of every possible mode of analysis? No system can enforce perfection. At the very least uou must be able to tell me why deconstruction is especially vulnerable towards misreadings - why the Ford D falls apart faster than a well built car)

[Mike M]

I see it as an incoherent, insubstantial line of logic. I just don't see any point where it starts to cohere into a viable structure. It's difficult for me to pick it apart, because from my perspective, it's nonsense -- try dissecting Silly Putty and you'll see what I mean. I would have to be able to make some sense of it before I could tell you what was wrong here.

Which makes sense, when it's supposed to be linking "we only look at the text" to "nothing exists without context."

And I guess you can blow a gasket if you want, but again, you've fundamentally misunderstood my argument. The problem, as I explained previously and I thought clearly, isn't that it can be misused. Of course it can. Anything can.

My problem is that I think it's so poorly worked out, at least the way you describe it, that it's near impossible to do it right!

[DCDave]

What are the first principles of deconstruction?  In all this discussion, even those aren't clear to me.  I read somewhere that it "challenges binary natures" but that's not a first principle...

[Good Intentions]

What are the first principles of deconstruction?

To invesitgate différance in a text.

I covered that in the thread quoted in the third post of this thread, which I perhaps incorrectly assumed everybody went over first.

[DCDave]

What are the first principles of deconstruction?

To invesitgate différance in a text.

I covered that in the thread quoted in the third post of this thread, which I perhaps incorrectly assumed everybody went over first.

That's not a first principle.  That's a use.

Edit: I understand what it's used for.  I just don't understand what it is.  Any description I've found says "You can't describe what deconstruction is with language."  That seems willfully evasive.

[Good Intentions]

Deconstruction only is something that can be used.

I understood first principle as in "a Riemann sum is the first principles of integration" or "probabilities are the first principles of statistics" which is the relevant way to look at it.

[DCDave]

Deconstruction only is something that can be used.

I understood first principle as in "a Riemann sum is the first principles of integration" or "probabilities are the first principles of statistics" which is the relevant way to look at it.

So deconstruction has no first principles beyond "This is what you can use it for"?