Derrida and Linguistics; Deconstrcution and Spirtual Freedom

[Guest guest]

Since Sarbani ji raised Derrida's name and referred to Derrida, JK, Rahu,

Deconstrcution etc some may wonder what this whole thing is about. Furthermore

Sarbani's musings over 'social philosophy' as she puts it, could be

misunderstood if one has no idea of what Derrida has done to philosophy,

linguistics etc. To know Derrida, you dont have to be a linguist. Anyway

Sarbani's musings might be clearer or at least not misunderstood if one

appreciates Derrida's logic. And as Sarbani ji says, if she has been in

linguistics for 15 years, she cannot but be influenced by Derrida.

In light of all this, I felt like writing on Deconstruction, Derrida and

Spirirtual Freedom. I wrote it for both the 'cosmicroots' as well as this list.

I would appreciate it if anyone gices feedback on this on the 'cosmicroots'

group since the group's objective is to discuss such topics there.

==============================================================

 

Derrida and Linguistics; Deconstruction and Spiritual Freedom

 

 

After my last post someone asked me, “Who is Derrida and what does he say? …And

how is he relevant to us?” This post article is an attempt to introduce Derrida

and his relevance to a student of philosophy or even spirituality. OK here we

go.

 

Let us go back to 1966. The place? John Hopkins University. It was here that a

genius called Jacques Derrida gave his first well-known lecture that cast the

entire history of Western philosophy in doubt. The following year Derrida

published three brilliant but mystifying books that turned Western philosophy

on its head, rather philosophy on its head. Everybody agrees that he had

spawned a movement -called deconstruction- a movement so strong that its

influence has been of undeniable importance on most fields including

philosophy, psychotherapy, feminism, architecture, law, anthropology, fashion

(!) and what not! Of course the opinion is divided as to whether Derrida’s

technique of Deconstruction actually advanced or murdered philosophy, much like

Madhyamika Buddhism.

 

But before I tell you about Deconstruction I have to acquaint you with the

scenario before he came. So fasten your seat belts we will now take off to

France. France had long been the paradise for philosophers and thinkers where

they were looked upon as national treasures. Philosophical table talk has over

spilled the cafes and boulevards, museums, galleries, studios, publishing

houses, in fact every place where the arts had any influence. Till 1960s Jean

Paul Sartre defined the image of an intellectual. But soon it was to change.

 

Around this time, a student movement swept across Europe. And how could France

be left out? The French students supported by the Marxists took to the streets

in order to overthrow the government. But they were subdued soon. Being

disillusioned, they did what most on this group would do when we are

disillusioned. Someone said something? Say it louder. Yes! They started looking

inward. Now that meant that something would come out of it for all light is

within.

 

Skeptic towards both Marxism and Communism now, they committed themselves to

LANGUAGE! But then revolutionaries are revolutionaries. Instead of being

political revolutionaries they now became Linguistic revolutionaries! That

began a novel view of literature- viewing reading and writing as subversive

political acts in themselves.

 

Soon intellectuals began committing themselves to the task of showing how words

mean more than what they mean. The result? - An increasing distrust of

language. How could words convey only one authoritarian message? Thus began a

journey to explore how words can say many different meanings simultaneously.

And that journey has never ended. This found its expression in a man called

Jacques Derrida and his movement called Deconstruction. But I would fail in my

attempt here if I don’t pay tribute to some minds that influenced Derrida very

strongly. Like Newton said, every genius stands on the shoulders of other

giants! The genius called Derrida actually stands on quite a few shoulders.

Nietzsche, Freud, Heidegger and Saussure are among the most important, to name

a few. Yes this is the same Nietzsche who expected that “laughing lions must

come”. I cannot say about the laughing part. But a lion seems to have come in

the form of Derrida. I can sense some impatience there, shouting “But you

haven’t told us yet what this Deconstruction is all about!” I am coming to it

darlings. Have mercy on me. By my ingrained habit of voluntarily getting into

these kinds of situations, I am once again in an impossible situation! How do I

put it? It’s like a Zen paradox.

 

Defining deconstruction goes against the whole thrust of Derrida’s thought! So

instead of defining deconstruction I will share a few thoughts. If I say that

‘deconstruction is this’, Derrida will deconstruct my words and accuse me of

automatically missing the point! Not clear? Nothing unusual for many will agree

with you even after reading a dozen books on or by Derrida and deconstruction,

that Derrida’s writing is confusing and that they still have no idea of what he

is talking about. But then why didn’t they throw away the first book or at least

the second? Why did they read a dozen books? Because beneath this confusion, you

can feel his genius. If you have any intellectual streaks, his work will draw

you to itself.

 

Deconstruction often involves a way of reading that concerns itself with

decentering, with the unmasking of the problematic nature of all centers. I can

again hear a murmur. I can hear someone asking something. So what’s the problem

with a center? It is not just something political or philosophical. It goes

deeper than mere philosophy. The question on the ‘center’ goes to the root of

MYSTICISM. Yes mysticism. But I will come back to this later. First let me

acquaint you with Derrida’s views. According to him, all Western thought (and I

may add most Eastern thought as well) is based on the idea of a center, an

Origin, a Truth, an Ideal Form, an Immovable Mover, an Essence, a God,… which

is usually capitalized, and guarantees all meaning.

 

For Derrida, the problem with all centers, is that they attempt to exclude. In

doing so they ignore, repress or marginalize others. This creates binary

opposites, with one term of the opposition central and the other marginal.

Furthermore centers want to fix or freeze the play of binary opposites.

Wherever there are pairs of binary opposites in which one member of the pair is

privileged and freezing the play of the system, the other is marginalized and

undermined. So what does he propose?

 

Deconstruction is a tactic of decentering, a way of reading, which first makes

us aware of centrality of the central term. Then it attempts to subvert the

central term so that the marginalized term becomes the central one now. You may

ask but what good does that do? Doesn’t that just institute a new center?

Exactly. But Derrida claims that one must not pass over and neutralize this

phase too quickly. The phase of reversal is needed in order to subvert the

original hierarchy of the first term over the second. But eventually you must

realize that this new hierarchy is equally unstable, and surrender to the

complete free play of the binary opposites in a non-hierarchical way. Then it

will be possible to see both readings and many more.

 

Thus deconstruction first focuses on the binary opposites within a text.

Next it shows how these opposites are related, how one is central and

privileged, while the other is ignored and marginalized

Next it temporarily undoes or subverts the hierarchy to make the text mean the

opposite of what it originally appeared to mean.

Finally both terms are seen dancing in a free play of nonhierarchical, non-stable meanings.

 

As I stated in the beginning his thought and the technique of Deconstruction had

a strong impact on many fields including politics, philosophy, psychotherapy,

feminism, architecture, law, anthropology, fashion and what not! Now we come to

the relevance of Deconstruction to Mysticism. To my knowledge there is only

school of Mysticism that can argue or stand to Derrida’s Deconstruction. Even

Advaita will probably need a fresh look, but after a re-interpretation, it

could perhaps stand (but that is like acknowledging Deconstruction). Samkhya

could probably argue its point and leave it indecisive. But only one school

rubs shoulders with Derrida and Deconstruction- the Madhyamika school of

Buddhism.

 

 

Madyamika, meaning the Middle Way, is a form of Buddhism that uses some of the

same arguments as Deconstruction, often angering and confusing (do I see Rahu’s

energy at work here?) both Hindus and other Buddhists with what can be called

its deconstructive logic. Consider this Madhyamika statement.

 

“The Buddha did not teach anything to anyone at any place”.

 

What does the statement imply? This statement does not deny the historical

reality of the Buddha. But it questions the seeming thingness of things, of

people, of places. As some Madhyamika statements say, “When a thing is not

found, how can there be a nothing? One more statement. “I do not negate

anything, nor is there anything to negate” (!).

 

Like deconstruction, Madhyamika Buddhism avoids using words and concepts as

though they are expressions of some Great Beyond. Instead of attempting to

deconstruct central, established institutions, or metaphysical ideas that

underlie such institutions, they aim within, not only at intellectual

structures, but most importantly, at the emotional basis of clinging or

attachment. Now see a dialogue between the Buddha and a questioner

 

Buddha: Are you created by yourself?

Questioner: No. How could I create myself?

 

Buddha: Well then, are you created by something other than yourself?

Questioner: How could anything else possibly create me?

 

Buddha: Then are you created both by yourself and by something other than yourself?

Questioner: That’s ridiculous. How can that be!

 

Buddha: Then are you created neither by yourself nor by something other than yourself?

Questioner: Then I would be created by nothing and that is impossible.

 

Buddha: Yes it is true. The demon is gone. Where it once was is only emptiness.

Then I logically cannot locate you. So logically, you must not exist! You are

empty of inherent existence! You are empty. And even emptiness is empty!!!

 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

But is it all only logic? What about our daily lives? How does a Madhyamika

approach more mundane problems like pain or anger? Pain, anger and other

emotions that trouble us are all demolished by Madhyamika Buddhist

Deconstructive logic. If the meditator cannot logically find the emotion, it

will disappear. Where it once was, only emptiness is. And once you find

something as empty, it is easier to realize the emptiness of other things too.

You will say “All these things are empty!”

 

But even the doctrine of emptiness is empty (!) for “emptiness” is not a concept

or idea or thing to cling to, but a tool for deconstructing clinging, even

clinging to the concept of “emptiness”. Then comes the realization that

intellectual clinging is one of the subtle and more worse forms of clinging or

attachment, that like all attachments, even this is an obstacle to the Truth

and can cause suffering! One begins to see the emptiness even of emptiness!

Thus eventually the aspirant finds that there is no underlying basis for any

emotion, experience or viewpoint. And with nothing to grasp, the mind is FREE!

 

 

 

 

Movies

- What's on at your local cinema?