reduction of the trace

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , skogen <skoggman> wrote:

>

> If the trace, arche-phenomenon of " memory, " which must be thought

before the opposition of nature and culture, animality and humanity,

etc., belongs to the very movement of signification, then

signification is a priori written, whether inscribed or not, in one

form or another, in a " sensible " and " spatial " element that is

called " exterior. " Arche-writing, at first the possibility of the

spoken word, then of the " graphie " in the narrow sense, the

birthplace of " usurpation, " denounced from Plato to Saussure, this

trace is the opening of the first exteriority in general, the

enigmatic relationship of the living to its other and of an inside to

an outside: spacing. The outside, " spatial " and " objective "

exteriority which we believe we know as the most familiar thing in

the world, as familiarity itself, would not appear without the

grammé, without difference as temporalisation, without the non-

presence of the other inscribed within the sense of the present,

without the relationship with

> death as the concrete structure of the living present. Metaphor

would be forbidden. The presence-absence of the trace, which one

should not even call its ambiguity but rather its play, carries in

itself the problems of the letter and the spirit, of body and soul,

and of all the problems whose primary affinity I have recalled. All

dualisms, all theories of the immortality of the soul or of the

spirit, as well as all monisms, spiritualist or materialist,

dialectical or vulgar, are the unique theme of a metaphysics whose

entire history was compelled to strive toward the reduction of the

trace. [from Chapter Two, Of Grammatology, 1967]

>

>

>

> Derrida

 

never impressed with derrida, he has two three ideas in the morning

and glorifies them in a book or a conference in paris; we, on the

other hand, throw the same material on the net and flush it to

oblivion or simply don't utter it and go to the next thought...

am i modest or what?

ERic

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , skogen <skoggman> wrote:

>

>

> If the trace, arche-phenomenon of " memory, " which must be thought

before the opposition of nature and culture, animality and humanity,

etc., belongs to the very movement of signification, then

signification is a priori written, whether inscribed or not, in one

form or another, in a " sensible " and " spatial " element that is

> called " exterior. " Arche-writing, at first the possibility of the

spoken word, then of the " graphie " in the narrow sense, the

birthplace of " usurpation, " denounced from Plato to Saussure, this

trace is the opening of the first exteriority in general, the

> enigmatic relationship of the living to its other and of an inside

to an outside: spacing. The outside, " spatial " and " objective "

exteriority which we believe we know as the most familiar thing in

the world, as familiarity itself, would not appear without the

grammé, without difference as temporalisation, without the non-

> presence of the other inscribed within the sense of the present,

without the relationship with

> death as the concrete structure of the living present. Metaphor

would be forbidden. The presence-absence of the trace, which one

should not even call its ambiguity but rather its play, carries in

itself the problems of the letter and the spirit, of body and soul,

and of all the problems whose primary affinity I have recalled. All

> dualisms, all theories of the immortality of the soul or of the

spirit, as well as all monisms, spiritualist or

materialist,dialectical or vulgar, are the unique theme of a

metaphysics whose entire history was compelled to strive toward the

reduction of the trace. [from Chapter Two, Of Grammatology, 1967]

>

>

> Derrida

>

>

>

> eric's response:

>

> never impressed with derrida, he has two three ideas in the morning

and glorifies them in a book or a conference in paris; we, on the

other hand, throw the same material on the net and flush it to

oblivion or simply don't utter it and go to the next thought...am i

modest or what?

>

>

>

>

>

> eric,

>

> I don't know if you are modest or not but, instead of glorifing

thoughts in conferences in Paris, you could, unlike Derrida, share

them with us on the list. What do you opine about the vision Derrida

shares here? Do you opine the same? Which points could be discussed,

are criticisable?

>

>

>

>

>

> ...death as the concrete structure of the living present.

>

>

>

> Do you agree with that? If yes or no, why?...for example :-)If you

don't care, it's Ok, too. I throw the material on the net because I

could benefit of it eventually.

>

>

>

> sk

 

honestly Skogen if i don't care.. i don't care to answer (maybe you

know that about me, if we can know things about each other after

months, maybe a year, maybe more, of cohabitation on the net);

honestly i have real pleasure when people can interact on more than

one message on a particular subject, which is difficult to realize on

lists, and which is what i always seem to want to " top " people's

messages, simply because i am demanding on interaction and very

curious...

so i'll take a little more time and answer you with mucho fun yet

seriousness

eric

[Guest guest]

If the trace, arche-phenomenon of " memory, " which must be thought before the

opposition of nature and culture, animality and humanity, etc., belongs to the

very movement of signification, then signification is a priori written, whether

inscribed or not, in one form or another, in a " sensible " and " spatial " element

that is

called " exterior. " Arche-writing, at first the possibility of the spoken word,

then of the " graphie " in the narrow sense, the birthplace of " usurpation, "

denounced from Plato to Saussure, this trace is the opening of the first

exteriority in general, the

enigmatic relationship of the living to its other and of an inside to an

outside: spacing. The outside, " spatial " and " objective " exteriority which we

believe we know as the most familiar thing in the world, as familiarity itself,

would not appear without the grammé, without difference as temporalisation,

without the non-

presence of the other inscribed within the sense of the present, without the

relationship with

death as the concrete structure of the living present. Metaphor would be

forbidden. The presence-absence of the trace, which one should not even call its

ambiguity but rather its play, carries in itself the problems of the letter and

the spirit, of body and soul, and of all the problems whose primary affinity I

have recalled. All

dualisms, all theories of the immortality of the soul or of the spirit, as well

as all monisms, spiritualist or materialist,dialectical or vulgar, are the

unique theme of a metaphysics whose entire history was compelled to strive

toward the reduction of the trace. [from Chapter Two, Of Grammatology, 1967]

 

 

Derrida

 

 

 

eric's response:

 

never impressed with derrida, he has two three ideas in the morning and

glorifies them in a book or a conference in paris; we, on the other hand, throw

the same material on the net and flush it to oblivion or simply don't utter it

and go to the next thought...am i modest or what?

 

 

 

 

 

eric,

 

I don't know if you are modest or not but, instead of glorifing thoughts in

conferences in Paris, you could, unlike Derrida, share them with us on the list.

What do you opine about the vision Derrida shares here? Do you opine the same?

Which points could be discussed, are criticisable?

 

 

 

 

 

....death as the concrete structure of the living present.

 

 

 

Do you agree with that? If yes or no, why?...for example :-)If you don't care,

it's Ok, too. I throw the material on the net because I could benefit of it

eventually.

 

 

 

sk

 

 

 

 

 

Protect your identity with Mail AddressGuard