reduction ...\an answer to Derrida who doesn't care

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , skogen <skoggman> wrote:

>

>

 

Derrida compels the question of the reachability of transcendance

with philosophy:

one of the fundamental " tools " of philosophy is the 'duality

apprehension'; philosophy cannot define itself from the centre of God

or the Shining-self, so its reference can only be dual:

the noumenon defined by the phenomenon, exterior by interior, etc.

i wonder how Derrida would manage if he was denied his sharp borders

between philosophy/literature, common language/ach-writing,

thought/graphic symbol, and fiction/reality (which are completely

entangled in our cultures)

 

> 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.

 

so the functionning of the mind implies the real and the metaphore

working simultaneously, a so called object of the real cannot be

devoid of an imprint and a transformation; not far away from trauma

(snake and rope perception)

<btw there is a lot to say of mind functionning by imprint and

transformation and its relation to time>

when he says " enigmatic relationship of the living to its other "

enigma and complexification is only a product of his mind (that's

also how he makes money)

the word " death " that you pick up Skoggen is a blackhole term here

that is in an odd place in this text; it rather looks like a

dialectical trick to give weight to the idea, you could have

said " love " or " fear " ... and none of Derrida's old disciples would

have seen any difference; " death " has no weight in a philosophical

system, only the same weight it bears in literature if it can evoke

to the reader the image of his mother pale in bed; there is not a

profound analysis of 'life' (this term too is overrated) by invoking

death or our hopes or our fears

life <-> death

and derrida's philosophy in between

both terms defined within each other and being one

duality badly needs an other to send a feedback

 

> 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]

 

i am afraid that the terminology " trace " that derrida wants to coin

as his own is strangely similar to " duality " or " noumenon "

or " transcendance " : a system that defines itself with itself that has

little practical value of enlightenment that would not relieve a

person of his fear, shame, hope...

and simply adds to the mess

 

eric

>

>

> Derrida