*
*
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Oct 25, 2014, 08:18:05 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search: Advanced search
658137 Posts in 9262 Topics by 3396 Members Latest Member: - vlozan86 Most online today: 63 - most online ever: 494 (Jul 01, 2007, 02:59:53 PM)
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 15
Print
Author Topic: Deconstruction/ GI and MIKE M sissy slap fest  (Read 27122 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
FreddyKnuckles
Registered user

Posts: 11705


« on: Mar 05, 2006, 10:40:26 PM »

So I had to go to a funeral last week, and I missed my profs lectures on derrida, deconstructionism, post-structuralism.

so tell me what deconstructionism is to you, what you think of derrida, and be as wordy as you like.
Logged

Quote from: Heathcote
I'm in with Greg Nog, IT'S FUCKING FAFFLE TIME!
diesel_powered
Registered user

Posts: 19210


« Reply #1 on: Mar 06, 2006, 01:11:46 AM »

CRAP. IT'S ALL CRAP.
Logged

Quote
she had me at "let's make a sandwich"
dieblucasdie
Registered user

Posts: 24493


« Reply #2 on: Mar 06, 2006, 02:02:40 AM »

http://lastplanetojakarta.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1263&

edit:

linking to old thread not in the forum nazi way, but in the "I've forgotten everything I knew about Derrida in the year since this old thread" way.
Logged

he was basically your only chance at making the world love you.
Good Intentions
Registered user

Posts: 13882


« Reply #3 on: Mar 06, 2006, 07:59:24 AM »

Postrstructuralism is my favourite philosophical movement, one I've spent some time on, so if you have a specific question fire away either here or to my email, and I'll answer it as soon as I can.

Things worth saying about Derrida - his philosophy is all about reading carefully. He recognises that each text (of any kind - books carry the most weight, but also poems, TV shows, newspaper cartoons, recorded conversations - anything that can be reread) creates, through the ways it refers to things within itself, a coherency of its own, its own space, outside of which nothing exists for that text. To really understand a text one must first read it as it presents itself, not your reading thereof.

This limited sphere of interaction between text and deconstructor (there are no -isms with deconstruction, no greater contexts within which to place things) is vital in understanding deconstruction - something so many overenthusiastic writers have neglected. There's a lot of bad deconstruction, there's a lot of horrendous self-important texts passing off as deconstruction - if the author of a deconstruction ever mentions anything outside the text (or the author, as revealed by the text) then he's missed the point.

If you're going to choose a term to use deconstructively (like your paper asks), I'd recommend trace, because understanding trace means understanding différance, thereby deconstruction. Trace is exactly what it seems like - the marks left behind by something, the marks showing where something was and is no longer. Very often a concept as presented by an author in a text has moved somewhat from how that concept was presented to the author (for instance, Levi-Strauss understood raw in the raw/cooked opposition not only as a material inadequacy, like the primitives explained it to him, but also a spiritual one), and you can see signs of that shift in a text (thereby seeing - and tracking down - the new position of that idea in relation to the text).

Deconstruction is what seperates structuralism from poststructuralism. If you can see how the two differ, you will see the effects of deconstruction.

One of the things which make poststructural texts so hard to read is that they are themselves examples of what they describe, which makes them that much more intimidating if you're not sure of yourself around them. That's the price for greater generality of meaning.
Logged
andronicus
Registered user

Posts: 6515


« Reply #4 on: Mar 06, 2006, 03:56:25 PM »

GI is OTM on like three levels here, in that the meaning of his text contains most of what I find valid in deconstruction/post-structuralism, and the text itself is a (mild) case of everything that's wrong with it.
Logged
Andrew_TSKS
Registered user

Posts: 39426


« Reply #5 on: Mar 06, 2006, 04:16:52 PM »

can you explain the "everything that's wrong with it" part, andronicus?
Logged

I just want to be myself and I want you to love me for who I am.
andronicus
Registered user

Posts: 6515


« Reply #6 on: Mar 06, 2006, 04:28:29 PM »

Yes, I should, because if I don't it sounds like an attack, which it really really isn't and in light of recent events I should have been more careful with my wording.  Sorry.  

What I meant to imply/say was that there's never been (to my knowledge) any real attempt to put deconstructionist/post-structuralist philosophy in more simple English.  The concepts are honestly not that hard to understand; in my opinion their famous impenetrability is more due to obfuscation than anything else.  I think this is an artifact of all the philosophers in this field being French, and their English translators having a vested interest in being the 'gatekeepers' of the material; thus, they (maybe unconsciously, I don't know) made the texts far more obscurantist.

I've read some Derrida with my horrible school-boy French, and it's MUCH more engaging than the English translations I've had to read.

Again, sorry, I meant it as a tease to GI for his verbiage; other than that he's got a really good handle on everything I would say I find valid in Derrida's work.
Logged
Andrew_TSKS
Registered user

Posts: 39426


« Reply #7 on: Mar 06, 2006, 04:36:21 PM »

i understand now.

my favorite book about concepts like this is "lipstick traces".
Logged

I just want to be myself and I want you to love me for who I am.
dieblucasdie
Registered user

Posts: 24493


« Reply #8 on: Mar 06, 2006, 04:37:39 PM »

Derrida is like Kant or Freud in that not very many people have actually read his stuff.  Most people just know him through some prof or another's lecture.  And honestly, it's probably better that way.
Logged

he was basically your only chance at making the world love you.
rockmeamadeus
Registered user

Posts: 7199


« Reply #9 on: Mar 06, 2006, 04:43:58 PM »

Agreed, on all counts. GI is spot on.

Also: I have tried to read Derrida, and (outside of class readings) haven't been able to get into it. Bores me to tears. So the comparision to Freud is, I think, suitable.

(Though in all honesty I kinda dig Kant. My bad!)
Logged
Swimmy
Registered user

Posts: 1126


« Reply #10 on: Mar 06, 2006, 06:29:11 PM »

Quote from: "andronicus"
What I meant to imply/say was that there's never been (to my knowledge) any real attempt to put deconstructionist/post-structuralist philosophy in more simple English.

I love how the Wikipedia entry outright refuses to define it. Unwashed masses, you may not know of what it is we speak!
Logged

A Gentile and a tax collector.
Good Intentions
Registered user

Posts: 13882


« Reply #11 on: Mar 06, 2006, 07:04:40 PM »

That entry seemed decent to me. I understand why it needs to be rewritten - it's not Wikipedic at all, and should be much more concise - but it's a quite good version of the stock-standard-explanation kind.

What is deconstruction? Exactly what it says - de-constructing a text, taking it apart in an orderly fashion to see how it works.
Logged
Greg Nog
Registered user

Posts: 21629


« Reply #12 on: Mar 06, 2006, 09:31:53 PM »

That last one-sentence definition is pretty much the one that I kept in my mind throughout college.  

I found that "deconstruction", along with "postmodernism", was a remarkably easy word to use without having an actual definition in mind.  If anyone calls you on it, accuse them of not being postmodern enough.
Logged
dieblucasdie
Registered user

Posts: 24493


« Reply #13 on: Mar 06, 2006, 09:37:17 PM »

There's this :  http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/DWP_XML/od/2004_10/od_20041013_1200_3479/episode_3479.ram

which I heard when it was on, and helped me understand deconstruction/derrida better than any college lecture I'd heard.

Which is mainly my way of saying that I kinda disagree with a few of GI's points, but listening to these two guys argue about it is much more instructive than reading us two douchebads argue about it.

Listening to it will take an hour of your time, I know, but you can put it on while you're making your tuna and ranch omlette or something
Logged

he was basically your only chance at making the world love you.
Good Intentions
Registered user

Posts: 13882


« Reply #14 on: Mar 06, 2006, 09:48:45 PM »

I'm gonna download the shit outta that.

Always remember that for all the social sciences things I'm a pure autodidact, and I'm presenting these things to you guys as I've come to understand them through my own, almost unguided study. I've never had a philosophy class in my life, but I've had quite a few extremely informative arguments with philosophers. Autodidactical knowledge tends to be very deep, but perhaps lacking a bit in breadth, and always dearly held by the autodidact (who worked bloody hard to get it).
Logged
FreddyKnuckles
Registered user

Posts: 11705


« Reply #15 on: Mar 06, 2006, 09:53:04 PM »

I'll didact you  ...automatically!
Logged

Quote from: Heathcote
I'm in with Greg Nog, IT'S FUCKING FAFFLE TIME!
Good Intentions
Registered user

Posts: 13882


« Reply #16 on: Mar 07, 2006, 01:15:49 AM »

Quote from: "dieblucasdie"

What an... American reading.

Which is not a slander at all, just worth mentioning. I didn't even mention logocentrism, which isn't to say that I don't think it's important, it's just not what I think of first.
Such an American concentration on crisis.

Quote from: "andronicus"
the meaning of his text contains most of what I find valid in deconstruction/post-structuralism, and the text itself is a (mild) case of everything that's wrong with it.

But titus, every text is an example of what it describes.
Logged
andronicus
Registered user

Posts: 6515


« Reply #17 on: Mar 07, 2006, 01:19:30 AM »

Quote from: "Good Intentions"

But titus, every text is an example of what it describes.

I said three levels, mang!

And, if you listened to that whole thing, is there any way you might give me/us a synopsis?

Also, just for kicks and giggles, this:
Quote from: "Good Intentions"
Autodidactical knowledge tends to be very deep, but perhaps lacking a bit in breadth
is bs.  Your self-taught knowledge might be deep and lack a bit in breadth, but an auto-didact can be a dilettante too, and I'd put money on that being the more common occurrence.
Logged
Good Intentions
Registered user

Posts: 13882


« Reply #18 on: Mar 07, 2006, 01:45:00 AM »

Quote from: "Philosophers on the radio show"
To me, Derrida's saying that there is nothing outside the text means that everything has already been caught inside a text

How crude! What a crass, crass misreading! I've never even seen that bad interpretation before. Shit! There are a few inadequacies in the programme that can be excused due to a lack of time, but that one simply is stupid.

Il n'y a pas de hors-texte - there is no outside-text - is a limitation of scope, not an extension thereof. What these guys are saying is that all of reality has been described, only further analysis is necessary. Nonsense! What Derrida said is that is almost the exact opposite - he says that a single text can only be meaningful within the boundaries of what it describes. What does a cookbook tell you about quantum physics? Inside of a cookbook quantum physics doesn't exist (except for a really, really strange cookbook, just play along for now, ok?), matters of quantum physics do not exist when reading that book. And a physics textbook might talk about cooking, with heat-transfers and chemical reactions and whatnot, but it doesn't talk about flavour or the convenience of getting ingredients - when talking about cooking a physics textbook is talking about physics! There is no outside-the-text!

There is nothing inside a text that hasn't been put there!

Having misunderstood the scope of a text, these guys can only misunderstand supplement, and their understanding of deconstruction is skewed thereby.

(This is the part where those who doesn't agree with me can jump in and defend these deadbeats)
Logged
Good Intentions
Registered user

Posts: 13882


« Reply #19 on: Mar 07, 2006, 01:53:07 AM »

Quote from: "andronicus"
Your self-taught knowledge might be deep and lack a bit in breadth, but an auto-didact can be a dilettante too, and I'd put money on that being the more common occurrence.

I'll follow your example and not take the bait. If a student and an autodidact both spend 200 hours independently studying a specific topic, damn-near invariably the student will have a much broader understanding of the topic while the autodidact will have spent 150 of those hours on his favourite exposition of that topic with maybe 50 hours of background reading to support his favourite.

(Yeah, I said 'specific topic'. I've no interest in dilettantes.)
Logged
andronicus
Registered user

Posts: 6515


« Reply #20 on: Mar 07, 2006, 02:12:19 AM »

Don't be paranoid, it wasn't bait.  I was simply saying that while your particular experience with self-teaching might lead you to knowledge that is deep but lacking a bit in breadth, the experience of most people leads them to knowledge that is neither deep nor broad.
Logged
Good Intentions
Registered user

Posts: 13882


« Reply #21 on: Mar 07, 2006, 02:17:59 AM »

It's not my experience, it's the experience of people online who inspired me to start really studying things. Before that I was a pure orthodox student, dabbling in dilettantage (like there's any other way!).

Dilettantage is not a product of autodidactism, it's a product of a lack of commitment. I know many orthodox students who are dilettantes.

(I thought it was friendly taunting - I thought we had something between us, Tighty!)
Logged
andronicus
Registered user

Posts: 6515


« Reply #22 on: Mar 07, 2006, 02:51:31 AM »

Quote from: "Good Intentions"

(I thought it was friendly taunting - I thought we had something between us, Tighty!)
Oh, we do love, I just want to keep it clear that if I'm going to taunt you, I'll be less passive-aggressive about it than that.  Seriously, I get enough of that in academia, that shit ain't my style.  'sides, I gots mad respect, yo!  From what I've seen so far we have fairly identical interpretations of this stuff, so if I'm taunting you, I'm taun-taun me.  Er, taunting.  Whatever.  Close the shield door, motherfucker.  God, I'm drunk.

So, if I may ask, what is the nature of this mystical cabal of interweb people that made you start diggin' the deep shit?
Logged
Good Intentions
Registered user

Posts: 13882


« Reply #23 on: Mar 07, 2006, 03:03:35 AM »

You can meet them at The Tolling Gang, self-described here:
"It is primarily intended as a place for robust political debate, from a generally left-wing and/or anarchist perspective. We envisage The Tolling Gang as a home to dogma-free political discussion, concentrating on everyday life rather than centred in the activist milieu."
Emphasis on 'robust political rebate'. Of course politicos are esoteric as all hell, and only about a quarter of the posters are serious politicos anyway, but it's a great little place.

It's a split-off from Urban75 where I learn most things worth knowing about how to interact with ideas. The split occured because Urban75 became enormous and simply too popular for holding this type of serious discussion - some kid would crash into every conversation with his lunkheaded misunderstanding or out of straight trolling malice.

If you want to join just let me know, and I'll clear it with the mods there. It's not an invitation-only board, nor a heavily moderated one, but it has a quarantine for new registrees - there is some bad blood at Urban about the split so trolls are common, and they want to seperate out the serious folk from the rubberneckers as much as possible.
Logged
Mike M
Registered user

Posts: 883


« Reply #24 on: Mar 07, 2006, 07:50:50 AM »

I haven't studied this stuff but if I judge it from you guys' description I have to say it sounds like bullshit, and I wouldn't want my books read that way at all.

I guess the most appealing school of thought on these things that I know of is essentialism? Not that it's all that much of a school.
Logged

well I'll go to college and I'll learn some big words and I'll talk real loud god damn right I'll be heard you'll remember the guy and all those big words he musta learned in college
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 15
Print
LPTJ | Last Plane Forums | White Courtesy Phone | Topic: Deconstruction/ GI and MIKE M sissy slap fest
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Board layout based on the Oxygen design by Bloc