Can We Rebuild After Deconstruction?

[JosephM]

No, no. We are actually in agreement on most points. That is how things seem to go on message boards sometimes. Deconstruction, as envisioned by it's founder, denies any innate substrate. Thus my battle with deconstruction. I have battled long and hard on this board for the case of an innate substrate of positive moral intuitions and moral emotions. I have backed Process Philosophy to "the hilt" and weathered the storm.

 

Deconstruction in my experience is a process that serves to expose substrate rather than hide it at the point one reaches when deconstruction is to the point of "I don't know" or "I can't go any further by myself" At least that is my interpretation of the word 'deconstruction' and any personal experience I might have. Why would the founder deny innate substrate if he reached that point? Of course I am not familiar with the philosopher and his works so i speak from a limited vocabulary and philosophical knowledge which I now count as of minor importance to me anyway. Just my rambling.

 

Joseph

[minsocal]

Deconstuction in my view rather serves to expose substate when folly appears rather than hide it. At least that is my interpretation of the word 'deconstruction'. Why would the founder deny innate substrate?

 

Joseph

 

The founder of deconstruction was a radical "blank slate" theorist after John Locke. Simple fact. Derrida claimed that we have no real language of thought and no intentions (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 181). For Derrida, all thoughts are 'magical'. ALL thoughts. He simply took an old idea and radicalised it, an old formula to become famous. Then he claims that "all we have are texts". And how were those texts created? Out of thin air? They were created by humans with a language of thought and intentions. Pardon my expression, but many of my friends have a term for deconstruction ... "mental masturbation." That is it. I don't find many academics these days that pay much attention to deconstruction. To deconstruct a theory, you have to be an expert in that theory, or the deconstruction fails. A person can devote a lifetime to a single theory before fully grasping it. Then, and only then, would a deconstruction be possible.

 

P.S. The only people who could deconstruct the Bible are those who wrote it. The only person who can deconstruct their interpretation of the Bible is the person making the interpretation. Unless, of course, you agree with Derrida and no human has ever had an intention.

[JosephM]

Pardon my expression, but many of my friends have a term for deconstruction ... "mental masturbation." That is it. I don't find many academics these days that pay much attention to deconstruction. To deconstruct a theory, you have to be an expert in that theory, or the deconstruction fails. A person can devote a lifetime to a single theory before fully grasping it. Then, and only then, would a deconstruction be possible.

 

minsocal,

 

Perhaps one does not have to be an expert on theory to deconstruct. To me, one only has to have unanswerable questions and reach the end of ones road. Some people make take years of college and some a lifetime of study and then still not reach that end but even the ignorant such as I can arrive at the end of what I perceive is my ability at a deep place of surrender of self where I am compelled to admit "I don't know nor do I have the capability to know" and then by grace enter that which is beyond teaching and learning to the substrate of all sensory perceptions.

 

Joseph

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

So which elements of traditional Christianity do each of you still embrace? Or is there an overarching statement of faith you can make that supercedes the faith presented in the Bible.

[minsocal]

minsocal,

 

Perhaps one does not have to be an expert on theory to deconstruct. To me, one only has to have unanswerable questions and reach the end of ones road. Some people make take years of college and some a lifetime of study and then still not reach that end but even the ignorant such as I can arrive at the end of what I perceive is my ability at a deep place of surrender of self where I am compelled to admit "I don't know nor do I have the capability to know" and then by grace enter that which is beyond teaching and learning to the substrate of all sensory perceptions.

 

Joseph

 

If you are not an expert in a theory, what you are deconstructing is your own view of the theory and never the theory itself. I'll give you a simple task. Deconstruct Jung's theory of archetypes.

[PantaRhea]

The founder of deconstruction was a radical "blank slate" theorist after John Locke. Simple fact. Derrida claimed that we have no real language of thought and no intentions (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 181). For Derrida, all thoughts are 'magical'. ALL thoughts. He simply took an old idea and radicalised it, an old formula to become famous. Then he claims that "all we have are texts". And how were those texts created? Out of thin air? They were created by humans with a language of thought and intentions. Pardon my expression, but many of my friends have a term for deconstruction ... "mental masturbation." That is it. I don't find many academics these days that pay much attention to deconstruction. To deconstruct a theory, you have to be an expert in that theory, or the deconstruction fails. A person can devote a lifetime to a single theory before fully grasping it. Then, and only then, would a deconstruction be possible.

 

P.S. The only people who could deconstruct the Bible are those who wrote it. The only person who can deconstruct their interpretation of the Bible is the person making the interpretation. Unless, of course, you agree with Derrida and no human has ever had an intention.

 

The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy is just as capable of misunderstanding Derrida as I am. I am in agreement with Joseph's interpretation.

 

The common assumption of deconstruction [see link] and negative theology is that language necessarily "fails" to say everything, to remember everything, but that it nevertheless says something, even something about what it fails to recover. If we put this in terms of intention, we can say that our intention fails to reach its object,(9) but that it nevertheless points toward something. What the text excludes shows itself in various traces within the very texts that do the forgetting. Derrida is interested in this "logic" of saying and not saying, of inclusion and exclusion, of presence and absence, of speaking and silence, of memory and forgetting.

 

Often what is not spoken is a matter of meaning. Often, however, it is not merely a matter of meaning. Deconstruction can be a matter of showing whom the text has omitted, overlooked, or forgotten. There are various others whom we may forget. Sometimes we fail to remember God, someone with whom, contrary to many expectations, Derrida continues to be concerned, though he is not a theist:

 

I am addressing myself here to God, the only one I take as a witness, without yet knowing what these sublime words mean, and this grammar, and to, and witness, and god, and take, take God, and not only do I pray, as I have never stopped doing all my life, and pray to him, but I take him here and take him as my witness, I give myself what he gives me, i.e. the i.e. to take the time to take God as a witness (Circumfession 56-8)

 

Btw, someone in another post claimed that Derrida denied everything he had written and said in his later years, and advised everyone to go back to the Bible. I believe this is a Christian "urban legend" just like the one about Charles Darwin denouncing his theory of evolution and becoming a Christian on his deathbed.

[JosephM]

If you are not an expert in a theory, what you are deconstructing is your own view of the theory and never the theory itself. I'll give you a simple task. Deconstruct Jung's theory of archetypes.

 

I have already admitted my ignorance of such things and real knowledge to me requires no study. Deconstruction was merely the shedding of my self thinking it knew something. Some theory may have been involved but I reached an end a lot sooner than most possibly because of my intellectual ignorance of theory and philosophy. Perhaps I had little to deconstruct?

Joseph

[JosephM]

So which elements of traditional Christianity do each of you still embrace? Or is there an overarching statement of faith you can make that supercedes the faith presented in the Bible.

 

 

Janet,

 

That might make an interesting topic. Would you initiate a thread concerning that issue?

 

Joseph

[PantaRhea]

If you are not an expert in a theory, what you are deconstructing is your own view of the theory and never the theory itself. I'll give you a simple task. Deconstruct Jung's theory of archetypes.

 

Seems to me, that you and Joseph failed to form a communion of intuition - in other words, you missed his point. He didn't write that you didn't need to be an expert in a theory in order to deconstruct that theory, but, I think he meant (and I'm probably a fool for thinking I understand what he meant) that anyone can deconstruct - even without an academic degree. Deconstruction, as he wrote, is reaching the end of reason - the realization that there is something beyond reason. Deconstruction is interested in what always remains hidden in the text and in doing that, it points to Spirit.

 

Do I detect in you a bit of bitterness towards Derrida? Isn't there something in his perspective that contributes toward our understanding of Spirit? Isn't it true, as Ken Wilber says, no one can be 100% wrong?

[PantaRhea]

So which elements of traditional Christianity do each of you still embrace? Or is there an overarching statement of faith you can make that supercedes the faith presented in the Bible.

 

Not a statement, but listening in silence supercedes the contents of the Bible.

[PantaRhea]

I have already admitted my ignorance of such things and real knowledge to me requires no study. Deconstruction was merely the shedding of my self thinking it knew something. Some theory may have been involved but I reached an end a lot sooner than most possibly because of my intellectual ignorance of theory and philosophy. Perhaps I had little to deconstruct?

Joseph

 

Wow. If I understand what you just wrote, I am led to believe that I did understand your reply to minsocal whom I replied to and made the claim that I understood you. Cool.

[JosephM]

Not a statement, but listening in silence supercedes the contents of the Bible.

 

 

That was most concise and simplistic and I'll ditto that. If Janet was looking for more views from others on that it would be a good topic for debate or interest by others in another thread.

[PantaRhea]

Not a statement, but listening in silence supercedes the contents of the Bible.

 

That wasn't a cryptic reply, was it? (he wrote facetiously).

[minsocal]

The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy is just as capable of misunderstanding Derrida as I am. I am in agreement with Joseph's interpretation.

 

 

 

Btw, someone in another post claimed that Derrida denied everything he had written and said in his later years, and advised everyone to go back to the Bible. I believe this is a Christian "urban legend" just like the one about Charles Darwin denouncing his theory of evolution and becoming a Christian on his deathbed.

 

That was me and that is a fact. Your read of my post is way too extreme. Derrida, like many, rethought his theory later in life. He simply said, and this is fact, that we need to return to the "grand texts" he sought to debunk. This was after a series of exchanges with fellow philosophers who never accepted his ideas. Dr. John Searle spearheaded the frontal assault on Derrida's ideas and Derrida eventually backed down in public exchanges between the two.

[JosephM]

That wasn't a cryptic reply, was it? (he wrote facetiously).

 

I am having to use my dictionary excessively reading your posts and minsocals. Don't know if thats good or not?

[PantaRhea]

That was me and that is a fact. Your read of my post is way too extreme. Derrida, like many, rethought his theory later in life. He simply said, and this is fact, that we need to return to the "grand texts" he sought to debunk. This was after a series of exchanges with fellow philosophers who never accepted his ideas. Dr. John Searle spearheaded the frontal assault on Derrida's ideas and Derrida eventually backed down in public exchanges between the two.

 

Yes, Derrida did take some responsibility for being misunderstood. Your "fact" as you first wrote it, could easily be used to support the rampant bibliolatry of the fundamentalists. It implied that there is no value in deconstruction, that the Bible is the final word.

 

"Thus every proposition proposing a fact must, in its complete analysis, propose the general character of the universe required for that fact. There are no self-sustained facts floating in nonentity." - A.N. Whitehead.

 

I'm not sure I have ever, or ever been capable of, stating a "fact".

[PantaRhea]

I am having to use my dictionary excessively reading your posts and minsocals. Don't know if thats good or not?

 

Depends. Words cannot be defined. They only have meaning in context. Does the dictionary provide the context?

 

I'm suspecting that, at least from my end, there is an attempt at a display of male dominance in some of these last messages. How do I stop?

[minsocal]

I am having to use my dictionary excessively reading your posts and minsocals. Don't know if thats good or not?

 

It is the price of entry, Joseph. A theory is a theory. What Derrida said is what Derrida said. If you have a theory that is different, call it something else. I am simply reading and reciting from current advanced courses from major universities. Some of those texts paint Derrida as a cartoonish character. I agree.

 

Deconstruction is nothing more that than the word "Think".

[PantaRhea]

It is the price of entry, Joseph. A theory is a theory. What Derrida said is what Derrida said. If you have a theory that is different, call it something else. I am simply reading and reciting from current advanced courses from major universities. Some of those texts paint Derrida as a cartoonish character. I agree.

 

Deconstruction is nothing more that than the word "Think".

 

And a human being is "nothing more" than chemical soup? What do the advanced courses you are reading say about reductionism?

 

Please, minisocal. I'm trying to control it, but you are pushing all my buttons.

 

(breathing deeply)

[minsocal]

And a human being is "nothing more" than chemical soup? What do the advanced courses you are reading say about reductionism?

 

Please, minisocal. I'm trying to control it, but you are pushing all my buttons.

 

(breathing deeply)

 

I did not inject "chemical soup" here, someone else did.

[minsocal]

And a human being is "nothing more" than chemical soup? What do the advanced courses you are reading say about reductionism?

 

Please, minisocal. I'm trying to control it, but you are pushing all my buttons.

 

(breathing deeply)

 

Well, that is your problem, such as it is. We agree on all major points and this the best you can do? I just give up. With you and this damn message board.

[PantaRhea]

I did not inject "chemical soup" here, someone else did.

 

Uh, yes. Er... no. I didn't "inject" chemical soup. Or, yes, it was I who "injected" chemical soup. Not sure which. Depends.

 

I was trying to illustrate the foolishness of reductionionism.

 

Of course, human beings are more than chemical soup.

 

Of course deconstruction is more than the word "think".

 

Isn't love grand?

[PantaRhea]

Well, that is your problem, such as it is. We agree on all major points and this the best you can do? I just give up. With you and this damn message board.

 

I apologize for any offense I've given, minsocal. Apparently I wasn't stopped in time.

[minsocal]

Uh, yes. Er... no. I didn't "inject" chemical soup. Or, yes, it was I who "injected" chemical soup. Not sure which. Depends.

 

I was trying to illustrate the foolishness of reductionionism.

 

Of course, human beings are more than chemical soup.

 

Of course deconstruction is more than the word "think".

 

Isn't love grand?

 

I have never supported reductionsim here, in any way. You seem to be playing "kill the messenger".

[PantaRhea]

I have never supported reductionsim here, in any way. You seem to be playing "kill the messenger".

 

I saw in your statement,

 

Deconstruction is nothing more that than the word "Think".

 

an excellent example of reductionism.

 

Maybe I was mistaken. Let's both stop, eh?