Lachney+Response+5

media type="custom" key="23990800"

I want to talk about two things: First, Writing and learning to write is really learning to read deconstructed science studies, of which I am only good at once enrolled in writing: meaning motivated understanding comes out of usefulness, which ultimately is a shitting reason reading. Second the iterability and mechanic character of the written signature. Which will be in reference to the video above. This second part will be a series of quotes

First, //We Have Never Been Modern// (WHNBM) by Latour, which says what to and not to write about hybrids, paradoxical constitutions, etc. - "Two hundred years of, say, industrial deaths should not shake us out of the belief that capital is merely a network, prosaic and nonviolent in its elimination of other, contentious, semantisemes" (Cohen 1999 89). This is the punch line to an absent joke, but closer to the purpose of the text: In deconstructing WHNBM Cohen asks the question: "Why is Science Studies Hostile to Deconstruction?" This comes out of the fact that Latour claims that when Jacques Derrida, who is sitting over (t)here, in and out of the scene of a documentary, the title escapes me even as I looked it up now, "speaks of truth effects, then to believe in the real existence of brain neurons or power plays would betray enormous naivete" (Latour 1993, 6). "Postmodernism, standing in for deconstruction, comes in for special scorn, here a melange of left and right ojections: it is "a symptom," it "lives under the [modern] constitution" but does not believe in its "guarantees;" it can only "prolong" critique and reject "all empirical work" in favor of extreme purification" (Cohen 1999 91). This renders the nonmodern as overtly apolitical and in Cohen's terms repressive of suffering. "Science/cultural studies here may serve "needs" over coded by means mode of production which connect be discussed (Cohen 1999 93). And this is at the heart of writing, writing to learn to read and reading to learn to write. In a move to displace critical writing, maybe critical sociology from its hold on the social and fulfill the NEED AND DESIRE for a science of translation, "Writing is to become "patch" underlining the "shared practices" of mediators (Cohen 1999 93). In this way science studies is hostel to deconstruction, as deconstruction is about the marginal, what is not at the center, and while Latour also decenters in form of actor network, the issues of marginalization cannot be touched. This absence/presence is exactly what we seems to be already there.



Second, what might Derrida say about the video of the signature machine. Lets channel to get at what he is said to written and say: "The general space is first of all spacing as a disruption and presence in a mark, what I here call writing" (19) - writing about writing and more!

Or we could start with an if: "If John R. Searle owes a debt to D. Searle conscering this discussion, then the "true" copyright ought to be long as is indeed suggested along the frame of this tableau vivant) to a Searle who is dived, multiplied, conjugated, shared. What a complicated signature! And one that become even more complex when the debt includes old friend, H. Dreyfus, with whom I myself have worked, discussed, exchange ideas, so that if it is indeed through him that the Searles have "read" me, then I, too, can claim a stake in the "action" or "obligation," the stocks and bonds, of this holding company, the Copyright Trus And it is ture that I have occasionally had the feeling - to which I shall return - of having almost "dictated" this reply. "I" therefore feel obligated to claim my share of the copyright of the reply But who me?" (31)

But what about the copies the mechanical repetition I am just going to do it with my keyboard iterability iterability iterability iterability iterability iterability iterability iterability iterability that characterizes writing (and speech?). iterability - If there was an error I am too late to catch it!

"Since the "possibility of spearing the sing from the signifier" is a feature of all systems of representation a such, "there is nothing especially graphematic" about the separation (p. 201), not any" (26) - Searle or something/one Other thing - "constative utterance... with performative utterance" (13) Or maybe two Other things:

"The possibility of repeating and thus of identifying the marks is implicit in every code making it into a network [une grille] that is communication, transmittable, decipherable, iterable for a third, and hence for every possible user in general. To be what it is, all writing must, therefore, be capable of function in the radical absence of very empirically determied receiver in general" (8).

Oh and the second: iterability - that is mine!