Derrida_EF

I'm not there. I am [|here]. An absently present author............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... "I would even go.............................................................................................................................................................................. ......................so far as to say that it is the interpretation of writing that is peculiar and proper to..............................................................................

..philosophy........................... within a philosophical discourse that, in this case and.............................................................................. throughout philosophy, presupposes the simplicity of the origin, the continuity.........................................................................................................................

...of all derivation, of all production, of all analysis, and the homogeneity of all.........................................................................................................

.................dimensions [ordres). Analogy is a major concept in the thought of Condillac. I....................................................................................... the analysis, "retracing" the origin and.................................................................................................................................................................

function of writing, is placed, in a rather uncritical manner, under the authority.........................................................................................................

of the category of communication....................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ The history.......................................................................................................................................................................................................

of writing will conform to a law of mechanical economy: to gain or save the most....................................................................................................

space and time possible by means of the most convenient abbreviation;.......................... Like txt & IM speak?LOL WTF LOLOLOLOLOLOL...........rn. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ITERATION/REPETITON/CODE.............................................................................................CHAINS/TRANSFORMATION.................................. ....................................................................;).................................................................................................................................................. “This implies that there is no such thing as a code – organon of iterability – which could be structurally secret. The possibility of repeating and thus of identifying the marks is implicit in every code, making it into a network [ // une grille // ] that is communicable, 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 functioning in the radical absence of every empirically determined receiver in general” (Derrida 8)............................................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ “[…] this absence is not a continuous modification of presence, it is a rupture in presence, the “death” of the mark (I note in passing that this is the point where the value or the “effect” of transcendentality is linked necessarily to the possibility of writing and of “death” as analyzed)” (8)...................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... SPAMBOTS, TEXT-GENERATING BOTS, E-HORSE BOOKS: At what point do we really take meaning from these text-generating characters and entities. If people at some point try to take some kind of meaning from these non-sensical emails or twitter accounts, does it then count as language, as a logical text – what of the reading into of non-sense? Who decides what is nonsense, what is sensical?.............................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  “Finally there is what Husserl calls Sinnlosigkeit or agrammaticality. For instance, "the green is either" or "abracadabra" [Ie vert est au; the ambiguity of au or au is noted below, trans. ]. In such cases Husserl considers that there is no language any more, or at least no " logical" language, no cognitive language such as Husserl construes in a teleological manner, no language accorded the possibility of the intuition of objects given in person and signified in truth. We are confronted here with a decisive difficulty. Before stopping to deal with it, I note a point that touches our discussion of communication, namely that the primary interest of the Husserlian analysis to which I am referring here (while precisely detaching it up to a certain pOint, from its context or its teleological and metaphysical horizon, an operation which itself ought to provoke us to ask how and why it is always possible), is its claim rigorously to dissociate (not without a certain degree of success) from every phenomenon of communication the analysis of the sign or the expression (Ausdruck) as signifying sign, the seeking to say something (bedeutsames Zeichen). (Derrida 11-12).......................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  “Every sign, linguistic or nonlinguistic, spoken or written (in the current sense of this opposition), in a small or large unit, can be cited" put between quotation marks; in so doing it can break with every given context, engendering an infinity of new contexts in a manner which is absolutely illimitable (12).............................................................................................  ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  “[…] there are only contexts without any center or absolute anchoring [ancrage],” (12).......................................................................................................................................................  ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  “I'll answer: "Perhaps. " We should first be clear on what constitutes the status of "occurrence" or the eventhood of an event that entails in its allegedly present and Singular emergence the intervention of an utterance [enonel?] that in itself can be only repetitive or citational in its structure, or rather, since those two words may lead to confusion: iterable,” (17-18)..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  Could a performative utterance succeed if its formulation did not repeat a "coded" or iterable utterance, or in other words, if the formula I pronounce in order to open a meeting, launch a ship or a marriage were not identifiable as conforming with an iterable model, if it were not then identifiable in some way as a "citation"? (18)”.............................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  “Very schematically: an opposition of metaphysical concepts (e.g., speech/writing, presence/absence, etc.) is never the confrontation of two terms, but a hierarchy and the order of a subordination. Deconstruction cannot be restricted or immediately pass to a neutralization: it must, through a double gesture, a double science, a double writing – put into practice a //reversal// of the classical opposition //and// a general //displacement// of the system” (21)............................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  “To leave to this new concept the old name of writing is tantamount to maintaining the structure of the graft, the transition and indispensable adherence to an effective interoention in the constituted historical field. It is to give to everything at stake in the operations of deconstruction the chance and the force, the power of communication” (21)

**Responding to Searle’s Response**::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:: The questions that Derrida poses, using quotations from Searle taken highly out of context, puts forward the point how much writing can be translated, reinterpreted, replayed with in a way that highly transforms or translates its meaning. Searle perhaps was not thinking about the changing environment of the text, or the context upon which writing or the written word can itself be performative ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Derrida’s play with Searle’s Seal, with his anxiety to copyright and therefore ensure an exhibition of the truth is fairly fun, if yet “serious,” performance in and of itself:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: “On the other hand, however, if Searle had the vague feeling that what he was saying was not obviously true, and that it was not obvious to everyone, then he would attempt passionately, but no less superfluously, to preserve this originality, to the point of provoking the suspicion, by virtue of his repeated and thus divided seal, that his confidence in the truth he claims to possess is a poor front for considerable uneasiness” (31).:::::::::::::::::::::::;;;;)