Derrida | World as language

Written by atreestump

Writing as language

As I pointed out in another thread, Derrida displaces objective things and subjective ideas from thier usual priority and he puts writing ahead instead. There is some dispute over whether this is a correct interpretation, some believe Derrida was ‘bringing writing up to speech and thought’, rather than privileging writing. For Derrida, language constitutes the human world and the human world constitutes the whole world.

This is a monism. Rather than sending ideas into the outside world, it has the effect of materialising subjectivity.

Derrida wields his concept of Writing against the mind-soul-spirit term. The unconscious mind underlies the conscious mind and the unconscious mind exists in the form of Writing.

Arche-Writing

This Writing is like a form of ‘script’, written upon the matter of the brain. This is what Derrida also calls ‘trace’. Freud once wrote an essay called ‘Note on the Mystic Writing Pad’. It was referring to one of these:

When we write on these ‘magic pads’, we don’t actually posit on the paper. You can make it disappear by lifting the paper away from the base. There is however, as Freud pointed out, a mark is still remains on the base below the top layer. The base is to be considered as being like the unconscious mind which retains what it does not perceive. The paper on top can be compared to the perception-consciousness system which transmits what it does not retain.

A pathway is created from perceptual circuits to neurological systems in the brain according to Freud. This pathway remains as the physical form of the unconscious memory.

For Derrida, this is a writing-machine. The writing from the stylus on the machine occurs by pressing down but from the darkness of the base showing up.


Writing, supplements perception before perception even appears to itself.

This is a delayed effect – the experience which only surfaces to consciousness long after the actual event. This effect represents the fundamental case of all experience. We are eternal latecomers to the present, or ‘now’ of our experience. The ‘perceived’ may be read only in the past, beneath perception and after it.
Life becomes a kind of dream, much like the sleepers in Plato’s cave.

Past that has never been nor will ever be present

Such a condition dislodges us from the middle of of our own experience, what the traditional model of the psyche allows us to claim. This model runs into problems with hypnotic recall. Patients are able to, under deep hypnosis, recover experiences which were repressed and taken out of consciousness at the time of their taking place, they can also recover experiences which were not significant enough to be selected presentation to consciousness at the time of taking place.

The facts of hypnotic recall indicate that the unconscious mind records a great deal more than consciousness has ever inspected. It has been suggested that it keeps track of everything, absolutely and in the finest of detail.

According to Derrida, consciousness in the ordinary sense is an illusion that human beings have invented because they feared the consequences of a materialist conception of the brain.

All such ghostly presences are considered in the special theory of Writing – the signfied.

In Derrida’s terminology, these are all symptoms of the logos, a single concept that brings together the inward rational principle of verbal texts, the inward rational principle of human beings and the inward rational principle of the natural universe. It also brings them toegther with law. Logos can give us a feeling of mastery, but any version of logos is mere wishful thinking as far as Derrida is concerned.

Materialism

This general theory of Writing is a general theory of materialism, in a special sense. Derrida overturns the ordinary conception of mind with a materialist conception of the brain. He refrained from using the word ‘matter’ as it was too invested in ‘logocentric‘ values.

Signifiers are fundamental to Derrida’s theory. They are not things which first exist in thier own right and then point away from themselves even before they are themselves. The trace must be thought before the entity, explains Derrida. Signifiers lead to other signfiers endlessly, what Derrida calls ‘radical alterity’.

This is very different to neurological positivists – when they study neurons and electrical charges in the brain, they are studying positive things and entities. It’s the old atomising assumption, observe on small scales and all will be revealed. The question of how such entities signify however, is conveniently left aside.

Derrida is concerned with the configuartions between entities, the ungraspable and invisble difference between branches. How do configurations signify? One possible way is the way of the computer.

In a computer, electrical states signify not simply by what they are, but by a formal relation of what they are not. Passages of current signifies because it is not the absence of a current and the absence of a current signifies because it is not the passage of a current. It can’t be studied in a positive way. You require the positive and the negative in a ‘more-than physical’ flow.

Derrida also speaks of grooves and tracks as ways in which configuartions might signify.He describes a path carved out by the Nambikwara Indians, a path cutting through a forest, it is therefore a trace and a sign. It is not a sign of its cause, it does not inspire a deduction about the passage of the people who made it. Instead it inpisres meditation.

Signifier to signifier to signifier

The meditation on this path meaning is a meaningfulness that is a kind of expanding, unfolding. This indeed is a meditators kind of meaning. Meditation begins from a special type of object or from a special type of word. A shaped object, like a pebble, or a word like ‘OM’. Natural object and human word are essentially in the same condition. The present themselves as configuartions, as patterns of formal difference. The objects are no longer self-sufficient things, but a sign; the word is still a sign, but no longer expresses a humanly intended signified. The word is nothing more- the object nothing less – than a signifier.

The signifier with signified does its signifiying in a very special direction. Meaning in a pebble or word, can be generated with referring to any partiocular thing or inspiring any mental content.

Emptiness

Meditation generates a sense of void and infinity of space opening all sides. Into the emptiness meaning spreads out – sucked forth by the surrounding vacuum. Meditation does not involve directed activity on the part of the subject. Grasping is not something we strive for in meditation, but rather letting go, opening up the mind and to surrender control.

Signifying as Derrida understands it, is outside of the self, an objective and impersonal movement of meaning. To realise the true being of the sign, one must learn how not to control and direct it, must learn how to leave it free to follow its own inclinations.

Signifying comes before signifier and nothing comes before signifying.

Spaces open up endlessly. This is a position far beyond the scientific conception of the Universe.

Derrida and metaphysical philosophers

Metaphysical philosophers give an unusual importance to negativity. Spinoza says determination is negation, what a thing is depends upon its limits, the limits are what the thing is not. Hegel carries this further to say all negation is determination.

Spinoza tries to identify the force that runs through the mental world and the force that runs through the material world.  This is the essentially the same as Derrida – he unites causal force with meaning.

Spinoza is on the one hand mystical, in the sense that it dissolves ordinary thingishness and gives pride and place to bodiless abstract ideas. On the other hand, it’s also mechanical. It discards the ordinary mental push of individual minds and allows ideas an objective impersonal deterministic movement of their own.

This position can be termed metaphysical materialism.

This kind of signifying can’t be accounted for in terms of causal force and ordinary meaning, or vice versa.

Posted in Uncategorised

0 thoughts on “Derrida | World as language”

  1. The authors of the book ‘Derrida and Wittgenstein’ seem to be making the claim that Wittgenstein is somehow clearer in making the point about the errors of using language as a representational model (I’m sceptical about this WWF approach to philosophy because I find both equally important and it doesn’t have to be an either / or) I do however appreciate the fact that Derrida is interdisciplinary and engages with a wide variety of thinkers from different fields that intersect and in doing so revitalises their contribution to Western thought and enriches our understanding of their work, whereas Wittgenstein doesn’t particularly do much of this. His work is mainly in response to problems posed by Kant and the atomistic errors made by the Logical Positivists

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


  2. The authors of the book ‘Derrida and Wittgenstein’ seem to be making the claim that Wittgenstein is somehow clearer in making the point about the errors of using language as a representational model (I’m sceptical about this WWF approach to philosophy because I find both equally important and it doesn’t have to be an either / or) I do however appreciate the fact that Derrida is     interdisciplinary and engages with a wide variety of thinkers from different fields that intersect and in doing so revitalises their contribution to Western thought and enriches our understanding of their work, whereas Wittgenstein doesn’t particularly do much of this. His work is mainly in response to problems posed by Kant and the  atomistic errors made by the Logical Positivists

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    As we discussed in a PM earlier, interdisciplinary is a good term to use for Derrida.

    WWF lol, indeed, I have massive amounts of respect for both – can’t wait until we both have a copy of the book.

    FYI for other members – This is the book we are referring to:

    Here is a link containing more information : https://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/985_reg.html

    As regards atomism, in the opening thread I covered the atomist assumption.

  4. Metaphysical materialism is an excellent term to bridge the gap between philosophy and the occult for me. Especially when language is seen as the ontology, this sheds a light on symbolism in occultism – the power of symbols as a determinism.


  6. Metaphysical materialism is an excellent term to bridge the gap between philosophy and the occult for me. Especially when language is seen as the ontology, this sheds a light on symbolism in occultism – the power of symbols as a determinism.

    What do you mean by language as ontology?

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. Meaning is a relationship between two sorts of things: signs and the kinds of things they mean (intend, express or signify) is the usual view of language, whereas I see being as structured like a language. You can have body language for example, which is movement and stance which can convey a meaning, but it’s self-referential.

    From my understanding of what symbols and language seem to be in general occult-speak, the symbols evoke or invoke from beyond, so the symbols refer to something. My new approach is to view the language and the things as one and the same, as the structure is the same.

    So I would see the first structure as I—–>Language/Symbol—–>Object, so it goes from inside to outside
    I see the second explanation as I and Object structured as symbols and language and it’s all on the outside within language (being).


  8. Meaning is a relationship between two sorts of things: signs and the kinds of things they mean (intend, express or signify) is the usual view of language, whereas I see being as structured like a language. You can have body language for example, which is movement and stance which can convey a meaning, but it’s self-referential.

    From my understanding of what symbols and language seem to be in general occult-speak, the symbols evoke or invoke from beyond, so the symbols refer to something. My new approach is to view the language and the things as one and the same, as the structure is the same.

    So I would see the first structure as I—–>Language/Symbol—–>Object, so it goes from inside to outside
    I see the second explanation as I and Object structured as symbols and language and it’s all on the outside within language (being).

    There needs to be a distinction drawn here between the ‘Object’ being real, imaginary or merely symbolic

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. [video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9taihEzQBRA[/video]

    I have tried to find something on Lacan that would make that make sense to me, here’s a Corey Anton video on it which I will check out again now.

    Would you be able to create a thread on this topic?

    EDIT: From Corey’s explanation I would say the object is part of the Real in the second view, the first would see it as Symbolic.

  12. Thanks for the link, I will bear all of that in mind when reading it. I’m still waiting for my copy.

    I’m not sure I follow the ‘no metaphysics’ view towards Derrida’s philosophy, yet the introduction book you bought me says it’s a metaphysical materialism.


  13. Thanks for the link, I will bear all of that in mind when reading it. I’m still waiting for my copy.

    I’m not sure I follow the ‘no metaphysics’ view towards Derrida’s philosophy, yet the introduction book you bought me says it’s a metaphysical materialism.

    The fact that the authors of this book persistently refer to Derrida as dealing with literary texts rather than ‘doing philosophy’ tells me that they haven’t grasped the importance of his ideas which are of fundamental philosophical importance, I’m dubious that the authors of this book have a full grasp of Derrida’s project and struggle with his challenge to their notion of ‘philosophy’, especially in relation to truth in the post-Nietzschean landscape

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  15. Yeah, I’m looking at it as my first Wittgenstein guide more than anything. I will look for more on Derrida elsewhere to contrast with this book. Do you have any recommendations for understanding Derrida more comprehensively, now that I get the basics?

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


  16. Yeah, I’m looking at it as my first Wittgenstein guide more than anything. I will look for more on Derrida elsewhere to contrast with this book. Do you have any recommendations for understanding Derrida more comprehensively, now that I get the basics?

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Deconstruction engages key philosophical texts, these texts are strategically targeted as they have been instrumental in perpetuating specific themes / claims in Western Philosophy, his method of Deconstruction (which draws from many thinkers especially Nietzsche, Heidegger & Lacan) is a method which unpicks these texts and exposes their unconscious logic….Given the many influences in his work and Derrida’s style, he is notoriously difficult to pin down, this is partly intentional…having a good knowledge of these influences / thinkers is essential really….but secondary sources are a good way in, it would be prudent to read a few of these to get a feel for him rather than taking the first person you read ‘as gospel’….I found this book useful

    Derrida (Fontana Modern Masters) https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0006860575/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_pJuEybP03P3AE

    After that I’d recommend Derrida: A Critical Reader by David Wood

  20. Words and remarks are always upon something, and by some specific perspective. So not just signified and signifier, but the specific form which two unifies within a text. Which only can be understood by implement of a person, existing in between things and other people and their words and remarks. Text without a writer may seem objective because, if you get rid of subject of existence you would end with categories of possible existences, or history of text thus everything would be within a text (without a context). To get to objective world, you have to get rid of phenomenological, actual world which we live and talk in. This is just idealism. There’s always a material reason in non-material, abstract cultural changes. Culture doesn’t rule nature, flesh and blood man does, and man can not be reduced to culture or language. If anything signfiier is the one which is non-existent. Letters exist, language doesn’t. It’s one of possible functions of one form of technology, which can not be understood without both subject and existence. it doesn’t matter if signified and signfier are connected, mere existence of signifier implies something other than itself and someone other than subject, it’s existence can’t be reduced to it’s ”outlook” because reading itself is an action. Just by reading you experience something other than signifier, you imagine. Life isn’t a dream, language may be but again, experience or human can not be reduced to language. Derrida plays a fundementalist trick here, he can’t analyse human existence as it is, but he can analyse language, written preferably. As wittgestein before himself, his idealism isn’t very different than regular, logos based philosophy. he just instead of reducing existence to logos, expands logos (word) to existence. His atom is letter. Calling this any kind of materialism is a joke in itself. Objects aren’t packs of data, nor our experience of objects is. Only in language objects turns into packs of data, as if they would in a computer analyse. And any kind of self-structring form of system is idealist, and non-existent. We don’t experience derrida’s signify more than we experience plato’s realm of ideas. A word which doesn’t signify anything, isn’t a word. it’s a typo. A word can only be understood within a language. A language can only be understood within a society and material world. Without existing, signified, material world, we can’t even understand concept of diference since difference is in itself isn’t something that exists between braches of datas but something precedes data and knowledge. Difference would still exist if we couldn’t know anything, as long as we would exist as a body, or experience anything in any form. But without experience, knowledge itself knows no difference because knows no standarts or have no ”gaze”.


  21. Text without a writer may seem objective because, if you get rid of subject of existence you would end with categories of possible existences, or history of text thus everything would be within a text (without a context). To get to objective world, you have to get rid of phenomenological, actual world which we live and talk in. This is just idealism.

    I’m pretty sure that Derrida is only saying that Writing is what speech aspires to, it’s not an exclusion of phenomenal experience. His position builds on top of the structuralist position, it carries the same logic even further in the same direction. Post-Strructuralists define two types of sign- the conventional and predictive on the one hand and an unconventional and anarchic sign on the other. It’s not a priority of the Sign over Objective Things and the Subjective Mind, but a priority of the Anti-Social Sign over the Social Sign.

    The Signs move, multiply and are material. This discards all notion of objective ideas and it finally cuts off all connection with metaphysical philosophy. It’s material in an unusual sense.


    There’s always a material reason in non-material, abstract cultural changes. Culture doesn’t rule nature, flesh and blood man does, and man can not be reduced to culture or language.

    Let’s not say that language is all there is, rather what there is is structured like a language. Derrida is homing in on a position that is a center outside of the center, which of course will displace the anthropocentric point of view of humanism. I think it’s a question of valuing, as he is post-Nietzschean, that culture and history do not have priority over nature and vice versa, it’s just that culture can predominate over the nature which preceeded it through supplements. To me, how I have read him, he’s not excluding nature or culture, just revaluing the way we interpret.


    If anything signfiier is the one which is non-existent. Letters exist, language doesn’t.

    I don’t know how language could not exist if letters exist – just like how you can’t have light without dark, or raw without cooked.


    It’s one of possible functions of one form of technology, which can not be understood without both subject and existence. it doesn’t matter if signified and signfier are connected, mere existence of signifier implies something other than itself and someone other than subject, it’s existence can’t be reduced to it’s ”outlook” because reading itself is an action.

    As I have already mentioned, subject existence isn’t being excluded and language isn’t all there is. He’s saying there is a proliferation of forms over and above our deliberate intentions.


    Just by reading you experience something other than signifier, you imagine.

    Yes, which is why I don’t see any separation between subject and object here, they stand side by side. He’s saying a prerequisite exists with meaning – it presents itself simultaneously as written and read.


    Life isn’t a dream, language may be but again, experience or human can not be reduced to language.

    I said a ‘kind’ of dream and I also never said experience is a language, but rather it is structured like a language.


    Derrida plays a fundementalist trick here, he can’t analyse human existence as it is, but he can analyse language, written preferably.

    Yes, that sounds about right. I don’t know about you use fo the term ‘existence’ here though, maybe experience is more fitting.


    As wittgestein before himself, his idealism isn’t very different than regular, logos based philosophy.

    I’m not familar with Wittgenstein enough to comment here, nor am I Derrida for the most part, I am only relating back to what I have previously said.


    he just instead of reducing existence to logos, expands logos (word) to existence. His atom is letter. Calling this any kind of materialism is a joke in itself. Objects aren’t packs of data, nor our experience of objects is. Only in language objects turns into packs of data, as if they would in a computer analyse. And any kind of self-structring form of system is idealist, and non-existent. We don’t experience derrida’s signify more than we experience plato’s realm of ideas. A word which doesn’t signify anything, isn’t a word. it’s a typo. A word can only be understood within a language. A language can only be understood within a society and material world. Without existing, signified, material world, we can’t even understand concept of diference since difference is in itself isn’t something that exists between braches of datas but something precedes data and knowledge. Difference would still exist if we couldn’t know anything, as long as we would exist as a body, or experience anything in any form. But without experience, knowledge itself knows no difference because knows no standarts or have no ”gaze”.

    Derrida is explaining force and meaning. The process of signifying does not take place simply inside or outside of the brain, it takes place in a realm where inside and outside become irrelevant. As I have read, it is not idealism, it’s probably dualist monism if anything.

    I think valuation in the explanations is important too, that signifiers are nothing more or less than the natural world, objects or subjects. So it’s not a self-structuring system, it’s a structure where subject and object are of the same value, whole, yet necessarily separate.

    @”thetrizzard”

    Maybe you have something to add here?

  23. I’d be cautious about labelling Derrida as anything, to call him a metaphysical materialist assumes a fixed position in a system of thought, Derrida deconstruction would undermine such a notion….The deconstructive act involves 1) a vigilant opposition to any system that would grant absolute or primary status to any term whatsoever, be it speech, writing, structure, history, sign, logos, text, being, meaning, self, and so forth, and 2) an equally vigilant insistence on the need to re-utilize these very terms of untenable ontology, theology, and metaphysics in order to generate new discourse . One recognizes that the “reinscribed” terms are at perpetual risk of relapsing into metaphysics, but are indispensable if critical discourse is to continue its activity.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  24. Thanks for the PDF, it will be useful to compare the ‘method’ of deconstruction with a more conventional reading- what I’ve read so far is very down to earth.

    Thanks also for the ‘rules’ of deconstruction.

    I was thinking of Metaphysical Materialism in the Wittgensteinian sense of using a ladder that is then thrown away. I find Nietzsche is like this too.

    I have added the PDF you shared by uploading it to the forum itself, that way threads will not have holes in them due to dead links. Whereever possible, please upload PDFs directly to the site, but don’t worry if you can’t (I can’t figure out how on iPhone) I will, whenever I can, upload any PDFs shared myself.

Leave a Reply

New Report

Close