[atreestump]

The unconditional is what we are dreaming of, praying for, what we desire. What we affirm. We are loyal to it, it’s what we are commanded by and what we are responding to. It’s a complex of callings – what is calling to us.

Caputo calls this a mostly Jewish religious modality – which is interesting as my thread on Plato when I discuss Kabballah defines it as ‘to recieve’, which means recieving an evocation, to provoke. 

No finite relative conditional construction is ever adequate to the unconditionals. The undeconstructable is a call that we can never adequately answer. It is a call to which we are already responding. It’s not our doing, it is what is being done to us. It’s not a projection – it a projectile coming at us.

[Socrates]

I laughed when Caputo says ‘anything that is un-deconstructable has not yet been constructed’ as Derrida explicity makes it clear that Justice is un-deconstructable. 😀

This is wrong, Derrida explains that Justice is Deconstruction!

[thetrizzard]

This article is worth a read
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-JOCP/cp26472.htm

[atreestump]

So self presence is say, ‘I’, which we ordinarily take to be ‘there’ as a fixed, coherent construct?

[thetrizzard]

So self presence is say, ‘I’, which we ordinarily take to be ‘there’ as a fixed, coherent construct?

Any concept / signifier only makes sense in a system of difference and in relation to that which it is not, e.g. ‘I’ only makes sense in relation to it’s opposite or it’s ‘other’, therefore each sign cannot be fully present to itself as there is always a trace (or a play of traces) of that which it is not…that which is absent.

[Socrates]

All negation is determination. You name me and negate me.

[Author]

Posts