
@socrates
Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Very handy, simple and effective.
Deconstruction is structured like a religion.
Deconstruction is structured like a religion.
Deconstruction is structured like a religion.
Deconstruction is structured like a religion.
@”taylerallen6″ check this out.
I think I will interpret Quine as preferring negation for defining universals, we need to know what something isn’t before we know what it could be.
Seems like abjection can be a used a tool to purposely define the boundaries of the self. Through experiencing abjection we build the walls around our self that isolate us from that which didn’t resonate with us. By experiencing and rejecting we end up with a distilled version of ourself.I enjoy putting myself in really uncomfortable and extreme situations to get a feel for how far I can stretch my beliefs and perspective. Doing this on both sides of the spectrum has revealed things about myself that wouldn’t have been revealed otherwise.
It’s not a tool, it’s something active in our language. It happens whether we like it or not – but mostly when we don’t like something.
Brilliant idea. I will be contributing to the writing zone, once I get caught up with things. I love to write 🙂 Thank you very much 🙂
Had any ideas?
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!
‘The still belongs to a process which is generating effects’.
Form and plasticity are effects of Differance also. Deconstruction is a destabilisation that holds a promise that could be a disaster. It goes on whether we like it or not, it is the very movement of time itself. This is what Derrida terms autodeconstruction – a series of transformations; a series of reinventions going on all the time.
We can involve ourselves in it however, we can participate. We can prevent the event, or try to anyway. Promotion of the event is also possible.
Prevention can be reactionary or conservative. Promoting is proactive, or progressive.
Are all the changes that go in these systems rule governed, or are they open?
If you know the rules you can predict all the events that the system will produce. Post-Structuralists say these systems are open-ended and are capable of producing unforeseen, unprogrammable, events. A deep code is written in our brain according to materialists like Chomsky, but to Post-Structuralists, argued against this and this brings up a discussion of metaphors. I have read about this in the Wittgenstein and Derrida book.
A metaphor is the attempt to break the rules of language ever so precisely.
Metaphoricity and history of language indicates it is an open system capable of producing new effects.
Great video about non duality by Darryl Sloane.
GDP is a measure of growth, but that’s it. It doesn’t tell you anything about inequality or earnings made unknown to the state. Poverty can be swept under the carpet with GDP figures, as it often is.
3) Within language, rules matter. We can start with the rules of identity, non-contradiction, and the excluded middle. Call it logic, for that’s what it is.
These rules are about formal language, which is less unruly than ordinary language.
As regards standards, I would argue we are talking about criteria and categories.
But I agree that pressupositions must be questioned.
And that’s it. My goal is a tool to handle beliefs. Beliefs do not have to be true at all to be beliefs. They merely need to be believed. The difficulty – my difficulty – is with people who represent their beliefs as being true, and acting on them as if they were.
So you’re trying to define ‘truth’ in such a way so that theological, metaphysical or religious ideas can be excluded?
-
AuthorPosts