|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
I don't really follow all the arguments about deconstruction, but lately-- it seems there is a lot of going on here.. people go about "supposing" that this or that wasn't really the purpose of a question..
creating wonder-- and confusion.. (Huh? i thought this was about the word nice, what he on about?)
deconstructing others post can be done, of course, but i think doing so, in a vague, misleading way, sows seeds of discontent. it comes across as an attempt to undermine the original poster (and put them in a defensive position) and the deconstructor implies victimhood (see, they are always making nasty digs at me.. i have do what i do, they are always attacking me. )
from the little i have read about deconstructionism in university, it seem to have the same fall out. (i have an article somewere put aside to read about columbia U. -- where they haven't had a head of the english department in 20 years because of deconstructionist fighting with those opposed to the idea.. (i think it was in the atlantic.)
an other mis-leading trend (though it might be coming to an end) is certain posters, who address posts to other users, casually, and intimately using the posters real names, and by doing so, imply there exist a friendship.
Obviously, i can't stop any one from looking up my profile and seeing my name, (i could delete it, yes) nor can i stop them from addressing me. In a social setting, it would be very evident, that i don't speak to, or assocciate with some who address posts to my by name.. here, it is a bit harder to establish, who's post i ignore, which posts (more evident in threaded mode) i never respond to.. but i tend to read flat, even if i try to post threaded.. but this behavior could be very misleading, and reader might want to watch-- does A often call B by name? Does B ever respond?
It makes reading here more, shall we say 'intereting'?
but it also force one into a deconstuction mode.. which might be a bad thing.
(we have a lot of new users on the board.. if this discussion on flat/threaded has you lost, find a post of Max Q's and click on his signature, it will lead you to a web site devoted to tips and tricks about AWAD, and provide links to the several discussions we have had about Flat vs. threaded!)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
I certainly am guilty of some of what you describe above--well, more than some, and will try to mend my michievous ways. I also address certain members by name (without thinking of how it may be received by others) and will mend that way, too. Here's a Onelook entry on deconstructionism that's interesting in that it focuses on how what we read is finally in the mind of the reader, which we can't fully know: de·con·struc·tion (dkn-strkshn)
n.
A philosophical movement and theory of literary criticism that questions traditional assumptions about certainty, identity, and truth; asserts that words can only refer to other words; and attempts to demonstrate how statements about any text subvert their own meanings: “In deconstruction, the critic claims there is no meaning to be found in the actual text, but only in the various, often mutually irreconcilable, ‘virtual texts’ constructed by readers in their search for meaning” (Rebecca Goldstein). http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=deconstructionism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 320
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 320 |
the critic claims there is no meaning to be found in the actual text
Can anyone seriously accept the above as legitimate literary criticism? Pondering the wealth of great literature we are fortunate enough to possess, it's always been my gut feeling that the whole deconstruction business as a bunch of Bovung, YCLIU one more way for lit-crit types to keep trying to one-up each other. Sure, there are different levels of interpretation, subconscious revelations, and all that. But still, it's the text I'll go to first.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
Oh, I'm definitely with you, Slithy! Not only is there meaning in the text as conceived by the writer's own intent, but also in how the writer conceives of the text being received by various individuals and categories of people.
Don't we all do that when we write here to those we know better than others? I have a pretty good idea of how something absurd I've written will be received by one member, and also another idea of how it would be ill-received by another based on responses in the past I've read in both PM's and board posts. Such knowledge causes me (at times, when I'm being good) to modify what I've written. And then we all have a sense about the body of completely unknown readers here: we take into consideration what someone brand new to the board might think when taking a look at our chantings here.
So, what I'm getting at is there's meaning in the text as the general message of what the writer wishes to convey, but the writer takes into account the ears of various audiences and reforms, edits, sits back and chews on a phrase or word for a while, and then modifies if he/she gives a lick about reaching anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
No idea what prompted your post. Whenever this stuff breaks out I always wonder, "Are they talking about me?" I mean I can be a pretty obnoxious guy, but I don't remember doing any deconstruction. Or maybe I am. If I knew what the heck it was, I might have better insight into whether I was doing it or not.
I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean. There's some famous letter by Derrida I read and a few other things on the subject. My problem is that this stuff reads like Edgar Cayce to me - a bunch of words that collectively have so much meaning that they mean nothing.
Moreover, I have this nagging suspicion that deconstruction is based on a misunderstanding (by the deconstructionists). There's that business mentioned below about "the critic claims there is no meaning to be found in the actual text" which seems to be a gross exaggeration of the actual situation. The presumption here is that the linguistic environments of each individual reader are completely unrelated, which they are not. I think it would be correct to say that the meaning of any text is always ambiguous, sometimes slightly and sometimes very much so. If there were "no meaning" in the text then no two people could read the same message and get anywhere close to the same thing from it.
Was it Pauli who once said "ganz nicht falsch" to describe an idea that was so ridiculous it wasn't even wrong?
k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
I'm reminded of a bumper sticker: "If you're not confused,you just don't understand the situation."
Being Just with Deconstruction
by J.M. Balkin
For several years now I have been concerned with the problem of how one should apply the
insights of deconstructive practice to questions of law and justice. This question is far from
easy, although many people (in American legal theory, in particular) have simply assumed
that deconstruction could readily be adapted to political questions, and, in particular, to the
political agenda of the left. The problem, however, is that deconstructive techniques do not
seem to support any particular vision of justice; indeed they appear to preclude the
possibility of any stable conception of the just or the good that could provide the basis for
political belief or the authority for political action...................................................
And the excrement gets deeper and deeper
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
>...a bunch of words that collectively have so much meaning that they mean nothing.
that itself sounds very much like deconstructionism... or not.
()
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
hehehe, it was meant to.
Here's what I'm getting at, though I believe you understand.
If a word can mean anything, it means nothing. There is no information contained in it. (I'm assuming that somehow meaning is a function of information, even if if that function is unknown. It's not clear this is a valid assumption, but I'm making it anyway. Is there meaning when there is no information?)
k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 170
member
|
|
member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 170 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
"There are also very apparently a handful of individuals here with hidden agendae."
I believe there should be no "hidden agenda" on the board. Only discussion of words and phrases.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,315
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
253
guests, and
2
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
