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!)

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

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.

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.

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

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

>...a bunch of words that collectively have so much meaning that they mean nothing.

that itself sounds very much like deconstructionism... or not.

()

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

"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.

wwh writes:

I believe there should be no "hidden agenda" on the board. Only discussion of words and phrases

I concur 100%.

I think it would be interesting to read the different applications of deconstruction. It seems it means one thing in epistemology and a slightly different thing in political applications. It seems, from what I read above of political applications, that deconstruction is an intention in propoganda: write in such a way that you can worm yourself out if caught in a phrase. Whatever you do, write so that you cannot be pinned down. That kind of thinking gives me shivers as an initial reaction.

But really: In which fields is the term deconstruction used as a springboard to discussion, whether seriously entertained or used as a concept to reject? Which fields?

SilkMuse,

since you have chosen not to accept private messages, then I shall have to post here in public:

There is only one person here with a hidden agenda, and that is your friend, who shall remain nameless. The rest of us are coping as we can. Ask him about his threat to nuke the board. Ask any of us what he has done to hurt us. Ask why such an extraordinary, unprecedented step as banning had to be taken. And if you still have any doubts, I recommend you read "I'm OK, You're OK," before you jump to any more conclusions. Thanks.

AnnaS, i disagree with you about there only being one person here with a hidden agenda.. how ever there was one person with a what seemed like an agenda of destruction.

I remember all those in white (hi e!) and (Hi D!)messages!
You and faldage had a hidden agenda! it just wasn't a destructive one!

as for whether or not they should or shouldn't exist, they will! put three people together, and things start getting political! we must work to manage the politics, and make it constructive and positive

and i think we can say the out come of your hidden agenda was positive at least for you personally, but it was bad for AWAD when you first moved, and didn't have time, or a computer to use, and didn't post for weeks on end.

secondly, i think you are being a bit unfair to Silk Muse.. I can be your friend (and i think i am) and still disagree with you! (see above paragraphs!) Don't presume that other can't do the same thing.

I think our Silkie has been a wonderful contributor, and has not fed fuel to the flame wars. I don't really know exactly how she feels about the banning, since she has generally avoid the topic, and kept to words-- and least for several weeks now.

we do run the risk of becoming too much of private club, and that would be a bad thing. the recent disruptions have left everyone a bit sensitive (not with out cause), and you have special cause to be hyper sensitive, so please understand i am trying to act a balm, and if my fumbling is not as soothing as i hope, it is intended as a balm, not as salt!

what an interesting theory is deconstruction ~ i somehow find it ironic that it is just nebulous enough a concept as to almost be self-descriptive (i forget the rhetoric term for this phenomenon, but).

anyone have a good source which defines this movement more clearly than Goldstein's offering in AHD? i agree with the above comments that suggesting that words mean nothing in the absence of hidden meanings makes the entire idea sound ludicrous at best ~ surely there's something more to the theory.

silkmuse ~ i wasn't quite sure what to make of your post, and i'm glad you've explained it a bit further. as AnnaS has said, there was only one member of this Board who consistently demonstrated a hidden agenda ~ and he has been banned. there will always be misunderstandings, but with the exception of that particular fly in the ointment, we've always had a collective maturity and intelligence sufficient to smooth over any rough spots and hurt feelings. stick around ~ if you (amazingly!) saw something you liked in this board at such a time of turmoil, you'll be *amazed at how much fun it'll be without poltergeist(s)!

wordwind, your comment "write in such a way that you can worm yourself out if caught in a phrase. Whatever you do, write so that you cannot be pinned down." is an extremely apt description* of recent activity ~ and perhaps the only viable example of a need for decontruction (to the uninformed reader, comments can be sugar-coated sufficient to hide the malicious intent behind them).

EDIT(s): I, too, enthusiastically agree with Wofa's suggestion. in the absence of persistent, prolonged and intentional attacks on the board and its members, which we've seen can end only in banning, i agree that we all stumble once in a while and are deserving of forgiveness and forgetness[sic]

* albeit clearly not an intentional one, and my apologies if my post seemed to be suggesting as much. this is a perfect example of how our interpretation of text must fit into the framework of what we know of the author ~ would this be a component of deconstruction?