Quote:
|
Originally Posted by racehorse
i agree with everything that you are saying, but most of it was unnecessary.
i was just saying that the word "deconstructionist" in the article was not meaningless as you said it was because rob got a meaning from it.
it's foucault's destabilisation of meaning - the death of the author, the birth of the audience.
i wouldn't have jumped in but i found a particular irony in the fact that here we are debating the precise meaning of deconstruction (relating to semiotics) when many people understand it to relate to the absence of definate, or author enforced, meaning in a text. that's all! anyway, i'm glad you spouted what you spouted, i definately learned a thing or two!
|
To your last sentence - you learned nothing. I'm merely some opinionated prick in some corner of the internet. If you're anywhere near the South-west of England we can have a pint; otherwise, this is merely pissing competitions.
Foucault I have no time for - you enjoy him all you like; I consider him rather insipid, generally as a result of being entirely besotted until Writing and Difference. Interesting you associate Focault with death of the author - does that pre-date Barthes in Foucault then?
The absence [absense] of the definite/ definitive is a 'trope' (genre, type) of nihilism, to my understanding, which, unless I'm much mistaken, is rejected outright by all. For what it matters (little) I'm drunk, and for what it matters (little), referents wiggle and hide but they never disappear; Wittgenstein re-introduces contingencies, a certain precedence of a certain sort of linguistic contingency, but this by no means precedes a linguistic relativism (
postmodern linguistic relativity) which pre/ proscribes the misapprehension of a term (relative to all popular consensus) as its definition
contiguous to its usage.
For all the rubbishness of postmodernism, we never rejected Kant, we will never reject Plato. ['We' is not the 'I' of Glice, or the 'I' of he who is 'Glice']
Lacan would've fucking loved the internet. What a prick, eh?