[...]identity and law.

E m foster, how can i tell what i think, till i see what i say.

What one finds repeatedly in derrida's work is the uncanny effect by which one is invited to sense the unfolding of all his thinking starting out from anywhere, from any idea, any word, any thought that happen to be at issue. Deconstruction is the name for this?

Derrida proceeds with patience and pleasure, to describe what is going on in a particular text or situation.

Every reading is difficult, Shakespeare, maulwürfe, mathematics. The difficulty of reading is in transforming the ways we are obliged to think about those texts.

The transformation is crucially always already in the texts he reads. Describing what happens when reading a passage of anything. Everything is in Shakespeare, in Plato, in Kafka. The relation between description and transformation is uncanny.

To talk about the logics of supplement is another way of attending the deconstructive effects of the and. To put into effect new discourses, new acts. This description and transformation is deconstruction, is more than a language and no more than a language.

There are always differences, tensions, paradoxes in the text, between what a text says and what a text does.

Derrida always begins (wherever he happens to find himself) in a specific context, which is to say in trying to engage with a specific text or scene of reading.

(Writing is) is winking at someone (you like)  while listening to my favorite music.

A writing that is not structurally readable -- iterable -- beyond the death of the addressee, would not be writing.

The supplementarity of digression, a fictional supplementarity. Freud is compelled to tell a story but in the act of doing so, he betrays the annulment or effective impossibility of this story. Sons murder of primordial father. Origin of morality: earliest moral restrictions in primitive society have been explained by us as reactions to a dead which gave those who performed it the concept of crime.

The feeling that a text is especially written ‘for’ derrida... As if waiting for him to come along and point it out.

Freud's story is less the narration of an imaginary event than the simulacrum of narration. Freud's quasi event, is at once of fictional narrative and as narrative as fictive. It is the origin of literature at the same time as the origin of law, derrida suggests.

Kant, Freud, Kafka, what makes important all these thinkers for Derrida has to do with how each in their different way brings out a ghostly or virtual ‘narrativity and fiction’ at the very core of legal thought.

Law is always an idiom. An idiom is an expression with a meaning that cannot be guessed from the meanings of the individual words: its door concerns only you. One's relation to the law is singular.

The drama of naming (@Sonja naming the dance, dancing the name, is she dancing the name of the dance)

john Keats, prospective; Williams Wordsworth, retrospective. Prospective work consists of hopeful preparation, anticipation of future power rather than meditative reflections on past moments of insight and harmony. Oriented towards the future.

All i am doing today, like derrida, can be seen as a grafting (ghalameh zadan) or extension, supplement or prosthesis, an outgrowth from somewhere else, earlier on.

I will attach to the story of maulwürfe like the shit on his head.

Recalling and reinventing Shakespeare, the idea is not to bring it from past to present, something that is already disjointed in time towards the future. I push the characters of King Lear to a future. The deconstructive reading of the play has to do with the opening of the future itself. It is utterly important that you do something unpredictable for yourself. If you are in the business of hate, love suddenly, changing tracks brings the unexplainable to the trajectory. Going in discipline is like riding a train on rails, i am not saying to go off the track and crash or stop, but to change track experimentally and to change gear. The tracks are built for us to move in the field of thought, they don't cover the whole surface, by moving along them we can witness the new to emerge from our interdisciplinary run.

Derrida shows, reminds, that we can never do anything systematically.

Monstrosity in the story Yal-o Ejdeha by Shamlu. Monsters of the deep..

my aim was to show the monstrosity of all the characters in King Lear not just Edmond. Edmond is the artist of the self. Shakespeare makes unacceptable characters. King Lear play is intolerable itself, an encounter with the opening of the future itself. Instead of giving in to the normalizing and legitimating representations which identity, recognize, and reduce everything too quickly, why not rather be interested in theoretical monsters, in monstrosities which announce themselves in theoretical reading.

The proper significance is simply and categorically deferred forever, insistent strangeness of the force of deferral, (effecting what derrida has called) the singularity of the here and now.

“explained” is “explained away.”

unreasonable is not concealed necessarily.

Duty to irresponsibility

any phantasmatic organization, whether collective or individual, is the invention of a drug, or of a rhetoric of drugs, be it aphrodisiac or not.
In talk, i respond to the how of a poem or text dictating a kind of addictive reading or desire in the reader.

The project of a text, the project of a theory

according to Freud, when the work of mourning is completed the ego becomes free and uninhabited again. Funeral speeches and related writings, are possibilities that structures the movement of identification. Mourning is the interiorization of the dead other, also its contrary. Politics is figured as first and foremost an organization of the time and space of mourning.

After him, it is all war and crumbling.

We know better than ever today that the dead must be able to work. And to cause to work, perhaps more than ever.


The meaning of meaning [...]

...................................

[*]deconstruction: a sort of strategic device + opening onto its own abyss (one of the most influential approaches to texts) =/= method

Campbell --> Derridean deconstruction is visual
Derrida's thinking helps us take images seriously (as philosophical artefacts)
•organizational image: the aesthetic ambassador for the organization (it visualizes + gives aesthetic value to it)
•advertisement: preeminent image of production and consumption of the global economy

image = logocentric vision --need--> problematizing =/= solutionizing


-is there a spirit of critique that is not liberatory in purpose?

Derridean deconstruction: a critical approach --draw--> attention to the operations of method itself (=/= method):
[~? feedback types:]
1. interventionist --advocate--> different/contradictory readings (of images)
2. radical --interest--> roots of meaning-making activity
3. liberatory --seek--> evoke justice (forcing an image to account for itself)
4. ethical --concern--> what is overlooked
5. innovative (productive) --promote--> non-traditional ways of reading (of interpretting, of finding meaning)


intellectual climate in 1960s ==>
•Derrida's deconstruction --> bringing Saussure's own work to its own radical paradoxical conclusion
•Foucault's archeological approach [question the idea that human is an a priori --> how humans have been diagnosed in psychiatry and (ab)normalized in criminal and sexual *discourses* ==produce==> reality effects at the level of body]
•Barthes's semiology =/= the idea that the author is the single and authoritative source of meaning


Derrida's list of concepts:
differance
retrait
revenant
dissemination
deconstruction
hymen
invagination
archiécriture
supplement
khora
pharmakon
scrypt
parergon
subjectile
}--> levers applying torque گشتاور and displacement in the textual machinery


deconstruction
==> counter-intuitive analyses
--> presupposes a detailed knowledge of construction (one must become intimate with the ways something is assembled) [=/= cart blanche for meaning]
--> (Jassem's style of) reading otherwise: passing the classical [...]