The Fundamental Post

Sunday February 21, 2010




The foremost intent of this blog is to merely critique texts using literary theory, philosophy, and empirical experiences. Though philosophy often renders the analyzer to use metaphysical ideology when performing research, I will try to limit the critique to more a more physical schema. Texts may be analyzed by techniques ranging from psychoanalysis to deconstruction to structuralism.


This blog will also serve host to my own writings, which I will promptly try to step out of my own shoes and criticize the text as though I had never seen it before (very Derrida). Many of these things may include short stories, poems, quick plays, and the such. These writings will be open to interpretation by the audience, that is, you. I am looking for constructive feedback, not slander. My works will also be subject to criticisms (literary and personal) and will be dissimulated into meanings that I may or may not have intended. So critique and reciprocate!!


Lastly, I will always try to exit with a not too verbose, but rather terse quote from a historical, philosophical, or literary genius. Along with this quote will be my interpretation of that text, and I invite others to chime in.


Today's Quote: "A text is not a text unless it hides from the first comer, from the first glance, the rules of its composition and the laws of its game." -Jacques Derrida (Dissemination)


This quote seems very rudimentary at first glance (yes a pun), however it has a very deep meaning that has not only changed my writing forever, but also the way that I read text. Jacques Derrida's Dissemination argues (or because of the way the text itself is subject to his deconstruction viewpoint, does NOT argue) that a text no matter how concrete in meaning, no matter how thorough can not have one meaning, therefore in essence lacks meaning entirely. Words are dichotomist and contradictory. Words have multiple interpretations and no one is entirely right. This is even true of the spoken language because, as we are well aware, language is just a code, a simple system used to convey, rather try to convey meaning. The process is known as encoding and decoding. The speaker encodes a thought, feeling, or message into words, or even more scientifically correct, into audible phonetics that when strung together are supposed to create a distinct semantic meaning. The fault of this process, however, lies with the listener, or decoder. It is because of word's dichotomist nature that decoding becomes a rather impossible task. When decoding the message the decoder uses prior knowledge and experience to decode the message. Also, the decoder tries to understand each word's meaning by basing off of context, but trying to base a word’s meaning off of context requires the decoder to fully understand the words around the specific word, which then results in the same problem. This is cyclical and there is no end. (Hence the illusion to Jorge Luis Borges' Library of Babel).


Now, Socrates argued that speech is valued higher than writing. He believed this because with speech the father of the logos is still alive and present within the logos' life. A live presentation of speech can be defended by the father, but if written down and disseminated that message loses the defense of the father and is subject to any critique. Socrates then uses an example to support his point. He claims that when writing was invented by a demi-god named Thoth he brought it to the god Amman. Amman then looked at Thoth’s handy work and decided that it was inferior by calling it a pharmakon. The word pharmakon is the Greek word for the Latin pharmacia, which translates to pharmacy, and its derivative pharmaceutical. This of course to us is a neutral word, but Socrates used that word to specifically state that writing was like a poison, in that it is inferior. He was claiming, along with the god Amman, that writing is memorization without actual knowledge. He claimed that to actually know something is to experience and learn it through prior knowledge or even through an epiphany. Writing is just another way for us to become lazier, and in fact would just cause problems due to the father of its logos being detached. This is where Socrates makes his point, that because something is written down it can be misinterpreted, even by its author because of time. The logos is left, rather abandoned, by its father while speech, the spoken word, can be defended by the father. However, Derrida makes a point that Socrates did not foresee. This is where the encoder/decoder ideology schema of speech provides us with enough evidence to refute Socrates claims that speech is more definite than writing. Speech is only equal to writing due to the same fatal fallacy that is inherent in writing. Logos cannot be defended whether written or spoken due to internal dissonance. This fundamental principle can also be applied to concepts outside the realm of written speech and spoken word. However, Claude Levi-Strauss and Ferdinand De Saussure would argue that everything we as humans understand is through language, which would mean that everything that one believes they understand fully, he cannot because the concept is subject to a language that is immensely flawed. However some argue that supposition is flawed because there are abstractions which cannot be defined, hence outside the realm of language. That scheme is then bifurcated into two new conceptualizations which both follow the supposition that there are things that cannot be defined. First there are those who believe that there are physical phenomena that we are aware of (such as emotions) but cannot fully define. Some of these ideas play off of psychoanalysis, such as dreams and tendencies, and other things such as theoretical physics, emotions, and the metaphysical. Then there are others that believe that things do not exist in our lives until they are defined. When defines those things come into existence.


Either way the dynamics of this quote are only a simple introduction into a complex and abstract idea that can be spanned across all concentrations and curricula. A very interesting read, Dissemination, really makes one think deep, and makes one ask how much they really believe they know. In the end I believe that it is incredibly important to take these ideas seriously, yet only in a subtle approach. To question is to build intelligence and create open-mindedness, creativity, and skills that genuinely critically analyze artifacts. I hope you enjoy this blog as it progresses, and I do hope you, the reader, realize that these are very abstract ideas at times, some are dated, some may even contain fallacious material, but they are still ideas, even if I the writer do not agree with them. I, like anyone else, have a set credo that is a postulation of ideas that define what I do and do not believe. I will most likely reserve my personal beliefs, but maybe, just maybe they may make an appearance on here someday. Again, read on, critique, and reciprocate!!