On a Potential Fallacy in Deconstructionism.

On a Potential Fallacy in Deconstructionism.

 

The deconstruction of the Directed Process (Language) is itself a function of the Directed Process. It may have its origin in the Unconscious; it would be conceivable that this would be so, because how else could one break with the structuralism of a one-sided ego? (A structuralism that seems, at least in the case of this writer, to be represented by the Unconscious as a series of buildings.)

There may be a fallacy, however, in taking things apart to the point that one thinks that they were “never there”. One might know the functioning of a time-piece through immediate experience; one knows the magic of watching its mysterious functioning. One also knows the functional efficiency of such a time-piece and knows also the meaning that one has ascribed to it. By taking it apart, is one not naive to say that none of these observable phenomena ever occurred?

Language “trips over” those wires that trigger the ascent of a Truth from the Unconscious. Its function is to awaken an a priori fact; inviting the Non-directed process to Reveal itself through the ritualistic enactment of the Directed process.

To repeat the same Directed Process twice is to fail; one cannot trigger the same Revelation twice if the Unconscious judges it to be unfeasible. This Revelation might include the awareness of the efficiency of the Directed Process. For this reason, amongst others, Repetition fails. We can never know if we have successfully repeated ourselves because there is no Unconscious Affirmation coming up to Consciousness – no Assuredness.

Simply because one has “deconstructed” a set of words and found no Truth underlying them does not mean that the Truth that was originally summoned by those words was merely arbitrary. That Truth may simply have chosen to withdraw into its burrows, hiding from the surface as a mole hides from the surface when it is being ravaged by so many of Steinbeck’s phallus-shaped apparati.

 

Furthermore, because Repetition is necessary to test this hypothesis, it is intrinsically flawed.

 

Event 1: The phrase triggers a Truth.

Event 2: An attempted repetition on the part of the deconstructionist produces no Truth.

Event 3: The deconstructionist takes the absence of a Truth to mean that:

a.        the phrase itself was meaningless. (And therefore useless.)

b.      The Truth never existed.

 

Problems:

Event 2 involved a Repetition, which cannot be perceived successfully.

At Event 3 the Truth is merely hiding, like a mole. The phrase was only judged to be meaningless because it had no use after Event 1. [At Event 2, it could not trigger the dormant Truth. Event 3 takes place entirely in the abstract realm.]

 

Dm.A.A.