On Derrida.

On Derrida.

 

Derrida’s logocentrism has one central, de-bunking enemy: The ineffability of immediate experience.

Since very early childhood, I have struggled with not so much my most intimate experiences as my inability to describe them.

 

The very incompetence on my part in this respect evidences that these experiences could not have originated in language, because were they the products of language then I would have presumably found the words to describe them. There seems to have been in my life an inverse relationship betwixt the capacity to describe things and to experience them. This is the dichotomy of Directed Thought and Non-directed Thought. Our language is malleable; the Truth is not.

How had this escaped Ali? Well, as an extravert , he would naturally be driven more by the object of his consciousness than his own objectivity.

What motive could exist to recount one encounter to another person? The second person would simply become the next experience, submerging the former. The Judging Preferable would lead to such an over-valuation of this Conscious process that the vague corners of the psyche revealed from Unconsciousness by Intuition would be forgotten.

 

Dm.A.A.

 

Derrida’s view of Love, as expressed in the film Derrida (however tentatively), is that Love is most pure when it is directed towards another unconditionally and without justification. Such justification would come in the form of a description. Yet the function of Art is to express the inexpressible. So: An expression of Love in terms of characteristics would be the involving of Art in Love. Every Thou is bound to become an It, which again becomes a Thou.

 

Dm.A.A.