Dear Kristina:
I don’t know if the following will be of any help.
Deconstruction secretly aims to turn every theorist in to a butcher.
Deconstruction is the last cry for help from the modern age thinkers that
are nothing more than ancient Greeks on pants or skirts.
I modestly proposed Methodoxy, which I find not very different from
Praxiology, as an agglutinating proposal. Both, I think, aren’t holistic
propositions but are continuously trying to get as much different
approaches under larger categories.
One question underlying both proposals is that surface is important.
Surface is a very muddy subject. What things look like on a system is,
maybe, what is legitimating the whole system: Systems of likeness (like
family likenesses in Wittengstein).
The multiple meaning systems (apparently chaotic) are probably the only way
to be as systems. Words that mean or are interpreted in different ways are
the only structural link between different concepts that otherwise would be
opaque inside different systems. Misunderstandings are a good thing since
they might be the only thing.
Deconstruction aims, very discretely, to achieve a metaphysical level, by
digging or ascending. This is infected by an aseptic idea of metaphysics.
Surprisingly Design systems seem always very polluted. Isn’t pollution, in
terms of meaning, function, working devices and strategies or philosophical
pertinent ideas what is defining it. Wouldn’t deconstruction’s approaches
destroy the very links that are the structure of the system since what
characterizes it are the surface linkage? But, alas, isn’t that the goal of
deconstruction?
Timeless and timeless-ness were cleaning devices like many other
deconstructive mechanisms. By searching for meaning amongst the shattered
ruins of otherwise messy but truthful system’s realities we might be
sweeping under the carpet our own inability for knowledge.
Best,
Eduardo
|