Just for the record...I didn't write that...
Daniel Sayer
Copy Handler
PR Newswire Europe
Direct line: +44 (0)20 7454 5172
Facsimile: +44 (0)20 7490 2224
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Web site: http://www.prnewswire.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________
Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of PR Newswire Europe. The email contents are intended only
for addressee and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If
you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or
disclose this communication and notify the sender.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Seth Johnson [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 15:53
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Ferreting out Hidden Agendas
>
> Daniel Sayer wrote:
> >
> > My point is that "hidden agendas" in language can be ferreted out by
> > de-construction (whether or not Chomsky has a good opinion of Derrida)
> as
> > well as by the methods Chomsky uses.
>
>
> The basic difference between deconstruction and plain astute
> interpretation, for these purposes, is that deconstruction proposes a
> reduction of the purposes of the phenomenological project to the funky
> themes offered in the course of its analysis. Derrida positions himself
> to reduce phenomenology's effort to establish the grounds for all
> science on the philosophical certainty of inward insight and
> perspectivity, to his own notions.
>
> It's a clever ruse, but once you see the game, the jig's up.
>
> Deconstruction is no biggie once you get to the point of understanding
> that it doesn't really, finally, stand as grounds. Deconstructionists
> would never come anywhere near this question, of course.
>
> All deconstruction is, is occulted subjective idealism. It's an
> overblown application of structural analysis to phenomenology. Neither
> the reduction regarding the purported standing of the deconstructive
> analysis, nor phenomenology itself, survive the inquiry. The end result
> is not, as Derrida would have it, the opportunity to establish some set
> of bizarre ultra-primordial concepts/functions/grammatological sorta
> thangs, but really an occasion to recognize that the phenomenological
> project that Derrida leans on, can no longer profess to stand as the
> ground of all science. (He basically pokes holes, and then plugs the
> holes with notions that gain credence merely in that respect.)
>
> But a lot of people never cared for subjective idealism anyway, and they
> don't really have to be bothered with it. A lot of academicians,
> however, don't realize their reliance on the phenomenological project,
> whether by way of deconstruction or otherwise.
>
> Seth Johnson
|