Logocentrism

[Dave Monroe]

The point (insofar as there is, can be, a point, "a" point, a "point" in, to
deconstruction) is certainly not to efface, erase, elide, occlude, much less
reconcile, in yr standard Hegelian dialectical sublimation, yr aufhebung, (the
opposed or whatever) terms of yr given binaries.  But it is also not only to
demonstrate, render apparent ("transparency" hardly being a deconstructive
virtue, no?  Derrida not quite interseted in making clear that allegedly smudged,
fogged, dirty window of language occluding, "hiding" agendas, not by a long shot)
how, say, an effaced, erased, represesed devalorized term might well serve as the
condition of possibility of the valorized term of a binary, but also to put
those--often, as noted by others here, unavaoidable--terms into play, without
effacing or erasing or eliding them, precisely by trouling, by deconstructing
that indeed hierarchically structured (that is, structured by very real
hierarchies) hierarchical structure ...

Muchasmasgracias at cs.com wrote:

> In a message dated 6/19/00 2:54:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jbor at bigpond.com
> writes:
>
> << No rules. Both/and, not either/or. Derrida & co. still read Plato, St
>  Augustine et. al. but with a critical eye to the intrinsic preconceptions
>  and hidden agendas which are made transparent by the processes of textual
>  deconstruction. >>
>
> And I would say that Derrida & co. still violate their own non-binarism thing
> too.  Hasn't Derrida waffled over it when faced with a distinction between
> just and unjust?