grgr: overcoming of metaphysics

[Dave Monroe]

Well, I wouldn't, I imagine Derrida wouldn't, use the word "synonymous" here
(don't want to elide those differences, no?), but ... well, on my rough
reading, logocentrism, esp. in relation to those "hierarchical binary
oppositions," involves perhaps more specifically not only the positing of such
binaries (which are always succeptible to the question of, well, WHY those two
terms?  Why that opposition vs. some other possible one?  Why, say,
white/black and not white/red or white/table or ... one term is always opposed
to the other in some specific context), not only the valorizing of one term
over the other (White/black, White/red, White/table ...), but, perhaps more
specifically the valorizing of one term over the other such that some quality
or somesuch of "presence" is valorized over its presumed "absence"
(penis/vagina is the classic, and not just Freudian, example of what yr
Cixous, Irigaray call phallologocentrism), (the) "deconstruction" (of said
binary, valorization, whatever) tending perhaps to demonstrate how the
valorized term is actually dependent on, structured by, the supposed,
devalorized absence ... Derrida's reading of Plato's Phaedrus, for example
(see JD's Disseminations) showing that Plato's valorization of speech over
writing, of the self-presence of speech vs. the possible absences of writing,
seems nonetheless dependent on a notion of writing as representing speech as
represnting though which seems structured, strangely enough, like writing ...
but you'd be better off reading it yourself than depending on my admittedly
inexpert reading, explication thereof, so ...

Paul Mackin wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Paul Mackin wrote:
>
> > All thinking seems to be logocentric I'm sure Derrida would agree
> > including of course his own. I'm probably quibbling about words but the
> > idea of making an "assault" on something that's built into the language
> > process, built into human nature, presents the image of a dog barking at
> > the moon. The thing to make an assault on, if any, is the denial of this
> > basic flaw in human existence.
>
> Been pondering my words. Is logocentricism the unavoidable fact of how
> thinking works, or is it the sin of denying how thinking works?
>
> Is logocentricism synonomous with hierarchical binary oppositions?
>
> Or, is it merely synonomous with binary thinking?
>
> I realize my questions are hopelessly polluted with logocentricity.
> (whatever the hell it is)
>                         P.