Humpty Dumpty the Playful Agonist

[Terrance]

I'm not quite sure why deconstructive criticism tends to be so negative,
but it does. 
That the New Criticism stressed the indisputable autonomy of the text
and Deconstruction stressed the very absence of the text may have
something to do with it (the history of criticism is often described as
pendulum swings). But whatever the reason, poststructuralists critics
have denied rather than affirmed, and when they have  attempted to find
meaning (probably not the word to use but...), this "meaning" hinges
tightly on the power of denial. 

There is no text. 

On the other page, while the poet doesn't give us a poem he does give us
an opportunity to Play and create. 

There is no answer. 

On the other cheek, we know something by knowing what it is not, what it
differs from. 



The method of Deconstruction is not Analysis, but Conflict. 
The phrase "does violence to the text" is curious one because of the
ironic fact that the method of dismantling of systems of thought and
concepts is violence. 

Why is that Paul N. sets  thinking against laughing? 

As I've tried to suggest to Paul N., his method is not analysis, but
opposition.  
When I suggested that he had recognized a problem on this List and tried
to solve it he immediately corrected me, insisting that  he was not
solving anything and that Analysis doesn't solve. He's quite correct.
Analysis doesn't solve. It RE-solves or separates (something) into
constituent parts. But deconstruction  re-solves by conflict. It's
neo-Nietzschean and Freudian. And there is no way out. 

On the other foot, the Playfulness of deconstructionist explorations of
texts (for example, opting for the use of one's own language versus the
language of the text and the play metaphor upon metaphor) is quite
liberating because of its commitment to the principle of creation--the
critic as creator. 

How do we know that Broling is a word and Brillig is not? 

Saussure would say that we do not perceive words as words but as
differences between words. So, we perceive NET as different from MET,
BET, GET, JET, LET, and so on and we attach meaning to that difference.
NET is significant only inasmuch as it is **not** MET, BET, GET, and so
on. 

So, difference for Saussure is a purely negative concept. It means: NOT
the same, NOT identical. More importantly, a difference generally
implies positive terms between which the difference is set up; but in
language (Saussure insists, "In language there are ONLY Differences")
there are "only differences without positive terms." 

Saussure doesn't stop at difference, however. MET may be different from
MUT (M?T), but it is also different from BUS, WINDOW, SEXUALITY, DIRT,
CUP, BUILDING and every other conceivable meaningful utterance.
Everything is different from everything else. 

But what good is a truism like, everything is different from everything
else? What does it tell us about language? 

This is where OPPOSITION is handy, footy, cheeky even. 

When we oppose MET to MUT (M?T) rather than any other absurdly unrelated
utterance we are undeniably guided by a perception of a difference, but
we are also guided by a perception of a relation; MET and MUT are alike
in a way that does not apply to MET and WINDOW. This double perception
of likeness and difference is no longer a difference but what Suassure
calls Opposition. MET and WINDOW are different, but MET and MUT are
Opposed because they both belong to the same system M-?-T. 

Difference is only the first step to Value via Opposition. 


Gotta run, Otto, thanks much. 

T