The One and Only...
Feb 1st, 2004, 11:33 AM
The Deconstruction of Deconstruction:
The starting point of all deconstruction lies with the inversion of opposition between concepts. Take, for example, the conceived superiority of life over death. Deconstruction would "reverse the hierarchy" in the second phase of the process
Now, I ask, what happens if we apply deconstruction to deconstruction itself?
Those who deconstruct are guilty of believing in the superiority of deconstruction over structuralism. If we invert the opposition, it becomes clear that structuralism is superior to deconstruction. At this point, deconstruction has been logically contradicted - of course, the deconstructor can reply that irrationality has been placed above rationality by deconstruction, and that no contradiction lies, but ultimately that contradicts itself as well, since it is a logical argument.
Space as nonreal:
Science is showing us more and more that there is no such thing as empty space; what real space there is is filled with matter. But I now have a more complex question - is space itself real? Is there really any evidence that matter must be within a theoretical concept of space in order to have three-dimensional properties? Couldn't there simply be matter?
The necessity of the real nontranscendant and nonexistant:
Before I explain this, I wish to define a few terms. Existence implies being within "space" and time - a nonexisting theoretical consideration could be placed within reality, but it would not exist in the way defined. Transcendant implies being outside of "space" and time.
Now, examine the two terms. Do you see what I am referring to? What of "space" and time? They cannot be transcendant, as that would imply that they are outside of themselves; yet they cannot be existing, as that would imply that they are within themselves. Thus, we can see that these consideration, if we assume that they are real, are nontranscendant and nonexistant.
A theory on linguistics:
I propose that language must always refer to an abstraction, which can then be processed and applied to existence for the purpose of comprehension.
Consider, for example, the phrase "Bob went to the store". Within that abstraction, all that exists is Bob within the past tense at the store. That abstraction can then be applied to existence for an understanding of how it relates to reality.
On creativity and experience:
I propose that when something is created or conceived, at some point the one who created or conceived the thing had already seen or experienced it. Now, that may sound asinine to you, but give me a chance to explain. The thing may not have been experienced at one time - the many different parts which make it up may have been in as many observed substances. Ultimately, these parts can be combined within the mind to form new thoughts.
The evidence? Colors. Can you conceive of a color that could not be created by blending existing colors? You cannot. Likewise, can you create something in your mind which is not a huge complex of many different observed entities? If you think about, you probably cannot do this either. Lines with different curves can be combined within the mind, angles of different lengths can be modified... the mind takes in all the information and forms and classifies new entities from it's ingenuity.
Any criticisms?
The starting point of all deconstruction lies with the inversion of opposition between concepts. Take, for example, the conceived superiority of life over death. Deconstruction would "reverse the hierarchy" in the second phase of the process
Now, I ask, what happens if we apply deconstruction to deconstruction itself?
Those who deconstruct are guilty of believing in the superiority of deconstruction over structuralism. If we invert the opposition, it becomes clear that structuralism is superior to deconstruction. At this point, deconstruction has been logically contradicted - of course, the deconstructor can reply that irrationality has been placed above rationality by deconstruction, and that no contradiction lies, but ultimately that contradicts itself as well, since it is a logical argument.
Space as nonreal:
Science is showing us more and more that there is no such thing as empty space; what real space there is is filled with matter. But I now have a more complex question - is space itself real? Is there really any evidence that matter must be within a theoretical concept of space in order to have three-dimensional properties? Couldn't there simply be matter?
The necessity of the real nontranscendant and nonexistant:
Before I explain this, I wish to define a few terms. Existence implies being within "space" and time - a nonexisting theoretical consideration could be placed within reality, but it would not exist in the way defined. Transcendant implies being outside of "space" and time.
Now, examine the two terms. Do you see what I am referring to? What of "space" and time? They cannot be transcendant, as that would imply that they are outside of themselves; yet they cannot be existing, as that would imply that they are within themselves. Thus, we can see that these consideration, if we assume that they are real, are nontranscendant and nonexistant.
A theory on linguistics:
I propose that language must always refer to an abstraction, which can then be processed and applied to existence for the purpose of comprehension.
Consider, for example, the phrase "Bob went to the store". Within that abstraction, all that exists is Bob within the past tense at the store. That abstraction can then be applied to existence for an understanding of how it relates to reality.
On creativity and experience:
I propose that when something is created or conceived, at some point the one who created or conceived the thing had already seen or experienced it. Now, that may sound asinine to you, but give me a chance to explain. The thing may not have been experienced at one time - the many different parts which make it up may have been in as many observed substances. Ultimately, these parts can be combined within the mind to form new thoughts.
The evidence? Colors. Can you conceive of a color that could not be created by blending existing colors? You cannot. Likewise, can you create something in your mind which is not a huge complex of many different observed entities? If you think about, you probably cannot do this either. Lines with different curves can be combined within the mind, angles of different lengths can be modified... the mind takes in all the information and forms and classifies new entities from it's ingenuity.
Any criticisms?