I don't think that Derrida's point is to tell us what we should or shouldn't do, other than that we SHOULD think more about language and concepts and the nature of it all and that we SHOULDN'T just assume that things are easy or simple.
Ok, so what I'm saying (though, really, there's been little of Derrida and lots of Mogle in this so far) is this - concepts, in our minds, cannot be perfectly converted into language. And language, then, is even more imperfectly used to trigger concepts in the mind of the hearer.
Structuralism disagrees with this - it says that concepts are solid things that exist separate separate from context, separate, really, from human life. In addition, structuralism says that words can be/are truly indexed to concepts separated from context. So in language meaning and form (words and the concepts they truly represent) are totally joined and available in their entirety with anyone who has eyes to see, so to speak. Is this sounding familiar?
Derrida talks about form and force. He says that form, that is the structure dissolved from its context, is only interesting when one is lapsing from force, that is the creative life that happens within form (sort of). Like this: I can be intellectually engaged with you about the Orthodox church, I can study it, I can visit it, I can seek to understand its structure (doctrine, practice, community, history, &c - I can lay it all out and survey it), but unless I come to the services, say the words, become compelled by and add to the creative life (force) I can't come to fully understand, appreciate, enjoy, celebrate, whatever inside that story.
I think this makes even less sense than what I've written before. I'll stop and come back.
Oh, and we still need a picture of you for the sidebar!
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Monday, May 14, 2007
Derrida's Book
I guess I'm not understanding Derrida's point. Is he saying we shouldn't make statements because they damage other statements? If so, Derrida shouldn't have written a book since I sure it's full of statements!
I am hurt and offended and....hurt!
Christopher-
It is almost impossible to offend me. Say something bad about my family that isn't true, or something vaguely racist and you'll probably do it. But you're free to poke fun at Derrida all you want!
No, I don't think his book is intended to be humorous. And I wouldn't call it non-sensical, but very, very difficult. Maybe my explanation isn't very good. I guess, let's try this:
We talk about Jesus as a victorious king. Think of everything that entails - really get a good image (concept) in your head of what a victorious king is.
Got it? Ok. Now, we can also talk about Jesus as a humble servant. Can a victorious king be a humble servant? Do the two images (concepts) mesh very well? I wouldn't think so. Is that because Jesus is not a victorious king and a humble servant, or is that because of a problem in language?
Does that make any more sense?
I'll try to comment more on your 'Ecclesiology' post later.
It is almost impossible to offend me. Say something bad about my family that isn't true, or something vaguely racist and you'll probably do it. But you're free to poke fun at Derrida all you want!
No, I don't think his book is intended to be humorous. And I wouldn't call it non-sensical, but very, very difficult. Maybe my explanation isn't very good. I guess, let's try this:
We talk about Jesus as a victorious king. Think of everything that entails - really get a good image (concept) in your head of what a victorious king is.
Got it? Ok. Now, we can also talk about Jesus as a humble servant. Can a victorious king be a humble servant? Do the two images (concepts) mesh very well? I wouldn't think so. Is that because Jesus is not a victorious king and a humble servant, or is that because of a problem in language?
Does that make any more sense?
I'll try to comment more on your 'Ecclesiology' post later.
Derrida's Book
Is Derrida's book supposed to be humorous? No one could write something that nonsensical and mean it seriously. Remember, you said it's almost impossible to offend you :)
Ecclesiology
I became Orthodox because of authority and history. At first, I wanted an authoritive interpretor of Scripture. The verses on different topics can be understood in variety of ways. I wanted someone to be able to say, "This interpretation is correct."
Now the reasons why I'm Orthodox have to do more with the canonization of the New Testament and Church history. The Church that canonized the New Testament had a lot more in common with the Orthodox Catholic Church than the Protestant one I group up in. How can I use the NT they assembled and than deny they are Christians? That idea doesn't make sense.
Church history is important because Jesus Christ said His Church wouldn't die (Matthew 16:18.) If the Protestant church I grew up in is right, than the church disappeared from history about AD 100. It didn't reappear until, at earliest, 1500. One could argue some little group had survived but didn't leave any historical record. However, that argument is by definition impossible to support.
Now the reasons why I'm Orthodox have to do more with the canonization of the New Testament and Church history. The Church that canonized the New Testament had a lot more in common with the Orthodox Catholic Church than the Protestant one I group up in. How can I use the NT they assembled and than deny they are Christians? That idea doesn't make sense.
Church history is important because Jesus Christ said His Church wouldn't die (Matthew 16:18.) If the Protestant church I grew up in is right, than the church disappeared from history about AD 100. It didn't reappear until, at earliest, 1500. One could argue some little group had survived but didn't leave any historical record. However, that argument is by definition impossible to support.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
300 & Language
I haven't seen 300 yet. Is it still out? I really wanted to see it in the theater, but Manda isn't interested in the slightest and I rarely go out to the movies without her. I'll just have to wait for DVD, I guess. At least that will give me time to read the account in Herodotus first.
Lately I've been really interested in the 'problem of language' (see my last post on my blog). It probably comes from reading Derrida, though he says 'the question of the sign' and is more interested in literary criticism specifically. He talks about structuralism which I think is a better and more specific way of terming the most recent and, presumably, the final mode of what you and I would call modernism. Without really giving it a specific definition he talks about structuralism as system of totalitarianism. I haven't reached the point yet, but I think he is speaking both of totalitarian in that it assumes that the structure of language (and, so, truth) is viewable in its totality and totalitarian in the political sense - a structuralist view affirms its own structure of language (and, so, truth) to the exclusion of other structures (or non-structures(!)), doing violence to them.
I have really been thinking a lot about this lately: that it is impossible to make a statement at all without doing violence to all other statements. Not only violence to everyone else's statement, but even to one's own other statements - putting voice to an idea is, inherently, a violent act because one is forced to narrow what may be broad in one's mind into a single statement. And so our 'expression' is a remarkably good word - 'to squeeze out'.
A little heavier reading and thinking.
Lately I've been really interested in the 'problem of language' (see my last post on my blog). It probably comes from reading Derrida, though he says 'the question of the sign' and is more interested in literary criticism specifically. He talks about structuralism which I think is a better and more specific way of terming the most recent and, presumably, the final mode of what you and I would call modernism. Without really giving it a specific definition he talks about structuralism as system of totalitarianism. I haven't reached the point yet, but I think he is speaking both of totalitarian in that it assumes that the structure of language (and, so, truth) is viewable in its totality and totalitarian in the political sense - a structuralist view affirms its own structure of language (and, so, truth) to the exclusion of other structures (or non-structures(!)), doing violence to them.
I have really been thinking a lot about this lately: that it is impossible to make a statement at all without doing violence to all other statements. Not only violence to everyone else's statement, but even to one's own other statements - putting voice to an idea is, inherently, a violent act because one is forced to narrow what may be broad in one's mind into a single statement. And so our 'expression' is a remarkably good word - 'to squeeze out'.
A little heavier reading and thinking.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Lighter Side Response
I haven't seen either of the movies you mentioned. I haven't recently read any books other than the Bible. I've been trying to find an Orthodox Internet discussion group I'm comfortable with. It seems the traditionists are overrepresented in the forums. The zealots in any group always seem to have the biggest mouths.
Have you seen 300 yet?
Have you seen 300 yet?
Lighter Side
Christopher-
On the lighter side, I wonder if you've seen any movies, read any books, &c lately that you have liked. I've been watching 'Stranger Than Fiction' over and over. I think I could write something about it and postmodernism - it seems to me to have all the elements of postmodernism I like. I think I could set it up against the movie 'Momento' which, although I liked the movie, has a lot of the elements of postmodernism that I don't like.
I've also been reading Jaques Derrida's 'Writing and Difference' and Cervantes' 'Don Quixote'. Manda wants me to tell you that she's been reading 'Little Men' and she finds it very postmodern. That's a joke.
On the lighter side, I wonder if you've seen any movies, read any books, &c lately that you have liked. I've been watching 'Stranger Than Fiction' over and over. I think I could write something about it and postmodernism - it seems to me to have all the elements of postmodernism I like. I think I could set it up against the movie 'Momento' which, although I liked the movie, has a lot of the elements of postmodernism that I don't like.
I've also been reading Jaques Derrida's 'Writing and Difference' and Cervantes' 'Don Quixote'. Manda wants me to tell you that she's been reading 'Little Men' and she finds it very postmodern. That's a joke.
Getting Started
Christopher-
I don't have any ideas off the top of my head for topics. Some things we have talked about in the past and could probably get a lot more in depth with in this medium-
* postmodernism (in general)
* ecclesiology
* soteriology
I guess I do have a question. I am curious to hear what you think of the Orthodox church now that you've spent more time there as a member. I think, also, I wonder what you find the most important difference that has drawn you to the Orthodox church over the modern protestant church - doctrine? experience? tradition?
I don't have any ideas off the top of my head for topics. Some things we have talked about in the past and could probably get a lot more in depth with in this medium-
* postmodernism (in general)
* ecclesiology
* soteriology
I guess I do have a question. I am curious to hear what you think of the Orthodox church now that you've spent more time there as a member. I think, also, I wonder what you find the most important difference that has drawn you to the Orthodox church over the modern protestant church - doctrine? experience? tradition?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
