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!
No comments:
Post a Comment