frouella 10/24 the after...

I'm the first to admit that I did not have the world's best understanding of Derrida before class on Tuesday, but now, after discussing him at length in class and having ample time to mull over what was said, I can say with confidence that Derrida... needs to get out more. Or he needed to, rather; I should use the past tense since he did shuffle off this mortal coil and all. Perhaps the most charitable thing I can say about the man is that reading Derrida makes me appreciate the time when I'm not reading Derrida. Seriously, if he would've just focused and done a little editing, he could've said what needed to be said in about 20 pages or so, and then gone and had lunch. With normal people. Ones who wouldn't focus on logocentrism or the differance (mind the "a" now!) or the quest for the ur-text. Yes, Jack, you're very smart -- now shut up.

The more theory I read, the more I'm reminded of the phrase that I wish I'd been clever enough to coin: intellectual inbreeding. What I mean by that is how these "intellectualists" only read what pertains to theory, only write what pertains to theory, only correspond with other theorists, to the point that they forget that everyone else who doesn't eat, sleep, and breathe theory has no idea what the heck they're talking about. I'm not talking garden-variety specialized jargon here; that's understandable and at times necessary when a person delves into a highly specialized field. What I mean is the deliberate obfuscation they seem to delight in, to the point that all meaning is lost. Which I find to be all the more ironic given that most of them are prattling on endlessly about language and signification, but I digress. In any event, what's the point of developing these grandiose theories if no one understands what you're talking about? According to Derrida himself, language needs both a sender and receiver. So by using his own logic, if Derrida talks and no one there can understand him, does that still qualify as language? Furthermore, if a Derrida falls in a wood, does he make a sound?

**sigh** Yes, I know what Derrida is trying (ever so inefficiently) to say, but what I'm saying is that once in a while, these theorists need to take some time to normalize and take a step back, if only to keep the big picture in mind. And their writing concise. Because ultimately theory IS supposed to have a purpose, no? It's not supposed to be about insecure intellectualists trying to impress each other with their vocabularies or confound each other with their abstruse theories, right? To that end, I can say that yes, Mr. Derrida sir, I understand that on language's molecular level, there's no way to know for sure how meaning is assigned or if it's even there at all, but I also know that if I go into a McDonald's and order a cheeseburger, they're gonna give me a cheeseburger. Granted, that's not the best example (and it's loaded with trans-fats, which may or may not soon become illegal in New York), but sorry -- I'm hungry.

For a better example, think of geometry:

This picture shows how it's possible to find the approximate area of a circle by inscribing an increasing number of regular polygons inside it (first a triangle, then a square, then a pentagon, etc.). As the regular polygon is divided into more and more triangles (for which the area can be calculated), the area becomes closer and closer to the area of the circle. So while it doesn't calculate the area of a circle exactly, it's close enough to get a pretty good idea. To me, that's what language does, too; in the Saussurean and Derridean view of things, where "there are only differences" and there is no "stable referent," language may not ever be able to convey an exact meaning, but it gets close enough to get the point across.

Random Po-Moment:
From the SciFi Tech blog:
"Samsung creates thinnest TV ever; tube sets develop eating disorder"
Well, it's kinda po-mo, if you tilt your head to the side and squint a little...