Percy-L: Literary, Religious, Scientific, and Philosophical Discussion of Walker Percy

["James Piat" <piat1 AT bellsouth.net>]

Dear Steve,

 

Now your talking a language I can understand.  Yes, I'm as egocentric as the next.  That we are all in some ways alike and in other not is what makes communication possible and absolute agreement as to the meaning of words or the events to which they refer....  improbable.  I suspect the reason your students can not grasp the meaning of the deconstructionists is that they like their instructor are trapped in the Western text and apparently can not appreciate the distinction between meaning and reality.  Beware the man of one text  -- "for now we see through a glass darkly". 

 

I think much of the over reaction (misunderstanding, nervous tittering, denunciation, etc)  of Christians to Derrida is rooted in the distinction between the Jewish and Christian conceptions of God. In one tradition to speak the name of God is a blasphemy (emphasizing the distinction between text and reality) whereas in the other there is an emphasis upon a concrete, literal incarnation of God.  Thus the latter text (though considered mistaken by some) is more readily grasped and has a thousand times more adherents than the former.  I'm not saying one is right and the other wrong of course  -- just that Derrida is, er, not for everyone. 

 

Tea?

 

Hell, Steve  -- I'm just kidding  --seriously.  As I assume you are in part as well.   Actually, really,  really,  I think there is some truth and falsehood in all positions including and most certainly my own.  But I can't be certain -LOL.  For me the center does not hold.   

Cheers,

Jim Piat

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Parlin, Steven

To: 'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion'

Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 9:42 AM

Subject: RE: [percy-l] Does Deconstruction Have a Future?

Interesting point Jim, but then according to your position isn't every utterance egocentric, even your posting? 

 

I really don't think so.  

 

Yes, misunderstandings sometimes happen for a variety of reasons.  But, it is mostly true that the vast majority of the time we use language with a common understanding. We do share common interpretations. And, we know this because most of the time we communicate quite naturally and without thinking.

 

For example, nearly all of our daily discourse goes something like this:

 

Customer: May I please have a cup of coffee?

Server: Regular or Decaf?

Customer: Regular, no cream.

 

Not like this:

 

Customer: May I please have a cup of coffee

Server: I was in Africa last year, thank you.

Customer: Orange.

 

I mean....c'mon....in your posting here aren't you assuming, quite naturally, that WE will UNDERSTAND you?

 

Steve

 

PS: It's worth noting also that 99% of my students just don't get it, the very concept of deconstruction, when I try to tell them that some people argue that words have no reference points outside of the text. Why don't they get it? Because it's not a part of their real world experience. It's like asking them to meditate on the idea of "one hand clapping". They don't get it. They go about their daily lives using language quite naturally as if everyone else shares, more or less, the same real world reference points. And, they do this naturally, without monitoring themselves, and without any anxiety that they will not be able to communicate.