klausjjf

[klausjjf]

[klausjjf]

7.14.17

Speech is present, reason, language made real; writing is outside, diluted removed form, without an authenticity of presence, immediacy, transparency. A record, technology for registering, tempering speech, predisposed towards falsity, falsification, deception, an instrument in history of bounding enclosing compounding differentials, subjugation.

for levi-strauss, ownership, access to language, the /whole/ of language thereby not universal, internal, enjoyed by all, by virtue of shared humanhood, language is not human, instead contingent, subjugative. Further, in its operation as apparatus of, for power, writing exercises it’s ‘sociological’ function, that which involves the mystification, obscuration of knowledge, meaning, the presumption of its exclusive or enclosed property, acting as pretext for command, but that occurs wholly outside the meaning or essential ‘content’ of this writing, what levi-strauss nominates as the ‘intellectual’

In an absence of this apparatus of perfidy, means of asymmetry, hierarchy, levi-strauss fantasizes an innocence, a certain elementality, a ‘sweetness of nature,’ if including a proximity to the animal derrida problematizes this cleaving of ‘ends,’ later problematizing the idea that writing, literacy as an instrument of ‘enslavement’ in its supposition that this ‘power’ is a product of , not a communion, the formation of a state as means of enshrining permitting security

derrida accuses levi-strauss also for transposing, assuming rosseau’s idea of the consummate state-subject relation occurs at the interstice, middle place, between pre state anarchistic antiquity (an image of hunter gatherer precarious primitivism, proceeding accumulation) and the state of organized relations, of civilization, teleologies of accumulation, ‘forward.’ This interstice finds kinship, its manifest appearance, with levi-strauss’ glossed unblemished nambikwara. This assumption operates as the premise of levi-strauss’ denigration of writing as a technology by which a people come to be subjugated, exploited by a state, enabling the perfidy mystification that enables its exercise. Contained here is material from which his binary order, the whole of his maxims, can be traced. First, writing is conceived as a technology, its ‘empirical’ means of notation (surface marks as coiled notation) as an auxiliary becoming, recording, of language, by which speech becomes material mediated distant deferred in- immediate, hereby intimating a history or temporality in which writing must begin emerge or undergo invention. This temporality imports a sort of abrupt pivot, in which writing arrives as totally unfamiliar alien to the character of language, exchange, that proceeded it. In this suggestion of suddenness, it contains at once the severity of the binary’s cleaving and something of a possibility towards intervention supervention of this technology that thrusts a state towards duplicity in service of ‘enslavement.’ This binary permits a sort of extension of its polarities, by which the nambikwara are taken to be unmarked by violence, especially the violence by which the state acts on those within its enclosures as subjects: temporal machines (active indefinite present vs allotted atomized systems, history), presence absence of differentials inequality opacity deception, here speech is imagined as an authentic immediate projection of the interior soul, a kind of truth, leaving no material residue, wholly transparent unmediated, writing is instead a means of artifice distance the body (material, thereby an almost ‘worldliness’) and a means of untruth.

The most active basal maybe most abstract strand of this binary is the drawing of language as a kind of sphere, whose core or truth is found in phonics. This drawing also requires writing be this figuration of this speech that originates outside this sphere, appropriating obscuring alienating its interior truth. For derrida, writing is always already present, there is no spatial nor temporal ‘origin.’

Writing to derrida is not its empirical visible tangible script or notation, instead its undifferentiated ‘space’ violently wretched into difference, whose concomitant relations manage or make meaning. This wretching is not static materialization or coding, an inscription, but occupies a temporality of continuous deferment, movement away, hence a departure away from homogeneity, an aberration. Derrida insists on this continuum, an always active movement, a protention forward, rather than a retention of meaning intimated in ‘substance’ or in the enclosure of exacting locatable static difference (this might seem flattenable as the malleability or elasticity of meaning, in its differential relations to other ‘meanings’ it seems to me rather that ‘meaning’ the signified the object are borne out of a distance between, these relations amongst, the signifiers the codes active in signification). This temporality of a continuous movement is the condition of the trace, which registers difference as active pliable unsettled slippery. Language is writing is a ‘metaphoric code’ is cybernetics (where memory occurs in movement not in storage). The (pure) trace is differance is a spatial and temporal difference, a making of difference (residual meaning) and its

deferment, its reservation (dynamic movement, protention). For derrida, writing is structural.

Deconstruction moves towards the plural, disperses, in opposition to the logic of essentialism, which locates, makes discrete singular axiomatic. It complicates expands moves, it elides and opposes opposition and its basal premises.

#miscellaneous writing #archive #derrida