tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post7768194257293471823..comments2024-03-29T04:06:37.402-07:00Comments on Had Enough Therapy?: What Is Deconstruction?Stuart Schneidermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12784043736879991769noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-53711024807515248082014-12-21T09:12:58.500-08:002014-12-21T09:12:58.500-08:00Let's be serious. Heidegger joined the Nazi pa...Let's be serious. Heidegger joined the Nazi party in 1933. He maintained his membership throughout the war. He refused to recant his Nazi beliefs after the war. Now with the publication of his Black Notebooks we know that Heidegger was also an anti-Semite.<br /><br />Many conservatives have been critiquing political correctness for years. I'm happy that Horowitz has done it, but I have been doing it for a very long time myself.Stuart Schneidermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12784043736879991769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-86255688531423858012014-12-21T08:39:07.734-08:002014-12-21T08:39:07.734-08:00Heidegger didn't agree with much of Nazism, an...Heidegger didn't agree with much of Nazism, and Nazis had little use for him. <br /><br />Besides, Hitler certainly didn't want Mein Kampf deconstructed by anyone. <br /><br />I would like to see conservatives deconstruct Political Correctness.<br /><br />Horowitz did that. <br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/Deconstructing-Left-From-Vietnam-Clinton/dp/0819183156Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-4594586443535029962014-12-18T18:39:14.256-08:002014-12-18T18:39:14.256-08:00Why do most of the perncious philosophes hail from...Why do most of the perncious philosophes hail from France? Including Ho Chi Minh & Cambodia's Chief Killer whose name I disremember.<br /><br />Rosseau is responsible for horrors that continue today. I'm a Francophile. But gee whiz. -- Rich Lara<br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-30583748279019100132014-12-18T10:43:28.694-08:002014-12-18T10:43:28.694-08:00It does sound very complicated.
I see Wikipedia ...It does sound very complicated. <br /><br />I see Wikipedia has an article:<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction A central premise of deconstruction is that all of Western literature and philosophy implicitly relies on a metaphysics of presence, where intrinsic meaning is accessible by virtue of pure presence. Deconstruction denies the possibility of a pure presence and thus of essential or intrinsic and stable meaning — and thus a relinquishment of the notions of absolute truth, unmediated access to "reality" and consequently of conceptual hierarchy. "From the moment that there is meaning there are nothing but signs. We think only in signs."<br /><br />It is curious indeed, that anything can be understood at all. It makes me sort see the idea of symbols, or emotionally-tinted meaning as flashing all over the place, and so two people can inhabit exactly the same world, see the same facts, the same symbols, yet interpret those facts and symbols in a completely different way.<br /><br />It also reminds me of the habit of quoting famous people, stripping away all context, and then reading a profound statement of truth or beauty or goodness, and yet whatever you're experiencing at that moment might be completely contrary to the actual meaning or context of the original thought.<br /><br />Whatever else I might gain from these difficult questions it is to accept my subjective awareness might completely dominate what I'm capable of perceiving at any given moment, although obviously if I had more direct access to the original person of a writing, and his world view, then I might have a chance of getting what he's expressing.<br /><br />I might also connect this to Iain McGilchrist's "The Divided Mind", seeing the more right-brain as a more open way of experiencing the world first hand, while the left-brain tries to model known aspects of the world, but can get caught in a web of mirrors that reinforce what you expect to see, and filters out what doesn't fit your expectations.<br /><br />Perhaps Descarte was the first deconstructionist, with his "I think therefore I am" and on a positive side, he only accepted as real what he could experience directly, but also wanted a mathematical world of absolute truth that reduced everything outside of one's own self-awareness to mechanical cause and effect. <br /><br />So this "closed mind" view can build rockets and computers, but doesn't want to look at anything alive, or anything that is too subtle to be verified by the most primative of senses. (I work with engineers, and I see this well, and why nondeterminism isn't good for science or engineering, except to know how much you need to overengineer to be safe.)<br /><br />So perhaps the literary deconstructionists took the same approach to the nth degree, and found a few insights, but lot gets lost in translation to what can be understood with the lowest level of compehension? <br /><br />And in the end, if you find two deconstructionists who come up with polar opposite reductions, perhaps we'd learn something from that too, at least we'd consider they both might be wrong, and we need higher more intuitive tools to know anything, even if we can never be sure of any interpretation of anything.<br /><br />Ares Olympushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09726811306826601686noreply@blogger.com