Thu Jul 25 13:59:55 1996 PDT
Logging is turned on by ben.
ben says, "I added a slide to it in the beginning....hope you don't mind :)"
********* ben: slide 1 on gsli *********
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| |
| Rhetoric and Deconstruction |
| |
| Reading Jacques Derrida |
| |
| for the Study of Rhetoric |
| |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Date: Thursday, 25 July 1996
Time: 1400
Place: DaMOO <http://lrc.csun.edu:8888>
Participants: Ben Attias <http://www.csun.edu/~hfspc002>
Kathy Kwon <hbspc059@dewey.csun.edu>
George Nshanyan <hbspc073@dewey.csun.edu>
********* End *********
Kathy exclaims, "dictator!"
Nshanyan says, "not at all"
Kathy says, ":)"
ben chuckles.
Nshanyan says, "cool"
********* ben: slide 2 on gsli *********
Hello, Ben and Kathy, and welcome to another episode of "MOO
slide-mania." Today we will explore LIMITED INC, Derrida's amusing (and
at time bewildering) engagement with American versions of Speech Act
Theory. I wish to direct this presentation/discussion in the following
three areas:
A) INTRO-Speech Act Theory-definition and significance. (Slides 2-6)
B) BODY- Derrida's engagement with Speech Act Theory. (Slides 7-11)
1) significance of the title "LIMITED INC"
2) Derrida
3) critique of Derrida - the debate with Searle.
4) overall impression of the book - strengths, weaknesses,
comments
C) CONCLUSION- Limited Inc was published in 1972 - where are we
today? (Slide 12)
Any questions before we begin with section A?
********* End *********
Kathy exclaims, "wow! i'm impressed!"
Nshanyan says, "#2 should read: "Derrida s main arguments""
ben says, "duh. I can't find my book"
ben says, "just a sec."
Nshanyan says, "so who did you like the book, Kathy"
ben says, "ok - got it. "
ben sighs.
Kathy exclaims, "I hated it!"
ben asks, "really?"
Kathy says, "ok, maybe that's an exaggeration but God... "
Nshanyan says, "I like TeHE OTHER HEADING much more""
Kathy exclaims, "JD is sometimes really annoying!"
Kathy says, "so do I"
ben says, "you guys are too conservative.... this is a great book :)"
Kathy says, "whatever"
Kathy says, "heehee"
Kathy exclaims, "I don't have to agree with you Professor, right?!"
Kathy says, ":)"
ben says, "I can understand what you mean though... he's being
very playful and polemical here at the same time..... that can
be annoying."
Nshanyan asks, "gee what with the hostitility?"
Kathy says, ":)"
ben says, "sure you can disagree if you don't mind a lower grade."
Kathy says, "more like violence"
ben says, "just joking :)"
Nshanyan says, ";("
Kathy exclaims, "Oh... that's low!!!!!!"
ben laughs.
Kathy exclaims, "remember ben, this is recorded!"
ben says, "hehehehe"
Kathy exclaims, "heehee!!!"
Nshanyan asks, "shall we move to the next slide?"
Kathy says, "sure"
********* ben: slide 3 on gsli *********
I believe a little background on Speech Act Theory (SAT) would
be very helpful. These next 4 slides in this section are not necessarily
designed to generate discussion, but rather provide an informative
background on SAT and set up the debate between Derrida and Searle. The
slides should go pretty quickly. (The following slides are from
Littlejohn's "Theory of Human Communication", 4th ed., p.87-91)
********* End *********
Nshanyan asks, "are we done?"
ben asks, "are we done with what?"
Kathy asks, "what?"
Nshanyan says, "never mind"
Kathy says, ":)"
ben says, "I have some questions about style here but they can wait...."
Nshanyan asks, "style?"
Kathy says, "hehehehehehehehehe"
ben says, "I'll save them. here comes the next slide..."
********* ben: slide 4 on gsli *********
HOW DID SPEECH ACT THEORY ORIGINATE? "Wittgenstein, a German
philosopher was the originator of ordinary language philosophy. He taught
that the meaning of language depends on the context of use. Language as
used in ordinary life, constitutes a language game. In other words, people
follow rules to accomplish verbal acts. Although Wittgenstein laid the
groundwork of ordinary language philosophy, Austin developed the basic
concepts of what his protege, John Searle, later called speech acts.
Although Searle is not solely responsible for [SAT], he is clearly the
leader of the movement, and his name is most often associated with the
theory."
********* End *********
ben asks, "ready for the next one?"
Nshanyan says, "ya"
Kathy says, "yes"
********* ben: slide 5 on gsli *********
WHAT IS A SPEECH ACT?
"The speech act is the basic unit oflanguage for expressing meaning.
It is an utterance that expresses anintention. Normally, the speech act
is a sentence, but it can be a word or phrase as long as it follows the
rules necessary to accomplish the intention (or, in Wittgenstein's terms,
to play the language game). When one speaks, one performs an act. The
act may involve stating, questioning, commanding, promising, or any of a
number of other acts. Speech therefore is conceived of as a form of
action or intentional behavior."
********* End *********
Kathy says, "ok"
ben says, "A comment -- this is not far removed from the "language
is as language does" perspective of the sophists."
********* ben: slide 6 on gsli *********
WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SPEECH ACT THEORY?
"An important characteristic of a speech act is that the recipient
understand the speaker's intention. Unlike the representational view of
meaning, speech act theory does not stress the individual reference of
symbols but the intent of the act as a whole. If you make a promise, you
are communicating an intention about something you will do in the future;
but more importantly, you are expecting the other communicator to realize
from what you have said what your intention is."
Incidentally, Searle defines four types of speech acts: utterance,
propositional, illocutionary, and perlocutionary. He also outlines five
types of illocutionary acts: assertive, directive, commissives,
expressives, and declaration.
********* End *********
********* ben: slide 7 on gsli *********
And now for the final slide of this section It's from Anderson and
Ross-"Question of Communication", p.157)
Speech Act Theory is concerned with the regulative-constructive
dichotomy. Must rules be founded on behavior? Regulative rules are
concerned with behavior, but constructive rules are mental constructions
that guide people in how to interpret a given message. For example,
"Could someone pass the salt?" should not be taken as a question but
instead should be taken in context as a request or a demand.
Speech Act Theory, developed by Searle (1969) and others, suggests that
any assumed distinction between words and actions may be an illusion.
Have you ever heard someone say "Talk is cheep" or "That's just empty
rhetoric" or "I head you say it but will you do it?" Many people assume
that persons can either speak or act, but Searle asks you to consider
that by speaking you are engaging in significant action. Words spoken
are literal action; speaking is not a preliminary to acting or a
substitute for reality-speaking is itself an act performed by one person
toward another or others. Through our speech we can assert a truth;
direct or request a listener to act in a certain way; commit the speaker
to future acts; indicate psychological dispositions; and perform a
symbolic accomplishment, such as saying "I do" within a marriage ceremony.
********* End *********
********* ben: slide 8 on gsli *********
THE MEANING OF THE TITLE: "LIMTED INC"
I believe that the
above slides did a fine job of putting SAT in perspective. (if I do say so
myself - and I do - but seriously) J But nowWhat does Derrida have to say
about it? What is LIMITED INC all about and what does it do to/with SAT? A
good place to begin might be with the title itself. Why has Derrida
titled the book LIMITED INC? What is the significance of the title?
On page 36, is perhaps the best clue: "In order to avoid the
ponderousness of the scientific expression 'three + n authors,' I
decided here and from the moment on to give the presumed and collective
author of the Reply the French name Societe a responsabilite limitee'-
literally, Society with Limited Responsibility' (or Limited Liability)
which is normally abbreviated to Sarl. I ask that the translator leave
this conventional expression in French and if necessary, that he explain
things in a note. If this expression does not simply translate
"Limited," "Incorporated," or "Limited Inc," it is not unrelated to those
terms, for it pertains to the same legal-commercial context."
So perhaps what I should ask is not "what does Derrida mean by LIMITED
INC,'" but "what does Derrida mean by "Society with Limited
Responsibility'?" Or should I? But seriously, what's up with the title?
********* End *********
Thu Jul 25 14:12:24 1996 PDT
ben asks, "well? any comments so far?"
Nshanyan asks, "this is the end of section A - now we can move on
to a discussion of Derrida's work.....ready? any questions on this
part?-----never mind you already put the next slide up! ----what do
you get out of the title?"
ben says, "It might be relevant to add here that JD both begins and
ends his critique of Searle with a discussion of copyright."
Nshanyan asks, "what does Limited Inc mean?"
Kathy says, "it's almost like the notion of tracing."
Nshanyan asks, "tracing? how so?"
Kathy says, "isn't he saying that since they can't name the definite
orgin..."
Kathy asks, "they are collectively a sort of a company or entity?"
Kathy says, "the scholars are feeding off of each other."
ben says, "yes; one with "limited responsibility""
Nshanyan says, "the responsibility [part I don't get"
Kathy says, "no one person has complete responsibility for the
knowledge."
Kathy says, "in other words, no one person can be given credit"
Nshanyan asks, "it iis it the knowledge or something else that there
is no responsibility for?"
Kathy says, "well, I think the claims they make"
ben says, "well, what I think is happening here is that JD's critique
of the intentional subject of language is turned into the attack on
SARL.... the charge of "limited responsibility" applies to anyone
who uses language."
Kathy says, "JD is constantly attacking SARL"
Kathy says, "thus, JD is also charged with limited resp"
Nshanyan says, "that's deep - I think I'm drowning"
ben says, "yes he is, though to be fair he is responding to Sarl's
attacks on Sec.... but yes, the charge of limited resp. applies
equally to JD."
Kathy says, "I liked his idea of SARL"
Kathy says, "that was cool"
Kathy asks, "anything else?"
Nshanyan says, "I htink we can move on unless ben has something"
********* ben: slide 9 on gsli *********
MAIN AGGUMENTS IN THE DEBATE WITH SEARLE.
In addition to time
and slide constraints, I decided not to outline the debate point by point
for several reasons: 1) this is an ongoing debate-it is not over. Derrida
himself states, that the aim of his answers in the afterword "is not to
close the discussion, but to give it a fresh start." (p.154); 2) even if
we wanted create a "flow-chart" as if it was a competition, it would not
be fair since we do not have Searle's response to the afterword; and 3)
what is more important (as with reading any other book of this sort) is
to understand the authors main point(s) and the significance of the
book. So let's put our aim to that!
********* End *********
Nshanyan says, "next"
Kathy says, "JD lost me on a number of occasions"
ben asks, "OK. did Searle ever reply to the Afterword?"
Kathy says, "I'm assuming he did"
Nshanyan says, "actually I wanted to know that as well"
Nshanyan says, "I tried to do some reasearch i could not find anything"
Thu Jul 25 14:22:26 1996 PDT
ben says, "I don't think he did. I haven't heard about it if so."
Kathy says, "it would be an interesting dialogue"
Nshanyan asks, "are the both alive--i know JD is and so is Saerle no?"
ben says, "yes. the dialogue probably wouldn't be that interesting.
JD is correct that Searle totally missed the boat in his first
response."
Nshanyan asks, "did he miss th boat because of translation problems
from French to English?"
ben says, "possibly. But I think he more likely missed it because
he barely read it. He decided beforehand what JD was going to say
and then argued with the straw man he created."
Kathy says, ":)"
Nshanyan asks, "doesn't Jd use that tacktic also?"
ben says, "which JD points out aptly. I think the "debate" here is
interesting not so much for its debate-like quality but more for the
argu,enmts about language that JD brings up."
Nshanyan asks, "so in your o[pinion JD is the hands down winner?"
Kathy says, "the reading was very humorous"
Kathy asks, "G, I don't think you need to ask that q to ben?"
Nshanyan says, ";)"
Kathy exclaims, "!"
ben says, "good question. I think so, though I am more sympathetic
to JDs use of it since it is self-concsiously "ad absurdum." Yes,
I do think JD "wins" the debate, at least to the extent that one
can say a debate occurred."
ben says, "(that was to both questions)"
Nshanyan asks, "does Searle get JD on any point?"
Nshanyan asks, "does Searle still have a career?"
ben says, "in reality though I don't think much of a debate has
occurred. yes Searle still has a career; analytic philosophy is
still highly regarded in spite of this critique."
Kathy says, "JD has many critics of his own"
Nshanyan asks, "so the "debate" still continues?"
ben says, "yes, that's true. They're wrong of course :)"
Kathy says, "I don't understand why JD even bothers"
Kathy exclaims, ":)!!!!"
Kathy says, "you're funny, ben"
ben says, "you mean why he bothers to go after Searle? agreed."
Kathy says, "yeap"
ben smiles.
Kathy says, "let's talk about JD's style"
Nshanyan exclaims, "that's one of my slides--don't jump ahead!"
Kathy says, "sorry"
Kathy asks, "can I add something else, then?"
Nshanyan asks, "next slide?"
ben says, "I think JD intends this "debate" as a performance of
precisely the points about language he is trying to make....oops...
ok more on that later."
********* ben: slide 10 on gsli *********
Now that I have skillfully relieved myself of the
responsibility of discussing their arguments, what do YOU think is the
important message of the book? But seriously, Derrida has some
significant things to say about speech acts, namely that "linguistic
meaning is fundamentally indeterminate because the contexts which fix
meaning are never stable." But so what? (And I'm being serious now.)
What does it mean for a speech act to be indeterminate? What does it mean
"definition -wise", and also, what does it mean to us as communicators?
********* End *********
ben says, "hehehe"
Kathy says, "haha"
Kathy says, "go ahead, ben"
Nshanyan says, "ya ben"
Thu Jul 25 14:32:42 1996 PDT
ben says, "I think JD would go further than this -- what is
interesting is not so much this fundamental indeterminacy but
that the indeterminacy is the enabling condition for language use."
Nshanyan says, "perhaps first a clearification of what that means"
Kathy says, ":)"
ben says, "And that represents, I think, the heart of his critique of
Searle. The indeterminacy represented by the joke, the "nonserious
utterance," the staged marriage ceremony, etc., inhabits all language
use."
Kathy says, "yes, I agree"
ben says, "so Austin's example of the marriage ceremony must be
(ceremoniously in fact) followed by a disclaimer to the effect of
-- "to say I do *usually* means to say I Do except when I write it
here as an example or when actors use it on stage"."
ben asks, "any comments?"
Nshanyan exclaims, "so everything is contectual!"
ben smiles.
ben says, "yes"
Nshanyan says, "there is nothing outside of context..."
Nshanyan asks, "?"
Nshanyan asks, "was that one of JD's sayings?"
ben says, "yes; actually he said "il n'ya pas de hors-text" --
there is no outside-text."
Nshanyan says, "I'll be right back"
Kathy exclaims, "stud!"
ben says, "oops ... that's hors-texte :)"
ben asks, "are we ready for the next slide or did George go away?"
Kathy says, "he went away"
Kathy says, "JD can do that"
Nshanyan return after excreting from his body some gin that he had
drank
Kathy says, "yuk"
Nshanyan asks, "next slide?"
Kathy exclaims, "go!"
********* ben: slide 1 on gsli2 *********
Earlier, 2 slides ago, I suggested that it would be pointless
to outline the argument point by point. But let's be serious. This would
be very helpful. But we could not possible discuss all of them today. So
this is where I'd like to open up the discussion a little bit. Which one
of the following arguments or significant points would you like to take
up?: (perhaps all if we have time-the rest of the slides will go quickly)
A) Derrida's (and my) continual use of "But let's be serious now."
B) What's the heck was the big deal about signatures anyway
C) The arguments surrounding "permanence" and "iterability."
D) What is the difference between written and spoken language?
E) What other major point have I missed that should be discussed?
********* End *********
ben asks, "well, any preferences?"
Kathy says, "let's start with A"
Nshanyan says, "Actually, C and D as somewhat related would
you like to start there"
ben asks, "OK. seriously, what's up with that?"
Nshanyan asks, "with C and D?"
Kathy says, "I think ben was responding to A"
ben pours himself a dry martini..... "wherever you want to start.
Kathy says, "pick g"
Thu Jul 25 14:42:46 1996 PDT
Nshanyan says, "A""
Nshanyan exclaims, " go Kathy!"
Kathy asks, "A?"
ben says, "be serious you guys :)"
Kathy says, "ok"
Kathy exclaims, "come on, get serious!"
Nshanyan asks, "-seriously?"
Kathy says, "haha"
Kathy says, "nothing bugged me more than his style of writing."
Nshanyan asks, "so what's the point of all this?"
Kathy says, "he's trying to put Searle down"
Nshanyan says, "ya but, he is also making a point..."
Kathy says, "JD is always making a point even though he rambles on
forever"
Nshanyan asks, "so what's the point?"
Nshanyan says, "I'll take a leap id if there are no takers"
ben reconnects.
ben says, "shit."
ben says, "sorry about that. I was saying...."
Kathy says, "he's playing with the notion of parasitic"
Nshanyan says, "I didn't know ben was gone"
Kathy says, "neither did I."
Kathy says, "we were having so much fun we forgot about ben"
ben says, "this is what I meant above by JD's performance of his
argument through his style. One never knows if he is serious or not."
Nshanyan asks, "the parasitic?"
ben says, "hehehe."
Kathy says, "you know how Austin left out all the non-serious stuff"
Nshanyan says, "ya..."
ben says, "yes"
Kathy says, "the fictional speech acts as parasitic"
Kathy says, "JD is having fun with that"
Nshanyan asks, "I have to admit i was a bit lost on this parasitic
stuff - someone pleaase explain what that has to do with being serious?"
ben says, "yes.... he is trying to show that in fact "real" speech
is parasitical on its fictional form."
Nshanyan asks, "so there is no difference between 'real" and "fake"?"
ben says, "nonserious speech is a parasite of serious speech in
Searle's thought. It is a degraded mirror representation of the
"real thing." When you're not being serious you are playing upon
serious speech (says Austin and Searle)."
Nshanyan asks, "and what does Jd say?"
ben says, "of course there is a difference. But that difference is
not one of simple and eternal opposition. Rather the serious
and the nonserious are inextricably intertwined."
Kathy says, "yes"
Nshanyan says, "ok-never miond"
ben says, "JD stresses the opposite relation (to Searle) -- that
"real" speech is a parasite of the "nonserious" occasion. Real
life imitates art, in a sense."
Kathy says, "I have a question"
ben says, "yes Kathy"
ben pours Kathy a drink
Kathy says, "for a deconstructionist, I would think that he would..."
Nshanyan grabs the bottle
ben grins
Kathy says, "question his use of the word he"
Kathy says, "or America"
ben asks, "America?"
Kathy says, "there are a couple of places where he says America"
Kathy says, "I always get in trouble for using that word instead of..."
ben asks, "yes - where?"
Kathy says, "U.S. or something."
Nshanyan asks, "you read the whole thing?"
Nshanyan says, ";)"
Thu Jul 25 14:52:58 1996 PDT
ben smiles.
Kathy says, "sorry, I don't have the page number but I remember
him using it"
ben says, "you guys have to read it; I just have to teach it :)"
ben says, "just kidding"
Kathy says, "hehe"
ben says, "I see "American commentators" on 113."
Kathy says, "I swear he said America"
Kathy says, "anyway... I guess I shouldn't say anything unless
I have real proof, huh"
Kathy asks, "ok, so what about referring to he all the time?"
ben says, "well, I'm sure it's there. Anyway I don't think we
can expect JD to deconstruct everything at all times; I know he
does deconstruct "America" and "man" in other essays."
Nshanyan asks, "are you getting into the style again?"
Nshanyan says, ";)"
Kathy says, "you really love this guy don't you, ben"
ben says, "but I think the he/she thing is very differently figured
in France than in the US. "
Kathy says, ":)"
ben smiles.
ben says, "yeah, he's the shit."
Kathy says, "haha"
ben )
ben )
ben says, ">:)"
Kathy says, "I get it"
Kathy says, ":)"
ben says, "I'm having trouble with my emoticons :)"
Nshanyan asks, "fingertips?"
Kathy asks, "huh?"
ben says, "emoticons = emotion + icons.... things like :) and :P
to let people know how you feel."
Kathy says, "ahhhhh"
Kathy says, "I'm an immigrant to cyberspace"
Kathy says, "I need time to acculturate"
ben says, "or let you give them roses.... @}-,-`---"
Nshanyan asks, "where are we heading?---want to get back to slide 10?"
ben says, "yes."
Kathy says, "sure"
********* ben: slide 1 on gsli2 *********
Earlier, 2 slides ago, I suggested that it would be pointless
to outline the argument point by point. But let's be serious. This would
be very helpful. But we could not possible discuss all of them today. So
this is where I'd like to open up the discussion a little bit. Which one
of the following arguments or significant points would you like to take
up?: (perhaps all if we have time-the rest of the slides will go quickly)
A) Derrida's (and my) continual use of "But let's be serious now."
B) What's the heck was the big deal about signatures anyway
C) The arguments surrounding "permanence" and "iterability."
D) What is the difference between written and spoken language?
E) What other major point have I missed that should be discussed?
********* End *********
ben says, "oh -- that's where we were before."
Nshanyan asks, "If I followed the debate correctly, they both agree
that the difference between written and oral speech has nothing to
do with the absence of a receiver. Right?"
Nshanyan asks, "If I followed the debate correctly, they both agree
that the difference between written and oral speech has nothing to
do with the absence of a receiver. Right?"
Nshanyan asks, "If I followed the debate correctly, they both agree
that the difference between written and oral speech has nothing to
do with the absence of a receiver. Right?"
Kathy says, "stop it"
ben says, "yes, yes, and yes :)"
Kathy says, "hahah"
Nshanyan asks, "what's going onm?"
Nshanyan asks, "did I post something?"
ben laughs.
Nshanyan says, "I kept getting errors"
ben says, "you said "If I followed the debate correctly, they both
agree that the difference between written and oral speech has nothing
to do with the absence of a receiver. Right?" 3 times"
Kathy says, ":)"
Nshanyan says, "I thought it never went up..sorry but at least
you know the question"
ben grins.
Kathy says, "I don't think JD is saying that."
Kathy says, "Oops, I read your q wrong"
ben says, "OK - JD's arg about the written and oral is the same
as his arg about the serious and nonserious."
Kathy says, "JD talks about defferance"
Kathy says, "oops, differance"
Thu Jul 25 15:03:28 1996 PDT
ben says, "How are the following categories related in normal usage? "
ben asks, "How are they related in Derrida's usage?"
ben says, ""
ben says, " =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-="
ben says, " | serious | nonserious |"
ben says, " | constative | performative |"
ben says, " | citation | use |"
ben says, " | truth | lie |"
ben says, " =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-="
ben says, "and we can add writing and speech at the bottom....."
Kathy says, "Searle argues that it is not, as JD claims, the
iterability, the repeatability..."
Nshanyan asks, "does Derrida say that they are both "normal" usage?"
ben says, "normally we think of writing as being a parasite of
speech -- that speech is historically and ontologically prior.
For JD, however, writing is ontologically prior."
Nshanyan asks, "ontologically prior?"
ben says, "yes; it must come before ontologically (as opposed to
chronologically)."
ben says, "just as for JD the nonserious must come before the serious."
Kathy says, "crap... I hate it when I type something long and it says -
I don't understand that."
ben asks, "can you get back to what you just typed using the
arrow keys?"
ben says, "then you could just add the quotes."
Kathy says, "I did it yesterday but I forgot how."
Kathy says, "I did it yesterday but I forgot how."
Nshanyan exclaims, "coll trick!"
Kathy says, "I did it yesterday but I forgot how."
Kathy says, "damn"
ben says, "hehehe"
ben says, "hehehe"
ben says, "heheh..... just kidding."
Kathy says, "I'm copying G"
Nshanyan exclaims, "I can't do that?!"
Kathy says, "ben..."
ben says, "George - you need aclient to do it"
Nshanyan says, "I can go up, but my quotes don't work"
ben asks, "yes K?"
Kathy says, "going back to your comment... I didn't get that."
Nshanyan asks, "never mind then..does kathy have one?"
Kathy says, "I thought JD was saying the opposite"
Kathy says, "see p 4-5"
Kathy asks, "did I misinterpret him?"
ben asks, "the opposite of what?"
Kathy says, "writing before speech"
ben says, "oh.... no there he argues on 4-5 that speech is
historically prior, but he argues elsewhere (in plato's pharmacy)
that writing is logically prior."
Kathy says, "oh"
ben says, "that is implicit here in his stuff about the signature,
I think."
********* ben: slide 3 on gsli2 *********
Well, since this is my presentation I fell almost obligated to have
some concluding remarks. Almost.. but not quite. But seriously, it would
be difficult to conclude on a topic that is ongoing. Or is it ongoing?
If it is, what direction has it gone in? After all, these essays were
written in the 70's I was in diapers. What has happened to the debate?
Where does Speech Act Theory stand- where has it come?
Where ever it is today, I'm sure the debate will never end. Why?
Because CONTEXT and DESTINATION cause the predicament of all spoken and
written communication. Since they can not be fixed and concluded,
neither can the debate.
(But let be serious, of course the debate may end-
I was just looking for a good ending.)
********* End *********
Nshanyan says, "expand on that--the signiture"
Kathy asks, "you feel?"
ben says, "oops. OK, let's talk about the signature."
Kathy asks, "you fell?"
Kathy says, "hehe"
ben chuckles.
Thu Jul 25 15:13:50 1996 PDT
Nshanyan leans over to take the gin away fomrom Ben
ben says, "the signature is a mark of authority and witnessing,
no? It's an "I was here and I intend to do ____."
Nshanyan says, "yes""
ben switches to vodka.
Kathy says, "I LOVE vodka"
Nshanyan gets the OJ
Kathy says, "But, Kathy is physically disabled to get it herself..."
ben pours screwdrivers all around.
Kathy says, "at least in cyberspace terminology."
ben says, "So the signature is also inhabited (from the outset) by
its parasite, the forgery."
Nshanyan says, "but let's be serious now""
Kathy says, "G, you're beginning to bug me like JD"
Kathy exclaims, "be serious!!!"
Kathy says, "hehehe/just kidding"
ben says, "the forgery is the enabling condition for the signature --
just as the nonserious is the enabling condition for the serious."
Nshanyan asks, "you weren't serious?"
Kathy says, "duh..."
Kathy says, ":)"
Kathy says, "it's almost like Burke's notion of the negative"
Nshanyan says, "humm...."
ben says, "the possibility of the forgery is what gives the signature
its power. and the ridiculousness of JDs gesture at the end of Sec --
counterfeiting his *own* signature -- dramatizes the paradox."
Kathy exclaims, "I loved that!"
Kathy asks, "did you like the copyright stuff?"
ben says, "Like when some art collector had Pablo Picasso go
through a stack of paintings to pick out the forgeries.... Picasso
pulled a bunch of paintings out of the stack."
ben says, "the art collector took one of them and said "this can't
be a forgery; I saw you paint it last week!""
Kathy says, "that's funny"
ben says, "Picasso replied: "I can forge a Picasso as well as
anyone else.""
Kathy says, ":)"
Nshanyan says, "that's deep"
ben giggles.
Nshanyan says, "and he can forge it can't he?--d seriously"
ben says, "perhaps it is; I'm not sure. It would be deeper if
Andy Warhol successfully sued Campbell soup for making imitation
Warhols...."
Kathy asks, "any more slides?"
ben says, "anyway the point here is you have binary oppositions
with one side of the opposition claimed to be the "original" and
the other to be the "copy," "simulacrum," "forgery," whatever you like."
ben says, "JD argues that the other side of the opposition, the
parasite, actually exists in the "original" from the very beginning."
********* ben: slide 3 on gsli2 *********
Well, since this is my presentation I fell almost obligated to have
some concluding remarks. Almost.. but not quite. But seriously, it would
be difficult to conclude on a topic that is ongoing. Or is it ongoing?
If it is, what direction has it gone in? After all, these essays were
written in the 70's I was in diapers. What has happened to the debate?
Where does Speech Act Theory stand- where has it come?
Where ever it is today, I'm sure the debate will never end. Why?
Because CONTEXT and DESTINATION cause the predicament of all spoken and
written communication. Since they can not be fixed and concluded,
neither can the debate.
(But let be serious, of course the debate may end-
I was just looking for a good ending.)
********* End *********
Kathy says, "right"
ben asks, "Oh. Did we see that one?"
Nshanyan exclaims, "there is another slide before this!"
********* ben: slide 2 on gsli2 *********
What was your overall impression of the book? Did you like it?
Was it confusing? What did you make of the difference in Derrida's
writing stile in "Limited Inc a b c..." compared to the "afterword"? Did
you find the former aggressive and the latter apologetic? Which was
easier or funnier to read? Any last words?
********* End *********
ben says, "ah yes :)"
Nshanyan exclaims, "there..this is where Kathy can fgo off on JD's
style !"
Thu Jul 25 15:24:07 1996 PDT
Kathy says, "I did not like this book (granted, his arguments were
pretty good)"
ben says, "the afterword is a really strasightforward defense of
deconstruction. A bit apologetic perhaps, but that is probably
justified given the vehemence of his attack on poor Searle."
Kathy says, "I can't handle it when philosophers take 50 pages to
write something when they can do it in one sentence"
Kathy says, "I didn't find the Afterword apologetic at all."
Kathy says, "it's like me saying, I'm sorry but you're stud"
Kathy says, "oops... You're stupid anyhow"
Nshanyan says, "ya...but the tone is very different from the earlier
essay"
ben says, "well, he has a point though. Not that Searle is stupid
-- but that he did totally and completely miss the boat.... "
Kathy says, "ya"
Kathy says, "right. "
ben says, "His attack on "signature event context," as JD points
out over and over, neglected to mention signature, event, or
context...."
Nshanyan asks, "so Ben..if there is one thing we should take away
from all of this what should it be?"
Kathy exclaims, "good question!"
Kathy says, "put ben on the spot"
Nshanyan says, ";)"
ben asks, "what is this a lemonade stand?"
Kathy says, ":)"
Nshanyan demands a double!
ben exclaims, "a grad seminar is not a shopping mall!"
Kathy says, "OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHh"
Nshanyan exclaims, "but i have a charge account!"
ben says, "here's your tidbit of wisdom....that will be 39.95"
Kathy says, "you got us good, ben"
ben punches the cash register
ben smiles
Kathy says, "I think you're reading too much of JD, ben"
Nshanyan dashes for the cash!
Nshanyan
ben says, "I would say that deconstruction can be read as a
rhetorical enterprise. In JD's afterword he talks a lot about
the ethics of discussion in terms of social and political change."
Nshanyan exclaims, "knowledge is money!!!"
Kathy says, "I get it, G."
Kathy says, ":)"
Kathy says, "re apartheid"
ben says, "very useful stuff for rhetoricians in that JD, rather
than giving up on ethical discussion or the public sphere as he
is often accused of, revitalizes it through an explosive analysis
that is not a repetition of an already-said nor a nihilistic
emptying out of language and meaning."
ben says, "the implicit rules governing language use are shown
to be paradoxical, but they are not judged to be useless by JD.
Quite the opposite, I think."
ben asks, "does any of this make sense?"
ben says, "uhhhhh...."
ben says, "^G"
ben says, ""
ben asks, "is there anyone out there?"
Nshanyan says, "ya it does make sence...but i wish i had a
better handle on all of this"
Nshanyan says, "perhaps after another five readings or so"
Kathy says, "sorry"
ben says, "it is pretty dense stuff.... and it's worth rereading
to be sure."
Thu Jul 25 15:34:13 1996 PDT
ben says, "I can't say I totally have a handle on it myself. "
Nshanyan asks, "there are no Cliff notes on this?"
Kathy says, "I wish"
ben smiles
Kathy says, "I read the first half twice and I'm still having trouble"
Kathy says, "you just have to get through all this wordiness."
Nshanyan asks, "you wanna go to that previous slide now?"
********* ben: slide 3 on gsli2 *********
Well, since this is my presentation I fell almost obligated to have
some concluding remarks. Almost.. but not quite. But seriously, it would
be difficult to conclude on a topic that is ongoing. Or is it ongoing?
If it is, what direction has it gone in? After all, these essays were
written in the 70's I was in diapers. What has happened to the debate?
Where does Speech Act Theory stand- where has it come?
Where ever it is today, I'm sure the debate will never end. Why?
Because CONTEXT and DESTINATION cause the predicament of all spoken and
written communication. Since they can not be fixed and concluded,
neither can the debate.
(But let be serious, of course the debate may end-
I was just looking for a good ending.)
********* End *********
Kathy says, "good job, G"
Nshanyan says, "thanks! - i worked hard on it"
ben grins
Kathy says, "hehe"
Nshanyan says, ":)"
Kathy says, "kiss ass"
Nshanyan asks, "me?"
Kathy exclaims, "hey, so we have only one more meeting, huh?!"
Nshanyan leans to see what that is on Kathy nose
Kathy exclaims, "of course you!"
Nshanyan says, ":)"
Kathy says, "hehe"
Kathy says, "we're mean today"
Kathy says, "too much of JD"
Nshanyan asks, "I agree any last words?"
ben says, "well, happy deconstructing I guess :)"
Kathy says, "typical"
********* ben: slide 4 on gsli2 *********
As a final note, I's like to advertise Derrida's latest book,
"The Gift of Death." In it, "his main concern is with the meaning of
moral and ethical responsibility in Western religion and philosophy. He
questions the limits of the rational and the responsible that one reaches
in granting or accepting death, whether by sacrifice, murder, execution,
or suicide." (that's from the inside jacket of the book - I saw it at
CLU)
********* End *********
Nshanyan says, "there is one last slide..."
ben says, "great. now there are advertisements in my class."
Kathy asks, "what's going on?"
ben chuckles.
Kathy asks, "are you two working for JD?"
Kathy exclaims, "I knew it was a conspiracy!"
Nshanyan says, "Ben, shes on to us"
ben drops Jacques_Derrida.
ben picks up Jacques_Derrida.
Kathy exclaims, "couldn't stay away, huh?!"
ben smiles
Kathy exclaims, "I don't want him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
ben says, "there now you have it."
********* ben: slide 5 on gsli2 *********
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| |
| THANK YOU FOR JOINING US |
| |
| The log of this discussion will be |
| available on the WWW |
| at |
| |
| http://www.csun.edu/~hfspc002/96/960724.rhetlog.html |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
********* End *********
Nshanyan asks, "so whats for next week?-Kathy, do you have a copy of that
Sixu or what ever it is?"
ben says, "oops. that URL should be:"
Kathy says, "7/25"
ben says, "http://www.csun.edu/~hfspc002/96/960725.rhetlog.html"
ben says, "heh. yes :)"
Kathy says, "we have only one more meeting, huh"
Kathy says, "I'm gonna miss this"
ben says, "we can have more if you want. there is one more week."
ben asks, "or two?"
Nshanyan exclaims, "ya..right!"
Kathy says, "yes, I have Cixous"
Nshanyan asks, "how can I get it?"
ben says, "Kathy you get to do next week's slide show :)"
Kathy exclaims, "oh, goody!"
Kathy says, ""
ben says, "oh.... I have it in the office. I'll put it in the folder
outside my door next to the stuff you never picked up on Nietzsche."
ben says, ":)"
Kathy asks, "what Nietzsche?"
Nshanyan is wondering ..what stuff?
ben says, "you picked yours up Kathy :)"
ben says, "Carol Blair etc."
Nshanyan says, ":)"
ben says, "oops that's Carole with an "e""
| Seminar Home Page | Ben's Home Page |
Speech Communication Department |
This page maintained by Ben Attias
Last Updated: 27-Jul-96
Please Send Comments, Suggestions, etc. to
hfspc002@csun.edu