Thanks for this illuminating commentary on a little known text of Derrida! As for the difference between textual writing and phonography: one might add that a text, at least for Derrida, produces meanings as a deferred effect of the endless interplay of signifier and signified, whereas phonography, mechanically or digitally, reproduces directly the material traces of the voice or other sounds, without any meaning, intention, or referent as such (which are only added retroactively by the human listener). Friedrich Kittler has written about this at great length.
Excuse me if my interpretation of Cinders is incorrect, but could we say that Derrida is suggesting the author is like a fire, and the book and their works are the cinders left behind? In this sense, each person is a fire, and our communication is like the cinders-something external to us. While someone is alive, or while their fire is still blazing, we can add more context to the text by asking the "fire" directly to produce more cinders, to add more context. But when an author passes away, when their flame fades, that possibility is lost. And we, as fire, we project our light onto the other cinders, messing up even more the posibilities.
@@victoralfonssteuck I think that’s a very solid interpretation. The fire here could be both the author and the intention that creates the text, and the cinders those remnants left behind after the writing process has left permanent scars of ink on the page.
I’ve yet to read him! From what I know of his appeal to the authority of the history of established scholars, it seems a bit traditional and iffy (but I won’t say anything more without having read him!)
The main difference is that for Derrida, meanings are effects of the endless interplay of textual signifiers and signified, a process that undermines the viability of a "transcendental signifier" ('Truth"), whereas for Gadamer, meanings and truth are the accumulations of the text's effective history (Wirkungsgeschichte), i.e., the unfolding and preservation of the text's meaningfulness in various interpretations throughout cultural tradition. This is the main difference between hermeneutics and deconstruction; Gadamer and Derrida carried out an extensive debate about these an many other issues, albeit without achieving much consensus.
This is really just talking about what it means to be a subjective frame of reference experiencing something else some type of qualia and making a measurement. All existence is things making measurements because nothing exists without something else to exist with it or for the exist as or a place for it to be or somewhere for it to go or some other thing that gives it relationship and meaning otherwise it would not exist that's why a unity is impossible. And since the unity is impossible just like nothingness is impossible because of information describing what nothingness is which means paradoxically since nothing is the only logical first condition it cannot exist so nothing this must be Infinity have to be boundless in size or number because a singularity is a type of infinity it's an infinite density and it's the Infiniti that carries the seed all the other infinities and the only one that can manifest physically while all the other ones can only manifest his potential ones locked away inside of it. And since the unity cannot exist and it would be impossible for a unity to be a multitude of things. It couldn't even be more than one thing but less an infinite number of things yet it has to be because if anything exists at all and unity can't exist that means a multiplicity has to and differentiation is mandatory for this. To the very first thing is the information and then the movement in the separation and immediately you have subjectivity in relationship to objectivity. The objectivity is where all the quality it comes from that we are experiencing the subjectivity is the experiencer. Tell me the quality is carried with light as color and wavelength and energy and polarization some of the quality is carried in subatomic particles that become protons add electrons and neutrons and the electrons carry the subjective frame of reference while the protons carry the qualia of the subatomic world and the neutrons just provide the filler material the mass in the matter.originally light comes from place of objectivity and that's why it travels at the same speed for all the frame rates but upon coming into the physical universe where measurements are made by subjective frames of references and it automatically has to have color and that's why the wave function collapses and it turns into a particle leaving its color on the retina.
Thanks for this illuminating commentary on a little known text of Derrida! As for the difference between textual writing and phonography: one might add that a text, at least for Derrida, produces meanings as a deferred effect of the endless interplay of signifier and signified, whereas phonography, mechanically or digitally, reproduces directly the material traces of the voice or other sounds, without any meaning, intention, or referent as such (which are only added retroactively by the human listener). Friedrich Kittler has written about this at great length.
Excuse me if my interpretation of Cinders is incorrect, but could we say that Derrida is suggesting the author is like a fire, and the book and their works are the cinders left behind? In this sense, each person is a fire, and our communication is like the cinders-something external to us. While someone is alive, or while their fire is still blazing, we can add more context to the text by asking the "fire" directly to produce more cinders, to add more context. But when an author passes away, when their flame fades, that possibility is lost. And we, as fire, we project our light onto the other cinders, messing up even more the posibilities.
@@victoralfonssteuck I think that’s a very solid interpretation. The fire here could be both the author and the intention that creates the text, and the cinders those remnants left behind after the writing process has left permanent scars of ink on the page.
What do you think of Gadamer?
I’ve yet to read him! From what I know of his appeal to the authority of the history of established scholars, it seems a bit traditional and iffy (but I won’t say anything more without having read him!)
The main difference is that for Derrida, meanings are effects of the endless interplay of textual signifiers and signified, a process that undermines the viability of a "transcendental signifier" ('Truth"), whereas for Gadamer, meanings and truth are the accumulations of the text's effective history (Wirkungsgeschichte), i.e., the unfolding and preservation of the text's meaningfulness in various interpretations throughout cultural tradition. This is the main difference between hermeneutics and deconstruction; Gadamer and Derrida carried out an extensive debate about these an many other issues, albeit without achieving much consensus.
This is really just talking about what it means to be a subjective frame of reference experiencing something else some type of qualia and making a measurement. All existence is things making measurements because nothing exists without something else to exist with it or for the exist as or a place for it to be or somewhere for it to go or some other thing that gives it relationship and meaning otherwise it would not exist that's why a unity is impossible. And since the unity is impossible just like nothingness is impossible because of information describing what nothingness is which means paradoxically since nothing is the only logical first condition it cannot exist so nothing this must be Infinity have to be boundless in size or number because a singularity is a type of infinity it's an infinite density and it's the Infiniti that carries the seed all the other infinities and the only one that can manifest physically while all the other ones can only manifest his potential ones locked away inside of it. And since the unity cannot exist and it would be impossible for a unity to be a multitude of things. It couldn't even be more than one thing but less an infinite number of things yet it has to be because if anything exists at all and unity can't exist that means a multiplicity has to and differentiation is mandatory for this. To the very first thing is the information and then the movement in the separation and immediately you have subjectivity in relationship to objectivity. The objectivity is where all the quality it comes from that we are experiencing the subjectivity is the experiencer. Tell me the quality is carried with light as color and wavelength and energy and polarization some of the quality is carried in subatomic particles that become protons add electrons and neutrons and the electrons carry the subjective frame of reference while the protons carry the qualia of the subatomic world and the neutrons just provide the filler material the mass in the matter.originally light comes from place of objectivity and that's why it travels at the same speed for all the frame rates but upon coming into the physical universe where measurements are made by subjective frames of references and it automatically has to have color and that's why the wave function collapses and it turns into a particle leaving its color on the retina.