It takes a healthy skepticismtoward Cartesian doubt to be able to begin to see an alternative
Could make a connection to Booth's move to "cast some doubt on doubt". We've gone so far in one direction, we've forgotten that we were headed in a direction in the first place.
Thedivisivenessofthat'originating'mo-mentis,sotospeak,coveredoveror
Oh. Actually, now I get all the strike-throughs when he writes about erasure
Deconstruction cannot be re-stricted or immediately pass to a neutralization:
Alright, so a rejection of a nihilistic rejection of meaning, but at the same time, I'm not sure I'm so following his point on how to achieve that.
My guess: like with the signature example, just because we don't have a master-reference doesn't mean we can't make pragmatic associations, but it does mean we can't assume there exists a master-reference, and any system that assumes it (e.g. Sheridan's "correct" enunciations, Blair's belief in naturally-inclined taste) is inherently leading to failure. Deconstruction breaks down those structures... but I'm still lost as to what comes next. Bail me out, here.
hypostasis, literally, a standing under: hence anything set under, such as stand, base, bottom, prop, support, stay; hence metaphorically, that which lies at the bottom of a thing, as the groundwork, subject matter, argu-ment of a narrative, speech, poem
All this talk of grounding is going to be really important when we get to Derrida and deconstruction. Burke seems to believe in the grounding, the scene, but it's often mutable, unstable, and ambiguous. Derrida's just gonna drop the bottom out and see how it falls.