3 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2019
    1. As with justice and the law what becomes crucial within this conception of self and identity is the willingness to deconstruct or interpet. Damaging essentialization based on shoring-up (sure-ing up?) well worn binaries such as real/virtual, authentic/fake falls away as the ‘work’ of identity becomes interpretation, questioning and negotiation.

      Thinking of identity as contextual, interpretive, work-in-process, instead of as a static output, seems really positive and potentially integrative.

  2. Mar 2017
    1. 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.

    1. 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.