Pealing the Layers of language and binaries: A litlle Back and forth bout Derrida w/ my teacher

The issue of reinforcement always comes up when talking about theory and the breakdown of ideologies. It is on one hand good to bring these systems under examination but on the other it reinforces them just by speaking of them and in their own terms. I read this quote by Derrida in my Environmental ethics class where language and rhetoric are always discussed and I thought it was a keeper.

"Doubtless is it more necc....to transform concepts, to displace them, to turn them against their presuppositions, to re inscribe them in other chairs, and little by little to modify the terrain of our work and thereby produce new configurations, I do not believe in decisive ruptures, in a unequivocal "epistemological break", as it is called today. Breaks are always, and fatally, re inscribed in an old cloth that must continually, interminably be undone"

~derrida
(Positions)

You are spelling out one of the critiques or problems that's been found with
deconstruction as a method, and it raises the very interesting issue (to me) of
the different ways deconstruction has been thought. I learned about
deconstruction in school as you've written it here, as the breakdown of
ideologies (power structures) in order to create 'awareness.' (This conforms
to a Marxist view or perhaps a Foucauldian view.) I believed (and I think was
taught to believe) that if people became aware, they would choose to 'be' and
'act' differently', if they understood they were 'existing' and 'being', even
acting on behalf of, a dominant power structure. My job, as an artist, was to
make ideology visible, to make room for us to 'be' "other"-wise. As a
burgeoning artist, it was my job (in whatever small way I could) to enact
liberty from oppression, and the first step was to de-naturalize the systems of
power.

But Derridean deconstruction, as you have also demonstrated here, admits the
problem of dialectics. The nature of dialectics is that whatever one puts forward
automatically and inevitably raises its dialectical opposite in the process.
(Interestingly, Derrida always claimed he was not 'doing' philosophy, he was
not 'making' concepts. In this way, he was able to capitalize on dialectics
without falling into the very trap of reinforcement that you are speaking of.)
Derrida took the notion of dialectics to its limit and asserted that actually
the dialectical opposite comes BEFORE the idea you put forward: A thing comes
into being by first de-privileging what it is NOT. He believed that a close
'reading' of any text could reveal the traces of what was de-privileged, traces
that were always already there to be found.

The first notion of deconstruction (what I learned at school) shares with the
avant-garde a belief that we can liberate those oppressed by ideological power
structures. But Derridean deconstruction cannot consider the possibility of
liberty from oppression, it must be understood as an impossible task, always
already failed.

"I would say that deconstruction loses nothing from admitting that it is
impossible; also that those who would rush to delight in that admission lose
nothing from having to wait. For a deconstructive operation possibility would
rather be a danger, the danger of becoming an available set of rule-governed
procedures, methods, accessible practices. The interest of deconstruction, of
such force and desire as it may have, is a certain experience of the
impossible..." -Derrida

If Derrida is right (and of course this is debatable), I was schooled into
making the cardinal error: Instead of ‘doing’ Derridean deconstruction,
which would have necessitated living with the impossible, I ‘applied’ his
theory for a purpose – something Derrida fought voraciously against
throughout his entire career.

"We now know -- or have no excuse for not knowing -- that deconstruction is not
a technique or a method, and hence that there is no question of "applying"
it.” We know that it is not a moment of carnival or liberation, but a moment
of the deepest concern with limits... And we know -- though this myth perhaps
dies hardest of all -- that the ethical and the political are not avoided by
deconstruction, but are implicated at every step." - Derek Attridge

In Derrida's version, deconstruction is not a dismantling of a text (the way
that we might speak about a breakdown of ideologies) but a demonstration that
it has already dismantled itself. Derridean deconstruction engages in
de-naturalizing structures without constructing something else. He leaves us
in the void that exists where something once pretended to stand.

For me, I struggle with trying to embody this impossibility. I bristle against
having such intense limits placed on my ability to be an active agent of
change. On the other hand, I recognize that those are limits placed upon my
power, and that they inscribe and require an absolute ethics upon my acts.

People are wacky....Biojewelry? Romantic or Sketchy as Hell? Perhaps I could use a new pair of earrings made out of my lovers genetic make up to match that dress made out of my own skin

www.biojewellery.com/index.html

way crazier than those couture hissing roach rings.....

www.blackchandelier.biz/index.asp

also......DNA of humans forced into trees????!!!

www.biopresence.com/description.html

stare deeply into the spooky depth of my crotch....and other such enjoyable children's tales............

trying..not trying ..trying to find agency in a complacent world.can it be done? how? i ushually prefer to say fuck it and go on doing whatever i want as ushual but then it all gets so irritating being socially aware in some ways and fine with things as they are in other ways that lack an action.

Well I don't care about having a life's purpose so atleast i dont have to worry about that, but how to continue being an artist and hopefully not scraping by. make myself a nice lil community so i wont be alone in my old age<sigh>. Perhaps i'll sell out and buy a house and have all my girlfriends live in it after their husbands or significant other die....i picture it being like "the Golden girls" only with drugs and more sluttiness to help keep me entertained b4 death.

"Doubtless is it more necc....to transform concepts, to displace them, to turn them against their presuppositions, to reinsribe them in other chairs, and little y little to modify the terrain of our work and thereby produe new configurations, I do not believe in decsive ruptures, in a unequirocal "epistemological break", as it is called today. Breaks are always, and fatally, reinscribed in an old cloth that must continually, interminably be undone"

~derrida
(Positions)

Oh New England I miss you!

it's starting to get so nice out i wouldn't mind going home for a while. I know I'll miss all swimming, driving,drinking, beaching, coving, grunging, breaking into buildings and having illegal bonfire fun out with my East Coast hommmies. It'll probab;y still be warm and beautiful when I get back at the end of the summer.though....and dare i say I'll be coming back with an expensive piece of paper in hand!

I'm just a little home sick but too busy to sulk much.I already miss Blcok island, Landon's Point, the lighthouses, the metal, the realness, the freaks on Thayer street...<sigh>, but I know it will be still be there when i get back.....YAY!

love love

~Soleil

Thoughts on Water and Water ecology, the redefining of the word 'ecosystem' to help preserve

Dialogue on Water

First Nations Elders are very concerned about
whether enough clean drinking water will exist for
future generations. This paper follows on from
my previous discussion of First Nations’ spiritual and
ecological perspectives on water (Blackstock 2002). Here,
I continue to investigate First Nations water-based
ecology with the help of three highly respected Elders
from the Southern Interior of British Columbia: Mary
Thomas from the Secwepemc (Shuswap), Millie Michell
from the Nlaka’pamux (Thompson), and Mary Louie
from the Syilx (Okanagan) Nation. Their vision of the
relationships between water, land, and animals highlights
an apparent shortcoming in Western science’s
definition of an ecosystem. Drawing on their experience
and wisdom, I encourage a shift towards water-based
ecosystem management by presenting a proposal to
repair the definition of forest ecosystems. This new
definition interweaves First Nations’ philosophy with
Western science’s ecosystem management approach.

Science is a way of knowing, a cornerstone of
Western epistemology. Science has served the needs of
an evolving society well, but not without its limitations.
The taxonomic lens of science has created a chasm
between the living and non-living components of our
world—and water has unfortunately been placed on the
non-living side. Science relies on accurate observation
of cause and effect relationships over a measured and
appropriate period of time.

Repairing the Definition of
“Forest Ecosystem”

If Traditional Ecological Knowledge and science are to coexist, then the Western
science definition of forest ecosystem should be ‘repaired’
with a new emphasis on the role of water. For
instance, ecologists in British Columbia define a
forested ecosystem as: “. . . a segment of landscape that is
relatively uniform in climate, soil, plants, animals, and
micro-organisms . . . The biotic community of a site is
composed of a combination of plants (vegetation),animals, and microorganisms, each of which forms its
own community” (Klinka et al. 1989:4). Repairing this
definition would clearly symbolize a cross-cultural
understanding to the question posed earlier: “What is
water?” By incorporating this understanding, a revised
definition could read: “. . . a forest ecosystem is a segment
of landscape, composed of relatively uniform
climate, soil, plants, animals, and micro-organisms,
which is a community complexly interconnected through a
network of freshwater hydrological systems.” Water is
always moving, and thus it has the ability to function as
the connecting component, or “blood of life.” Consequently,
ecosystem community relationship diagrams
(topological representations of the interrelationships)
would change from an unfocused network to a spiderweb
network with water as the heart that pumps the
blood of life throughout the community............................courses.eciad.ca/file.php

YOU are Attatched...some zenful thoughts

...all things that appear in the world are transient. If you view all appearances as non-appearances, then you will see the true natue of everything. So while you are attatched to the form you do not undertand the truth. If you say "this is a cup" , you attatched to the name and form. But if you say "this is not a cup" you are attatched to emptiness. Is it a cup or not?

all things are given name and form...who makes this? thinking makes this..we make thought. the zen mind is before thought, before the chance to dice things up into opposites and make judgements. so before thinking is clear mind, zen mind, absolute. The dog does not say I am a dog. What color is the wall? white. this mind. only white. my mind and this white become one. The mirror is clear as it's always been.

..so what about acceptance and understanding? I don't think it is possible to do both. one cannot understand and accept at the same time. to understand is to comprehend something and come to a resoltution. to accept is to lack the understanding, the knowledge that keeps the rigth-right and the wrong-wrong. neither exists until our inner feeling of lack tell us we are lacking and that we must go outside ourselve to fufill something, until we feel this again and again. the zen mind is no inside or outside..it's just itself..it'you me everything that cannot be spoken or thought.

MAsquarde pix.....in pix

that is all;