Well ONE person has asked me to go on, so i will do so.
In "Semiology and Grammatology" interview with Julia Kristeva, Jacques
Derrida SAYS (it is an interview that is spoken):
...the model of the sign, marks the "semilogical" project itself ad the
organic totality of its concepts, in particular that of COMMUNICATION,
which in effect implies a TRANSMISSION CHARGED WITH MAKING PASS, FROM ONE
SUBJECT TO ANOTHER, THE IDENTITY of a SIGNIFIED concept, of a MEANING or
of a CONCEPT rightfully separable from the process of passge and from
the signifying operation. Communication presupposes subjects (Whose identity
and presence are constituted before the signifying operation... p. 23
Now we all know that Derrida is going forever suspend 'communication'
within the differing and deferring of Differance. Derrida goes on to say
on p. 26 that meaning is (not)there, that is not present, and is
therefore latent or absent within the trace. Like a Platonic Shadow, no?
In effect he is arguing that communication is but is not. What a
Heideggerian move! So the ERASURE comes to save the day. Whoooo, that
was close, we were almost ready to construct values beyond representation,
as Nietzsche was attemptin to do, but we can't because we are forver
trapped in identity = negative difference. Now we can endlessly de-construct
rather than affirming life.
Again, Brian Massumi makes this all very clear in the chapter on FORCE
in his USER'S GUIDE. SO do D&G in plateaus 4&5 of ATP. Deleuzoguattarian
semiotics is not concerned with represenation (neagtive or otherwise),
signifiers or signifieds, sigs and referents. Signs produce material effects
; they do not communicate at all. When studying semiotics it is necessary
to get hold of relations of forces, or at least acknowlege them, not
treat signs as a homogeneous system>.
chris d
------------------
In "Semiology and Grammatology" interview with Julia Kristeva, Jacques
Derrida SAYS (it is an interview that is spoken):
...the model of the sign, marks the "semilogical" project itself ad the
organic totality of its concepts, in particular that of COMMUNICATION,
which in effect implies a TRANSMISSION CHARGED WITH MAKING PASS, FROM ONE
SUBJECT TO ANOTHER, THE IDENTITY of a SIGNIFIED concept, of a MEANING or
of a CONCEPT rightfully separable from the process of passge and from
the signifying operation. Communication presupposes subjects (Whose identity
and presence are constituted before the signifying operation... p. 23
Now we all know that Derrida is going forever suspend 'communication'
within the differing and deferring of Differance. Derrida goes on to say
on p. 26 that meaning is (not)there, that is not present, and is
therefore latent or absent within the trace. Like a Platonic Shadow, no?
In effect he is arguing that communication is but is not. What a
Heideggerian move! So the ERASURE comes to save the day. Whoooo, that
was close, we were almost ready to construct values beyond representation,
as Nietzsche was attemptin to do, but we can't because we are forver
trapped in identity = negative difference. Now we can endlessly de-construct
rather than affirming life.
Again, Brian Massumi makes this all very clear in the chapter on FORCE
in his USER'S GUIDE. SO do D&G in plateaus 4&5 of ATP. Deleuzoguattarian
semiotics is not concerned with represenation (neagtive or otherwise),
signifiers or signifieds, sigs and referents. Signs produce material effects
; they do not communicate at all. When studying semiotics it is necessary
to get hold of relations of forces, or at least acknowlege them, not
treat signs as a homogeneous system>.
chris d
------------------