The two , make that three, Derrida's which I believe are important
for architects are Leavy's translation of Derrida's translation of Husserl.
A rather amazinf book. "Glas" which is an outstandingly beautiful book.
and of course "Truth in Painting".
Everything has influenced Derrida, so it is fair to say that Heideger influenced
Derrida.
Hegel -> Husserl -> Heidegger -> Sartre -> Derrida : That's one reasonable path.
You can draw a lot of others. ei.,
Russel l -> Goedel -> Turing -> Derrida or
Saussure -> Jakobson -> Chomsky -> Derrida
There are a lot of ways to think about deconstruction but there are
certainly some really wrong ways to think about it, such as anti-modern or
anti-structural. It grows out of the essential experimentation and
inquisitiveness of modernism, and the realizes as well as relies on
exceptional structural analysis.
A good architectural boo is : Deconstruction by Papadakis, Cooke and
Benjamin. It contains an excellent, very readable interview with Derrida
by Christopher Norris and an outstanding critical essay by Geoff Bennington.
I think that you will find these references much more readable than of
grammatology.
To look at the holes in the phenomol/(can't spell) phenomonological argument
is to seek that place were sensory perception is modulated and modified
by the perciever. Heidegger was on to this in heis describtion of tools.
But, the problem is still deeper. The inseperability of the observor and
the observed is excruciatingly well described by Nils Bohr. In signs such
as architecture its profound. What Derrida is about is what to do about t,
not that the object/subject observor/observed dance exists, but haw to
dance. Before you can despace a structure in a way that can awaken an observor
you need to know an owful lot about the structre and about structrural
analysis in general.
well taht my 2 cents.
ray lauzzana
for architects are Leavy's translation of Derrida's translation of Husserl.
A rather amazinf book. "Glas" which is an outstandingly beautiful book.
and of course "Truth in Painting".
Everything has influenced Derrida, so it is fair to say that Heideger influenced
Derrida.
Hegel -> Husserl -> Heidegger -> Sartre -> Derrida : That's one reasonable path.
You can draw a lot of others. ei.,
Russel l -> Goedel -> Turing -> Derrida or
Saussure -> Jakobson -> Chomsky -> Derrida
There are a lot of ways to think about deconstruction but there are
certainly some really wrong ways to think about it, such as anti-modern or
anti-structural. It grows out of the essential experimentation and
inquisitiveness of modernism, and the realizes as well as relies on
exceptional structural analysis.
A good architectural boo is : Deconstruction by Papadakis, Cooke and
Benjamin. It contains an excellent, very readable interview with Derrida
by Christopher Norris and an outstanding critical essay by Geoff Bennington.
I think that you will find these references much more readable than of
grammatology.
To look at the holes in the phenomol/(can't spell) phenomonological argument
is to seek that place were sensory perception is modulated and modified
by the perciever. Heidegger was on to this in heis describtion of tools.
But, the problem is still deeper. The inseperability of the observor and
the observed is excruciatingly well described by Nils Bohr. In signs such
as architecture its profound. What Derrida is about is what to do about t,
not that the object/subject observor/observed dance exists, but haw to
dance. Before you can despace a structure in a way that can awaken an observor
you need to know an owful lot about the structre and about structrural
analysis in general.
well taht my 2 cents.
ray lauzzana