Re: "hint"

"This sounds like a preemptive strike against the sort of approach that
Derrida was to take, as "hint" seems to resonate with "trace." Does anyone
else see it this way?"

If I read what you are suggesting right, I would say that I read it in the
opposite way; that it is precisely this care not to allow themselves to fall
in the trap of univocal meaning that Derrida is true to. It seems to me that
J and I, in the dialogue, both understand the necessity of not defining the
notion of "hint" precisely (or the term that J is attempting to think, for
that matter), because to over-define would collapse the approach to the
"nature of language" they are making. That is, to not overspecify "hint" will
allow a freer play of the trace, and not fall into a metaphysics that would
obviate it. In a sense, it is an attempt not to articulate, to remain in the
nameless, in the inarticulable, while nevertheless carrying on the dialogue.
And it is the importance of this that Derrida reaffirms when he says "the
trace must be thought before the object." (Gram)


--- from list [email protected] ---


Partial thread listing: