Deconstruction deconstructs itself.


W : )

Richard P Church wrote:

"When critics pointed out that, based on deconstruction's own tenets a
deconstructive analysis itself must be just as false, contradictory,
manipulative, unjust, and 'tyrannical' as any other text,
deconstructionists
found it difficult to respond effectively."
-- source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The academic debate is very confused, because they use so
fancy words that they hardly know what they re talking about.

But it is very simple, actually.

We have all seen programs about detective and forensic work on tv.
These programs show how to find out what has happened, what people
have said, what evidence is strong, weak or useless.

When detectives hear some criminal say something, maybe on the phone,
they need to find out what the message means.

In that process they use all the techniques which you need when
analyzing literature or songs.

We can use Elvis as an example.

His main message was in the way he moved his body, and how
he was as a person.

Secondary meanings can be found in the song-texts
but those messages come from song writers.

These songs have multiple meanings, one superficial, if
you take the text literally, one hidden meaning you can
only understand if you have social experience of the
hidden social system.

There may also be messages the songwriters did not intend,
but we can see, and such meanings can be useful too.


--
Roger J.

The whole critical theory bunch express themselves in an academic fancy
words fashion, which seems to be intended to hide what they are talking
about.
Or they have so pseudo-intellectually twisted minds so they cannot
express themselves in a simple and clear language.

perdurabo wrote:

"mimus" wrote:

Roger Johansson wrote:

In this kind of culture it is meaningful and fruitful to explore all
possible meanings in a text, in a speech, in a created event. Some
meanings are useful, some are less important and useful. Judgement
based on knowledge is needed to be able to find and value hidden
meanings.

I notice you don't bother mentioning the meaning intended by the
writer,
speaker or creator.

Which is of course the major point of text and speech and creation, and
of
competent and honest analysis as well.

It depends on what the purpose of the research is.

If the main purpose is to explore the thinking of a certain person it
is of course important to try to find out what he meant.

If the purpose is to find the best political ideas in the world it
doesn't matter at all who thought or said something, only the idea is
important.

Perhaps I have misunderstood. Doesn't the 'intentional fallacy' suggest
that
the meaning of the text is not wholly what the writer indented? I thought
that deconstruction simply went a step further to place the emphasis
wholy
on the reader. As I understood it goes something like this:

I think you are overcomplicating this. What we are talking about are
descriptions of intellectual tools for critical thinking.

You can learn similar tools from watching the programs on tv about
forensics and police work. I think the producers of those programs have
an ambition to educate the american people, teach them to think in a
scientific and critical manner.

The average american lacks education in scientific and critical
thinking, and these programs about police work is the closest average
joe will ever come to science and critical thinking. He learns to
analyze what people say, learns to search for hidden meanings, learns
to weigh different views and scenarios against each other, learns to
judge the value of different pieces of evidence, learns to use
scientific methods and rational thinking.

(These programs are also full of standard american creationist ideals,
like manly attitudes, doublespeak, the whole package for the
chronically wondering, drama and lots of violence.)

Humanism: The author is paramount and the meaning of the text is the same
for every reader.

Humanism is not a tool for analyzing messages.

Humanism was a reaction against the religious views which ruled Europe
during medieval times. Humanism based its views on the common human and
his needs, not on the religious created people and their needs.

Structuralism: The culture is paramount and the text suggests many
meanings
to one reader. The student of literature examines the forces that act
upon
the author.

It is not possible to give exact definitions of analyzing tools like
structuralism, because any definition would be a limitation on the
researcher and his possibility to find out how it works.

If you wrote "the complete manual of police and forensic work" and
followed it literally all the time you would not be a good detective,
because you need to think for yourself all the time. You cannot think
freely by following an exact recipe.

Specific methods mentioned are just suggestions for all the ways you
can think about a problem.
Any list of such methods must be incomplete, because you can always add
a few more ways to think.

Piaget's book about structuralism is just talking about how things can
be connected into a structure. To understand some things, like a knot
in a net, you need to see its place in the larger structure.

Deconstruction: The reader is paramount and all interpretations of the
text
are valid, including that which is intended by the author. I suppose that
the student would highlight the forces that act upon the reader.

Again, you are assuming details about what deconstruction is which are
not necessary. Deconstraction is simply to be aware of the fact that
meanings often are hidden or disguised. An awareness of how convoluted
reality can be, and a talent for imagining different ways to analyze a
message or an event, even when the meaning is hidden, intentionally or
not.

I am sure that all of this is simplistic to the point of distortion.

The whole critical theory bunch express themselves in an academic fancy
words fashion, which seems to be intended to hide what they are talking
about.
Or they have so pseudo-intellectually twisted minds so they cannot
express themselves in a simple and clear language.

We have to see this in a practical way to understand why academic
writers express themselves in overcomplicated language.

When people get paid to work at a university they think they must speak
in a more refined fashion, and overcomplication is not a problem, on
the contrary, it can raise the salary. The product of academic research
must sound valuable and very difficult to understand. If they expressed
themselves in a simple and clear language people would question their
high wages and fancy academic titles, the state would have no reason to
pay them anymore.

Whilst
deconstruction does not ignore the intensions of the author, it regards
the
reader to be the sole agent of meaning.

Well, the detective must ultimately follow his own mind, doesn't he?


--
Roger J.

That's nonsense, actually. The sort of ideas people generally praise

Here's Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan on Nagarjuna, in his book on Indian