And this structure presupposes that the sign, which defers presence, is conceivable only on the basis of the presence that it defers and moving toward the deferred presence that it aims to reappropriate. I will speak, therefore, of the letter a, this initial letterwhich it apparently has been necessary to insinuate, here and there, into the writing of the word difference; and to do so in the course of a writing on writing, and also of a writing within writing whose different trajectories thereby find themselves, at certain very determined points, intersecting with a kind of gross spelling mistake, a lapse in the discipline and law which regulate writing and keep it seemly.
To do justice to this necessity is to recognize that in a classical philosophical opposition we are not dealing with the peaceful coexistence of a vis-a-vis, but rather with a violent hierarchy. Therefore the concept of trace is incompatible with the concept of retention, of the becoming-past of what has been present.
Contrary to the metaphysical, dialectical, "Hegelian" interpretation of the economic movement of differance, we must conceive of a play in which whoever loses wins, and in which one loses and wins on every turn.
What is it to think the present in its presence?. And the translation would be, as it always must be, a transformation of one language by another. With this question we reach another level and another resource derrida writing and difference scribd documents our problematic.
The elements of signification function due not to the compact force of their nuclei but rather to the network of oppositions that distinguishes them, and then relates them one to another.
The "early trace" of difference is lost in an invisibility without return, and yet its very loss is sheltered, retained, seen, delayed. However, Derrida felt that the old model focused too heavily on the signifier, rather than on utterance and occurrence. And that one puts into question the name of the name.
And all the oppositions that furrow Freudian thought relate each of his concepts one to another as moments of a detour in the economy of differance. Better, the play of difference, which, as Saussure reminded us, is the condition for the possibility and functioning of every sign, is in itself a silent play.
And especially through the Heideggerean text. So much so that the detours, locudons, and syntax in which I will often have to take recourse will resemble those of negative theology, occasionally even to the point of being indistinguishable from negative theology.
Perhaps we must attempt to think this unheard-of thought, this silent tracing: Presencing itself unnoticeably becomes something present.
I read it last summer, should return to it again, and would be the one I am most interested in disseminating. For Derrida, there was a deferral, a continual and indefinite postponement as the Signified can never be achieved.
Most of the semiological or linguishc researches that dominate the field of thought today, whether due to their own results or to the regulatory model that they find themselves acknowledging everywhere, refer genealogically to Saussure correctly or incorrectly as their common inaugurator.
How are they to be joined? One can expose only that which at a certain moment can become present, manifest, that which can be shown, presented as something present, a being-present in its truth, in the truth of a present or the presence of the present.
Nevertheless such daring is not impossible, since Being speaks always and everywhere throughout language" p. And above all, since it is formed from the verb "to differentiate," it would negate the economic signification of the detour, the temporizing delay, "deferral.
It is not a question of a chronological phase, a given moment, or a page that one day simply will be turned, in order to go on to other things. Or perhaps simply into writing itself.
Yet the essence Wesen of this emergence remains concealed verborgen along with the essence of these two words. Now if we refer, once again, to semiological difference, of what does Saussure, in particular, remind us?
For what is put into question is precisely the quest for a rightful beginning, an absolute point of departure, a principal responsibility. This means that the history of Being begins with the oblivion of Being, since Being - together with its essence, its distinction from beings - keeps to itself.
In this context, and beneath this guise, the unconscious is not, as we know, a hidden, virtual, or potential self-presence. A certain alterity - to which Freud gives the metaphysical name of the unconscious - is definitively exempt from every process of presentation by means of which we would call upon it to show itself in person.
Let us go on. From early on it seems as though presencing and what is present were each something for itself. And that consciousness, before distributing its signs in space and in the world, can gather itself into its presence.
Or "in" and "out", "here" and "there", "now" and "then", "past" and "present" and "future" and "eternal"? The difference of quantity is the essence of force, the relation of force to force. I have attempted to indicate a way out of the closure of this framework via the "trace," which is no more an effect than it has a cause, but which in and of itself, outside its text, is not aufficient to operate the necessary transgression.
There would be no force in general without the difference between forces; and here the difference of quantity counts more than the content of the quantity, more than absolute size itself.
The trace beyond that which profoundly links fundamental ontology and phenomenology. We ought to demonstrate why concepts like production, constitution, and history remain in complicity with what is at issue here.
And such is the question inscribed in the simulated affirmation of differance. The dream of two equal forces, even if they are granted an opposition of meaning, is an approximate and crude dream, a statistical dream, plunged into by the living but dispelled by chemistry.
And it is at the moment when Heidegger recognizes usage as trace that the question must be asked:First published inWriting and Difference, a collection of Jacques Derrida's essays written between andhas become a landmark of contemporary French thought.
In it we find Derrida at work on his systematic deconstruction of Western metaphysics.4/5. O Scribd é o maior site social de leitura e publicação do mundo. Writing and Difference.
Jacques Derrida Writing and Difference Translated, with an introduction and additional notes, by Alan Bass London and New York. First published by Éditions du Seuil This translation ﬁrst published in Great Britain by Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
Writing and Difference reveals the unacknowledged program that makes thought itself possible. In analyzing the contradictions inherent in this program, Derrida foes on to develop new ways of thinking, reading, and writing,—new ways based on the most complete and rigorous understanding of the old ways/5(5).
Derrida’s ‘difference’ both of which function to place ‘under erasure’ and thereby to disseminate all fixed metaphysical centres having ‘self-identity’ or ‘selfpresence’ into a chain of differential relationships with no positive entities. The pyramidal silence of the graphic difference between the e and the a can function, of course, only within the system of ptionetic writing, and within the language and grammar which is as historically linked to ptionetic writing as it is to the entire culture inseparable from phonetic writing.Download