Imaginary Illocution by Abigail Azul:

A paper on Derrida’s Signature Event Context, Limited Inc

and Searle’s Reply to Derrida

First of all, I have backtracked Derrida’s initial paper’s source. Apparently J.L.

Austin had a prominent idea at that time, he challenged an idea that sentences are used

to state facts (from Wikipedia.com) that is either true or false. Austin acknowledged that

there are sentences that are neither true nor false such as “Stand up”. Austin calls this

performative utterances. The performative utterances and illocutionary act is the main

argument of Austin’s paper. He sets aside the fictional speech acts that might confuse

his readers and he cast them as parasitical speech acts for the fictional acts are rather

from an original event which it imitates.

I understood Austin’s main point but where he cut loose is where Derrida saw his

(Austin) weakness. Derrida has many good points in which argues in Signature Event

Context and he often reiterated in Limited Inc. which Searle replies to but these main

pointsI will discuss later on.

I have noticed, however, that Derrida is very thorough. I could compare him to

Socrates back in the times where logic is still unfamiliar where he inquired even back to

the root of that inquiry as if he wanted the subject to contradict himself or his earlier

belief. Derrida, on the other hand, is very thorough with elements in his or other’s article.

He even seemed to mock Searle’s acknowledgement of his thanks to D. Searle and H.

Dreyfus which however seemed to mock him (by placing the footnote next to his name

by the title, if were another guy he wouldn’t have made a big fuss out of it, but Derrida is

obviously not that guy).

 Derrida is also thorough in a sense that he covers up all points possible and he

even adds his own commentaries on it (which are contained in parenthesis so as to

avoid its effect on the idea stated but also a form of exemplification sometimes). I

noticed that Signature Event Context is jampacked with his ideas and Limited Inc was a

bit lighter and more easier to understand than the former (Well I believe Limited Inc was

a restatement of points in Signature Event Context and that he clarified these points to

Derrida because it seemed that Searle did not understand him). And I did really enjoy

Limited Inc more because it was like watching a sarcastic person jeer at a person who

cannot defend himself instantly. I feel like I was reading an episode of House MD, I was

laughing at some pun intended (e.g. “ …(Glyph) interest in inviting such parasites to its

table”). Derrida was a good read but his train of thought is fast and full of signs that I

can’t understand. Perhaps he somehow generalized that all iterable writing have the

permanent or same meaning through all its copies.

Searle was like shot in the face with Derrida telling him that he knows more about

him than Searle is knowledgeable about Derrida. In Limited Inc Derrida points out that

Searle do not know what he is really talking about.

Derrida’s main argument is that any kind of writing be it a fictional or non fictional

(since we do not know which is which) is iterable thus they should and may be analyzed

along with other speech acts. It may be regarded that writing is more powerful at oral

because it it more iterable and it can exist even though the writer dies. Like Austin who

Derrida did evaluate and critique in his paper.

 Searle debates that writing is not permanent, thus iterability is different from

permanence such as meaning is different from different interpreters. Searle also points

out that oral argument or serious writing (collectively called ‘serious speech acts’) is

more formal, has a sender and a recipient not just a stray bullet. Also if the intended

receiver is not the one supposed to receive it the intended effect will not be obtained.

Parasitic speech forms such as fiction are dependent upon reality, upon an event that

have happened, which is why it is called parasitic.

Derrida defends his points by saying that the “argument” is not real and that

these are all parasitic and fake. Derrida does not directly assert his points against

Searle’s arguments, he attacks Searle fully or rather the SARL (Searle and company).

So SARL is not and should not be answering to him and should not be using signatures

because signatures are a fact of ownership, often present in written text. I think Derrida

was suggesting that SARL should have stood up against him in speech rather than in

writing because Derrida obviously attacked him and every element he has presented in

writing.

Derrida, I believe has the upper hand. No other philosopher (that I know of) can

do an assassination as immense as this is, not only did he contradict Searle’s

statements, he maintained his stand, reiterated what he said and convinced the reader

that SARL’s argument was rooted on nothing (not even parasitical). Foucault, in his

conversation with Searle even called Derrida a terrorist obscurantism

(foucaultblog.wordpress.com) for being obscure and blasting a full on attack when you

try to go on against him.

 Dear Derrida was passionate about the argument of parasitical speech and he

would not let any form of writing or even fictitious writing do elicit a reaction such as

what Derrida did. It is funny how Searle did do things that he really opposed and how

Derrida got it.

Now I know why Derrida is such a legend because of deconstruction. He did not

simply formulated deconstruction and described it, he lived it, he is that person and

perhaps the only person that can do that unwittingly and perhaps even while sleeping.

References:

Wikipedia. “ J.L. Austin” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._L._Austin. (Accessed October 1

2010)

Wikipedia, “Limited Inc” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_Inc (Accessed October 1

2010)

Foucault Blog. “ Searle on Derrida”.

http://foucaultblog.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/john-searle-on-derrida/ (Accessed

Octobe 1, 2010)