Differance is that the spell checker organizes into a correct spelling.

Different signs acquiring

meaning through the axioms that organize their related non-referentiality so they may obtain the
property of difference: a is not a (this is dialectics already). Then he proposes a set of political
objectives liberate from regimes of incestual exploitative violence: racism, mysoginy, anti-incelism
etc. Well, if he is going to deconstruct he has to do it truthfully. He has to accurately isolate the
deconstructable formation, and truthfully deconstruct it for some priviledge good. You are not
going to deconstruct to enhance the logic of oppression. So, he is already unable to release himself
from the binary of truth, and falsehood, and good and bad.

Difference does not lead to the subjectivity of language. If I have a group of people that look at the
rules and outputs known as A, ,E, I, O, U and we try to difference it we will all experience the same
point of antagonism with signification. It will be a shareable experience of limit not a dissolving
into each other´s own subjective language, or, freedom.

Second His slippeage mode of writing where he never stabilizes upon a meaning “Derrida always
already betrays himself” is the ultimate master move of not being able to settle upon a position so
that others may look at it, and as he stands as a master of University Discourse, he may face
criticism. It is a recursive loop back to zero repeated infinetly so that he may never be criticized. To
sustain his position as a unchallenged totalitarian master: what he sought to avoid.

Then you have the issue of history. Political struggles arise out of the contradictions, and limits
that oppressive systems force people to undergo for a great deal of time, and not , because Marx
wrote Das Kapital. There were revolutions before he finished, and after. He has to differentiate
between ruling ideas, and sets of practices that are oppressive to see if there is a gap. Is it the case
that the ideas they claim to govern them are in fact governing them. For example. Nietzsche
claims that there was a slave revolt in morality, and this tame the blonde beast of pray, but this is
historically false. The revolt of, and hegemony of slave morality, is the self-presentation of the
blonde beast of pray of the Vactican´s and Feudal lords genocidal sprees from the time of
Constantine up to the present. There was not revolt in slave morality. It never took place.

So, there we find a gap. An idea that “organizes” an institutions, and practices that contradict
them systematically. In this case one could say that the slave morality organizing idea is a “step
into the act” rationalization that allows for the set of practices of “the blonde beast of prey”.

It can be the case that an Idea regulates practices, or, that a set of practices regulate an idea as
self-presentation, or, as transparent enough that it shows its criticizable cracks. It could also be the
case that practices are slip. For example, in my hetero case, if a girl instrumentalizes a set of
features into order to lure me into (misrecognizingly) depositing: trust, admiration, love, care,
devotion, attentiveness etc then what she is doing is not only engaging in an exploitative set of
acts that I mistake as luringly social, but murdering the possible person that would not
instrumetnalize such facultires to murder the possibility of encountering a real girlfriend, or, wife,
or, friend etc. So, the way she instrumentalizes-acts in the world is not the real practice what she
is bringing forth into the world is the destructive practice of murdering a possible girlfriend, wife
etc. So, that practices are slip, or, could be from within. Practices, engaging in interaction with
some other are self-presentations in motion to enable a practice of, in this case, murder.

He has to define what an idea is, when it is effective, when he can truthfully detect a thing called
idea that merits deconstruction when has deconstruction taken place effectively, or, why would it
have this capacity etc. He has to define truthfully the set of oppressive practices. What counts as
oppressive, and how are they detected, and why do they rely more on a regulative material idea
than some other, closely related and interconnected with the idea, set of practices. And why there
is a point of advantage in destabilizing the whole system of oppression from this entry point, or,
angle.

Example. The thing with applying parenthesis in the critique of Nazi chants work, but it does not
let me back to difference, but rather a set of standards, the universal of the lack in-intself, and
other, that reveal the depth of illegitimacy of the metaphysical (in the Kantian sense I guess) that
presented itself to the victim as immutably indestructible. And it has to do this in a truthful
manner. It displays its mortality, but not so much some infinite ground from which it came, but if it
is dislocated onto the realm of difference it must truthfully displace it onto difference so that we
have not escaped this category: this binary as he would put it. For his system to work in certain
ways these binaries must be set in place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtLMNcpgYEs

Geoffrey Bennington on Derrida and

Deconstruction (Modern Critical Theory
Lecture Series)
21,073 views

•Oct 9, 2017

352 9 Share

Save

Unit Fellows

355 subscribers

The Unit for Criticism & Interpretive Theory at UIUC presents Geoffrey Bennington (French &
Italian, Emory) on "Derrida and Deconstruction" as part of the fall 2017 Modern Critical Theory
Lecture Series. The lecture was presented on October 3rd in Lincoln Hall, at the University of
Illinois Urbana-Champaign https://criticism.english.illinois.ed...

21 Comments

Add a public comment...

Gonzalo Ivan Gil 1 second ago

"writing before the usual distinction between writing and speech has even kicked in", so like an
intermediate stage before they individuated? It looks like a generative point of origin where
differences did not exist. That is what it sounds like. "Implying that writing came before speech,
but nothing like that". Ok, but he knows for sure that it is "new", but the resonance of the battery
of signifiers from the tradition make too much noise, as it were so that they get in the way of the
new things he is trying to demonstrate? He knows it is not his writing, because he has checked. He
has been able to isolate it to the tradition. Does he go into an analysis of the nature of this "x" he
has, and is sure acts as a causal agent?

Gonzalo Ivan Gil 1 second ago

38:14min Saussure explains inheritance in one way. In what way does Derrida explain the rise, and
hegemony of "inheritance".?

Gonzalo Ivan Gil 1 second ago

36:16 So, in order to be different they must be identical first?, because Saussure already
establishes a difference, could be wrong, but a difference between speech and writing holds for
him.

Gonzalo Ivan Gil 1 second ago

35min But is not difference a "relation" an "x" understood to be a relation?

Gonzalo Ivan Gil 1 second ago

But Saussere´s point is not that dismissable: when people discover something the may debate
what to call it, each product advertised, each invention, your kids. It is output, but also the
beginning of language

Gonzalo Ivan Gil 1 second ago

53:16min "Across the whole web..." that is a macro statement. A meta-narrative about his object
of study. It seems to me.

Gonzalo Ivan Gil 1 second ago

58:05min Examples of people telling you how to think? anyone, that insists some "x" statement
qualifies as being true? are they bordering on the totalitarian? is it ok to make truthful
statements? or is this something he avoids? preferring returning back, or having his self-reflexive
loops, return, always, back to zero? in order, so nothing may be said about nothing? if so who is he
addressing then: in his books?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8BsnfjtNCg&t=5s

28:11min But would he argue that phycists are morally reprehensible for operating upon atoms,
and sub-atomic particles? mathematicians immoral because they operate on symbols? and the
same for logicians? or is he able to be specific enough to isolate ungrounded ideological violence
from a particular phenomenological operation outputting itself into an ideological operation
(incestual exploitative violence of the capitalist for example) or formation? An ideological
formation that not only is it alienating from the truth, but also hegemonic at a social level:
enabling practices of exploitation?

54:49min But this might imply that he is not very well acquainted with problems of oppression. If
his work did not allow him to clearly isolate a number of unambiguous ways in which incestual
exploitative violence has taken place then throughout the years then there has been a failure at
the level of analysis: I am saying this could be the case. If he has been unable to develop practical
means, out of his own theoretical practices regarding the nature of oppression, then he failed in
acquainting himself with a set of (very real) practical problems a great deal of other social
scientists have plenty of good and tested answers for.