‘Deconstruction is to which I would add .... "AND not that it shouldn't have.’& ‘a continuous exploration of what is’
Falconer-
‘Deconstructive criticism is not intended to suggest a way to make the book finally complete, but to show its necessary incompleteness. Deconstruction is used to show that a work does not adequately address something, not that it should have.
to which i would
add .... "AND not that it shouldn't have."
Incompleteness of a narrative through language and media may be accepted as a fact of life AND that the narrative is worth developing and living by, above all other narratives, despite its necessary incompleteness.’
Incompleteness of a narrative through language and media may be accepted as a fact of life AND that the narrative is worth developing and living by, above all other narratives, despite its necessary incompleteness.’
richrf –
‘I
think one has to embrace that there is likely no
center, no truth, but
rather a continuous exploration of what
is.
That is an eminently
respectful point of view, but i don't believe it necessarily follows from
deconstruction. In particular i interpret as meaning there is no 'the
truth'...... by which i would agree if one means that the truth does not exist
because it is a language narrative and form and through deconstruction i agree
all such forms are necessarily incomplete. Which is a contradiction to the
rational common meaning of the truth. ie how can 'the truth' be incomplete?
But there are other interpretations of 'the truth' such as i mentioned earlier, ie in the respect of 'the best grand narrative of all', despite incompleteness.
I don't think this is a fine point of interpretation, because faced with deconstruction although i like one to move toward a multi narrative approach (which often implies fluidity) ......nevertheless i recognize that the adherence to a grand narrative like Christianity or materialistic atheism is still a sensible choice faced with incompleteness of narrative language forms.
In fact the rejection of deconstruction itself and reverting back to 'i see the world as it is not as it is interpreted' is hardly completely daft, since we all (like falconer) slip naturally back into believing we see objects themselves. (whether we express it in a text or otherwise).
But there are other interpretations of 'the truth' such as i mentioned earlier, ie in the respect of 'the best grand narrative of all', despite incompleteness.
I don't think this is a fine point of interpretation, because faced with deconstruction although i like one to move toward a multi narrative approach (which often implies fluidity) ......nevertheless i recognize that the adherence to a grand narrative like Christianity or materialistic atheism is still a sensible choice faced with incompleteness of narrative language forms.
In fact the rejection of deconstruction itself and reverting back to 'i see the world as it is not as it is interpreted' is hardly completely daft, since we all (like falconer) slip naturally back into believing we see objects themselves. (whether we express it in a text or otherwise).
Comments
Post a Comment