A problem I had when I read Of Grammatology several years ago was precisely that of Speech being nearly-congruous with Thought. It seems to me that this is simplistic and that Thought is but the first level of the codification of stimuli/responses and that is where the issue of Presence might need to be grounded. Just not convinced that Speech is any closer than Writing to Thought.
You are aware that Derrida is not arguing that it is? Quite the contrary. That is his whole point.
But that's a topic for another time, perhaps after I re-read a few texts to make sure I'm not misremembering or misunderstanding anything after five years' interval 
*MySmiley*
structured procrastinator
structured procrastinator
Someone explain this academic article snippet to me?
- 10/09/2010 01:28:05 AM
620 Views
First, you'd need to know about signifiers and the signified to understand Derrida's position
- 10/09/2010 05:40:22 AM
511 Views
Actually that helps a bundle.
- 10/09/2010 06:05:52 AM
524 Views
I had to be familiar with Derrida, Foucault, Barthes, and Lacan in grad school
- 10/09/2010 06:12:22 AM
471 Views
Re: First, you'd need to know about signifiers and the signified to understand Derrida's position
- 10/09/2010 09:12:41 AM
497 Views
Also, the few science articles I've read were very comprehensible, albeit with difficult terminology *NM*
- 10/09/2010 07:18:52 AM
186 Views
Derridean critique of presence
- 10/09/2010 09:43:51 AM
517 Views
I prefer Eco's semiotics approach
- 10/09/2010 10:08:42 AM
432 Views
Re: I prefer Eco's semiotics approach
- 10/09/2010 10:10:26 AM
499 Views
I realize that
- 10/09/2010 11:18:07 AM
467 Views
Re: I realize that
- 10/09/2010 01:22:49 PM
464 Views
I think I'll do it between reading a Spanish book and a Portuguese one
- 10/09/2010 01:35:50 PM
446 Views
This website will help you understand everything you need to about Derridaism.
- 13/09/2010 09:19:16 AM
556 Views