RECOSTRUCTIONISM:THEDICTATORSHIPOFLOGOS (kidding,putdownthegun)

I'llputitdowninenglish, justtogiveasensetothis.Actually,it'smyfirstattemptto writeinanotherlanguagethanminewithoutthehelpofagoodvocabulary,soit'sclear thatIwillbewronghereandtherebut,ontheotherhand,whocares? Writing:afascinatingthingtodowhenyougotsomethingtosay;experimentsarebeing carried on. Not all of them make sense to me, nevertheless there are lots of things humansdothatdon'tmakesensetome,soIwon'tworryaboutsomethingharmlessjust becauseidon'tgetitsaims;asanexample,manypeoplequotethemost(andmaybethe only)meaninglesssentenceinWittgenstein'sTractatusre:whereofonecannotspeak, thereofone must besilent.Forwhateverreason looks like somethingverydeep and meaningful,butinsomeformI'vebeentoldthesame,fromwhenIwasachid.OfcourseI knowthatthisisthelastsentenceinthat work,soit'snotlikeapieceofsingularity comingdownfromspacejusttoshowitselftomankind.Imean,tomeitsoundsmorelike OK,guys,that'swhatIhadtosay,I'mdonefornow.So,notsurprisingly,somepeople findinterestingtoexperimenttheliterarypossibilities, even ofsomethingliketwitter andfindlotsofwisejustifications,re:decostructionismliesontheconceptofhypertext; well...hereimustbehonestandsaythetruth:Ifinddecostructionismcompletelyuseless, andwhat'sevenworse,Ithinkthatfromatheoricalpointofviewit'ssimplywrong.Let's examineforamomentthecriticstothesocalledlogocentrismbyJaquesDerrida.Now, it'sclearthat,foradecostructionist,logicisthelastofhis/herworries,sobeforeallIjust say:OK,justdoit,untilit'snotmycallIseenoevil(butafterthisiwouldaskgot anythingbetter?).Anyway,comingbacktothepoint,inmyview,tocriticizesomething is easier if it is a somethingcentrism because almost any word that refers to a centrism has aconnotationofauthoritarism orarbitraryassumption,andpeople feel often intrigued when they can challenge some form of authority. But, IMHO, to criticizelogocentrismimpliesatleasttwoarbitrarychoices:thefirst,istheattribution oflogocentrismtowhat'swritten,inoppositiontooralspeaking.Tomakethisdifference, ops, differance evenstronger,Derridanamedthefirstthemetaphisicsofabsenceand thelatterthemetaphisicsofpresence.Whatdoesitmean?Well,somethingmaybe,but, comingdowntoEarth,nothing.Anyway,lethimcallthingshowhelikes.Obviously,it'sa matter of method. If you have two interpretations, to be a good decostructionist you shouldalwaysgoforthemostcomplicated.Inthiscasewehavetwowaysinwhichyou can refer to the greek word logos, one coming from Plato, the other coming from Heraclitus. Todigthispointisbeyondthescopeofthis brief divertissement,anyway DerridagoesforPlato,giventhathislogosismorecomplicatedandalso,heDerrida has not any viable alternative because Heraclitus' definition would be deadly for his theory.But,justtokeepitsimplenotbeingadecostructionistmypointisthat Derrida'stheoryisdeadlyforDerrida'stheoryitself.Supposingforamomentthatithas ameaning,applyinghisprescriptionsdisruptitcompletely.Actuallyyoucouldsubstitute anysentencewithanyelse,onceyoucutthetiesbetweenlogosandwords,nomatterif

written or spoken, because in absence of a principle of order (logos, in a Heraclitus' flavour) thereisnotheoricreasonforchoosingtosubstituteasentence,sayit'scold today,withthebirdsflyhigh morethanwith mycarisbrokenandpurple:both makesenseifyouaredeconstructingit'scoldtoday.Thisisunfortunatelytruealsofor anytheoricsentencebyDerrida.Actually,anyway,allofthishasmuchmoretodowith poetry,soevenifIdon'tgetwhyyoushoulddeconstructatext,whenyoucansimply writedownwhateveryoulike, feelfree.Ohwell,Icanunderstand...callingyourweird sentencesadeconstructionofJoyce'sUlyssesaddssomevaluetoyourwork,andmay helpyoutogetadate;) Ok,nevermind,justkidding.