shiv wrote: That's pretty depressing about only a trace of meaning being left when conversing with someone, and the resulting misunderstanding that inevitably takes place, albeit to different degrees.
DadaKopf wrote: He did. He called it differance (pronnounced French stylee). I can't acutually remember what it means. The point is that words only signify things that aren't present. Books create words that don't exist before you, simple sentences stand in place of objects and concepts not present. Words actually only mean anything in relation to an entire system of language, which tends to get disconnected from systems of meaning. Language works best when it refers only to something immediately present to the interlocutors - or, for example, a DIY instruction book which refers only to the immanent physical task at hand. However, when people try to exchange their inner thoughts, there's a loss of meaning; even in an ideal speech situation, it's one thing to use language to signfy the world, it's another thing entirely to signify someone's intentions. Anyway, I found this excerpt from one of his more important books, On Grammatology.
shiv wrote: Interesting stuff, Dadakopf. That's pretty depressing about only a trace of meaning being left when conversing with someone, and the resulting misunderstanding that inevitably takes place, albeit to different degrees.
