Rough Theory

The reading group had a particularly glorious discussion today – I won’t pre-empt the online version, as LMagee has reserved the introductory posts on the Derrida and Searle debate over the next couple of weeks. (LMagee also tells me that I must stop writing so much on the blog, as this is causing uncertainty over whether it’s “clear” enough for others to post… I gather I’ve been engaging in the online equivalent of talking over everyone else… ;-P)

I will, though, say that we had a fantastic discussion of whether and how Derrida’s works might be considered political – a discussion that went back and forth in a most engaging manner, until LMagee introduced an historical example that was… extremely useful to me – much appreciated, LM, very kind of you… 🙂 I gather that LM was quite pleased to assist – or isn’t this how I should interpret this reaction?

Start introducing Derrida into things and all sorts of underhanded tactics get used – your own examples get used against you…

Regardless, LM will have the upper hand – or at least the introductory one ;-P – in the more formal discussion to take place here at an inderminate later date (presumably, whenever I shut up for long enough to allow others to post…).

For those keeping track of things from a distance, today’s discussion centred on Derrida’s “Signature Event Context” and Searle’s “Reiterating the Differences: A Reply to Derrida”. Next week we’ll pick up with the remainder of Derrida’s work – “Limited Inc a b c…” and “Afterword: Toward an Ethic of Discussion”.

Those who can’t find the time to read the original might consider consulting Scott Eric Kaufman’s graphic novel version of this debate.