Derrida and Wittgenstein | Garver & Lee

[atreestump]

I have opened up this thread for now, although it is not strictly speaking active. I wanted to share some intitial thoughts after reading the introduction and some of chapter 2, the introduction is chapter 1 by the way.

The book is very easy to read, I think it is by far the simplest book on Wittgenstein (as he has been the main philosopher to be discussed up to this point) I have read so far.

It is painstaking in detail when it comes to comparing Saussure's structural linguistics to Wittgenstein. I like how it clarifies the embodiment of rules in language, which is interesting.

Anyway, that's a very brief skimming through, first impressions type post. I will not be posting the PDF, as I don't have it, any readings from this book will have to come from a physical copy, or your own PDF if you have it I am afraid.

[thetrizzard]

Based on what I have read of the reviews, may I suggest we stick with the other book on Derrida before moving on to this, I'd like you to have some grounding in Derrida first


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[atreestump]

Yeah, it was just a thumbing through. Looks good though.

[atreestump]

Did yu manage to find that b00k abut Baudrillard?

[atreestump]

test

[kFoyauextlH]

https://www.literatureandcriticism.com/ ... -and-play/

https://www.academia.edu/42973235/Derri ... _Chong_Lee

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Opposition

https://www2.csudh.edu/ccauthen/576f13/DrrdaSSP.pdf

http://www.signosemio.com/derrida/decon ... erance.asp

https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/ ... signifier/

https://philosophy.institute/research-m ... signified/

http://hydra.humanities.uci.edu/derrida/sign-play.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff%C3%A9rance

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structu ... n_Sciences

"
"Structure, Sign, and Play" identifies a tendency for philosophers to denounce each other for relying on problematic discourse, and argues that this reliance is to some degree inevitable because we can only write in the language we inherit. Discussing the anthropology of Claude Lévi-Strauss, Derrida argues that we are all bricoleurs, creative thinkers who must use the tools we find around us.

Although presented at a conference intended to popularize structuralism, the lecture is widely cited as the starting point for post-structuralism in the United States. Along with Derrida's longer text Of Grammatology, it is also programmatic for the process of deconstruction.
"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricolage

"
Bricolage is a French loanword that means the process of improvisation in a human endeavor. The word is derived from the French verb bricoler ("to tinker"), with the English term DIY ("Do-it-yourself") being the closest equivalent of the contemporary French usage. In both languages, bricolage also denotes any works or products of DIY endeavors.[1][2]

The arts
Academics
edit
Anthropology
edit
In anthropology, bricolage refers to a process of improvisation using available materials and ideas. Claude Lévi-Strauss introduced the concept in ''The Savage Mind'' (1962), contrasting the bricoleur—who creatively recombines existing elements—with the engineer, who works from theoretical plans. While he linked the bricoleur to mythical thought, Lévi-Strauss emphasized that this way of thinking is not inferior; in fact, scientific thought often involves bricolage.[8] Later scholars, such as Hervé Varenne and Jill Koyama, extended the concept to describe the processual and improvised nature of cultural practices, especially in educational settings. [9]

Contemporary critique by Tim Ingold
edit
In the introduction to Creativity and Cultural Improvisation (2007), anthropologist Tim Ingold challenges Claude Lévi-Strauss's notion of bricolage, arguing that bricolage views creativity as the rearrangement of stable elements, whereas creativity in life involves the ongoing emergence and transformation of elements. Drawing on process philosophy—notably Henri Bergson and Alfred North Whitehead—he proposes a more fluid and emergent view of creativity, grounded in movement and becoming.[10]

Literature
edit
In literature, bricolage is affected by intertextuality, the shaping of a text's meanings by reference to other texts.

Cultural studies
edit
In cultural studies, bricolage is used to mean the processes by which people acquire objects from across social divisions to create new cultural identities. In particular, it is a feature of subcultures such as the punk movement. Here, objects that possess one meaning (or no meaning) in the dominant culture are acquired and given a new, often subversive meaning. For example, the safety pin became a form of decoration in punk culture.[11]

Social psychology
edit
The term "psychological bricolage" is used to explain the mental processes through which an individual develops novel solutions to problems by making use of previously unrelated knowledge or ideas they already possess. The term, introduced by Jeffrey Sanchez-Burks, Matthew J. Karlesky and Fiona Lee[12] The Oxford Handbook of Creativity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship of the University of Michigan, draws from two separate disciplines. The first, "social bricolage," was introduced by cultural anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss in 1962. Lévi-Strauss was interested in how societies create novel solutions by using resources that already exist in the collective social consciousness. The second, "creative cognition," is an intra-psychic approach to studying how individuals retrieve and recombine knowledge in new ways. Psychological bricolage, therefore, refers to the cognitive processes that enable individuals to retrieve and recombine previously unrelated knowledge they already possess.[13][14] Psychological bricolage is an intra-individual process akin to Karl E. Weick's notion of bricolage in organizations, which is akin to Lévi-Strauss' notion of bricolage in societies.[15]

Philosophy
edit
In his book The Savage Mind (1962, English translation 1966), French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss used "bricolage" to describe the characteristic patterns of mythological thought. In his description it is opposed to the engineers' creative thinking, which proceeds from goals to means. Mythical thought, according to Lévi-Strauss, attempts to re-use available materials in order to solve new problems.[16][17][18]

Jacques Derrida extends this notion to any discourse. "If one calls bricolage the necessity of borrowing one's concept from the text of a heritage which is more or less coherent or ruined, it must be said that every discourse is bricoleur."[19]

Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, in their 1972 book Anti-Oedipus, identify bricolage as the characteristic mode of production of the schizophrenic producer.[20]

Education
edit
In the discussion of constructionism, Seymour Papert discusses two styles of solving problems. Contrary to the analytical style of solving problems, he describes bricolage as a way to learn and solve problems by trying, testing, playing around.

Joe L. Kincheloe and Shirley R. Steinberg have used the term bricolage in educational research to denote the use of multiperspectival research methods. In Kincheloe's conception of the research bricolage, diverse theoretical traditions are employed in a broader critical theoretical/critical pedagogical context to lay the foundation for a transformative mode of multimethodological inquiry. Using these multiple frameworks and methodologies, researchers are empowered to produce more rigorous and praxiological insights into socio-political and educational phenomena.

Kincheloe and Steinberg theorize a critical multilogical epistemology and critical connected ontology to ground the research bricolage. These philosophical notions provide the research bricolage with a sophisticated understanding of the complexity of knowledge production and the interrelated complexity of both researcher positionality and phenomena in the world. Such complexity demands a more rigorous mode of research that is capable of dealing with the complications of socio-educational experience. Such a critical form of rigor avoids the reductionism of many monological, mimetic research orientations (see Kincheloe, 2001, 2005; Kincheloe & Berry, 2004; Steinberg, 2015; Kincheloe, McLaren, & Steinberg, 2012).
"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subculture

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_identity

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Savage_Mind

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Oedipus

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital ... izophrenia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Thousand_Plateaus

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intertextuality

"
Intertextuality is the shaping of a text's meaning by another text, either through deliberate compositional strategies such as quotation, allusion, calque, plagiarism, translation, pastiche or parody,[1][2][3][4][5] or by interconnections between similar or related works perceived by an audience or reader of the text.[6] These references are sometimes made deliberately and depend on a reader's prior knowledge and understanding of the referent, but the effect of intertextuality is not always intentional and is sometimes inadvertent. Often associated with strategies employed by writers working in imaginative registers (fiction, poetry, and drama and even non-written texts like performance art and digital media),[7][8] intertextuality may now be understood as intrinsic to any text.[9]

Intertextuality has been differentiated into referential and typological categories. Referential intertextuality refers to the use of fragments in texts and the typological intertextuality refers to the use of pattern and structure in typical texts.[10] A distinction can also be made between iterability and presupposition. Iterability makes reference to the "repeatability" of certain text that is composed of "traces", pieces of other texts that help constitute its meaning. Presupposition makes a reference to assumptions a text makes about its readers and its context.[11] As philosopher William Irwin wrote, the term "has come to have almost as many meanings as users, from those faithful to Julia Kristeva's original vision to those who simply use it as a stylish way of talking about allusion and influence".[12]
"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allusion

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakobso ... f_language

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_influence

"
The colloquium came under scrutiny from the new journal Telos when, in 1970, Richard Moss published an article criticizing its sponsors and denouncing it as an agent of multinational capitalism.[36][37] Derrida, in particular, drew criticism from Marxists such as Fredric Jameson who criticized deconstruction's emphasis on textuality abstracted from class struggle.[38]

The New York Times argued in its obituary for Derrida that "Structure, Sign, and Play" offered professors of literature a philosophical movement they could legitimately consider their own.[39]
"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzsc ... rpretation

"
Jacques Derrida took interest in Nietzschean affirmation as a recognition of the absence of a center or origin within language and its many parts, with no firm ground from which to base any Logos or truth. This shock allows for two reactions in Derrida's philosophy: the more negative, melancholic response, which he designates as Rousseauistic, or the more positive Nietzschean affirmation. Rousseau's perspective focuses on deciphering the truth and origin of language and its many signs, an often exhaustive occupation. Derrida's response to Nietzsche, however, offers an active participation with these signs and arrives at, in Derridean philosophy, a more resolute response to language.

In "Structure, Sign, and Play", Derrida articulates Nietzsche's perspective as:

... the joyous affirmation of the play of the world and of the innocence of becoming, the affirmation of a world of signs without fault, without truth, and without origin which is offered to an active interpretation.[8]

Derrida not only fostered Nietzsche's work but evolved it within the sphere of language; in doing so, he acquired and employs Nietzsche's optimism in his conception of the 'play' of language - that is inherent in language - as being far more than just "the substitution of given and existing, present, pieces".[8] Much of this spirit resides in the abandonment of any sort of new humanism; this acceptance of the inevitable allows for considerable relief – evident in the designation of the loss of center as a non-center – as well as the opportunity to affirm and cultivate play, which enables humanity and the humanities "to pass beyond man and humanism".[8]

In Gilles Deleuze's ontology, affirmation is defined as a positive power of a self-driven differentiation of forces that is opposed to the sublated interdependence of opposites of the Hegelian dialectic.[9] In Difference and Repetition Deleuze connects his concept of ontological intensive quantities to that which "affirms even the lowest".[10] This is paralleled somewhat in Nietzsche's idea that the Eternal Return had "welded the furthest to the nearest, and fire to spirit and joy to sorrow and the wickedest to the kindest" in the heart of his character Zarathustra.[11]
"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differe ... Repetition

"
Deleuze occasionally departs from the realm of pure philosophy to make explicitly sociopolitical statements.[non-primary source needed] They include:

"We claim that there are two ways to appeal to 'necessary destructions': that of the poet, who speaks in the name of a creative power, capable of overturning all orders and representations in order to affirm Difference in the state of permanent revolution which characterizes eternal return; and that of the politician, who is above all concerned to deny that which 'differs,' so as to conserve or prolong an established historical order" (53).

"Real revolutions have the atmosphere of fêtes. Contradiction is not the weapon of the proletariat but, rather, the manner in which the bourgeoisie defends and preserves itself, the shadow behind which it maintains its claim to decide what the problems are" (268).

"The more our daily life appears standardised, stereotyped, and subject to an accelerated reproduction of objects of consumption, the more art must be injected into it in order to extract from it that little difference which plays simultaneously between other levels of repetition, and even in order to make the two extremes resonate—namely, the habitual series of consumption and the instinctual series of destruction and death" (293).
"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philoso ... y_of_terms

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgen ... xperiments

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zettel_ ... tein_book)

"
Zettel (German: "slip(s) of paper") is a collection of assorted remarks by Ludwig Wittgenstein, first published in 1967. It contains several discussions of philosophical psychology and of the tendency in philosophy to try for a synoptic view of phenomena.[1] Analyzed subjects include sense, meaning, thinking while speaking, behavior, pretense, imagination, infinity, rule following, imagery, memory, negation, contradiction, calculation, mathematical proof, epistemology, doubt, consciousness, mental states, and sensations.[1]
"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remarks ... Psychology

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philoso ... stigations

https://www.reddit.com/r/capacitiesapp/ ... nd_a_page/

"
ApplicationCreepy987
•
10mo ago
Completely different concepts. A zettel is a singular idea, small note and is an object whilst a page is where you display your objects. Think of a stamp collection. The stamps individually are zettels but you want to display them so you create a page with a number of stamps on them. The great thing about pages is you can filter your objects so if you have a group of zettals on say zebras and another group on French philosophy quotes you can create pages which only display your zebra zebras.

No idea why I chose zebras

track me


Upvote
19

Downvote

Reply
reply

mushisooshi
•
10mo ago
zebras are dope


Upvote
3

Downvote

Reply
reply

elgosh
•
9mo ago
THANK YOU for explaining this in such a clear way! Stamps were a great example to explain the difference between zettels and pages, but you really won me over with the zebras.


Upvote
1

Downvote

Reply
reply

arlazina
•
10mo ago
The term zettel comes from the term zettelkasten. It's German I believe, and refers to a system of linking together small pieces of information (zettels) in order to build your own library of information on a topic (a zettelkasten).



Upvote
3

Downvote

Reply
reply

Jobusan524943
•
10mo ago
The mathematician and scientist Leibniz, who independently discovered calculus around the same time as Newton, originated (or maybe popularized is more accurate) this zettlekasten system of notetaking and knowledge management.


Upvote
4

Downvote

Reply
reply

u/ZealousidealEast3255 avatar
ZealousidealEast3255
•
10mo ago
So what is a zettel by definition then? I get how it’s different from a page, what IS it? How is it different from the other objects in Capacities? Where do we get the term Zettel from?



Upvote
1

Downvote

Reply
reply

u/sirtichan avatar
sirtichan
•
10mo ago
It's just a template custom object type. Page is built-in. Zettle is not.

It's like, the Dev prepared it "maybe you will need this kind of object type".


Upvote
4

Downvote

Reply
reply

u/Olivir2023 avatar
Olivir2023
•
10mo ago
It is not a basic type, it is just a template. After adding you can rename it, change it's properties. If you don't understand it, don't use, there is no use.
"

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jYhRnNgva ... ure=shared

https://youtu.be/x86hLtOkou8?feature=shared

"
@labibbidabibbadum
1 month ago
The real problem is looking extremely closely at the beetle in your box and realising that it's holding a box.
"

https://youtu.be/PKyluf3U54E?feature=shared

https://youtu.be/TQUZhkf3aC0?feature=shared

Yikes.

[kFoyauextlH]

Is it alright if old threads like this are made use of again by broadening them to related subject matter, like what might have been covered in the book but not necessarily the exact things written in the book? I would like to hear more about your thoughts about this book as far as you recall it now and what you did with your copy over all this time?

The subject of language analysis, meaning, symbols, and the transfer of meaning and the translation or filtering of whatever one "receives", a misleading word in my opinion because nothing is transferred and they "receive" nothing that is sent or given purposefully, they mainly just react to what impacts them from something a person ends up triggering without knowing how it would impact them, like a fire or a b*mb, are important to me.

Humans and animals both seem to get the job done well enough. I'm mainly interested in spiritual dimensions and religious implications of these themes, which is also a part of this thread (but is still working on various areas):

The God(s): Deconstructing Religious & Magical Thinking
viewtopic.php?t=404

Gods as words, and collections of themes (referred to or pointed through by the use of words) that are considered by anyone or a cultural group as ontologically connected, a cloud or a swarm of different concepts, images, events, and whatever other sorts of somewhat abstract references may be part of each of these "God,(s)", which are like boxes holding meanings that together can also give more ideas or similar seeming or related things to try to give one an idea if what it may all be about, what that theme box is the "God Of" or their domain of activity and what they are "brought up" or "brought in" or "brought to mind" or "expressed, brought out" for.

In later "antique paganism", but possibly frequently for some and maybe always, possibly even for most, especially those who may have thought more or have had other reasons to make them think this way, including convenience, the many boxes could be said to be under one box, and each of the boxes can have more specific little boxes or manifestations in them that are even more particular and narrow in their scope, even though such still seemed broad in what they dealt with sometimes but reduced the amount of references that may have been included or thought of.