I've been reading McGilchrist's The Master and his Emissary and can't stop thinking about one section. Here's the whole quote. I'll go through each bit below.pic.twitter.com/OFugL67chD
Show this thread
-
As far as I understand it, structuralism tried to get meaning out of just the top end, the web of relations between terms in language. This doesn't work on its own, there's no there *there* without the bottom end. In 'Force and Signification', Derrida called it a 'deserted city':pic.twitter.com/coFbJUqW9N
Show this thread
Derrida seemed to be very alive to the problem, and used resources from phenomenology to try and breathe life into the abandoned city.
Unfortunately he's unreadable! So I can't tell you whether his solution was any good. 
-
-
I think the bottom end without the top end is also a failure. You'd get a sort of unarticulated preconceptual soup with no structure to it. Language stabilises meaning.
Show this thread -
Finally, I really like what Poincaré had to say (in 1905!). Maths instead of language, but the imagery is strikingly similar to Derrida's deserted city. He saw that meaning had to get in from the bottom end too - 'the old intuitive notions of our fathers'. https://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Poincare_Intuition.html …pic.twitter.com/AJsTRR05mm
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Grounding in how OTHER’s respond, rather than grounding in myself, seems to me a rather more useful direction, the trick that has been missed by Derrida and these others.
-
Yes I'm pretty certain Derrida was missing this, and that it's important. Wittgenstein definitely wasn't missing it!
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.