Deconstruction deconstruction is the most important movement of the post-structural literary criticism as well as a group the most controversial as well. Perhaps there is no theory in literary criticism has raised waves of admiration and created a state of alienation and resentment, as did the dismantling in recent years. On the one hand, we find that some of the pillars of cash (such as c. Hillis Miller and Paul de Man and Geoffrey Hartmann, Harold Bloom) are pioneers disassembly in both theory and practice, despite the diversity of style, enthusiasm, and on the other hand, we find that a lot of critics who lie in box Monetary traditional look dissatisfied with the dismantling have argued that ridiculous and evil and destructive. Did not affect any intellectual center in Europe and America from the controversy in the value of this new theory in cash.
Is the dismantling of a devastating right? If yes, how to be and why? If the answer is no, then why this fear? Can not answer these questions only after understanding the concepts of dismantling basic and evaluation, and perhaps the best place from which we can achieve our goal is a book in his "writing" (2) Grammatology Of who is a San dismantling ... the outstanding work done by Jacques Derrida, the philosopher and critic of France.
I believe that research that explores Derrida and his theory of deconstruction faced obstacles main points, the first created by the method of Derrida himself characterized by raising uncertainty as well as the terminology and concepts, while the other is a series of critical views which are interpretations of interpretations are inadequate or ill-interpretations misinterpretations possible, although light wielded by some of the difficult concepts that form Derrida. And I'm going to document some of these critical comments as before and evaluate the concepts of disassembly.
PM stresses. E. M. Abrams H. Abrams to highlight the part of Derrida's theory is: "1 that the transfer consideration of the language to writing, written or printed text, 2 he sees the text in a specific way unusual" (3). Abrams did not intentionally to simplify the status of Derrida as Tvkikia through Abannioyen equated with the other French, but was marred to a great extent when he tried to identify some key words in deconstructive criticism such as "writing" ecriture and "text" text. He showed that when Derrida's writing is the printed text or written that the concept of a specific text in a way unusual.
I will prove in the course of my evaluation of Derrida and my comment was that what was stated by Abrams, nothing more than a handful of bad interpretations that did not tell us what the dismantling of things, but has not been to the dismantling of an onion.
The Newton Garver, Newton Garvar is another commentator on Derrida, as it emphasizes that Derrida is one of the philosophers of language, and it emphasizes the primacy of rhetoric to logic:
Derrida subsumed under the banner of the movement that looks at the impact that play Almlfozat utterances in the speech that it represents the actual nature of language and meaning, which, because this is the logic of justification Mstenbta rhetoric (4).
The received argument that says that the dismantling of a discipline rhetorical, with the support Hillis Miller, who says: "The dismantling search legacy bequeathed by the metaphor and the concept and the narrative in each other, and this is why the dismantling of cognitive rhetorical field" (5). Murray believes Krieger Murray Krieger that Derrida's "structural cash to overcome the structural and coerced, and may have been negated as well," adding that the attack by Derrida is "a form more recent attack, the old attack Plato the poet as a creator of myths" (6). Emphasizes Frederic Jameson Fredric Jemson Derrida denies that thought they overcome metaphysics and escape from the old model for the purpose of screening new and undiscovered (7).
It is possible that these comments are a source of misleading if the enumerated data or evaluated properly to the theory of Derrida, despite its usefulness in the process of research in disassembly, we when we Derrida with the rest of the philosophers of language who think that the logic derived from the rhetoric, this means to block the possibility of awareness of modern ideas, and the equality of Derrida's Plato and emphasized that Derrida reiterates long-standing dispute with the legendary myth is an insult to the status of Derrida, and emphasized that Derrida did not do anything but to take the attention from the "speak" to "writing" Thus, the inventory of the text in the cell particular, is misinterpretation really. The one should be cautious when approaching the secondary sources to understand Derrida and deconstruction. The split critics groups ... Either they fail to understand Derrida or abuse interpret his ideas, and for this reason can not invoke Article secondary, can not we prepare roads impassable to reach the world of disassembly, but that there Other critics like Harold Bloom, Harold Bloom and Hillis Miller and Paul de Man Paul DeMan and Jeffrey Hartmann Jeoffrey Hartman, who are as far as the authenticity of Derrida, but that each one of them is almost a school and rarely explains Derrida ... great teacher for dismantlement. The understanding of Derrida's first step towards understanding the disassembly, and is no doubt that the first step requires overzealous ideas of Derrida.
Can say that the theory of deconstruction need a lot of new analysis and any attempt by any critic is trying to analyze this theory does not need to dismantle the definition necessarily because such a complex theoretical and complex that defies definition. On the contrary, one can attempt to explain the basic terminology created by Derrida to destroy the critical tradition and to facilitate the act of dismantling ... and this is the first step which I will here, and my intention After describing the terminology and analysis that came out Derrida's answer to the question to how to enable the dismantling of the re- literary criticism, and I will in the final stages of analysis that what was described as absurd is not as well but the dismantling of the contents of the spiritual.
It is worth mentioning that the "writing" and "speak" words that Axial can begin by understanding. Enjoy these words, especially in terms of traditional concepts of language, as these concepts provide for the primacy of speech and the priority over the writing, although the spoken word "voice" phone word of Foreign Affairs and has the ability to self-erasure. As you know, the spoken word as one voice (audio) and the function is invoking the concept represented by the ultrasound. Fade and the spoken word audio or image in the process of invoking the concept, which is why they put out the same as the indication in the process of demonstrating the significance of which he is more important than anything else. Can not imagine this meaning only through ultrasound, which is indicative. It is possible to note here that there is something like the Trinity in this relationship: the mind of mankind, dal (ultrasound), meaning (concept).
Now, what the place occupied by the written word in the traditional understanding of the language? Proceeding from the traditional concept of a language known written word as a representation of the written to the spoken word: In this regard, it is D the spoken word ... and so on, "the written word is D. Dahl is secondary to the spoken word" can not do the written word of anything other than the representation of the spoken word while that the spoken word is the signifier. If I wanted to evoke the concept of "flower" I should then uttering a voice, "flower" (Flowers e), and is indicative of the ultrasound image or audio. But when I write the word "flower" What is the only representation of ultrasound through the structure of written graphic structure. Are not connected with this picture in any written relevant concept, but the picture is written can not represent the concept to the structure of it visible to the visual image as non-vocal, it's something like a spectrum. Is secondary to ultrasound can be neglected, but must be neglected.
It should be noted here that the traditional arguments that were attributed to a secondary position to the written word and place of the President of the spoken word is the metaphysical and theological arguments (. Derrida wrote in his commentary on the metaphysical basis upon which the concept of the spoken word, saying:
.... The understanding of God is the other name for logos logos as self-presence. It is possible that an infinite self and present, can also be generated through voice as a self-prescription. It is an arrangement which can be indicative of the self from which to borrow from outside itself indicative of the overwhelming influence at the same time. As well as the case with the audio experience, celebrating the experience and announces itself as the exclusion of writing, in other words, the exclusion of D "outer", "significant", "spatial" which impede the self-presence (9).
Derrida stresses that the concepts of speech and writing traditional "transmitting to the outside of the meaning" (10) logocentric, and this is another important term used by Derrida to mean what metaphysics is a vector or a vector is a theological (11). To be more precise I would like to point out that the concepts of speech and writing and may be formed by Achtrtthma and controlled by metaphysics. The truth is that this "concentration on the logos" is "centered on the sound" phonocentrism .. This belief, which believes that the sound almost transcendent reality (12) transcendental. We find that the theory of Derrida's positioning on the logos, and concentration on the sound are terms different represent a single phenomenon: evolution metaphysical metaphysical genesis of the concept of speech and understanding. It focuses on the positioning of the logos, and concentration on the sound on the sound, because these two concepts Itoldan of the belief that that sound has been mediating between the human mind and the transcendent reality. It could be argued that this argument for the concept of the Indian approach to the authority of the mantras. Which could be defined as "a sound or series of votes. We believe that the voice of authority because we believe that it can raise power condescending; it due importance to the tone of the words that Nntgaha ... How can the voice of a certain word we call them" mantra "Be in possession of power? It enjoy this privilege because we believe that the sound works as an intermediary between the logos, and transcendent authority. and I'm not trying here to confirm that the traditional Western concept of private stationed on the Logos, concentration on sound is the same concept to your mantra, but I assure there are similarities.
We note in dismantling that there is another element in "concentration on writing" graphocentrism, a term important needed explanation before entering into the theory of Derrida. It is possible to begin to say that writing writing writing graphic, and Jerafim grapheme is the letter in the alphabet, or as the total letters or groups of craft that could indicate Alfonim phoneme (which can be defined as the smallest unit of speech marked Mlfoza or a word of spoken last or other word in language). And if we know that writing can therefore be written to say that Jerafim, according to what is mentioned in the traditional concept, D exchange intended to write unit does not have any connection, except it represents the ultrasound. For this reason, we can say that the intention to write about themselves in the midst is the transmission of the importance of speech to write, which represents a reversal of the concept of the traditional view that the priority of speech or the spoken word on the writing or the written word.
There are a number of critics believe that the dismantling of which was brought by Derrida is a shift from concentration on the logos to be concentrated on writing (13), and this is not the Note is innocent and must express their meaning by dragging out the explanation, I believe that the best way to clarify this issue is to try to simplify the matter by measurement. If it can be compared with writing and speaking and the concept they represent, body, spirit and the transcendent reality, then the focus is on speech is to focus on the Spirit (and focus on the speech is to focus on positioning and positioning on the sound on the logos). The focus on writing is the focus on the body (and focus on writing is the concentration on writing). If dismantling concentrated on writing, and if the concentration on writing means focusing on writing, then can be defined dismantling as a rejection of the primacy of the Spirit and the power of the medium, and it is a challenge to what is moral, it is immersion in the earthly life, it means the disappearance of the Lord ... Is it convincing to say that disassembly Nihilistic nihilistic? Can be said that these assertions are correct, the answer to the above questions is "yes" for everything he says Derrida, and all what it meant dismantling. I will return to this issue after studying the terms which are working in Derrida's Deconstruction tools.
After the presentation of Derrida's metaphysical and theological basis of the concepts of speech and writing, he proceeded to examine the issue of verbal description of the language and concepts that are trying to build the description. In fact, Derrida was a reaction to the theory of Saussure, which says that the mark linguistic sign is the unity of signifier and signified. Claims Linguistics modern, based on the concept of signifier and signified, and structural, which condemns the concept, they have made the study of language and did Monetary fields Marafien scientists, and between Derrida that this claim is to deceive as because the concept of signifier and signified in language that reached us from the linguistics is the image of of the concept of the traditional speech and writing. Derrida has noted during his presentation of the relationship between metaphysics and theology, as follows:
Always suggests the concept of the mark within the same difference between signifier and signified ... so that was appealing against that they are two sides of one coin, and for this reason, keep this concept in the heritage of the concept of concentration on the Logos, which is in fact concentrated on the sound: absolute convergence between voice and Asot and the entity being, and the voice and the meaning of Being and ideal meaning. (OG, p. 112)
For this reason, the pattern language that is said to have made a scientific linguistics and structural borrowed enthusiastically as a model for cash, is in fact the same old pattern, any pattern "logos on the concentration - concentration on the Sound," which is the product of metaphysics.
It is clear that Derrida's gathering of metaphysics and linguistics in one box and this means that metaphysics opens the way for Verbal to imagine the phenomenon of language in the light of the bipolar, meaning that the concepts of the metaphysical notion of realism and idealism, the concept of body and spirit, the concept of good and evil opens the way for verbal and enabled him to perception of language in the light of bipolarity similar. The argument for verbal gaffes, which says that the image audio conjures up the concept (ie, the signifier evokes meaning), focused on the priority of the spoken word to written word, and in this regard, linguistics, structuralism is a modified form of neglect of traditional writing, that neglect caused by the reluctance of philosophical and metaphysical of nature of the external, visual, and embodied the written word, and is therefore clear that the concept behind the traditional language, and the concept behind the brand of tongue when Saussure ambushed metaphysics in the form of conditionality strong force.
He was Derrida called "vulgar concept of writing" on the concept of writing, which neglected the concept of language, traditional and modern linguistics, and several secondary concept, ie, nothing that does not exist only for the purpose of the representation of sound embodied in writing. He adds that the belief that prevailed in the western heritage is about to write it "character" and "visual pattern" and "the body and the article" Foreign Affairs in the logos. This is a banal concept specifically. The rejection of Derrida's concept vulgar, who was brought to our understanding of the language, although we were not aware of him completely, as the face of our performance in the field of literary criticism through us to believe that everything derive meaning and gives it only when linked to an idea, which should be linked to , in contrast, the idea of another, and so forth, so that these ideas are brought together in our idea of Being condescending This is why our idea of Being transcendent function as the idea of controlling our thoughts on language, and ideas in cash ... Thus the criticism of poem discovery of meaning ... as that given by is an idea or concept can be linked to the idea again, and will consolidate the process of linking some of the other ideas in our understanding of being condescending. It should be noted that all the fragments of ideas that can be woven in the pattern of one, collected by a single center represents our idea of the transcendent Being The pattern suggests that there is likelihood of the total. Can be defined in principle the idea that the collective entity which is the creativity of metaphysics. Derrida has been trying to edit our understanding of the language and criticism of this act of collective influence exercised by metaphysics, and reached a liberalization process through the formulation of new terms is possible that the ancient medical concept of language and the way the old currency. But our minds were subjected to the requirements of the traditional understanding of language, whether we were aware of that understanding or not. When we claim we are, we formulated the new ideas we did not do, in fact, but the transformation of old ideas. For example, the linguistic terminology that was brought by Saussure, which is said to have revolutionized our understanding of the language is the product of another metaphysics; we repeat ourselves when we say that the format of the new scientific language. And the right that it is possible to generate new ideas when the mind is neutral. The intent behind Derrida's view of the metaphysical basis of language and currency is paid to the neutrality of our minds that we are fully aware that an entirely natural phenomenon an example of language to hide the seeds of metaphysics, and even a scientific explanation for the language by Saussure is in fact a victim of metaphysics. Derrida has been initiated since the introduction of metaphysical foundation upon which stand the language, terminology in the formulation of which can generate a new understanding of the language .. These two steps are dismantling the structure. Now I will start as a deconstructionist terminology and correct them.
Was based on the concept of writing the new drafted by Derrida to three words are very complex: the difference difference and impact trace and write the original [first] (14) arche - writing. I will work on the interpretation of each term of these terms of the three broadest possible allowed by the determinants of this project, and how I will lead by these terms to do disassembly. The difference refers to the two actions actions: 1 that is different, not to be similar "differ" 2 to postpone and postpone (15) (11) "defer". It should be pointed out that the first and second spatial spatial temporal temporal. In the view of Derrida that every sign of leading this dual function: the difference and deferral, which is why the structure of the mark still required by the difference and deferral, and not through the signifier and signified, in the sense that the structure of the mark is the difference, which means that the mark is something that is similar to another sign, and something does not exist in the mark at all. This can be illustrated by example of what we said the following: we distinguish between the words three [means three] and tree [mean tree] (16) in speech and writing, they are completely different and revolutions reveal their identity. This is one of the two differences of the two in each tab. The other force in the tag is its ability to delay, ie, its ability to delay. For example, the word "rose" in the poem does not begin to disclose the meaning only when we realize that it is not a flower that we see in reality, but to have something else, something that should be detected. For this reason, the half full mark and the other half is inadequate, and this fact is necessary for the beginning of our understanding, it was not sufficient due to lack of it. As emphasized by Saussure, the tag is not a "signifier + signified" but the mark is "difference + delay". Saussure believes that the mark in the Union when he sees Derrida's difference.
Since the label is inadequate and incomplete so it should be understood as "under the cancellation [erase]" under erasure, a term coined by Derrida to point to the inadequacy of marks and the lack thereof. It is written, but with that write-offs, we Ncdobaa to point to the lack of it. For this reason, each carrying a sign that reference them. For example, the word "visible" used by the above did not carry any clear indication of it, but a sign nonetheless. But if we look at from the angle Deconstruction they will then sign written off, as follows: "visible". It should not take the idea of finishing the mark on the more literal, but in a manner suggestive only. This suggests a lack of Diagonal cut marks and inadequate, but inconclusive. There is no sign we can say about it D for something eternal, it does not have any absolute value, as it does not transmit anything transcendent .. Valalamp contextual contextual, meaning it creates a mirage, but the bulk of what you can do it send us in search of what you need is a mechanism and a reminder of what an object is not there.
