Diana Manister wrote:
> Dear Ken,
> Either/or, like all binaries, depend on totalizing each element. Male/
> Female, for instance. Derrida among others points out that
> essentializing distorts.
Essentializing sex distorts. See Laqueur, Making Sex: Body and Gender
from the Greeks to Freud_. It makes more sense to see _one_ sex, many
genders. But this cannot be generalized int "essentializing distorts."
Essentializing species is necessary to understand evolution. See Stephen
Jay Gould, _The Structure of Evolutoinary Theory_. I would agree that no
society, including any particular capitalist society, is a totality. But
capitalism, unlike all other social systems, is a complex of
_tendencies_ which,if realized, would constitute a totality. Hence (as
in Hegel's The truth is the whole) capitalism can be understood
historically, as history, and thus dialectically. Hence it has an
essence, though one never realized in any specific capitalist regime.
See Moishe Postone, _Time, Labor and Social Domination_.
Male and female are more alike than not.
> Derrida replaced duality with differance, which means more than the
> Anglo word difference.
Cite a specific text for this. I myself, never got a grip on what he
meant by this, but I do know that popular use of it is often half-baked.
A dead possu and a live rhino are pretty different, no playing with
> Post-Kantian philosophies are not dualistic. Except for Sartre who
> didn't get it.
I give up. Where in the hell do you get all this canned fluff.
> It seems clearer to use differance rather than a binary to express the
> multiple choices you describe.
> Sent from my iPod
> On Jan 16, 2010, at 8:16 AM, Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]>
> > Nancy Gish wrote:
> >> Neither works if you try to follow it to any logical conclusion.
> >> But then, as I said, I discuss this in the article on
> >> "Subjectivities," which focuses on how Anglo-American and French
> >> theories are set down on a template like Scottish poetry where they
> >> just do not explain anything--one of them being these notions of
> >> discourse as either totally originated by the lyric voice or
> >> totally constructed by language. I never feel constrained by
> >> "either/or"; it is pretty much always a false dichotomy.
> > I had a friend who insisted that the meaning of either/or (in
> > Kierkegaard no less) was "take your pick" or "six of one, half a
> > dozen of the other"! False choices are false choices, between which
> > one is not constrained to choose. But without arriving, somewhat
> > regularly, at true either/or's, what progress does thought make?
> > Ken A