Dear Ken,

Choosing one thing and not another does not signify dualistic  
thinking. For example one could either be, not be, take a course in  
Continental philosophy, get some therapy, etc.

Diana

Sent from my iPod

On Jan 20, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]>  
wrote:

> Diana Manister wrote:
>> Dear Ken,
>> I must say you are the only one I've encountered who doesn't see  
>> the radical nature of Derrida's philosophy of /différance/;
>   I don't suppose getting out more would help? Or admitting that I'm  
> right? It's not the radical nature that I contest, but it's  
> shortcomings. He is radically wrong. But yes, radical.
>> using the French word has a purpose: it has more meanings than the  
>> English word /difference/, one of being /deferral/.
>   As you say, but I was explicitly following your lead below.
>
>> The adjectives "ponderous" and "fashionable" offer nothing in the  
>> way of critique; Aristotle was ponderous and fashionable in his  
>> time. You might just say you don't like Continental philosophy and  
>> be honest about it.
>  You imply that being honest about it would exclude my being correct  
> about it, another instance of your constant use of binaries, as  
> instanced again below but which you conveniently fail to  
> acknowledge. Is it that it's so obvious (your attachment to  
> binaries) that you don't think it should be acknowledged?  Accusing  
> me of dishonesty is simply an emotional decoy. Do I think the named  
> philosophers, using the term broadly, overrated? I do. But so what?  
> They are certainly open to criticism and  correction, my likes and  
> dislikes notwithstanding.
>
> Well, I've had enough fun with this, Diana. My original statement  
> was on the order that either/or situations are inevitable and not  
> surmountable except by choosing, i.e. you've got to go through them,  
> can't go over, under, around, etc. That is not to say that there are  
> not false compulsions to choose. Just that there are also true.   
> What's kept me in this little exchange is not your attachment to or  
> my dislike of "continental philosophers" or differance vs. binaries,  
> dualities, etc., but just the exercise of trying to get you to see  
> that you use "either/or's" all the time. You choose one thing  
> against another, one thought against another. Apparently your  
> resistance to recognizing or admitting that is hardier than to more  
> easily discerned (but still heartily contested) subjects such as the  
> spelling and bearing of :"Menand."
>
> To be or not to be, that is the question.
> (OMG! Does it depend on what "is" means?)
>
> Keep a good thought, deferred or otherwise,
> Ken
>
>>
>> > Diana Manister wrote:
>> > > Ken, if I say "red is a color but so is pink" am I establishing a
>> > > binary relationship or describing difference?
>    > Uh huh, I get it. But if you say, "I'm sorry but I simply see
>> > difference where you see opposition," you are, in your terms,
>> > "establishing a binary relationship." Get it?
>