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,

> > 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?