Gvildenu | Mintys / Derrida

Paprieštaravimai egzistencializmo kritikui J.Derridai

Egzistencialistas renkasi

Pasirinkimai tarp troškimų - žiūrėti pirmyn ar atgal

Dairytis židinio ar kurti židinį?
Kaip yra ar kaip atrodo? Dievas ir viskas
Ar Jėzus Dievas
Kuo domėtis - smurtingaisiais
Iš ko pragyventi
Bendrystės
Dievas ir troškimai - neieškoti Dievo, o kviesti Dievą
Dievas ir viskas
viskas ir troškimai
troškimai ir meilė
viskas ir meilė
Dievas ir meilė

ramiai ir sutelktai žiūrėjau

dėmesio centras

nesidairome centro - mes kuriame centrą

prisilietimas akimis - kviesti Dievą, įtraukti Dievą

Viskas ir Dievas

visko savybės

susikalbėjimas su visais - su seneliu Kulikausku

Išvados - Žaismingumas ir rimtumas

Žaismo pavyzdys - šachmatus žaidžiantys kompiuteriai. Ir nebuvimo pavyzdys - žaidžia, kaip smauglys, atima priešininko galimybes.
Kompiuterio žaismas - kaip ir kodėl jinai leidžia sau "pažaisti", kaip katė su pele, užbaigiant žaidimą.
Kompiuteris gali būti žaismingas bet kol jas negali būti rimtas.
Įžvalgos (žaismas, išmintis) ar mokslas?
Prievartinis žaismas - tai negali būti rimta. O mano kaip tik rimta - atsiliepti į smurtą kenčiančius, rasti kiekvieno žmogaus centrą, jo kertinę vertybę.

A system of differences. (Palyginti: skirtumas tarp Dievo už mūsų ir Dievo mumyse - niekas, kažkas, betkas, viskas). Vidiniai skirtumai - ne išoriniai skirtumai

Dievo galimybę - priimti ar atmesti

atmesti - nesimetriška priešingybė, priimti galimybę - simetriška priešingybė

Derrida: Buvimas v. nebuvimas. (Man jie nėra lygiaverčiai.) Ar Dievas pąmastomas ar nepamąstomas?

Derrida admires the reflexivity and abstract analyses of structuralism, but argues that these discourses have still not gone far enough in treating structures as free-floating (or 'playing') sets of relationships. In particular, he accuses structuralist discourses of holding on to a "center": a privileged term that anchors the structure and does not play. Whether this center is "God", "being", "presence", or "man" (as it was at the colloquium), its function is the same, and the history of structures is a history of substitutions, one center after another, for this constant position. Derrida suggests that this model of structure will end—is ending—and that a newer and freer (though still unknown) thinking about structures will emerge.
The 'event' under discussion is the opening of the structure, which became inevitable "when the structurality of structure had to begin to be thought" and the contradictory role of the center exposed.[13] The result of the event, according to Derrida, must be the full version of structural "freeplay", a mode in which all terms are truly subject to the openness and mutability promised by structuralism. Derrida locates the beginning of this process in the writings of earlier philosophers, who continued to use the pattern of metaphysics even as they denounced it in others.

Viskas ir Dievas

Center is what "appears" fixed. - Skirti Dievą nuo visko. Viskas yra tai kas mums "atrodo", o Dieva yra tai kas "yra".

Dievas viską sukūrė. Negali būti, juk kas sukūrė Dievą?

Aš ieškau bendros tiesos, tad noriu parodyti, kuria prasme visi teisingi, tuo tarpu filosofai bando paneigti kitus filosofus, su jais ginčytis.

sąvoka viskas - išeities taškas

Derrida: centras

"Everything becomes discourse" viskas - bet užtat tylėjimas yra diskursas, svarbiausias, jeigu rimtai

The "center" is that element of a structure which appears given or fixed, thereby anchoring the rest of the structure and allowing it to play. In the history of metaphysics specifically, this function is fulfilled by different terms (which Derrida says are always associated with presence): "eidos, archè, telos, energia, ousia (essence, existence, substance, subject) aletheia, transcendentality, consciousness, or conscience, God, man, and so forth."[11] Whichever term is at the center of the structure, argues Derrida, the overall pattern remains similar. This central term ironically escapes structurality, the key feature of structuralism according to which all meaning is defined relationally, through other terms in the structure. From this perspective, the center is the most alien or estranged element in a structure: it comes from somewhere outside and remains absolute until a new center is substituted in a seemingly arbitrary fashion. "The center", therefore, "is not the center."
Derrida: Besides the tension of freeplay with history, there is also the tension of freeplay with presence. Freeplay is the disruption of presence. The presence of an element is always a signifying and substitutive reference inscribed in a system of differences and the movement of a chain. Freeplay is always an interplay of absence and presence, but if it is to be radically conceived, freeplay must be conceived before the alternative of presence and absence; being must be conceived of as presence or absence beginning with the possibility of freeplay and not the other way around.

Viską žinoti.

Center stage

There is nothing out of context

Absence of transcendental signified. Palyginti su Dievu.

Susidariau savo mokymosi programą. Parašiau rašinį apie senovės Egipto istoriją. Perskaičiau knygą apie Afrikos kultūras ir civilizacijas.

Having described a pattern—denouncing metaphysics while relying on it—in discourses about metaphysics, Derrida suggests consideration of the same pattern within the "human sciences",[16] whose subjection to the "critique of ethnocentrism" parallels the "destruction of the history of metaphysics" in philosophy.[17] Derrida argues that, just as philosophers use metaphysical terms and concepts to critique metaphysics (and criticize the use of these concepts by others), the ethnologist "accepts into his discourse the premises of ethnocentrism at the very moment when he is employed in denouncing them".[17] He examines the work of Claude Lévi-Strauss, particularly as it concerns "the opposition between nature and culture", as his case study and primary focus for the essay.

atsirinkti, ką dėti į savo protą - baladė apie išprievartavimą

Dievas gelbėdavo

Dievo paieškos lubose - kur blankiausia, dviprasmiškiausia. O tai yra mąstymas be žodžių - dvasinis stebėjimas, laukimas.

Derrida: But from the moment anyone wishes this to show, as I suggested a moment ago, that there is no transcendental or privileged signified and that the domain or the interplay of signification has, henceforth, no limit, he ought to extend his refusal to the concept and to the word sign itself-which is precisely what cannot be done. For the signification "sign" has always been comprehended and determined, in its sense, as sign-of, signifier referring to a signified, signifier different from its signified. If one erases the radical difference between signifier and signified, it is the word signifier itself which ought to be abandoned as a metaphysical concept.

Derrida: But we cannot do without the concept of the sign, we cannot give up this metaphysical complicity without also giving up the critique we are directing against this complicity, without the risk of erasing difference [altogether] in the self-identity of a signified reducing into itself its signifier, or, what amounts to the same thing, simply expelling it outside itself.

legendinis mąstymas - Rachel Baca

ir mylimoji

yra gerų ateistų - senelis Kulikauskas - tad įmanoma, kad visi susikalbėtų, jeigu tik juose glūdi tos pačios sąvokos, jeigu tik nuoširdūs - tad reikia, kad visi būtų teisingi, visus suprasti

Derrida: vieni griauna kitus

valdyti savo mąstymą - mąstyti lietuvių kalba - galiu rinktis, kuria kalba mąstysiu

Derrida: kalbos pasaulis mus supa

Kalbų pasaulyje yra labai įvairių ir tas pats protas gali jomis visomis mąstyti. Ne kalba lemia galimybes, o ji tiesiog jas išreiškia. Užtat kalba padeda daug ką įžvelgti, bet jinai nėra pagrindas.

Atsiriboti nuo mus supančios kultūros - puoselėti savo, alternatyvią kultūrą - ir rūpintis tolima tėvyne

Lietuvybė Amerikoje. Tautybės nesiskiria, bet jos kažką gero duoda. Tai žmogus gali pasirinkti savo tautybę, ir gali dalyvauti keliose tautose, kiek tiktai įstengia, arba jokioje. Ir tauta mus veikia per savo lobius, per pasąmonę, kalbą ir ženklus. O kiekvienas gali ją prisiimti, tad to linkėti.

Bet kokia nors etnologija būtų didžiausias pseudomokslas. Ir yra nevaisingų klausimų - pavyzdžiui, dėl rasių - nevaisingų žinių. Asmuo, ne asmenybė. Tad tai žalingas mąstymas, joks mokslas. Derrida šito nepastebi, nesuvokia.

Derrida: What is the relevance of this formal schema when we turn to what are called the "human sciences"? One of them perhaps occupies a privileged place-ethnology. One can in fact assume that ethnology could have been born as a science only at the moment when a de-centenng had come about: at the moment when European culture-and, in consequence, the history of metaphysics and of its concepts-had been dislocated, driven from its locus, and forced to stop considering itself as the culture of reference. This moment is not first and foremost a moment of philosophical or scientific discourse, it is also a moment which is political, economic, technical, and so forth. One can say in total assurance that there is nothing fortuitous about the fact that the critique of ethnocentrism-the very condition of ethnology-should be systematically and historically contemporaneous with the destruction of the history of metaphysics. Both belong to a single and same era.

nemeluoti

Gyvenome utopijoje. Sukūrė utopiją

Disnyeland 1955. Pravažiuoji Disneylandą - Materhorno kalną pravažiuoji Derrida

Iš kur aš žinau, kad aš nesu Dievas? Kas aš esu? Valia ar protas ar kas? Aš esu savo būklė.

savęs glamonėjimas - skirtumas tarp proto ir valios

Egzistencializmas atsisako metafizikos -
tvirtina, kad gyvenimas yra tarsi beprasmis - mąstyti iš centro pusės, taip pat - įsisavinimas šešerybėje
Ontologija yra tarsi buvimo, būties nusakymas, bet iš tikrųjų, tai gaunasi ištakų ir pamatų paieškos.
Gyvenimo klausimas ir atsakymas. "Kas aš esu?" Mes esame klausimas. Tillich: Atsakymas yra iš už mūsų, jisai transcendentinis, už mus platesnis. Klausimu ir atsakymu susisiekiame su tuo, kas už mus plačiau.

Derrida netikintis/tikintis, melsdavosi, panagrinėdavo šventąjį Raštą - bet klausimas, kaip jis suprato Dievo santykį su jo žodžiu

Jėzus yra Dievas - gali Dievą atpažinti iš jo žodžių

Mitas, kad Jėzus buvo, kad jį nukryžiavo, kad jis prisikėlė.

Galima mąstyti be kalbos. Ir tai grynesnis, paprastesnis mąstymas. Kalba trukdo mąstyti paprastai, įveda papildomus klodus, keičia mąstymo kryptį.

Jėzaus pasisakymai - "Mylėk priešą" - remiasi milžinišku susikaupusiu, nusistovėjusiu kalbos krūviu - tai žodžiai ne šiaip. Kalba yra pasidalinimas išgyvenimais. Jinai lanksti - ją galima suprasti kaip norime - tačiau jinai sukaupia įsipareigojimus. Užtat kiekvienas galime kalbą perprasti, ją pakankamai suprasti, susikurti sau kalbos modelį, kalboje sudalyvauti, ją taipogi sąmoningai ar nesąmoningai perkurti. Bet tai vyksta nesurenkant atomus, o atrenkant tinkamus veiksmus.

In effect the study of myths poses a mythological problem by the fact that it cannot conform to the Cartesian principle of dividing the difficulty into as many parts as are necessary to resolve it. There exists no veritable end or term to mythical analysis, no secret unity which could be grasped at the end of the work in decomposition. The themes duplicate themselves to infinity. When we think we have disentangled them from each other and can hold them separate, it is only to realize that they are joining together again, in response to the attraction of unforeseen affinities.
- Post-structuralism rejects the structuralist notion that the dominant word in a pair is dependent on its subservient counterpart and instead argues that founding knowledge either on pure experience (phenomenology) or systematic structures (Structuralism) is impossible because history and culture condition the study of underlying structures and these are subject to biases and misinterpretations. This impossibility was not meant as a failure or loss, but rather as a cause for "celebration and liberation". A post-structuralist approach argues that to understand an object (e.g., a text), it is necessary to study both the object itself and the systems of knowledge that produced the object.

Derrida: But the remarkable endeavor of Levi-Strauss is not simply to put forward, notably in the most recent of his investigations, a structural science or knowledge of myths and of mythological activity. His endeavor also appears-I would say almost from the first-in the status which he accords to his own discourse on myths, to what he calls his "mythologicals." It is here that his discourse on the myth reflects on itself and criticizes itself. And this moment, this critical period, is evidently of concern to all the languages which share the field of the human sciences. What does Levi-Strauss say of his "mythologicals"? It is here that we rediscover the mythopoetical virtue (power) of bricolage.

Derrida: There is no unity or absolute source of the myth. The focus or the source of the myth are always shadows and virtualities which are elusive, unactualizable, and nonexistent in the first place. Everything begins with the structure, the configuration, the relationship. The discourse on this acentric structure, the myth, that is, cannot itself have an absolute subject or an absolute center. In order not to short change the form and the movement of the myth, that violence which consists in centering a language which is describing an acentric structure must be avoided. In this context, therefore, it is necessary to forego scientific or philosophical discourse, to renounce the episteme which absolutely requires, which is the absolute requirement that we go back to the source, to the center, to the founding basis, to the principle, and so on.

Levi-Strauss: The myth and the musical work thus appear as orchestra conductors whose listeners are the silent performers. If it be asked where the real focus of the work is to be found, it must be replied that its determination is impossible. Music and mythology bring man face to face with virtual objects whose shadow alone is actual. . . . Myths have no authors.

Mitai yra šiukšlynas, melas. Geriau nagrinėti savo tikėjimą.

Derrida: What I want to emphasize is simply that the passage beyond philosophy does not consist in turning the page of philosophy (which usually comes down to philosophizing badly), but in continuing to read philosophers in a certain way. The risk I am speaking of is always assumed by Levi-Strauss and it is the very price of his endeavor. I have said that empiricism is the matrix of all the faults menacing a discourse which continues, as with Levi-Strauss in particular, to elect to be scientific.

empiricizmas - gyvenimo duomenys - yra "knyga", kurią reikia tirti - ir jos tikslas yra apžvelgti visumą

Levi-Strauss: Syntax does not wait until it has been possible to enumerate a theoretically unlimited series of events before becoming manifest, because syntax consists in the body of rules which presides over the generation of these events. And it is precisely a syntax of South American mythology that I wanted to outline. Should new texts appear to enrich the mythical discourse, then this will provide an opportunity to check or modify the way in which certain grammatical laws have been formulated, an opportunity to discard certain of them and an opportunity to discover new ones. But in no instance can the requirement of a total mythical discourse be raised as an objection. For we have just seen that such a requirement has no meaning. Derrida: Totalization is therefore defined at one time as useless, at another time as impossible. This is no doubt the result of the fact that there are two ways of conceiving the limit of totalization.

posityvizmo atsisakymas

išmintis ten kur žmonės neieško

rinkausi mokytis fizikos (sėkmingo mokslo), matematikos, humanitarinių, socialinių - bet filosofija nesėkmingas mokslas, nes jie dėl nieko nesutaria

sėkmingas mokslas remiasi gerai sustatytais tyrimas - eksperimentais - ir reikia tikslingai eksperimentuoti su savo gyvenimu

Derrida: Ethnology-like any science-comes about within the element of discourse.

būtina atsiriboti nuo diskurso - turėti savo nepriklausomą nuostatą, nepriklausomą tyrimą, nepriklausomą lauką

fizikai kažką žino ir žino daug

Visko padalinimai - proto ribos ir besąlygiškas žinojimas

bet kaip žinoti besąlygiškai?

trejybės ratas

visko padalinimai - "Kas yra laimė?" - besąlygiški atsakymai

"The thinkable" and "the unthinkable" - fenomenologija

Structure neutralized by giving it a center. Organizes the structure. To limit free play. Andrius: I note the limits phenomenologically and express them with structure.

Derrida: But there are many ways of being caught in this circle. They are all more or less naive, more or less empirical, more or less systematic, more or less close to the formulation or even to the formalization of this circle. It is these differences which explain the multiplicity of destructive discourses and the disagreement between those who make them. It was within concepts inherited from metaphysics that Nietzsche, Freud, and Heidegger worked, for example. Since these concepts are not elements or atoms and since they are taken from a syntax and a system, every particular borrowing drags along with it the whole of metaphysics.

aš bandau viską išsiaiškinti - ir man protas yra tarsi kalėjimas - mokausi iš varžymo, ne iš laisvumo

savarankiškai išmokau skaityti nes norėjau dekoduoti žinojimą, tada mokiausi sandarų kalbos, dabar mokausi skaityti matematikos sąvokas

Derrida: There are thus two interpretations of interpretation, of structure, of sign, of freeplay. The one seeks to decipher, dreams of deciphering, a truth or an origin which is free from freeplay and from the order of the sign, and lives like an exile the necessity of interpretation. The other, which is no longer turned toward the origin, affirms freeplay and tries to pass beyond man and humanism, the name man being the name of that being who, throughout the history of metaphysics or of ontotheology-in other words, through the history of all of his history-has dreamed of full presence, the reassuring foundation, the origin and the end of the game. The second interpretation of interpretation, to which Nietzsche showed us the way, does not seek in ethnography, as Levi-Strauss wished, the "inspiration of a new humanism" (again from the "Introduction to the Work of Marcel Mauss").

Dvejybė - padalinimas - laisva valia ir likimas.

Derrida: In order to follow this movement in the text of Levi-Strauss, let me choose as one guiding thread among others the oppostion between nature and culture. In spite of all its rejuvenations and its disguises, this opposition is congenital to philosophy. It is even older than Plato. It is at least as old as the Sophists. Since the statement of the opposition - Physis/nomos, physis/techne [nature/culture, nature/art or making] - it has been passed on to us by a whole historical chain which opposes "nature" to the law, to education, to art, to technics - and also to liberty, to the arbitrary, to history, to society, to the mind, and so on.

Derrida: In the Elementary Structures, he begins from this axiom or definition: that belongs to nature which is universal and spontaneous, not depending on any particular culture or on any determinate norm. That belongs to culture, on the other hand, which depends on a system of norms regulating society and is therefore capable of varying from one social structure to another.

Derrida: The incest-prohibition is no longer a scandal one meets with or comes up against in the domain of traditional concepts; it is something which escapes these concepts and certainly precedes them--probably as the condition of their possibility. It could perhaps be said that the whole of philosophical conceptualization, systematically relating itself to the nature/culture opposition, is designed to leave in the domain of the unthinkable the very thing that makes this conceptualization possible: the origin of the prohibition of incest.

Mąstau ne žodžiai ("culture", "nature"), o sąvokomis.

Derrida: I have dealt too cursorily with this example, only one among so many others, but the example nevertheless reveals that language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique. This critique may be undertaken along two tracks, in two "manners." Once the limit of nature/culture opposition makes itself felt, one might want to question systematically and rigorously the history of these concepts. This is a first action. Such a systematic and historic questioning would be neither a philological nor a philosophical action in the classic sense of these words. Concerning oneself with the founding concepts of the whole history of philosophy, de-constituting them, is not to undertake the task of the philologist or of the classic historian of philosophy. In spite of appearances, it is probably the most daring way of making the beginnings of a step outside of philosophy. The step "outside philosophy" is much more difficult to conceive than is generally imagined by those who think they made it long ago with cavalier ease, and who are in general swallowed up in metaphysics by the whole body of the discourse that they claim to have disengaged from it.

Derrida: Levi-Strauss: One begins to understand that the distinction between state of nature and state of society (we would be more apt to say today: state of nature and state of culture). while lacking any acceptable historical signification, presents a value which fully just)fies its use by modern sociology: its value as a methodological instrument.

Čikagoje niekas netikėjo jokiais atsakymais

kaip susikalbėti su kitais? ne raštu, o bendraujant - parodyti, kad jie bendraudami naudoja sąvoką "viskas"

Derrida: Prieštaravimo ieškojimas ir radimas. O kodėl nepradėti nuo prieštaravimo?

Įsivaizduoti Dievo požiūrį, kaip Dievas išeina už savęs į save, kaip jisai klausia, Ar Dievas būtinas?

Taip įmanoma mąstyti jeigu mąstome būtent ne savo požiūriu, o Dievo požiūriu - jeigu atsisakome savęs.

Derrida: For there are two heterogenous ways of erasing the difference between the signifier and the signified: one, the classic way, consists in reducing or deriving the signifier, that is to say, ultimately in submitting the sign to thought; the other, the one we are using here against the first one, consists in putting into question the system in which the preceding reduction functioned: first and foremost, the opposition between the sensible and the intelligible. The paradox is that the metaphysical reduction of the sign needed the opposition it was reducing. The opposition is part of the system, along with the reduction.

1986-1993. UCSD - 30tas pasaulyje, 5-tas Kalifornijoje
1986-2004. UC Irvine - 96tas pasaulyje, 9-tas Kalifornijoje, Helsinkio universitetas
Gorbačiovo laikais: kognityviniai mokslai, smegenų mokslai, neuroniniai tinklai, dirbtinis intelektas, robotika, psichologija, kalbotyra, genetika, biotechnoligojos, internetas, kompiuterija, medijos, nanotechnologija, gamtosauga, feminizmas, globalizmas, lytinės pakraipos, multikultūralizmas

Vilniaus Universitetas - 800tas

pasakojimo teorija

rinkausi tirti liaudies pasakas

Palyginti pasakojimą ir differance.
Derrida highlights Lévi-Strauss's use of the term bricolage, the activity of a bricoleur. "The bricoleur, says Lévi-Strauss, is someone who uses 'the means at hand,' that is, the instruments he finds at his disposition around him, those which are already there, which had not been especially conceived with an eye to the operation for which they are to be used and to which one tries by trial and error to adapt them, not hesitating to change them whenever it appears necessary."[19] Bricolage becomes a metaphor for philosophical and literary critiques, exemplifying Derrida's previous argument about the necessity of using the language available.[19] The bricoleur's foil is the engineer, who creates out of whole cloth without the need for bricolage—however, the engineer is merely a myth since all physical and intellectual production is really bricolage. Palyginti: modernizmas - inžinierius, postmodernizmas (masinių gaminių pasaulio apsuptyje) - bricoleur (derintojas).

pragyvenimo klausimai - rinkausi nedirbti universitete

žaismas ir žaismingumas (problematiški žodžiai nes reikėtų skirti Dievą ir gerumą, o Derrida Dievą laiko žaismu, tad gaunasi, kad gerumas yra žaismas sąlygose - ir kaip suprasti?)

laisvumas ir gerumas

Dievas nebūtinai geras, gyvenimas nebūtinai teisingas

dėsniai, kaip bendrauti su smurtingais žmonėmis - empiriniu pagrindu

egzistencinis klausimas - ką pasirinksiu tirti

Being as presence - ar dalyvausiu gyvenime

Derrida: The thematic of historicity, although it seems to be a somewhat late arrival in philosophy, has always been required by the determination of being as presence.

"Being as presence" - man buvimas yra antraeilis dalykas, kaip ir nebuvimas - užtat iš to seka, kad žmogus nėra centras - aš nesu centras - jo ieškoti kitur

"laws of symbolic thought" - laws of thought

Levi-Strauss: man therefore always has at his disposition a surplus of signification (which he portions out amongst things according to the laws of symbolic thought-which it is the task of ethnologists and linguists to study)

Post-modernizmas - bricolage -

Derrida: On the other hand, still in The Savage Mind, he presents as what he calls bricolage what might be called the discourse of this method. The bricoleur, says Levi-Strauss, is someone who uses "the means at hand," that is, the instruments he finds at his disposition around him, those which are already there, which had not been especially conceived with an eye to the operation for which they are to be used and to which one tries by trial and error to adapt them, not hesitating to change them whenever it appears necessary, or to try several of them at once, even if their form and their origin are heterogenous -- and so forth. There is therefore a critique of language in the form of bricolage, and it has even been possible to say that bricolage is the critical language itself. I am thinking in particular of the article by G[erard] Genette, "Structuralisme et Critique litteraire," published in homage to Levi-Strauss in a special issue of L'Arc, where it is stated that the analysis of bricolage could "be applied almost word for word'' to criticism, and especially to "literary criticism."

engineer - modernizmas

Derrida: The engi~eer, whom Levi-Strauss opposes to the bricoleur, should be one to construct the totality of his language, syntax, and lexicon. In this sense the engineer is a myth.

visko atradimas - o Derrida "supaistymas"

Derrida: A subject who would supposedly be the absolute origin of his own discourse and would supposedly construct it "out of nothing," "out of whole cloth," would be the creator of the verbe, the verbe itself. The notion of the engineer who had supposedly broken with all forms of bricolage is therefore a theological idea; and since Levi-Strauss tells us elsewhere that bricolage is mythopoetic, the odds are that thee engineer is a myth produced by the bricoleur. From the moment that we cease to believe in such an engineer and in a discourse breaking with the received historical discourse, as soon as it is admitted that every finite discourse is bound by a cenain bricolage, and that the engineer and the scientist are also species of bricoleurs then the very idea of bricolage is menaced and the difference in which it took on its meaning decomposes.

kaip pradėjau klausytis Dievo - Tėve mūsų

Derrida: centras viduje ir už manęs

Minčių sodas - šviesuolių bendrystė

Aš ir Jėzus - imamės kurti šviesuolių bendrystę - tuo tarpu Derrida kalba apie istoriją, kuri nenumaldomai krypsta.

Derrida: For my part, although these two interpretations must acknowledge and accentuate their difference and define their irreducibility, I do not believe that today there is any question of choosing-in the first place because here we are in a region (let's say, provisionally, a region of historicity) where the category of choice seems particularly trivial; and in the second, because we must first try to conceive of the common ground, and the difference of this irreducible difference. Here there is a sort of question, call it historical, of which we are only glimpsing today the conception, theformation, the gestation, the labor. I employ these words, I admit, with a glance toward the business of childbearing-but also with a glance toward those who, in a company from which I do not exclude myself, turn their eyes away in the face of the as yet unnameable which is proclaiming itself and which can do so, as is necessary whenever a birth is in the offing, only under the species of the non-species, in the formless, mute, infant, and terrifying form of monstrosity.

palyginti su Alpha Zero

Aleksandras - stiprūs židiniai, aiškios ribos

Derrida: the appearance of a new structure, of an original system, always comes about-and this is the very condition of its structural specificity-by a rupture with its past, its origin, and its cause. One can therefore describe what is peculiar to the structural organization only by not taking into account, in the very moment of this description, its past conditions: by failing to pose the problem of the passage from one structure to another, by putting history into parentheses.

palyginti su Aleksandru - pasikartojanti veikla iškyla

kaip Dievas man melavo - mano asmenybės nebebuvimas

Centras, kaip toks, yra nebuvimas - žiūrėk matematikoje.

Panaudoti derrida kaip priemonę galiu nes jam nesvarbu niekas.

mano mokiniai - per daug galingas protas

Kitos mintys

Pasaulis, kuriame Amerikoje augdamas atsidūriau, tai išsakytas Derrida pranešimo.
Žinojimui reikalingi pagrindai.
Tų pagrindų suderinamumas.
Paprasčiausi pavyzdžiai, kaip su jais susidūriau. Sąvoka viskas. Visko padalinimai. Dvejonės. Išsiaiškinimo būdai. Pasakų tyrimas.
Šių pagrindų santykis filosofijos istorijoje.
Filosofijos istorijoje šių pagrindų raida, jų pasireiškimas pirmykštėje filosofijoje, jų išgryninimo aplinkybės, paskirų pagrindų išryškėję trūkumai, pagrindų susiklostę ar nesusiklostę santykiai.
Santykis tarp filosofijos ir gyvenimo - kodėl kai kurie egzistencialistai - Heidegeris, Maceina, Girnius - nusižengė žmonijai, kodėl kiti ne? Kodėl aš ėjau savo keli
Priešingybių rūšys. Matematika - esiniai ir savybės.

Mano klausimai

Pavyzdžiui, kokios struktūralizmo sąsajos su egzistencializmu, kodėl struktūralizmas buvo sukritikuotas, kas yra poststruktūralizmas, kas toliau vystėsi, ir kaip mano filosofija su visa tai susijusi, kaip išsprendžiu esminius sunkumus.

Mano ontologija

Mano pastabos:

Būtis nusakoma dvejybės, tad būtis negali būti pirmapradis pagrindas. Viskas yra pirmesnė sąvoka.
Dievas klausia, Ar Dievas būtinas? Ar Dievas būtų, jeigu jo nebūtų? Tad prieštaravimas yra pirm neprieštaravimo.
Galima ir reikia sąvokas nusakyti jų santykiais, ir būtent požiūrių santykiais.

Mano ontologija:

Klausimai: Ar esu? Koks esu? Kaip esu? Kodėl esu?
Ypač: Koks esu?
Tarpas Dievui iškylant - santykis tarp Dievo už mūsų ir Dievo mumyse.
Grynasis sąmoningumas.
Keturi troškimai ir netroškimai, šešios atjautos

Dvasios prielaidos yra gyvenimo lygties lygmenys: -1 sandara, -2 atvaizdai, -3 esmė.

Filosofijos istorijoje, tai sietina su kalba ir logika, jais išsakomi skirtumai:

Aristotelis: "Kategorijos" sąrašas dešimt dalykų, ką gali būti veiksnys ar tarinys.
Heidegeris: Esantysis - skirtumas tarp asmuo ir daikto.
Sandaros pavyzdys: Aristotelio keturios priežastys.

Skaitiniai

1946 Sartre Existentialism is a Humanism
1946 Heidegger Letter on Humanism Existentialism says existence precedes essence. In this statement he is taking existentia and essentia according to their metaphysical meaning, which, from Plato's time on, has said that essentia precedes existentia. Sartre reverses this statement. But the reversal of a metaphysical statement remains a metaphysical statement. With it, he stays with metaphysics, in oblivion of the truth of Being. (Buvimas nėra būtina, o esmė yra visako prielaida - juk Dievo esmė yra meilė.)
Contemporary philosophy
Jacques Derrida
Struktūralizmo kritika
The French hermeneutic philosopher Paul Ricœur (1969) criticized Lévi-Strauss for constantly overstepping the limits of validity of the structuralist approach, ending up in what Ricœur described as "a Kantianism without a transcendental subject".
Philip Noel Pettit (1975) called for an abandoning of "the positivist dream which Lévi-Strauss dreamed for semiology" arguing that semiology is not to be placed among the natural sciences.
Cornelius Castoriadis (1975) criticized structuralism as failing to explain symbolic mediation in the social world; he viewed structuralism as a variation on the "logicist" theme, and he argued that, contrary to what structuralists advocate, language—and symbolic systems in general—cannot be reduced to logical organizations on the basis of the binary logic of oppositions.
Critical theorist Jürgen Habermas (1985) accused structuralists, such as Foucault, of being positivists; he remarked that while Foucault is not an ordinary positivist, he nevertheless paradoxically uses the tools of science to criticize science (see Performative contradiction and Foucault–Habermas debate).
Sociologist Anthony Giddens (1993) is another notable critic; while Giddens draws on a range of structuralist themes in his theorizing, he dismisses the structuralist view that the reproduction of social systems is merely "a mechanical outcome".

Deconstruction

Mūsų laikų filosofai:

The 50 most influential living philosophers
Thomas Nagel 1937, Saul Kripke 1940, John McDowell 1942, Gayatri Spivak 1942, Martha Nussbaum 1947, Slavoj Žižek 1949, Cornel West 1952, Gu Su 1955, Judith Butler 1956, David Chalmers 1966
The Best Modern Philosophy Books
Popular 21st Century Philosophy Books

Paprieštaravimai egzistencializmo kritikui J.Derridai.

Kodėl, kaip, ką ir ar žinome? Egzistencializmas, struktūralizmas, fenomenologija ir pragmatizmas.

Filosofijos istorijos raidoje, egzistencializmą pakeitė struktūralizmas, o juos abu paneigė poststruktūralizmas. Pastarajam pradžią davė Jacques Derrida pranešimas 1966 metais, "Sandara, ženklas ir žaismas humanitarinių mokslų diskurse", kuris išlaisvino JAV akademinį pasaulį nuo visų pareigų kylančių iš besąlygiškos tiesos paieškų. Anot jo, bet kokia metafizika prieštarauja sau, neigdama ankstyvesnę metafiziką grindžiantį židinį ir tesiūlydama naują židinį. Įdomu, kad nuo 1984 metų iki savo mirties 2004 metais, J.Derrida rinkosi dėstyti pietinėje Kalifornijoje, netoli Disneilando, bene pažangiausiame pasaulio krašte, mažiausiai besidominančiame akademine filosofija, kaip tik ten kur aš gimiau, užaugau ir baigiau doktorantūrą.

O man nuo vaikystės rūpėjo viską žinoti ir tą žinojimą gražiai taikyti. Užtat galiu J.Derridai priešpastatyti visiškai priešingą gyvenimo kelionę, vedančią iš Kalifornijos utopijos į Čikagos getus, Lietuvos kaimą ir jos globos bei pataisos namus. 1982 metais, įstojęs į Čikagos universitetą, trokšdamas besąlygiško žinojimo, supratau, kad jį tenka išsakyti sandaromis, kurių visas turinys teišplaukia iš sandaros sustatytų požiūrių savitarpių santykių. Ėmiau mąstyti visko padalinimais į dvi dalis, tris ir keturis dalis, ir taip toliau. Tokiu būdu grūmiausi su pačiu Židiniu, kurį mąsčiau, kaip Viską.

Išvysčiau savitą jungtinį tyrimo būdą, nežinojimu grindžiantį ir plėtojantį žinojimą. Kodėl žinau? Nes tiriu visuminius klausimus, mus siejančius su prasme grindžiančia visuma, tad su mūsų bukle, egzistencializmu. Kaip žinau? Sandarų apžvelgtais ir priešpastatytais galimais atsakymais, įmanomais požiūriais, kuriuos sieju su visuma, ir taip juos apibrėžiu, atkuriu, jais dalinuosi, struktūralizmu. Ką žinau? Savo įmanomus požiūrius, tegul ir klaidingus ar beprasmiškus, kuriuos tačiau būtent aš išgyvenu, kurių kaip tokių niekas nepaneigs, mano fenomenologijos. Ar žinau? Jeigu esu nuoširdus, atviras ir prieinamas, jeigu nuolat pasitikrinu su manimi bendraujančiais, yra vaisinga savo tariamas išvadas, mokslinius gyvenimo reiškinių modelius, laikyti sąlygiškai besalygiškomis, laikantis pragmatizmo, tai yra, besąlygiškai sąlygiškai.

J.Derrida apibūdina filosofijos istoriją, kaip pastangas paneigti tai, kas buvo ankščiau. Aš neigiu J.Derridą, tvirtindamas, kad filosofijos istorijoje pasikartojančios sandaros parodo, jog visi nuoširdūs mąstytojai iš esmės sutaria. Parodysiu, kaip šis jungtinis tyrimo būdas susidoroja su paskirų filosofijos srovių sunkumais iškylančiais nagrinėjant priešingybes, abejones ir pasakojimą.

Egzistencializmas, jo ištakos, sklaida ir pėdsakas kultūroje, 2019 m., birželio mėn. 20 d.

Klasikinė ir egzistencializmo ontologija

Paprieštaravimai egzistencializmo kritikui J.Derridai.

Kodėl, kaip, ką ir ar žinome? Egzistencializmas, struktūralizmas, fenomenologija ir pragmatizmas. Paprieštaravimai J.Derridai.

Temos

Pasaulis, kuriame Amerikoje augdamas atsidūriau, tai išsakytas Derrida pranešimo.
Žinojimui reikalingi pagrindai.
Tų pagrindų suderinamumas.
Paprasčiausi pavyzdžiai, kaip su jais susidūriau. Sąvoka viskas. Visko padalinimai. Dvejonės. Išsiaiškinimo būdai. Pasakų tyrimas.
Šių pagrindų santykis filosofijos istorijoje.
Filosofijos istorijoje šių pagrindų raida, jų pasireiškimas pirmykštėje filosofijoje, jų išgryninimo aplinkybės, paskirų pagrindų išryškėję trūkumai, pagrindų susiklostę ar nesusiklostę santykiai.
Nusakyti savo tyrimų programą.
Centras, kaip toks, yra nebuvimas - žiūrėk matematikoje.
Palyginti pasakojimą ir differance.
Santykis tarp filosofijos ir gyvenimo - kodėl kai kurie egzistencialistai - Heidegeris, Maceina, Girnius - nusižengė žmonijai, kodėl kiti ne? Kodėl aš ėjau savo keliu?
Mano filosofija, kaip pavadinti: centrizmu - židinys, esmės - išmintis
1966 Derrida "Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences"
1946 Heidegger Letter on Humanism Existentialism says existence precedes essence. In this statement he is taking existentia and essentia according to their metaphysical meaning, which, from Plato's time on, has said that essentia precedes existentia. Sartre reverses this statement. But the reversal of a metaphysical statement remains a metaphysical statement. With it, he stays with metaphysics, in oblivion of the truth of Being. (Buvimas nėra būtina, o esmė yra visako prielaida - juk Dievo esmė yra meilė.)

Struktūralizmo kritika

The French hermeneutic philosopher Paul Ricœur (1969) criticized Lévi-Strauss for constantly overstepping the limits of validity of the structuralist approach, ending up in what Ricœur described as "a Kantianism without a transcendental subject".
Philip Noel Pettit (1975) called for an abandoning of "the positivist dream which Lévi-Strauss dreamed for semiology" arguing that semiology is not to be placed among the natural sciences.
Cornelius Castoriadis (1975) criticized structuralism as failing to explain symbolic mediation in the social world; he viewed structuralism as a variation on the "logicist" theme, and he argued that, contrary to what structuralists advocate, language—and symbolic systems in general—cannot be reduced to logical organizations on the basis of the binary logic of oppositions.
Critical theorist Jürgen Habermas (1985) accused structuralists, such as Foucault, of being positivists; he remarked that while Foucault is not an ordinary positivist, he nevertheless paradoxically uses the tools of science to criticize science (see Performative contradiction and Foucault–Habermas debate).
Sociologist Anthony Giddens (1993) is another notable critic; while Giddens draws on a range of structuralist themes in his theorizing, he dismisses the structuralist view that the reproduction of social systems is merely "a mechanical outcome".

Deconstruction

Prieštaravimo ieškojimas ir radimas - kodėl nepradėti nuo prieštaravimo?

Contemporary philosophy

Dvasios prielaidos yra gyvenimo lygties lygmenys: -1 sandara, -2 atvaizdai, -3 esmė.

Smulkiau

Pavyzdžiui, kokios struktūralizmo sąsajos su egzistencializmu, kodėl struktūralizmas buvo sukritikuotas, kas yra poststruktūralizmas, kas toliau vystėsi, ir kaip mano filosofija su visa tai susijusi, kaip išsprendžiu esminius sunkumus.
Palyginti su savo filosofijos istorijos brėžiniu.
Egzistencializmas atsisako metafizikos -
tvirtina, kad gyvenimas yra tarsi beprasmis - mąstyti iš centro pusės, taip pat - įsisavinimas šešerybėje

Apibrėžti savo ontologiją lyginant ją su klasikine ir egzistencialistine ontologijomis.

Fenomenologija, egzistencializmas, struktūralizmas, pragmatizmas
Gyvenimo klausimas ir atsakymas. "Kas aš esu?" Mes esame klausimas. Tillich: Atsakymas yra iš už mūsų, jisai transcendentinis, už mus platesnis. Klausimu ir atsakymu susisiekiame su tuo, kas už mus plačiau.

Ontologija yra tarsi buvimo, būties nusakymas, bet iš tikrųjų, tai gaunasi ištakų ir pamatų paieškos.

Filosofijos istorijoje, tai sietina su kalba ir logika, jais išsakomi skirtumai:

Aristotelis: "Kategorijos" sąrašas dešimt dalykų, ką gali būti veiksnys ar tarinys.
Heidegeris: Esantysis - skirtumas tarp asmuo ir daikto.
Sandaros pavyzdys: Aristotelio keturios priežastys.

Mano pastabos:

Kalbų pasaulyje yra labai įvairių ir tas pats protas gali jomis visomis mąstyti. Ne kalba lemia galimybes, o ji tiesiog jas išreiškia. Užtat kalba padeda daug ką įžvelgti, bet jinai nėra pagrindas.
Galima mąstyti be kalbos. Ir tai grynesnis, paprastesnis mąstymas. Kalba trukdo mąstyti paprastai, įveda papildomus klodus, keičia mąstymo kryptį.
Būtis nusakoma dvejybės, tad būtis negali būti pirmapradis pagrindas. Viskas yra pirmesnė sąvoka.
Dievas klausia, Ar Dievas būtinas? Ar Dievas būtų, jeigu jo nebūtų? Tad prieštaravimas yra pirm neprieštaravimo.
Galima ir reikia sąvokas nusakyti jų santykiais, ir būtent požiūrių santykiais.

Mano ontologija:

Klausimai: Ar esu? Koks esu? Kaip esu? Kodėl esu?
Ypač: Koks esu?
Tarpas Dievui iškylant - santykis tarp Dievo už mūsų ir Dievo mumyse.
Grynasis sąmoningumas.
Keturi troškimai ir netroškimai, šešios atjautos

Klasikinė ontologija

Egzistencialistinė ontologija

Mano dėsniai ir kitų dėsniai

Aš ieškau bendros tiesos, tad noriu parodyti, kuria prasme visi teisingi, tuo tarpu filosofai bando paneigti kitus filosofus, su jais ginčytis.
Prievartinis žaismas - tai negali būti rimta. O mano kaip tik rimta - atsiliepti į smurtą kenčiančius, rasti kiekvieno žmogaus centrą, jo kertinę vertybę.

Skaitiniai

Wikipedia: Ontology
Stanford: Logic and Ontology
Derrida: Sandara, ženklas ir žaismas humanitarių mokslų diskurse | Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences
- Derrida admires the reflexivity and abstract analyses of structuralism, but argues that these discourses have still not gone far enough in treating structures as free-floating (or 'playing') sets of relationships. In particular, he accuses structuralist discourses of holding on to a "center": a privileged term that anchors the structure and does not play. Whether this center is "God", "being", "presence", or "man" (as it was at the colloquium), its function is the same, and the history of structures is a history of substitutions, one center after another, for this constant position. Derrida suggests that this model of structure will end—is ending—and that a newer and freer (though still unknown) thinking about structures will emerge.
The "center" is that element of a structure which appears given or fixed, thereby anchoring the rest of the structure and allowing it to play. In the history of metaphysics specifically, this function is fulfilled by different terms (which Derrida says are always associated with presence): "eidos, archè, telos, energia, ousia (essence, existence, substance, subject) aletheia, transcendentality, consciousness, or conscience, God, man, and so forth."[11] Whichever term is at the center of the structure, argues Derrida, the overall pattern remains similar. This central term ironically escapes structurality, the key feature of structuralism according to which all meaning is defined relationally, through other terms in the structure. From this perspective, the center is the most alien or estranged element in a structure: it comes from somewhere outside and remains absolute until a new center is substituted in a seemingly arbitrary fashion. "The center", therefore, "is not the center."
The 'event' under discussion is the opening of the structure, which became inevitable "when the structurality of structure had to begin to be thought" and the contradictory role of the center exposed.[13] The result of the event, according to Derrida, must be the full version of structural "freeplay", a mode in which all terms are truly subject to the openness and mutability promised by structuralism. Derrida locates the beginning of this process in the writings of earlier philosophers, who continued to use the pattern of metaphysics even as they denounced it in others.
Having described a pattern—denouncing metaphysics while relying on it—in discourses about metaphysics, Derrida suggests consideration of the same pattern within the "human sciences",[16] whose subjection to the "critique of ethnocentrism" parallels the "destruction of the history of metaphysics" in philosophy.[17] Derrida argues that, just as philosophers use metaphysical terms and concepts to critique metaphysics (and criticize the use of these concepts by others), the ethnologist "accepts into his discourse the premises of ethnocentrism at the very moment when he is employed in denouncing them".[17] He examines the work of Claude Lévi-Strauss, particularly as it concerns "the opposition between nature and culture", as his case study and primary focus for the essay.
Derrida highlights Lévi-Strauss's use of the term bricolage, the activity of a bricoleur. "The bricoleur, says Lévi-Strauss, is someone who uses 'the means at hand,' that is, the instruments he finds at his disposition around him, those which are already there, which had not been especially conceived with an eye to the operation for which they are to be used and to which one tries by trial and error to adapt them, not hesitating to change them whenever it appears necessary."[19] Bricolage becomes a metaphor for philosophical and literary critiques, exemplifying Derrida's previous argument about the necessity of using the language available.[19] The bricoleur's foil is the engineer, who creates out of whole cloth without the need for bricolage—however, the engineer is merely a myth since all physical and intellectual production is really bricolage. Palyginti: modernizmas - inžinierius, postmodernizmas (masinių gaminių pasaulio apsuptyje) - bricoleur (derintojas).
In effect the study of myths poses a mythological problem by the fact that it cannot conform to the Cartesian principle of dividing the difficulty into as many parts as are necessary to resolve it. There exists no veritable end or term to mythical analysis, no secret unity which could be grasped at the end of the work in decomposition. The themes duplicate themselves to infinity. When we think we have disentangled them from each other and can hold them separate, it is only to realize that they are joining together again, in response to the attraction of unforeseen affinities.
Freeplay is the disruption of presence. The presence of an element is always a signifying and substitutive reference inscribed in a system of differences and the movement of a chain. Freeplay is always an interplay of absence and presence, but if it is to be radically conceived, freeplay must be conceived before the alternative of presence and absence; being must be conceived of as presence or absence beginning with the possibility of freeplay and not the other way around.
Foucault: Social constructionism
Post-structuralism
- Post-structuralism rejects the structuralist notion that the dominant word in a pair is dependent on its subservient counterpart and instead argues that founding knowledge either on pure experience (phenomenology) or systematic structures (Structuralism) is impossible because history and culture condition the study of underlying structures and these are subject to biases and misinterpretations. This impossibility was not meant as a failure or loss, but rather as a cause for "celebration and liberation". A post-structuralist approach argues that to understand an object (e.g., a text), it is necessary to study both the object itself and the systems of knowledge that produced the object.
Disnyeland 1955. Pravažiuoji Disneylandą - Materhorno kalną pravažiuoji Derrida
1986-1993. UCSD - 30tas pasaulyje, 5-tas Kalifornijoje
1986-2004. UC Irvine - 96tas pasaulyje, 9-tas Kalifornijoje, Helsinkio universitetas
Gorbačiovo laikais: kognityviniai mokslai, smegenų mokslai, neuroniniai tinklai, dirbtinis intelektas, robotika, psichologija, kalbotyra, genetika, biotechnoligojos, internetas, kompiuterija, medijos, nanotechnologija, gamtosauga, feminizmas, globalizmas, lytinės pakraipos, multikultūralizmas

Vilniaus Universitetas - 800tas

Kompiuterio žaismas - kaip ir kodėl jinai leidžia sau "pažaisti", kaip katė su pele, užbaigiant žaidimą.

Mūsų laikų filosofai:

The 50 most influential living philosophers
Thomas Nagel 1937, Saul Kripke 1940, John McDowell 1942, Gayatri Spivak 1942, Martha Nussbaum 1947, Slavoj Žižek 1949, Cornel West 1952, Gu Su 1955, Judith Butler 1956, David Chalmers 1966
The Best Modern Philosophy Books
Popular 21st Century Philosophy Books