"The impossibility or indefinite deferral of any ultimate or metaphysical signification, on account of the constantly changing and proliferating relationships between the linguistic signs in any sentence or utterance; an instance of this."
Language changes. Everybody is well aware of this fact because in my past twenty years, my vocabulary has basically become a cesspool of butchered words. Conversational speaking has cut words in half ('cause) or put two words together (ya'll). People speak, or sign, much more often than they write; talking is efficient. People have different dialects, and their way of living alters their range of diction. Yet, we all seem to be quite capable of understanding one another. We may not understand each word when reading a certain text, but we are able to see the main point by the signals the text gives off (unless we look up that certain word, of course).
So, after the rambling, what I truly want to know is how differance isn't considered a concept in Derrida's eyes? Language has the ability to move over time and space in both written and spoken form. It changes because the world changes. Language moves with us, yet we practice how to read old texts properly. We must remain an attentive audience. But who is really preserving these texts? Yes, we are able to read them, but our world is no longer anything like the author's world would have been, so how can we expect to know what the intended meaning behind a text. Very rarely, if at all, will you find two people who have the exact same definitions for the same words. It's simply impossible for there to be definite concepts that can travel forever with the same meaning. But language itself can still live on through time and space. So I guess what I'm getting at is why can't differance be an existing concept when it's one of the most important things to understand when reading a smattering of texts from any time and place?
I think that Derrida says that differance is a non existing concept because for the same reason that he came up with the idea in the first place. When you said, "It's simply impossible for their to be definite concepts that can travel forever with the same meaning," I think you are spot on with what Derrida thinks of words and language. The value of "differance" is only as good as the words that describe it, and so it is with any word, and that depends completely on situation. Honestly, I am not completely sure what Derrida is driving at when, he says differance is not a concept either, but I would guess it would be something to do with the point he is trying to make, if that makes any sense.
ReplyDelete