(Series: Post-Modernist
Subversivism)
Anyone would agree
that sign-systems do exist. But will you agree that all that exists is nothing
more than sign systems? This ‘Chinha Satyam Artha Mithya’(Only signs have
ontological status, meaning does not have)
is position taken by Derrida & Co. They do this by using a fact of
life which strategically convenient to them. Whatever we try to say about the
huge non-linguistic aspect of life, we have to say it in a language. So they
catch us using signs & pull back the discussion in semiotics. (highly sophisticated
linguistics)
Sign has two
components namely signifier & signified. Whatever object that is presented qua
sign is signifier & whatever that it stands for or represented by it, is
the signified. So far so good! But the main thesis of Derrida is that anything
that is signified, in its own turn becomes a signifier which signifies
something else. So we are lost in jungle of signifiers leading to each other
without ever getting a signified (called the transcendental signified) such that,
it does not turn out to be a signifier again. ‘Meaning’, then becomes something
like a wet ellipsoidal soap-cake, harder we try to grab it, quicker it shoots
out of our hand.
We all know that
this is simply not the case as we do live in a world of meanings when we do use
signs or when we don’t have to use signs. (will see later in detail)
First &
foremost blunder made by Derrida is that he confuses between symptoms &
signs. There are black clouds in the sky is not a ‘sign’ of ‘it is going to
rain’ but a symptom from which possibility of rain can reasonably be inferred.
Therefore neither black-clouds are signifiers nor is rain, the signified. Inferences
can be drawn by concomitance, cause, effect, association or similarity. The
move from (signi)fier to (signi)fied can be much real & not based on mere
convention. Making conventions is indeed a great feat achieved by mankind so
that we don’t have to depend upon cause, effect, symptom, analogy or any such
extra-semiotic links & this increases our power to represent to a huge
extent. But convention is not the only link which generates meaning. All
inferences are not based on convention. Derrida’s indiscriminate use of the
terms signifier/signified, obscures the bases of communication other than convention.
Significance
& Signigence
Let us put it in
some other way. When something turns out to be a signified it does have some significance
to us & there is a live-relevance-system in us, which is leading us
from one significance to the other. Thus significance does not lie at end of
the chain of signifiers but is already accompanying the chain. The
‘transcendental signified’ is already there & not unreachable as Derrida
claims it to be.
On the other hand when we employ something as
a signifier we choose it because of its signigence (my term: contextually emergent
quality of an object which makes it employable qua signifier. For example, redness
of flag/light is indicative of danger by association with blood). Signigences
can be other than convention-structures like symptom, cause, analogy etc. furthermore
no singular signifier will have its signigence alone. It is the amorphous contextualization
of various signifiers with each other that gives them signigence, & not ‘structural
or post-structural’ analysis of them, made by formal linguists. Furthermore
when a pair is successfully employed as signifier-signified its success mutually
rejuvenates their significances & signigences.
Derrida forgets
that when one is hungry he is not hungry to represent the fact that he needs
nourishment. Primordial experiencing is obscured by Derrida behind
sign-systems. By leaving out the important categories of significance,
relevance, contextualization, non-conventional-signigence etc, Derrida has
achieved the feat of ‘all that exists is a jungle of signifiers’.
Experiencing
Each-Other & Experiencing Together
Another important
point which remains neglected is that there exists pre-signitive communication
on which we can successfully build sign systems. I am not suggesting gestures
& postures because they too can be subsumed under ‘sign’.
Suppose two
persons are arms wrestling with each other each one directly knows how much
force the adversary is applying through his/her motor feedback. The ‘force’ in
physics is a primordial given. Four persons are together carrying a log of wood
they all come to know as to who has started shirking via the changed burden
coming to them & the shirker knows a moment earlier! In various human
practices like fighting, co-operating in labor, in sexual or erotic encounters
and in child rearing, humans happen to experience each other which is a first-hand
experience already shared and needs no signs to communicate.
It is true that
under pressure of convention we give rather inauthentic expressions including
conventional smile. But the very fact that we feel inauthentic about them is
proof of our knowing true expression. Baby birds are yelling for food in a nest
and parents instinctively respond. This is not a convention for sure. Being
presented to each other in intimate ways does not call for further
representation unless there is a failure in pre-signitive communication.
We also get
experiences of non-human world when both of the experiencing partners are
present along with the thing that is being co-experienced. We look at it. Look
at each other and again look at it, as it were to confirm the same expression we
saw in each others face. For example “ Oh! Yes it is dangerous!” We conclude
and flee or fight as the case may be. How can we mimic other’s expression? When
we see the face as it is visually appearing, immediately the contortions from
within our face muscles are present to us. Even this is a too much of an
analysis one has already mimicked much before thinking about it.
How do we generate
ostensive definitions of objects which are to be recognized as the case may be?
We do it by pointing index finger and uttering. If semiotic fanatics object
that index finger is also a sign, I have no issues if some tribe points elbow
to it!
Transanimation (experiencing
each other and not just resuscitating someone whose breathing has stopped) and
co-experiencing are too important facts to be ignored, or else we would not
have survived quite up to Derrida.
Language for as
important as it is, Life comes before language, supports, it sustains it and
modifies it.
Unscandalizing
the triad: ‘Binary-Opposition-Hierarchy’
Deconstruction does not mean any conversional
operation to be carried out on a ‘text’ and coming out with product called
‘deconstructed text’. It means bringing out the three culprits hidden in it.
The three terms which have been scandalized due to the omni-semiotic obsession are
..1)Binary, 2)Opposition, 3)Hierarchy.
I think that treating this triad as some evil
but non-eliminable predicament, is incorrect, misleading and detrimental to
possibilities of rational consensus amongst humans hence the title.
I can see nothing particularly
western or metaphysical in the triad. When any decision is being made (not even
by a human but say a Cheetah whether to chase the prey unto last breath or to
leave it alone to save its own energy) obviously the second best option is
being forgone. As decision involves at least two alternatives i.e. binary, they
are competing with each other for the favor of the maker of the decision i.e.
opposition and one of them is deemed better than the other i.e. hierarchy. So
the triad binary-opposition-hierarchy is firmly rooted in the firmware
of any animal, humans included
First let us
consider the self-referential paradox that typically accompanies such ( i.e.
relativistic) doctrines. Binary and non-binary is itself a binary. Then
opposition V/S non-opposition is itself an opposition. That non-hierarchy is
better than hierarchy is itself a hierarchy. Derrida himself does not prescribe
such reversals nor does he claim that it is humanly possible to abandon the
triad. His task remains that of bringing out and exposing the triad hidden in
any human endeavor. Had this been a mere statement of a fact about humanly
possible way of thinking, it would have had no critical import. But for him the
triad is imposing a western metaphysical rigidity on all of us. No way out is
suggested except of a perpetual postponement of judgment of any meaning by
itself. I see the triad as neither western, metaphysical, rigid nor imposing
but a valuable resource that we humans are endowed with. This resource is being
unnecessarily scandalized and I am trying to unscandalize it.
If there is going
to be any discernment( Sans. Viveka) whatsoever, emerging difference is
going to be a difference ‘between’ and hence the ‘pairs.’ In other words
binaries are inevitable. Binaries need not be dichotomies. Two aspects of same
thing, if seen as such, can also constitute a binary.
Opposition need
not be antagonistic, unless it is the case. Two closest synonyms can stand
before each other as antonyms, if subtlety of the problem at hand requires so.
Meaning of ‘opposition’ varies in various oppositions of meanings. I am going
to elaborate this later. Magnetic north pole has nothing against magnetic south
pole. In fact they attract each other.
If we are going to
have any preferences whatsoever, emergence of Hierarchy is
inevitable. Egalitarians have taught us to confuse all inequalities with
disparities. Parity always refers to some node in some hierarchy and a
legitimate hierarchy always refers to ceteris paribus conditions on the
basis of which it is legitimate. Particular hierarchies can be reversed or
eliminated. However annihilating Hierarchy per se in the world of meanings,
would be analogous to completed entropic heat death in the physical
world!
Binaries although
being discrete by themselves do not necessarily negate the continuum or
interpenetrating of their senses. Shades can be differentiated may be at the
cost of introducing new binaries. There is nothing scandalous about this.
Even the third notion of the triad i.e.
Hierarchy earns an oppressive ring because of the preceding notion of
antagonism, which it has to supposedly, oppress. Otherwise Hierarchy can enjoy
a benign axiological and not the necessarily oppressive sense. Thus the main
culprit of the scandalization is the implied equation viz. ‘opposition is equal
to antagonism’. Therefore I am going to focus upon enormously varying senses in
which the pairing terms of a binary stand ‘opposite’ to each other.
Antonyms
plurality: Many senses of opposition
Two very close synonyms can be posed as antonyms if the subtlety of the
problem at hand requires so and antonyms on the other hand show multitude of
senses in which we use the term ‘as against’. For example ‘Guest’ can have three different antonyms
viz. host, intruder, regular member
1)
Natural:
artificial, cultural, abnormal, super-natural, formal(languages)
2)
Subject:
object, predicate, king, g k
3)
Punishment:
reward, amnesty, indemnity, revenge, compensation
4)
Solid:
liquid, plane, hollow
5)
Pain:
endurance, relief, pleasure, discomfort,
6)
Wise:
naïve, stupid, foolish, silly, idiotic
7)
Wild:
tamed, pet, domestic, livestock, somber, plausible(guess)
8)
Doubt:
verification, certitude, belief, trust, faith
9)
Noise:
silence, signal, distinct sound, soothing sound, melodious sound
10)
Curvature:
straightness, angularity
11)
Generous:
miserly, calculative, strictly reciprocating, divine-merit-earning, redeeming,
12)
Peaceful:
warring, uneasy, in turmoil, suppressed, silenced,
13)
Kind:
cruel, degree
14)
Addiction:
aversion, de-addiction
15)
Guest:
host, intruder, regular member
16)
Culprit:
innocent, suspect, accused, aggrieved, prosecutor,
17)
Accused:
prosecutor, plaintiff, approver(witness of prosecution)
18)
Victim:
persecutor, rescuer
19)
Child:
parent, adult
20)
Righteousness:
wickedness, opportunism, gullibility, prudence, benevolence
21)
Passion:
restraint, moderation, asceticism, equanimity, detachment, action, volition,
cold-heartedness,
22)
Ideology:
critic, vested interest, arbitrary evaluative judgment, conformity
23)
Authority:
responsibility, brute power, obedience, insubordination
24)
Spirituality:
materialism, hedonism, ritual, religion, therapy, Psychology
25)
Right:
left(anatomical), left(political), wrong, duty, acute-obtuse(angle)
26)
Continuity:
interruption, change, discreteness
27)
Insecure: secure, fearless, careless, hardened,
courageous, surrendered to fate,
28)
Love:
lust, hate, indifference
29)
Pure:
impure, applied
30)
Real:
apparent, imaginary, ideal, official.
31)
Beauty:
ugliness, utility, pleasing-ness, satiating, agreeability to taste
32)
Fair:
Unfair, rough, dark
33)
Synthetic:
Analytic, Catabolic, Natural
34)
Receiver:
Emitter, Giver, Sender
35)
Respiration:
Suffocation, Photosynthesis
36)
Integration:
Disintegration, differentiation, segregation, compartmentalization
37)
Patient:
Doctor, Impatient, Accompanying Person, Attendant
38)
Radical:
superficial, moderate, compromised, Reformist, Alleviator,
39)
Odd:
Even (Numbers), strange, abnormal, unusual, out of the ordinary atypical
40)
Even: smooth, flat, level, flush, and ‘yet’ like in ‘even though’ ‘even if’ etc
41)
Insecurity:
Protection, Courage, Fearlessness, surrender
42)
Wrong:
Correct, Right, unison,
predetermined,
43)
Pertinent:
irrelevant, trivial, misleading, diffusing
Phonocentrism a
Bane or a Boon
It is a simple fact of life. When we utter something we simultaneously
get audio-feedback, motor-feedback of vocal effort, meaning to be communicated.
All is simultaneously presented to us.
This creates a sense of truth, verity. Derrida etc are bent upon destroying or
nipping in bud the sense of truth for their subversive agenda.
Written matter, by
contrast is some scribing in front of us. The reader recognizes it as a script and
then language and then message that writer might have intended to give. Writer
is absent, reader is ‘free’ to play around with the new plaything he has got and
it is called a text. This ‘absolute’ freedom of interpretation is lacking in a
dialogue. So phonic is bad and inscription
is good! Co-presentation is basis of all verification. But the subversives want
to destroy the very notion of verity, because it enslaves us to some sort of
true saying and ultimately Logos, the center of gravity of normative discourse.
Subversives are out to ‘emancipate’ us from any such basis to hold on. This is
how phonocentrism has become a bad word.
I feel that we are
fortunate to have such experience of myself-talking. I can sometimes fool
others but not myself. We are fortunate to have been endowed with axiomatic
intuition, a-priory to anchor our thinking.
We share before we speak or write. We have theoretical as well as
practical bases for communicative action and objectivity. What is the point in
denying all this and start a pursuit of meaninglessness?
These are my
problems with Derrida. If Derrida is right than everybody is right, myself
included. But am I right even when it is possible that something can be wrong?
Or simply anything goes?
