From a longer essay by Gary Moore Derrida on Peirce
I have left this formatting as is for obvious reasons.
From a longer essay by Gary Moore
Derrida on Peirce
In the second chapter of his Of Grammatology Derrida (1976, 48ff.) looks for authorities able to legitimize his attempt to outline a semeiosis of infinite play, of difference of the infinite whirl of interpretation. Among the authors he quotes after Saussure and Jakobson, there is also Peirce. After having cited Peirce's statements that "symbols grow" and that "omne symbolum de symbolo" (CP 2.302), Derrida writes:
Peirce goes very far in the direction that I have called the de-construction of the transcendental signified, which, at one time or another, would place areassuringend to the reference from sign to sign. I have identified logocentrism and the metaphysics of presence as the exigent, powerful, systematic, and irrepressible desire for such a signified. Now Peirce considers the indefinite-ness of reference as the criterion that allows us to recognize that we are indeed dealing with a system of signs. What broaches the movement of signification is what makes its interruption impossible. The thing itself is a sign.An unacceptable proposition for Husserl, whose phenomenology remains therefore—in its "principle ofprinciples"—the most radical and most critical restoration of the metaphysics of presence. The difference between Husserl's and Peirce's phenomenologies isfundamental since it concerns theconcept of the sign and of the manifestation of presence, the relationship between the re-presentation and the originary presentation of the thing itself (truth). On this point Peirce is undoubtedly closer to the inventor of the word phenomenology: Lambert proposed in fact to "reduce the theory of thingsto the theory of signs." According to the "phaneroscopy" or "phenomenology" of Peirce, manifestationitself does not reveal a presence, it makes a sign. One may read in the Principles of Phenomenology that "the idea of/214/ manifestationis the idea of a sign." There is thus no phenomenality reducing the sign or the representer so that the thing signified may be allowed to glow finally in the luminosity of its presence. The so-called "thing itself" is always already a representamenshielded from the simplicity of intuitive evidence. Therepresentamenfunctions only by giving rise to aninterpretantthat itself becomes a sign and so on to infinity. The self-identity of the signified conceals itself unceasingly and is always on the move. The property of the representamenistobeitselfandanother, to be produced as a structure of reference, tobeseparatedfromitself. The property of the representamenis not to be proper [propre], that is to say absolutely proximateto itself (prope, proprius). Therepresentedis always already a representamen. . . .
From the moment that there is meaning there are nothing but signs. We think only in signs[1976, 49-50].
Thus, it seems that the whole Peircean theory of unlimited semeiosis supports the position of Derrida by which
if reading must not be content with doubling the text,itcannot legitimately transgress the text toward something other than it, toward a referent (a reality that is metaphysical, historical, psychobiographical, etc.) or toward a signified outside the text whosecontent could take place, could have taken place outside of language. . . . There is nothing outside of the text[there is no outside-text; il n'y a pas de hors-texte] [1976, 158].
Frangoulis and Theodorakis are joined by musicians, including two bouzouki players, and a very large audience that is completely familiar with the words. The audience joins in at Frangoulis' prompt.
This is my very favorite Theodorakis melody. Those who know Theodorakis only for his "Zorba" music are in for a treat. When I was in Athens in 1966, for a short period of study with Constantinos Doxiadis, I knew nothing of Theodorakis. But about five years later, my friend Irene Vassos sang "Sto perigiali" to us. I have never gotten the tune out of my mind.
Later, when Irene joined our group to form a travelling company performing "New Rain", I learned to pick out a …
To counter the invidious efforts of Karl Rove and the Brothers Koch, simple videos of everyday people expressing gratitude for specific results from specific things that the President has achieved will create a signature response that will turn the tables on the Super PACs.
There could be an intro that flags lies distortions and anonymous attacks as unreal and even criminal and a cut to what is real, recognizable and not anonymous I am (name). I have lived here in (name) for (time). Thanks to (President Obama's (name) Act ... and so forth for ten seconds. Close with a continuation of the story narrated over evocative images and simple acoustic music.
This would be a fantastic way to counter the attacks on the President. For every specific attack, a video that shows the truth. And grass roots people who intend to vote for the President.