Monday, February 16, 2009

Lecture 5: Derrida Differance and Cut-up, Kieren Boddy

Original Text
It will be objected, for the same reasons, that graphic difference itself vanishes into the night, can never be sensed as a full term, but rather extends an invisible relationship, the mark of an inapparent relationship between two spectacles. Doubtless. But, from this point of view, that the difference marked in the "differ( )nce" between the e and the a eludes both vision and hearing perhaps happily suggests that here we must be permitted to refer to an order which no longer belongs to sensibility. But neither can it belog to intelligibility, to the ideality which is not fortuitously affiliated with the objectivity of theorein or understanding. Here, therefore, we must let ourselves refer to an order that resists the opposition, one of the founding oppositions of philosophy, between the sensible and the intelligible. The order which resists this opposition, and resists it because it transports it, is announced in a movement of différance (with an a) between two differences or two letters, a différance which belongs neither to the voice nor to writing in the usual sense, and which is located, as the strange space that will keep us together here for an hour, between speech and writing, and beyond the tranquil familarity which links us to one and the other, occasionally reassuring us in our illusion that they are two.

eludes both vision same reasons, that happily suggests that the ideality which the other, occasionally be permitted to here we must sensibility. But neither between speech and order which no or understanding. Here, between speech and this opposition, and an invisible relationship, refer to an differences or two order which no of philosophy, between that resists the the sensible and opposition, one of the founding oppositions here we must longer belongs to vanishes into the therefore, we must and hearing perhaps an invisible relationship, Doubtless. But, from view, that the a) between two therefore, we must to one and is announced in the mark of objected, for the the mark of the sensible and the "differ( )nce" affiliated with the and hearing perhaps between two spectacles. for an hour, this point of the "differ( )nce" a full term, affiliated with the the strange space in the usual reassuring us in and the a is not fortuitously an inapparent relationship between two spectacles. difference marked in Doubtless. But, from and the a this point of the "differ( )nce" to an order the ideality which can it belog affiliated with the objected, for the letters, a différance be sensed as in the usual therefore, we must us together here us together here the mark of the tranquil familarity but rather extends vanishes into the resists it because to the voice can it belog resists it because which links us to one and to one and or understanding. Here, eludes both vision between speech and our illusion that nor to writing view, that the an invisible relationship, is located, as order which resists opposition, one of to one and a movement of or understanding. Here, the "differ( )nce" objected, for the to intelligibility, to sensibility. But neither It will be graphic difference itself différance (with an that will keep night, can never they are two.eludes both vision order which resists it transports it, to the voice that resists the the sensible and to intelligibility, to a full term, is announced in is announced in and the a us together here the intelligible. The between the e night, can never of philosophy, between writing, and beyond let ourselves refer to an order a) between two and hearing perhaps sense, and which graphic difference itself refer to an can it belog sense, and which the strange space between the e which belongs neither they are two.between speech and that will keep happily suggests that a movement of the other, occasionally the strange space same reasons, that graphic difference itself the intelligible. The to an order objectivity of theorein the tranquil familarity

Three sentences
The cut-up technique, when left to a computer algorithm is a bit hit an miss when it comes down to deriving a coherent and/or deeper meaning within the random sentences that are generated from Derrida's source text. Whilst trying to interpret and understand the cut-up paragraph, I asked myself, when reading intelligible sentences (interpreting the whole was difficult, so I just interpreted the few sentences that I could decode to read correctly), "what does this mean", "does it mean anything", and "If X really means something, does it change my opinion on Y and Z". The amount of 'flowery' text Derrida used means that there is more chance of the text being understandable (in comparison) than a more dryer and succinct text being cut-up and ending up as total gibberish. 

No comments: