Enquanto isso, no fim de semestre
Voltar para Derrida e Levinas, depois de 3 anos e as Investigacoes Logicas combinadas com as Ideens no meio. Resultado?
Its interesting to see the relation Derrida makes between the presence and the abscence of signs and the emergence of a voice in the association of ideal expression and living indication. Now, I realize those terms are not used by neither Husserl nor Derrida, but I believe that this is an interesting way into the problem of communication, that is: how the form of a solitary expression is lived in an indication, and the association between this ideal language and a lived presence of a language constitutes a difference. This difference turns us away from the matters of presentification and reproduction of sameness into the field of intuition and constitution. When Derrida says that discourse outside its expressive kernel is impossible, but it is nevertheless taken almost in its totality in a indicative web,what we have is the issue of an association that goes beyond pure expressivity and substantive reproduction of signs.
It’s become common place to say that Derrida holds an impossibility of the “outside of discourse”, but as we follow the embodiment of speech in Voice and Phenomenon, we see that such hyperbolic statement is quite problematic. It is true that there is no discourse outside expression, but is expression always discursive? Pure expression, as such, seems to hold for Derrida a pregnancy of discourse, but expression in its ideality is not yet discursive as such, it presents a kind of boundary between discourse and no-discourse, a limine where the body of speech starts to be constituted. What happens to expression, then, as it starts to be signified? As we manifest ourselves, we finally integrate the absence of the sign in pure-expressivity with the empirical incarnation of language. In this, alterity emerges as the mediation that allows for meaning to be constitute. Derrida is going ahead of the logical investigations and into the development of the problem of sign and meaning in Husserls’ philosophy, and I believe we reach the main point of voice and phenomenon when Derrida writes that “one must therefore acknowledge that the third person of the indicative present of the verb to be is the irreducible and pure kernel of expression.” In this, we see that Derrida will place in the limit of the discourse, shaping all possibility for the emergence of meaning, the figure of Alterity, in the movement of différance produces the transcendental subject in expression as both a trace and an expectancy of an other-to-come. An absolute limit to speech and reduction, something that is not possible to be meant in its integrality. So we abandon the apparent self-referentiality of the naive conceptions of simillitude and enter the realm of a signification that has its boundaries marked by difference.
Então foi isso que eu vim fazer aqui? Ah tá, só para saber.