Hi there!
Listen I will say up front that I studied deconstructionism at University and I got pretty good grades, so there is no mistaking that I know what I am talking about when I define what deconstructionism is, at least. So I will start with a definition.
Deconstructionism is the idea that meaning is created by oppositions, such as black and white, that give significance to terms that operate a negotiators between them, such as colour, giving them irony that makes their meaning worthwhile. So you will hear people say, deconstructionism shows that meaning is illusory.
There is a limiting case with this argument how ever, and it is repetition. Deconstructionism assumes that the level of meaning in a given text is constant and that the oppositions set up in the text are some how maximally valued, you don't doubt that they mean something in other words. However, if we imagine that the text is just a repetition of the theory of Deconstructionism, this meaning breaks down. This is different from the claim that meaning breaks down because there are opposites, as repetitions of the same text do not constitute opposites, just repetitions.
So for example, say you have deconstructionism A and deconstructionism B and there is a middle term of deconstructionism C, none of it means anything more than anything else, yet if there are more repetitions of A than B you can say there is more meaning in A, nothing at all to do with oppositions and the middle term C becomes ironic but for the opposite reason: none of it has any meaning. So therefore no meaning can be created.
Now this does not show that there is no such thing as meaning, I don't think, though I am making a parallel argument to the original which reached a similar conclusion on the basis of equally plain premises. What I think I am showing is that there is always a limiting case to an argument, which maintains the primacy of choice and that choice is what gives meaning life. Now you have a choice as to whether you see deconstructionism as a series of oppositions or whether you see it as something that flies in the face of repetition with the expectation that irony will prevail when it will not necessarily prevail.
Repetition is statistically significant by the way, as a text can be shown to be meaningfully consistent by repetition and distribution alone, work that has been done by a scientist who I can only refer to by connection with the program "through the wormhole by morgan freeman" at this stage, as I am working from working memory and I do not store precise details on such things unless they are asked for.
If you wish to discuss this, you may like to propose that meaning revolves around something that is neither ironic nor meaningless, for example.
Listen I will say up front that I studied deconstructionism at University and I got pretty good grades, so there is no mistaking that I know what I am talking about when I define what deconstructionism is, at least. So I will start with a definition.
Deconstructionism is the idea that meaning is created by oppositions, such as black and white, that give significance to terms that operate a negotiators between them, such as colour, giving them irony that makes their meaning worthwhile. So you will hear people say, deconstructionism shows that meaning is illusory.
There is a limiting case with this argument how ever, and it is repetition. Deconstructionism assumes that the level of meaning in a given text is constant and that the oppositions set up in the text are some how maximally valued, you don't doubt that they mean something in other words. However, if we imagine that the text is just a repetition of the theory of Deconstructionism, this meaning breaks down. This is different from the claim that meaning breaks down because there are opposites, as repetitions of the same text do not constitute opposites, just repetitions.
So for example, say you have deconstructionism A and deconstructionism B and there is a middle term of deconstructionism C, none of it means anything more than anything else, yet if there are more repetitions of A than B you can say there is more meaning in A, nothing at all to do with oppositions and the middle term C becomes ironic but for the opposite reason: none of it has any meaning. So therefore no meaning can be created.
Now this does not show that there is no such thing as meaning, I don't think, though I am making a parallel argument to the original which reached a similar conclusion on the basis of equally plain premises. What I think I am showing is that there is always a limiting case to an argument, which maintains the primacy of choice and that choice is what gives meaning life. Now you have a choice as to whether you see deconstructionism as a series of oppositions or whether you see it as something that flies in the face of repetition with the expectation that irony will prevail when it will not necessarily prevail.
Repetition is statistically significant by the way, as a text can be shown to be meaningfully consistent by repetition and distribution alone, work that has been done by a scientist who I can only refer to by connection with the program "through the wormhole by morgan freeman" at this stage, as I am working from working memory and I do not store precise details on such things unless they are asked for.
If you wish to discuss this, you may like to propose that meaning revolves around something that is neither ironic nor meaningless, for example.
