Pre_class, Derrida 11/6, Eric

While I was reading the textual brick wall that is Derrida's 'Differance,' several thoughts occurred to me. First and formost was that if there is this much word masturbation in the translation how much was there in the original french text? Seriously, if only salman rushdie and derrida could somehow fight each other with their own self-indulgent writing prowess it would cause hemmingway's mutilated corpse to eat buckshot AGAIN. And somewhere far away, Ayn Rand would clutch her precious gold but I digress.
I SHALL SPEAK, THEN, OF WHAT I WAS SAYING BEFORE MY DIGRESSION- The next thought which popped into my head was this loses a lot more than florid language in translation. I shall, however, resist the urge to digress on that matter. If this was written in english, I will be most amused. I considered saying some ridiculous statement like "I WOULD EAT MY HAT" but, since the idea of translating a tract that relies heavily on language is so ridiculously audacious and I don't think hats are very digestible, I did not. yes, I did say I wouldn't digress. I supposed I lied.
I must have read Derrida's statement about how differance was neither a word nor a concept at least twenty times because I just could not understand what exactly he was saying. it would seem to me that even if this 'differance' existed in a state in which is was not a word or concept, by writing it out and defining it, Derrida has, in the literal sense, made it both a word and a concept. He would argue that, differance is different from words and concepts. HAR HAR. Because, he says, differance is the phenomenon of how words and concepts express meaning. except he didn't say that, he spent an ineffable number of words trying to express that thought that while not making it seem in anyway that he was actually talking about anything at all, let alone, a concept or word. On page one hundered and thirty-three, he seems to quasi-recant his earlier statements by saying that we do indeed have a concept of differance. I would say that nothing meaningful can exist outside of language. If indeed there is a part of this something Derrida calls Differance that exists outside of our meaning, it may as well not exist for us at all. We cannot actually see black holes, we only see their effects surrounding space. it seems derrida is trying to say that differance is a little bit like that. However since differance lacks the ability to consume whole stars, it seems a bit less dangerous. I kan't really think of anything else to say except that some of this reminds me of the hilarious riff on "there are more things than are dreampt of in your philosophy horatio," that is Kant's critique of Pure Reason [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Critique_of_Pure_Reason[/url]