The displacement of the question concerns a certain « textual operation, » unique and differentiated, assigned to no absolute beginning, consumed by reading and writing on other texts nonetheless referring only to its own writing. Here is discernable that preoccupation with the viral, and the logic of autoimmunity, what later became an explicit thematic of deconstruction. The graph and the gramma is viral. Bibleion is viral, as any parchment or paper or computer screen—any sheet, any surface. We will later explicate the logic of such an autoimmune virographematics. Such an autoimmune virographematics that is stated to subject science. A subjecting which will sollicitate the very pillars of science, its inner architecture. In turn paving the way—that is, if repressed and denegated—for other solicitations of science, namely where the effects and conseqiences of science on nature—or let’s say upon science’s Other—are solicitating to unheard of degrees, catastropically so.
The pure futurity offered in Derridaean temporization and spacing makes any instructive or pedagogical choosing wherefrom to quote an impossible destinerrance between ontological chance or necessity, authorial indifference, and deliberate and delicate necessity. All his writings write on the acute structural inescapability of precisely having to make decisions on such structural destinerrance, politically acute for all times and spaces, relative all khōras: that strange share of iter/itar as signifying both iterability-and-other. We could have ourselves picked picking by chance or by necessity or by a play between the two, or, have ourselves indiscriminately pick from everywhere, or, try being wise about it. Nonetheless, such predicament here never bespeaks indifference; more critical, affirmative sense: a renewed criticity. These are, then, the quotes, to have us begin, from future to us.
…There is nothing but writing, in a certain sense, but writing uses a space a blank space, an ignorant biblion, bibliophoros, what carries letters; it has to space in order to be in the writing of its writing. The blank space is also the fortress buttressing, then by spacing writing all it can, against the Nothing that Derreath traces in Husserl but that just as well might be directly related to writing written here as Iou have wrote.
There are at least six things to remember, when reading and writing, experiencing: first the almost immediate Nothing in the very banal concreteness of the blank, the spacing, and the grammas; second the Nothing that the writer faces faced toward the paper and screen; third the Nothing between the intended writer and the intended reader; fourth the Nothing the reader faces looking into those spaced grammas; fifth the Nothing that ships texts out with no possible addressee; and sixth that Nothing that says that total death and absence is the very condition of possibility of there being decipherable texts.
“Le silence est un mot qui n’est pas un mot et le souffle un objet qui n’est pas un objet.” (G. BATAILLE)
[…] et strictement parallèle à la phénoménologie. Or le franchissement de cette invisible différence qui sépare des parallèles n’est pas innocent : il est le geste le plus subtil et le plus ambitieux de l’abus psychologiste. […] Pour éclaircir la distance qui doit séparer une psychologie phénoménologique d’une phénoménologie transcendantale, il faudrait interroger sur ce rien qui les empêche de se rejoindre, sur cette parallélité qui libère l’espace d’une question transcendantale. Ce rien est ce qui permet la réduction transcendantale. La réduction transcendantale est ce qui convertit notre attention vers ce rien où la totalité du sens et le sens de la totalité laissent apparaître leur origine. C’est-à-dire, selon l’expression de Fink, l’origine du monde.
A magnificent work, sure to graft itself into virographematics and the solicitation of science.
It is harangued that Derrida is the “first major philosopher to philosophize about writing,” but what remains is that his Introduction relates writing in general to science in general, to scientificity. In his De la grammatologie Derrida phoned, collect call, back the Introduction, as happened in his La voix et le phénomène: Introduction au problème du signe dans la phenomenology de Husserl, as also in his L’écriture et la difference, all appearing 1967. 5 years later, in 1972, the insistence on writing and science, scientific writing, and writing science is still rather easy to trace, with La dissémination, Marges de la philosophie, and Positions. Entretiens avec Henri Ronse, Julia Kristeva, Jean-Louis Houdebin, Guy Scarpetta. Then, 5 more years: Limited Inc. After 1977, the imprints of Introduction surface in 1990, in Le problème de la gènese dans la philosophie de Husserl—actually Derrida’s 1954 Master’s thesis. After 1977, for the rest of his life, 27 years, Derrida never in insistence surfaced again with this insister of writing and science. Still, we shall see that many other works and texts allude to and trace the origin of his thought, an “origin” that self-referentially writes a fourth text.