Never yielding to the oppositional game of metaphysics itself, and reminding us that effects of sollicitation also happens automatically and as if auto-affected, Derrida rather tries to make us aware of the necessity of fissuring the entire edifice of totalitarian and reductionist oppositional and hierarchical terms and series. Derrida’s sollicitation is a necessary counter-violence. Every totality can be shown to be founded upon that which it excludes, that is, that which would become excessive for the reductive analysis of becomings into formulas. As for instance is the case with the old philosopheme arkhē that cartels the senses of founding, origin, principle, commencement [phusis] and that of commandment, government, sovereignty [thesis, tekhnē, nomos], principle and prince, hence the etymological link between archeology and monarchy. Sollicitation would demonstrate the differential excess secretly constituting the very conditions of possibility of arkhē. Thus, also implying its conditions of impossibility. Arkhē commenced as meaning in the nomological sense: to the arkhē as commandment, coming from the Greek arkheion, “initially a house, a domicile, and address, the residence of the superior magistrates, the archons, those who commanded.”
. . . . Attempting to undertake a sollicitation of science in the name of a certain necessary counterviolent gesture, it is strictly uncircumventable to investigate into the strategical resources of the originary sollicitation of philosophy as was undertaken by Jacques Derrida from the 60’s on. Only thus is such a paraphrasis, such a supplementary … Continue reading
“The virus is in part a parasite that destroys, that introduces disorder into communication,” alas! Paul De Man’s warning that “the impossibility of reading should not be taken too lightly,” is more than fit. What had not already Derrida said about ‘communication’ in Signature, Event, Context? We are still Kantians with a view to ‘communication.’ Newton’s ideological gravitational force made Kant fall, and the naive question asked: “What are the conditions of possibility of knowledge?” Still not daring to critically question the mythological horizon of our age old metaphysical tradition, we continue in the vein of Kant: “What are the conditions of possibility of communication?” How dare one call oneself a thinker without scrupulously inquiring after conditions of impossibility? And this is indeed what Derrida does. In his entire oeuvre, in fact.
What are really the evental character of simultaneously—as always is in any case—writing and tracing singularly absent undecidables? We are all, incessantly, writing and tracing such undecidables. Such applies for science no less. The evental is confluous with the law of general iterability. And the law of general iterability commands conditions of impossibility no less than conditions of possibility. Science, too, is immersed in both these sets of conditions of possibility of knowledge and truth. An event never emerges from a program; an event cannot be expected. There are certain internal contexts in science, however, that makes up both for its fantastic progress and for its phantastic auto-immunitary destruction.
Writing, Undecidability, General Iterability, and Conditions of Impossibility—these are only 4 of the internal contexts in science, irreducible, arche, prior but not chronologically, to all of science’s idealities, objectivities, theories, explanations, logic, methods, instruments, calibrations, procedures, etc. Such is what shall here be addressed, impromptu, periculum in promptu!
“To tympanize—” science.
Science abhors the law of general iterability, pretending that somehow it is enabled to keep general iterability at bay, pretending that it is constituted by some form of special iterability. Such presuppositions, common as they are, are none the less false. Already during the first half of the 20. century, however, we saw a dawning recognition of what here is referred to as the law of general iterability. Edmund Husserl was probably the first to catch a glimpse of this law that, de jure and de facto, is the very sine qua non of science and scientificity in general. Jacques Derrida’s scrupulous reading of Husserl during the 50s, 60s, and 70s, still articulates, by far, most comprehensive attempt at outlining the imports and implications of the law of general iterability.
Tympanize — philosophy, Derrida wrote. Tympanize — science too, I’d say.
The only limit in this is the restricting way wou meet those DeathGifts/GiftDeaths; wou make those lips and teeth, by refusal, denegation, suppression, fear, closed teeth—but there too, in the closed closing teeth, there are those grammas where Nothing slips in. Spacing is surely just as much in the very gramming as in the betweens of grammas—as it is between spacing-gramma and spacing-blanks. Traces are the most fragile things, by dreams awakened dreams.
…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.
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.