They Make Comments

Just pulling up a conclusion that LS was restating in comments:

I am saying that manifestation is output, not the black box. From your post and response to my comment I get the sense that you think I am saying that speculation about black boxes is a bad thing. For example, you suggested that I was criticizing Derrida in your initial post. Thus you [PITE] write:

Anyway, I may have just misread you on all this, since I think you were just really saying manifest=output of some mysterious process, rather than manifestation being the actual process. And thus the black box is the mysterious process, acting as a non-real deux ex machina. But I don’t know: I think when you’re getting to “orginary” questions, can you fault a thinker (I’m thinking of all that Aristotle wrote on just this question) for teasing out a logic that is …black box-y? I’m not saying it is a black box, but at that point, you could say that for any philosopher who is talking about being-qua-being. What is pure actuality in Aristotle but a black box for then getting his metaphysics going?

I might not have made the point clearly enough in the two posts in question, but I am in no way suggesting that we should cease speculating about black boxes. If anything, my position is that all objects are black boxes or input/output machines. What I was criticizing in the post you’re responding to is the anti-realist tendency to attribute black boxes to homo sapiens alone or to give a sort of privileged place to the human.

Yeah, I know the crew of ’68 wants to claim they’re anti-humanists, but with the sole exception of Deleuze that is complete and utter b*llshit. Everything thinker from the crew of ’68 restricts the black boxes to human phenomena (language, power, discursive practices, etc). You don’t get to call yourself an anti-humanist while making something like language, which is only available to humans, the condition for everything else. That’s exactly what Derrida does with his concepts of writing, trace, differance, etc. The problem isn’t that he’s trying to think about black boxes. That’s what us philosophers should be doing. The problem is he’s treating the human as the only site of black boxes.

Well, I’ll have to leave aside the Deleuze v. Derrida death match, but hopefully I didn’t miss something obvious when I was just quickly responding last night. The problem can be read by looking carefully at the opening chapter of Of Grammatology: Derrida begins by talking about language in terms that are more amenable to LS. Butwhen he shifts to his readings, it’s because of deconstruction’s method of going back through various figures that all he can do is announce the possible closure of an era in which all black boxes are human (or something). That said, I think someone like Nancy has pushed in his work on the sense of the world to expand on just the right thinking of sense, for example, though I’ve just published a couple of articles on that and I need to expand that into a fuller work.