JACQUES DERRIDA
Systems, in order to operate efficiently, must have a hub at their core from which the practicability of the structure comports to. Language structures are not exceptions to this central truth. Rather, linguistic patterns and functions are driven by the arrangements that rotate on their core foundations. Communicational efficiency operates on the principles of coherence, fundamentals, definitions and associations. Fields of words relating to principles of understanding are built upon relational equations that develop from these networks that in turn convey concise thought. The greater the precision in communicating with clarity and articulation, the greater the ability to comprehend the ideas that are postulated for consideration by those who are engaged in open dialogue, thus, basic rules need to be adhered to for cohesion to be achieved.
This is the dual genius and tragedy of Jacque Derrida’s system of philosophical language patterns. Utilizing a complex system that purportedly functions in a non-structured format, Derrida attempts to deconstruct the philosophical systems he at times derides and alternately embraces. By increasing the complexity of structural functions pertaining to language, Derrida purportedly created a new level of understanding. The difficulty with this is seen in the simple redeployment of values and complex ideological propositions that exist within the writing of Derrida. The task of the astute observer is to dismantle and reconstruct that which is written. Thus, the postmodern practice of reinvention applies equally to the body of work credited to Derrida as well. The sword of irony cuts both ways.
Derrida’s absurdities can be actual conveyors of truth, at least in so far as the postmodernist paradigm is concerned. The preoccupational focus of written values before guttural spoken variations were articulated is an interesting line of thought that bears development from the Christian vantage point. This referent can easily transcend the gap between the semi-existentialism of postmodern reflections and Christianity. Scripture refers to a pre-existent Word that supercedes the need for linguistically confining communication. The ideological assumptions of Scripture pre-suppose the Words transcendent qualities. Timeless in the arena of spatiality, the Word incarnated in order to facilitate the necessary strictures of communications variables.
Additionally, this Word abridged the challenging gap that exists between Deredda’s worlds and supra world. This transitional qualifier allows a merging effect to be enforced through this Word’s incarnational expression. Thus, in a certain way, a different form of communicant manifested for communication’s sake, if the linguistic values are properly ascribed. Word value enhances the acute awareness that by necessity must be traversed for efficient speech and comprehension to be formulated between the referents. Dialectic conformity is the stated objective between God and man through the vehicle of the Homoousios.
Once the vagaries of complex phrases, fragmented and disjointed sentences as well as newly created levels of definitions are surreptitiously absorbed, Derrida becomes a victim to logical assumptions. Communications blurring bypasses the need to confuse and titillate. Derrida then lends his structured, playful excursions into linguistic puzzles, inadvertently to the church as a force for open dialogue to be entered into between the postmodernist and the Christian communicator along lines of compatible areas of concern. This is as it as always been the thinking church gravitates toward reemerging patterns of inquiry in order to test assumptions. When these assumptions appear to be wanting, reformulating existing modus operandi becomes the pathway to truths elusive portals.
The newly found philosophy is in reality a rehashing of the time honored principles that have led to innumerable revolutions in the field of theology, as the church moves forward from one reformational period to the next. Reformation and challenge lends itself to the playground of heresy for one generation that becomes the orthodoxy of the next level of proficient exegetes. Postmodernism is not new clothing for the emperor. It is the ancient practice of challenging assumptions reapplied to the modern mindset. Ancient modernity has never looked as good as it does in the sandbox of time, where we can observe Augustine influencing Moore, Aquinas speaking to Derrida, Nietzsche superimposing himself into the matrix of Borges, Burroughs and Angelou.
