The ideal would be to contemplate thought directly. Since this cannot be, language should be transparent as possible. The threat of nontransparency is the danger that, instead of permitting direct contemplation of thought, linguistic signs might arrest the gaze and, by interposing their material forms, affect or infect the thought.
jonathan culler, on deconstruction (i don’t agree with the “should”, but find this interesting)
“it’s still us against them, & they’re winning.”

blog last.fm twitter 8tracks

view archive



ask me something!