A Digression on Derrida

[@qnu1909]

Its always funny when Anglo-Saxons say "différance" the French way, as Derrida intended this word to be indiscernable from "différence" when voiced out loud

[@qnu1909]

Non-being isnt "nothing, nothingness" ; it really is not-being, not-the-being. Being is one because it comes first, and not-being is zero because it is no-one, not-one. Because there must be a beginning in the opposition. But being on the other hand, as identity, as pure existence without limits, it is just nothing. Being alone is nothing. Very perplexing state of affair.

[@DanielL143]

So a 1 could be a 0 and vice versa; you could say look at that one, its a zero. My point is that there is an arbitrary relativism going on with naming, binary and Boolean logic (in engineering we refer to positive and negative logic circuits, normally open and normally closed relay contacts etc.) and language meets logic. The pragmatic aspect is that we get a scale and a resolution in binary math; you don't just end up with 1 and 0, you work up to 8, 16, 32, 64 bit systems that emerge from the concept of primordial polar opposites, a system that can describe the myriad of things in the set of all things. But is reality binary (in QM you have 6 varieties of quarks, spin up and spin down, spin 2/3, fundamental constants that are anything but ones and zeros and in GR space and time are not quantized). The ones and zeros (IMO), outside of binary systems (which I don't believe describes reality or nature) provide us with a way of modelling reality in computer systems - but, critically, are not real, just arbitrary reference points chosen to sort out that primordial chaos yes, but not true or false (nature is full of hybrids and variation that does not fit nicely into 1 or zero boxes, even though they might be more one-ish than zero-ish. Reality (from my interpretation of Taoism and Zen and QM) is much more subtle and exists on a spectrum; it is analog not digital. The Ones and Zeros being useful tools, poles which enable us to point in a direction but never get there (where is the West pole where the Wicked witch lives, its a Zen koan which demonstrates the limits of language ?) Our brains crave a conceptual model that we can overlay on reality to give us language, but reality is not constrained by it and mother nature laughs. The Tao that can be spoken (denoted or connotated) is not the true Tao. In the beginning was not the word (that came later), it was silence, wholeness. Schrodinger's equation was after all a classical wave equation - not discrete. So are we after the knowable template that our minds create or the beautiful unknowable complex woman that is mother nature. The spirit of god hovered over the water .. don't try to understand her, just appreciate her beauty. Art is truth. We are one and incomprehensible.

[@katherandefy]

Luv Derrida

[@Eta_Carinae__]

I was thinking that it may also be the reason why many people think Myers-Briggs is wrong, since the absence of a binary between pressence and absence in practice pushes people to identify themselves with neither.

[@realitiesoftypology7502]

I enjoy that you realize that different types will approach knowledge differently, and I find many people fail in this area, even as they actually engage actively in the study of typology. So in that regard, that is the path to truly understanding it in my view, but people's egos can often get in the way of such things. To not let one's ego get in the way is transcendent.

[@andrewcamarillo5728]

The “points” and the relationships can be focused on; the absence/presence dichotomy does not seem to be the problem Derrida perceived it to be. The celebrity (Derrida) was a bit of a charlatan.

[@Ghost-zm1rk]

I think its more about exerting force on your environment and being flexible to change in my opinion, nothing else. too rigid and people crack under the pressure, yet to flexible and be pushed around without any control. embracing either one fully will destroy your life. I don't think its about being the most masculine or feminine because even those terms are in my opinion slightly misleading ,narrow , and slightly offensive to people who don't consider themselves the labels that they "are" or what those labels imply. like if a man is considered feminine solely for his temperament, or likewise for a woman being considered masculine I think intellectualizing masculinity and femininity is somewhat futile and kind of childish in the sense of trying to prop yourself up as the "alpha male" because your an introvert or extravert or whatever which I think this is actually about.

[@Valosken]

Isn't it odd to put denotation on the side of the feminine? Not only are masculine people more wont to focus on the denotation of things, you could more readily consider it the presence, and the connotation the absence.

[@RanchengLu]

Bro to some extent you look like Michel Foucault

[@suejonmeyers8362]

First