References
- Jacques Derrida, Writing and Difference, trans. Alan Bass, Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1978, p.29.
- Ibid, p. 26.
- Jacques Derrida, ‘Psyche: Invention of the Other’, trans. Catherine Porter and Phillip Lewis in Reading de Man Reading, ed. Wlad Godzich and Lindsay Waters, Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press 1989, p. 56.
- Jacques Derrida, Points, Stanford: Stanford University Press 1995, p. 198.
- Ibid, p. 387.
- Jacques Derrida, Dissemination, trans. Barbara Johnson, Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1981, p.219.
- Jacques Derrida, Edmund Husserl's Origin of Geometry: An Introduction, trans. J.P. Leavey, Jr. Stony Brook: Nicholas Hays 1978, p. 54.
- Ibid, p.54.
- See Roger Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and the Laws of Physics, New York: Penguin Press 1991, p. 113.
- Jacques Derrida, Writing and Difference, p.157.
- Jacques Derrida, ‘Death and Meaning: Derrida's Response to Baldwin’ in Arguing with Derrida, ed. Simon Glendinning, London: Blackwell 2001, p.103.
- Jacques Derrida, Speech and Phenomena and Other Essays on Husserl's Theory of Signs, trans. D.B. Allison, Evanston: Northwestern University Press 1973, p.52.
- See Jacques Derrida, Origin of Geometry, pp.72–74.
- Jacques Derrida, Limited Inc., trans. Samuel Weber, Evanston: Northwestern University Press 1988, p. 61 an 53 respectively.
- Ibid. p.11.
- These quotations are extracted from ‘The Supernumerary’ chapter of Dissemination, in which Derrida's thought intertwines itself with a work (among others) by Phillipe Sollers, called Numbers. One must pay particular attention to Derrida's usage of the word ‘numbers’ here, since Sollers’ text is not generally devoted to a literal analysis of numeration. When Derrida refers directly to Sollers’ text, he italicizes the word ‘numbers’ and capitalizes its first letter. When Derrida uses the word ‘number’, ‘numbers’ or related derivations without italics, he is apparently speaking of a general concept of number. The quote this reference points to mentions ‘numbers’ both with and without italics.
- Jacques Derrida, Dissemination, p.350.
- Jacques Derrida, Origin of Geometry, p.136.
- Ibid, p.131.
- Ibid, p.152.
- In Speech and Phenomena, Derrida relates Husserl's formalistic account of infinity to his theory of language. Derrida argues that Husserl's distinction between the indicating and expressing function of language reflects the belief that the pure or ideal expressive function of language can be more or less protected from the altering effect of language's role as indication. This in turn implies that an originating sense or meaning is directly transmissible and reproducible across time as self-identical, without being of necessity contaminated by impurities.
- Amid the clamour of voices defending phenomenology against deconstruction, one can locate writers such as Bernard Stiegler and Richard Beardsworth treating deconstruction as if it were itself a phenomenological anthropology. See Bennington's critical essay ‘Emergencies'’, in Interrupting Derrida, London: Routledge 2000.
- Donn Welton, like Husserl, clings to the idea of language as a conceptual schematism. Welton understands language in a formal sense in which words are interpretive devices defined within semantic fields in a kind of Saussurian structuralism of relations of similarity and contrast between signs, prototypes, and abstract categories. This allows him to distinguish between the supposedly derivative nature of language and the originality of perception. Welton says “We have a type of involvement with things that does not require the mediation of language; things have a sense or significance that is not reducible to a function of meaning…the notion of background carries us beyond the limits of language” Donn Welton, The Other Husserl, The Horizons of Transcendental Phenomenology, Bloomington: Indiana University Press 2000, p.392.
- Jacques Derrida, Writing and Difference, p.158.
- Jacques Derrida, Dissemination, p.363f.
- Derrida claims the repetition of a prior animating intention through mathematical idealization does not preserve but interrupts its sense. The would-be preservation of an intended meaning is expropriated “by the mark of numbers, whose nonphonetic operation, which suspends the voice, dislocates self-proximity, a living presence that would hear itself represented by speech”. Jacques Derrida, Dissemination, p.331.
- Jacques Derrida, ‘Psyche: Inventions of the Other’, p. 51 and p. 59 respectively.
- Jacques Derrida, Points, pages 381, 387 and 381 respectively.
- Ibid. p.381.
- Ibid p.84.
- Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology, p.24.