Slippery

When examining the man/animal equation we're always forced to read in-between the words. In class we've used a double-sided arrow, but a backslash or simply a space can be substituted.The obvious crux of the problem that we're engaged with is then the articulation of the non-lingual, of the literal or figurative, gap between words. It's kind of a psychoanalytic truism at this moment to talk about what the patient doesn't say; in free associative practice it has long since been noted that the subject's internal logic in choosing words hinges around the unsaid. But here we are dealing with a problem of a slightly different nature because the symbol is not simply something that is unsaid, it is (if you'll excuse the Derridean turn-of-phrase) what is anti-said.

One of the insights from our class on Monday that really struck me was the notion that tautology can only hold meaning for God. The reason language can by virtue of its infinitely imprecise nature make meaning is in the disconnect. To return to psychoanalysis, one of Freud's ideas that has (not coincidentally) become mainstream in its usage is the notion of the slip, eponymously titled. If psychoanalytic practice can use the slippage of words to access the unconscious and the unsaid, is it fair to say Derrida's project is to use the slippage of signifiers to access the anti-said?

I know I'm late to the party but I think it's worth noting that Derrida's use of linguistic play (how he is saying) in “L'animal que donc je suis” is perhaps more central than what he is saying, as far as interpretative meaning goes at least. It's interesting to me that writers like Lacan, Derrida, and contemporaneously, Zizek get slandered as clowns by their detractors. To me, this is Derrida's greatest strength. While his borderline-autistic insistence on homophone, portmanteau, idiom etc. is only rarely at all comical, I think it is here where we can begin to access the heart of the matter. The ability of the humorous to subvert the chain of signifiers is the slip incarnate. However violent Derrida is upon the reader and upon language, he is tenfold on himself. He sets himself up, intentionally slips on the (to make a really really crass analogy that I like to think he would approve of) signified banana peel, brings the house down, and lands on his ass. And while my intention is not to defend Derrida, I think it goes without saying that it would be asinine to not give his clowning the time of day.