From: amd <A.M.Dib-AT-lboro.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: dialectic (can non-philosophers read?)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 17:28:22 +0000


At 08:19 AM 1/30/99 PST, Michelle wrote:
>
> 
>It is precisely the 'shadows' which interest me and which are involved 
>and broken by my readings. Are they what you wish to 'dismiss'? I am the 
>one sticking close to d+g's actual texts.. consistently having to 
>correct your  impression that Guattari dismisses Derrida's contribution 
>when rather he specifies that there is a difference between a 
>non-signifying and a signifying arche ecriture, specifying that the 
>signifying arche-writing is the basis of empire while the other (in 
>Derrida's sense) "engenders all semiotic organisation".
>
>"(b) Semiologies of signification. On the other hand, all their  
>substances of expression (of sound, sight and so on) are centred on a 
>single signifying substance. This is the 'dictatorship of the 
>signifier'. That referential substance can be considered as a written 
>arche-writing, but not in Derrida's sense: it is not the matter of a 
>script that engenders all semiotic organisation, but of the appearance- 
>datable in history- of writing machines as a basic tool for for the 
>great despotic empires."m.r pp75
>
Michelle, 

You are right on this point. It is impossible to get a sense that Guattari
is critising Derrida from this paragraph. In a previous email, I spoke about
crude generalisation made by Guattari against Derrida. I think after reading
carefully the text and also with the help of your hint, I am convinced that
this text has nothing to do with criticising Derrida. It is more part of
Guattari's effort to define the semiologies of signification.

amd