dot the i

"And there where there is improvisation I am not able to see myself" (Derrida) and "I think where I am not, therefore I am where I do not think" (Lacan).

hey, are these statements just meta-references? or, are these statements testament to one big meta-reference- our "reality"? (yeah that was seriously a joke.)

i feel derrida is purposely objective in his statement. it is this constant deflection of the self that allows for his explorations to " map the unmappable". yet i feel lacan's statement exalts subjectivity as an inevitability, a constant almost. i will definitely have to read more lacan to find this to be true. nevertheless, i find the primary difference to be that of "objectivity" and "subjectivity". lacan likens thought to a locale of difference, meaning that being and thought are almost dialectical opposed. this is dangerous territory but let me continue.

derrida is objective about going about subjectivity. lacan's statement is more riddled with the question of being and thinking i think to prove the point that our subjectivity is "overdetermined", and i mean this in Althusserian way. yet i said earlier that i believed lacan proposed being and thought as dialectically opposed. conundrum? so far, yes. this is a s.o.s.

"If we shadows have offended, think but this and all is mended
That you have but slumber'd here while these visions did appear."