Ontology and Deconstruction

 

I wrote this about a year ago while studying philosophy on my own time and discussing it with friends. I just found it again and felt it paired well with my other writing here. Again, please take this as a whole, I'm not being serious.

Ontology and Deconstruction

(How I understand it)

     Ontology, or Metaphysics, is an attempt to bridge language with the real? Like, trying to model the so-called Infinite within the realm of reason (even though it pretends to be an "outer world")? This is sort of my understanding. But, these realms are separate. Reason cannot touch the real, only point to it, thus things are always "becoming" things (signifiers). All associations we make toward something are approximations that require more associations. This doesn't mean there's a "real" object, though, rather a sort of "singularity," an infinite number of associations approaching this thing that can't exist within language because it doesn't since it's "out there." This is where the ontological problem arises and where we trip up with structuralist perspectives. If we assume the object takes precedence over the symbolism associated, we assume an absolute that we can work some understanding off of, whether we assume the absolute exists at us, at infinity, or anywhere in-between. There is an implied omniscience under this definition. The flaw in this can be examined with deconstruction. If we take a system and replace its central assumption(s) with something "arbitrary" that still supports its structure, we find the original assumptions to be just as "arbitrary." It's been found that not a single structuralist system can withstand this. So this is why ethics is such a bitch, because there isn't a real starting point, as again, our language isn't our world, yet we exist consciously within that language, fundamentally alienated from some Other. That means it's the language that takes precedence and any attempt to say otherwise is inherently flawed. Everything is symbols in other words, and not exclusive to written or spoken. So blah blah western thought, blah blah fascism, something something religion.

 

     How do we experience this? Despite our futile attempts at extrapolating the Other, we still have that desire for the Other and we still feel we need the Other to make sense of things. This is some hegemonic pseudo-religious gobble-de-gook, mind you, so take it with a grain of salt. The Other is newness, the Other finds us at the precipice of understanding and the Infinite, our conscious horizon between the said and the unsaid or however you wanna call it. The Other doesn't exist within our horizon. It's by this that we can take all of our systems of understanding and test them out, to broaden them. This is flawed, though. It's naive to take in the Other with respect to your system since the Other is infinite (and doesn't actually exist). The structure takes possession of the Other in a way, and denies the aspects of the Other that may not relate at all. This is the benefit of knowledge in this case. By intimately knowing our way around our constructs/models, we can then understand precisely where they break down somewhere on the way to infinity. This is the "arrival of the Other," where experience meets the infinite, where probability finds possibility. It's the dark matter we seek, whether or not we can ever give the Other the illumination our intuition teases us with because it doesn't matter and our intuition is probably false. It's enjoyment of the Other that makes us tick. That's the aspect we most often seek in some abstract sense... or something. I don't really know. This is a bunch of bullshit.

Reference works:

Entré nous book by Emmanuel Levinas

A Pervert's Guide to Ideology film with Slavoj Zizek 

Mythologies book by Roland Barthes

Of Grammatology book by Jacques Derrida