/lit/ - Literature

File: 124 KB, 900x750, Jacques-Derrida.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Oct 16 12:31:39 2019 No.14003313 [Reply] [Original]

>The structure of "the self" and "the self as other" will have to be developed a little beyond that. But even if this structure doesn't have any definitive definition it's important to try and understand how it fits into the wider structures and structures of experience for the self. Here, once you have an understanding for the structural structure of the self, you may develop a theory of how it functions in the context of other objects.
>Let's say the Self is a structure or schema for how people come to know what they experience. This is one possible example. Now what if this schema is not only a theoretical structure – how will we know what is "really" there, what is "there for us," what are the "sociologies" that guide us and shape how we experience? How will we know about people without knowing what this person is actually like? This is precisely what a theory of the Self would look like and how we would learn about "people" if we had one. To be specific, we would need a theoretical structure with a function for the self, excuse me, T [a] [r], and such that the function for the self is invertible (i.e. has the right adjoints) in the domain of all R-set, then we can have the following set of terms from the self function. This is one way to see that this is, in fact, a function. Note, though, what that tells us about their structure. They must be the ones whose domains are the subdomain subsets of the domain of [a] .
>Hence, (1) is true for any R-set R that contains [r] and R where [r] ≠ 0, and (2) is true for any R with length zero. For the case of n = 10 or greater, and the choice of set L = [0,1,2,3,4], where R is any finite group, the two formulas are independent and each holds for the set of finitely long sets; and for the case of R (1,2,3,4) , [0,1] is true for every finite length. But the proof that (1) is true for any R is independent on the choice of set L. In particular, (1) is true for a finite length set [0,1] and (2) for [0,1,2,3], so it is possible to prove the self exists as a set of non-undeterminded structural "selfs." I believe the proof I provide is sufficient to prove the existence of a self to the end that, in fact, the self is the only meaningful, non-deterministic element of the set.
No seriously what the FUCK did Derrida mean by this?

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]