Hägglund, Kotsko and the commenter assert that the present moment is only an “effect” of a more real trace structure that denies any moment self-identity.
For what? For whom? Surely not for the trace structure as such. There can be no self-identically present moments if we accept the trace structure. Such moments, we are told, are simply “effects.” So the appearance of such moments can only be for some entity, perhaps a person, perhaps a measuring device, that is somehow taken in by the illusion that there is such a thing.
Many questions arise from this.
1) How come this extra witness is left out of the model altogether? There is at least one entity that the trace structure can't explain—the “witness” that sees the “effect” and is deluded as to its reality.
2) How come the witness is deluded? Isn't it clear, at least to Hägglund, Kotsko, and the commenter, that there is only a trace structure? If it's clear to them, why not to the witness?
3) Let's assume the witness has no idea that she or it is deluded. How come the illusion arises as illusion in the first place? Forget the witness. How come the trace structure produces something that could be confused for an illusion?
4) If this illusion, why not the illusion of a timeless God? And since there is no way for the witness to tell that it's an illusion—otherwise she would be Hägglund, who somehow can see through the “effect” that is produced for the other—why not let her have her God? It's as real as anything.
Are we not dealing here with extreme correlationism at best and idealism at worst? Again, this can't be Derrida, or what Derrideans make of Derrida. He's beyond isms, supposedly.
UPDATE: Kotsko just posted an amazing post on a related issue, of equal magnitude. Will read and write back.
0 comments:
Post a Comment