Eng 330

I have found so far that it is more effective for me to comment on other people’s blog before I write my own because it helps me to organize the questions that I have about a piece so that I can clearly comment on it. Notice I said “organize the questions” not organize my thoughts, since its not often that I have understood enough to have an opinion on the piece.

Ok, here are some of my issues. The first is very straight forward, what is the definition of : 1. Play (Being and truth? Huh?) 2. rupture 3. redoubling 5. center (center is not the center….hmmm?) 6. metaphysics ( should I know this?). These terms were never really clearly defined for me and thus, I have no idea what I just read, never mind how I think it impacts literature and language. This piece left so many holes, it never seemed to really relate itself to literature. Although, it may have, but through the previous terms which I totally did not understand. The only thing that I think I can walk away from this piece right now with, is that structure somehow provides freedom within a work and haha, that “the center is not the center.” I suppose it is also important to mention that, even though it was my group’s topic, I never totally understood the concept of sign and signifed and all that. That makes a big difference too since it was mention so often. I’m starting to realize that I’ve created a Jenga tower with all this not understanding. Its got way too many holes at the bottom, and its ready to tip over if I stack any more blocks on top without filling the holes at the bottom…

Last few questions:

Was it literal when he said that play could be substituted for being and truth? How is a word like play even going to remotely cover the vast implications of truth and being? Also, how is history and the destruction of history a circular concept? The diagram I drew failed to help…