My Theory of
"Time Centred System"
With
the publication of deconstructive ideas of Derrida in ‘Structure, Sign and
Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences’, the old humanist model came
to an end in 1966, as Derrida’s concept of this “event” that threw out
the ideas of a “centre” resulted in the fact that everything is
provisional and hence no positive or definitive meaning can ever be
possible in any system. The concept of deconstruction and
post-structuralism that displaced the idea of god, truth, self and meaning
in order to replace them with relativism, ambiguity and multiplicity, has
tempted many to lament the decline the death of Humanist model. According
to some people, this is EXACTLY what’s wrong with the world today’1.
And there a desire has been formed to wind back all these events related
to deconstructive approach which is represented in the concluding lines of
a professor:
If only we could returned to the
old fashioned values of humanism, and believe in absolute truth, fixed
meaning, and permanence everything would be OK – or at least a lot better
than it is now (ibidem)
This in fact indicates that many are aware
about the “crisis” that has sprung to the ground after Derrida’s
declaration that a text can’t have “a meaning”. This in fact rised the
question mark, over the validity of all works of art that want to express
something and which is constantly “deffered” in meaning (as Derrida sees
it) and hence they totally fail to reach their aim. They thus lost their
validity. Moreover, the deconstructive relativism projected a clear-cut
argument against the validity of “criticisms of these works of art” (as
well as literary criticism) as there can be infinite view points, due to
free play of text and meaning and hence, no criticism stands valid, which
results in the death of it. No scale of standard in the literary
criticism (that since the time of Plato) could have transcended this
conflict and hence deconstruction has proved the efforts by humanists of
hundreds of years, as useless labour, as ultimately there is no fixity in
meaning.
So , like any medium of art,
literature also faces a dead end. This has blocked the natural flow of it
and has forced many to ask “Now to where?” This is in fact the “crisis”
that threatens us about a future where there would be the “death of
literature” and the “suicide of expression”.
Now I must come to my point – is
there any solution? Is there any way out? Many agree that if we only we
could return to old traditional theories regarding criticism and
literature (also expressions in general) perhaps, we can carry on those
previous humanistic discussions, expressions to future. And after all,
such ‘dynamism’ in discourses is the flow of expressions, which ultimately
can be termed as the life of all literature, thoughts and philosophies.
And such an attitude can save the future-literature or future-expressions.
But the question that whether we
can return to that old model or not, is fundamental to our issue. And the
probability of this is more in negative than in affirmative. It is
because, this humanistic model is based on the hypothesis that there must
be a centre 9this consciousness of centre was first discovered by the
structuralists, long time since it has been used -- from the very
beginning man was able to think ). In other words there must be some base
on which a theory can be developed – this ‘foundation’ is sometimes termed
as a “centre”. A centre is ‘ a point which everything comes, and to which
everything refers or returns’. And humanists (also structuralists) have
assigned a fixed meaning (something absolute) to this centre. But this was
discarded by deconstructionists, bystating that there can’t be a single
value assigned to this centre (as well as to any element of the whole
system). And this ‘idea’ (i.e. deconstruction theory) has since 1966,
become a part of our consciousness, which opposes, everytime we attempt to
go back to humanist model. This has become such a part of our
consciousness, which can not be deleted or ignored with out a proper
logic. As we search for this ‘logic’ , we create a system structure which
itself is prone to deconstruction, making all our labour futile.
But if we, without any logic,
try to force our belief systems to go back to old humanistic model, we
won’t be either successful. Derrida himself won’t be either successful.
Derrida himself crated a concept where the critic ignored the need of
logic to pursue his goal. This is known as “bricolage”, where the
“bricoleur” (the person searching for a solution ) jumps over both
structuralist and deconstructive model according to his need – just to
reach his goal.. Hence we have now just three ways left:
1)
Either not to believe in
‘Deconstruction’ just blindly (with out searching for the logic to delete
it, which is more or less done by a Bricolage) and follow old model.
2)
Search for a “logic” to
eliminate the concept of ‘Deconstruction’ that would be valid in all
systems or find the logic to make a correlation between old model and the
deconstructive model.
3)
Do nothing, and witness the
death of expression in coming times, where there would be no logic, no
meaning flux.
As a rebel, with born instincts to express
ourselves (as death of expression means death of us!) we can not accept to
become helpless and follow the last of the above mentioned paths. Again we
have seen that we can not ignore ‘deconstructive model’ just blindly, as
we in our consciousness would be aware of falseness in following the old
models. So, the only way left is to search for a logic that would provide
a freedom from the concept of ‘meaninglessness’ of deconstruction. And
what I have tried to do is that I have opted for the second path.
Why none has been succeeded in
finding a logic (by adopting this way for solution) is that whenever a
logic is searched, it automatically creates a belief system ( or
philosophical system) which is at once deconstructed. Due to collapse of
the structure the search for logic becomes illogical itself. And hence the
search fails.
To prevent this I opted for such
a system, where the centre remains stable in meaning and it has no binary
opposition to it. Thus the centre can’t be thrown out from the system
which results in the fact that it limits the free-play of the system and
thus prevents it from collapsing. This leads to make the system
deconstruction-proof.
Then the next step I have taken
is that in this I have placed all the old models which essentially
structural models and new deconstructionist models (which oppose the
structural models) as binary opposite as sub-systems. I call my bigger
structure (inside which sub- structures are placed) as ‘Super structure’ .
Now as my super-structure is a deconstructive-proof structure, it is
stable and the binary opposition remains valid inside it due to absence of
the free play. Now this leads to a ‘scandal-free system’ (i.e. no element
with dual values or dual opposition present in them, can exist inside my
superstructure). Thus, this is a system where we can prevent the crisis
and can assign a co-relation between the old and new systems.
Now the question is , to build
such a super structure which element of a system can be placed as centre?
Which element of a system doesn’t have a binary opposition (so that
deconstructionists can not blur this distinction to collapse the
structure)? And also, is there any element that observes the above
mentioned conditions along with the requirements of becoming a ‘centre’,
such as it must be in and out of the structure/ system ?
Before naming such a centre to
build my superstructure, so what I will do is that I will first make some primary duty of
assigning definitions and explanations and expose some relationship among
the elements of the ‘universe’, because this will help us to recognize
such an element that can be made centre of any system – an ultimate
reference point. The next chapter deals with this fundamental job.
Any way if you are interested in this then
for further information you can mail me any time.
|