February 14, 2012

Grey and Gray


"Differance" and difference sound exactly the same and mean exactly the same things. However, "differance" puts emphasis on the fact that it has a double signification and uses this very duality to identify a theory of linguistic-type determination. Essentially the proposal is that any concept or idea is identified by its difference to another idea. For simplicity's sake we may stop there. This is, at its center, a very simple idea with really massive implications. These implications include the fact that the essential “truth” of a thing, if it exists, may only exist in its relation to those things which it is not. This would then suggest that truth is practically impossible to establish because there are an infinite number of relations that could be created for differance.

So, what about “grey?” Or should I say “gray?” Or perhaps “grey” and “gray” together? Why are these two words allowed to mean the exact same thing? Each is “another spelling” of the other. Each represents the same idea, but offer an opposition to itself. Grey is not gray, but it is gray/grey. Now, this is just a small quibble over spelling, but there is no reason that either “grey” or “gray” could not be used to signify something else.

Wound. I’m sure you know this word and can easily define it. What about “wound?” The same word? No. Completely different. And there is absolutely no way at all for you to be able to tell the difference with a context. This idea supports both my ideas about grey/gray and those of Derrida and his differance. I point out that words with the same sounds have indeed been used to signify the same things, but these words mean two entirely different things without context. They have no true being without differance.

And yet, is there an essential element to them? It may be true that we have given two concepts the same sign, but does that really make it necessary to be in difference to something else. What I mean is, can something have its own existence if it is not in opposition to itself? Here is a thought experiment: What if you were born in a room of perfect light- no variation, no shadows, nothing. You would, of course, not understand that light was something. However, this would not cease its existence. The light is still there.

Opposition provides our method of understanding truth, true. Without dark, we would never understand the concept of “light.” And yet, at the same time “light” would not cease to exist, but become a background to our understanding of the whole world. You would never be able to explain “light” to another person, but that would not take its truth from you, or from “light,” but would make its discovery much more difficult to whoever you were telling about it.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.