User talk:Seferin

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Wizardry Dragon 23:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bloodstream (1993) video tape cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bloodstream (1993) video tape cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Deconstruction edits
Hi, Seferin. Just a note to say thanks for all your work on the deconstruction article. I know I've whined a bit on the talk page, so I thought I ought to let you know your contributions are really appreciated. Already the article is looking better than I've seen it. - snookerfran   (talk)  17:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Deconstruction edits
Hi Seferin. Thanks. Can you check it now and see if it is better (less quotations, proper reference to source. I also decided to separate in subtitles). I really prefer to quote Derrida than to add more noise to this already controverse subject. I believe one of the main issues with "Derrida" is that there are to many people talking about him without reading him properly. To many "sound bytes" and few "proper quotations". "Let the man speak" ;) I think you agree with me. I really tried to find the best quotations in his extensive work. I tried to improve balance between quotations and resume. Tell me what you think. In my opinion one of the issues in the article is that there is to much unstructured information, specially about Derrida himself, etc. Shouldn't this be in "Derrida" article"? I will also try to make better contributions to "différance" article. I think we should also develop more around "experience and experiment of the undecidable", relation between language and mathematics (supporting his views around the differance between writing and speaking) and iterability, specially for a anglo-saxonic reader.

I think it could also help if his position was more related with the proper context where it was developed (French intelectual world in the 60s), his relations with Hyppolite, Canguillem, Cavaille's epistemology, Intuitionism and Contructivism in Mathematics, Vuillemin, tel Quel, semiotics (Kristeva, Barthes), Althuser, Maoism, and also, Deleuze (Philosophy of difference)... but perhaps it is to much. My feeling is that he is being treated from an anglo-saxonic perspective that, somehow, take him "out of context" LOL Tell me your thoughts on this. I believe I can get great (and concise) quotations about all this subjects and help to a better picture of his "positions". Check my contribution around analytic and Searle. I don't want to feed polemics here (I'm not even a big fan of Derrida ;) I just want to give proper information so people can make there minds Also, as I believe it's easy to confirm, English is not my mother tongue, so, please, feel free to correct me.

Thanks in advance for your feedback and support Hibrido — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrido Mutante (talk • contribs) 16:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Deconstruction edits - Saussure/structuralism, Husserl/phenomenology, Hyppolite/Hegel - Nietzsche?
Hi Seferin,

I changed the title. Better?

Saussure and Structure
Concerning Saussure in the first sentence I'm presenting difference as structure.For me (in "continental europe", in semitotics) this is immediately connected with the impact of Saussure Linguistic in Social Sciences, from Anthropology (Levy-Strauss, etc) to Psychoanalysis (Lacan, etc). Kristeva is a central figure, as the great disciple of Todorov and Barthes, etc. and her main role in tel Quel (Derrida must be seen quite connected with this group... his "generation".. "samurais"). I believe one of the more important interviews from Derrida ever is the one with Kristeva (that I quote from Positions - it was perceived like that in francophone intellectual circles). Linguistics gave the model to study structure as difference, ahistoric, without subject, topological ("spaciality") etc. It is like talking about Psychoanalysis in the first sentence and referring freud in the second one... if you talk about structuralism, difference, you start with Saussure and with the model language/speech (academic "common sense", no doubt, that we become used and forget to question about. I understand that in other traditions it is not so. More so in new comers. I added your suggestion "Deconstruction emerges from the theory of language known as structural linguistics advanced by Ferdinand de Saussure..." and tried to give the example of virtual language - actual speeches.. what do you think? ;)

Difference and Saussure
I read the Saussure's article in English ... it's quite poor (you just need to compare it with the German, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese...with that no one will ever understand Derrida (or Deleuze, or Foucault, Barthes, Kristeva, Eco, Braudillard.. you name it...)

I decided to develop a little bit more the difference in Saussure and how Derrida uses it and at the same time criticizes it... I'm afraid it is now a little bit complicated for new comers... it lost the simplicity I was looking for in the beginning... please... could you give me your feedback here? Is it better? Is it worst? Should we put all reference to Saussure only in the notes?... Also.. do you feel the need to refer phenomenology (and Husserl...Heidegger/Levinas/Ricouer/Sartre) in the second paragraph? Thanks in advance

Husserl and Genesis
Husserl is phenomenology (Heidegger is Hermeneutics", Sartre is existentialism, who is also quite important to understand the 50/60s in France) and it is connected with the "second component", genesis, dasein, as time.. History... subject... it's deferral...maybe I should make it more explcit? (mention Husserl?) I will take some time around your suggestions here (i tried to do with the material I collected... but I'll need to go to the intro to "Origins of Geometry" and the "voice and phenomenon", of coarse... and the "Heidegger et la question"(the issue here is that I don't have the english pdf for this one...) ;) "the question of transcendental constitution, passive synthesis, the non-originary origin, socio-linguistic sedimentation and de-sedimentation, the deconstruction of the metaphysics of subjectivity and so on.".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrido Mutante (talk • contribs) 02:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hyppolite, Hegel and the 60s in France
and there is also a permanent debate with Hegel with whom all had to deal with (Hyppolite is central in the young Derrida... it was his professor, his "tutor".. it is Ecolle Normal "stuff" (it was him and Althuser that brought him to EN) as with Deleuze (Deleuze will say many times he had 2 professors, Hyppolite and Alquie, Hegel and Descartes)...both are always "talking", "sentence by sentence" (it's in fact a conceptual matrix... a "cultural system"), with his "Genesis and Structure of Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit" and, specially with his "Logic and Existence"... both have articles only about this book... It's difficult to understand the nuances of this 2 thinkers positions, their problems, if we don't take into account Hyppolite's influence...the same with Foucault...(he even founded the important collection in PUF "Epimethee" where they all published... it was "THE collection" (it steel is in a way...) ... if you wanted to be "someone" in France (and they lived "France"... "Paris"... as the center of the intellectual world, as you know...they were not much aware of what was happening in USA and even UK (but they were quite aware of Russell and american Pragmatism... see the role of Vuillemin and Jean Whal for all this generation ;).. to Deleuze, Gueroult (and his polemic with Alquie) is also fundamental...

Phenomenology, Structuralism and Genetic Constructivism/Deconstructivism
I believe you are aware of the importance of names like Merleau-Ponty, Ricouer, Levinas, Sartre (etc), the "mandarins" borne around 1905, as the "old generation" representing "phenomenology", hermeneutics, existencialism, and then, the new generation, borne around 1915, with Althuser, Barthes, that were structuralists.. and than came the generation borne around 1925, Foucault, Deleuze, Lyotard, etc. Derrida is the younger one (1930). They will question structure AND phenomenology when they are in there 30,35(in the 60s)... (and they will all hate Hegel and speculative dialectic)... and of coarse... they loved Nietzsche..

Where is Nietzsche?
I miss a lot Nietzsche in this article... they are the "french Nietzscheneans"each one in his own way but they were all THE "young nietzcheneans"(see for example Derrida's "Friendship Politics"... it's "about that".. "their generation"... and, of coarse, Freud and all the ambiguous relation with Marxism and PCF (there are also other central figures like Desanti to understand the place of struturalism and phenomenology in french mathematics/formalism, as well the Bourbaki influence .... but ok.. more technical ;)

Cultural Territory and Relative Positons
I'm trying to present all this positions, that distributes the "territory" (the cultural context) where Derrida thought emerged... in a sintetic way with the first paragraph, diferrance between "structural" difference (Saussure, Jackobson, etc) and "phenomenological" genesis... structuralism and phenomenology (This is, of course, only a sketch).

Thanks in advance for your feedback and support. I'll try to do my best ;) Hibrido

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)