Daisy, 11/22

It is amazing how we are able to see the glimpse of a logo or a word missing a few letters and able to fill in the missing information. We can tell exactly what the logo stands for and exactly what the word says. Derrida calls the process of filling in information based on prior knowledge, the trace. The trace is like Barthes idea of the gap, created by the writers and interpreted by the readers.
The trace is made possible by our previous knowledge. Derrida built on this idea of using previous knowledge by indicating that every signifier in our culture has traces of others. We can see this by how we use what we already know to fill in the missing gap, without the previous knowledge we would not be able to understand. In class, the dictionary exercise was a perfect example of the signification of words containing connections to hundreds of other words. To be able to understand the definition of one word, you have to know the definition of many. Derrida called this the “metaphysics of presence,” the possibility that every word has the potential to represent every other word. There is no unique word, because every word signifies something else, making it not unique.
So I am back to my pre-class blog question, was Derrida trying to tell us there is difference in language? I would have to say yes and no. While he did indicate that there are many different significations for words, like de Saussure, he indicated that all words are related. The only way for all words to be related is to have elements of sameness. Using previous knowledge, we can recognize sameness among things within our culture and create interpretations. This idea caused me to think of the theorist Jameson and his quote, “depth is replaced by surface.” As individuals we don’t have to know about something to recognize it; we only have to know of it.