The Thickness of the World

I am thinking about, of all things, deconstruction.

Without belabored references to Derrida and the rest, the very name “deconstruction” presupposes, it has always seemed to me, that there is a prior construction to deconstruct. Or, to use different language, that analysis presupposes a prior synthesis. Given deconstruction’s origins in an engagement with the philosophy of the synthetic subject from Kant and Hegel through Husserl, this is understandable. Things hold together, or fall apart, because they were put together– or came together– a certain way in the first place.

However, I have had a realization at once personal and intellectual just now. I will leave out the personal one, but it is closely related to the intellectual one, which is this: What if there is no deconstruction, no analysis, because there is no prior synthesis? What if the world is simply rawly and thickly what it is? Not to say that it isn’t dynamic and fluid; just continuous, gapless, and utterly, impenetrably solid? What if there is no carving the world at the joints because it has no proper joints to carve?

I am beginning to think that perhaps this really is how the world is. I think I have been coming around to this notion for a long time. And I don’t know what that means, for me or for anyone else.

Surely there are some Peirceans or Jamesians out there who can throw me a bone here. Peirce and James were all about the continuity and thickness. Seriously: I need some help here. It feels a little bit like wandering around the Garden of Forked Paths.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s