“To consider the world like something to decipher”, says Gilles Deleuze, “to be mindful to signs is a gift”.
Decipher is a splendid word, right? What’s the engine?
- We are structuralists (we find some knowledge on systematic structures)
- We are phenomenologists (we find some knowledge on pure experience)
Hey, maybe we’re post-structuralists (doesn’t that sound good?)!
Here’s Wikipedia :
A post-structuralist approach argues that to understand an object (e.g., a text), it is necessary to study both the object itself and the systems of knowledge that produced the object.
So when we watch a person, an object, a text, as we globally function with analogies, we seek structures, skeletons inside. And then we watch something else…
Therefore if a new teacher enters the room, we quickly seek, we try to decipher if he’s a Type (an Archetype?) – is he a Boss, a Preacher, a Guide? Are his ways chaotic, structured? What’s his pace?
We seek structures, but also we notice. What do we notice? Signs.
What do we expect? What is disappointment, here? How do we offset against disappointment?
Proust says he has a burden : for him, things (persons, events, anything) HAVE TO recall him something else – or have to make him imagine something else.
Let’s call it the addiction of links.
All this, because we seek. We need to decipher.
Effort of the will is not enough – Deleuze mentions “Those truths of the intelligence that lack the claw of necessity”.
What do you think?