Now that they should be both possible AND impossible,this, this AND, is what must be retained: thesedistinctions can be made, and they can be lost. Thatfurther they proceed from an architrace is no doubtimportant and interesting, but that is IN EFFECT thecase, perhaps, ONLY if we learn starting there
instead of conflating everything. Such is ourpharmacological responsability, and irresponsability. Itis in this bipolar
that the task of thinkingmaintains itself.
This is why
there is in deconstruction something which is– if I may say so – « misdeconstructed»
; this is also why Italk of having to «
: I mean thatwe must deconstruct the consequences of what I consider to bea
misunderstanding at the beginning, a
from thebeginning – a default of origin.
(NB: «default of origin» has the sense of a default present at theorigin and also an absence of origin, as in «default of payment»).
is a question which arises in the
only after the allegory of the winged souland of its fall
which constitutes essentially and uniquely
itsloss of memory
. This loss is what, in the allegory, and by theallegory, must
explain the answer that Socrates had togive to Meno to face up to his aporia – roughly ten yearsearlier.
It is clear that Plato does not say that the
is necessitated by the fall into forgetting that is the body; but itis equally clear that
without this fall, there would not evenbe a reason to speak of making up for the finitude of memory.
The thesis that I have been defending for the last two years inthe course is that for the Greeks of archaic Greece
the soul isthat which returns from Hades
, i.e. from the underworld,and that
the noetic is constituted by the possible comingback of dead souls in living souls and as their memoryinherited and reactivatable because it is tertiarised in amillion ways
including of course in the form of
sepultures.The dead soul is then that which returns from the