the impetus of deconstruction is the unmasking and debunking of any notion of an unalienated condition that can be shown to be dependent on a metaphysics of presence and ‘the proper’
The subject of the ‘I think’ that must accompany all representations is transcendental and not empirical, a logical postulate and not a substantial being
“Apparently ‘formalist,’ this indifference to the content has perhaps the value of giving one to think the necessarily pure and purely necessary form of the future as such, in its being-necessarily-promised, prescribed, assigned, enjoined, in the necessarily formal necessity of its possibility.” (Derrida) Here, the term ‘future’ does not refer, as it usually does, to a future present, but precisely to a lack within the present itself that disables it from being walled-in within the identity of the closure of its plenitude. #utopie
The phenomenon of the proper is thus merely that improper phenomenon which effaces its own improper nature, just as presence is the trace that hides its tracelike nature.
“One must analyze the proper of property and how the general property of money neutralizes, disincarnates, deprives of its difference all personal property.” (Derrida)
Deconstruction involves a rigorous dislocation of the operativity of discourse, disabling the closure of self-identity, and preventing meaning from functioning properly.
—
Skempton, Alienation after Derrida
These quotes are what do not fit on Twitter. To see the rest (and majority), see http://www.twitter.com/alucidwake