Todd Archer wrote:
>
>
> I'd stared at that sentence for some time last night and hadn't got it. I still don't understand it this morning. Could you please explain what you're talking about? And where did I claim otherwise i.e. that I am or am not using a structuralist perspective?
Give it up Todd. You are dealing with a critique drenched in the history of ideas, in which frozen ideas exist in rigid boxes. This allows the historian of ideas to see all actual thought as merely a contradictory mash of fragmentary ideas drawn from one or another box. But your posts on this thread have reminded me of a perception I toyed with well over a decade ago but dropped and forgot. What is now called "deconstruction" is merely a new (and more intellectually dissolute) incarnation of Lovejoy's history of ideas.
Carrol