Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

SO WHAT DOES GA BRING TO DERRIDA’S TABLE?

All I see is a series of publications using hand waving as an attempt to provide a pseudoscientific defense of Derrida, in that ‘well’ everything evolved from language therefore we can evolve anything with language. In other words, postmodernism.

GA tells us nothing that we don’t already know. So, what is it that GA brings to the table? What can we deduce from it? What application can we put it to? What purpose does this theory solve?

I understand language as consisting of continuous recursive production of transactional measurements and linguistic competition for demonstrated results as improving measurements (truth) and biasing measurements (frauds and deceits). Whether a cliff or a climb is irrelevant.

The central problem is one of computational costs in that production versus time and energy costs of that production. In other words, language tends to be pragmatically adjusted for precision over time, given the context.

So what? That means we can tell truth and lie. It means that competitive ability highly reflects linguistic precision. It means that competitive ability provides competitive advantage. Because otherwise physical marginal indifference provides too little competitive advantage.

So what does postmodern literary drivel bring to an otherwise well understood table?

What I hear is that ‘its a useful means of manipulating people by deceit.’

People lacking knowledge, power, achievement, and capital like the priests of the middle east attempting to destroy the empire with christianity judaism and islam. Lies are a competitive strategy. The entire abrahamic artifice is based upon the competitive utility of lying.