Deconstruction is also the acclaimed alternative/progressive/indie rock band and eponymous album in 1994 spearheaded by bassist Eric Avery, following his departure from Jane's Addiction (and namely, Perry Farrell). He is also joined by Jane's guitarist Dave Navarro. Jane's drummer Stephen Perkins did not take part in the project, choosing instead to join Farrell in the other Jane's offshoot, Porno for Pyros. The album contains many of the powerful, melodic passages, dark chugging grooves, and ecstatic explosions of classic Jane's Addiction material, though without the iconoclastic wail and L.A. street poetry of Farrell. Avery handles the lyric writing and singing here, and does well with his own style of City of Angeles storytelling. His voice recalls a Peter Murphy-like droan, which suites this music fine. The band never toured or released more than their excellent debut album. It is evident, though, that Avery's hypnotic, soupy bass lines were a vital part of the legendary Jane's Addiction sound, something that was missed on further Jane's reunions, none of which Avery took part.
That Is All
Deconstruction Lyrics
Jump to: Overall Meaning ↴ Line by Line Meaning ↴
do I have to say
that I know that way
one day I looked up
now I don't want to spend another day
looking back 'cause I've learned
and it might not make much sense that all
is all
I have to say
and that is all.
The lyrics of Deconstruction's song "That Is All" speak to the idea of moving forward and not dwelling on the past. The singer in the song recognizes that there comes a point where looking back is no longer productive and instead, they prefer to focus on the present and the future. This sentiment is reflected in lines like "now I don't want to spend another day looking back" and "I have to say is all I have to say." The repetition of the phrase "that is all" emphasizes the simplicity and finality of this message.
At the same time, the lyrics acknowledge that this decision to move forward may not necessarily make sense to others. It is implied that the singer may face criticism or confusion from those who are stuck dwelling on the past or who cannot understand the concept of letting go. This is reflected in the line, "and it might not make much sense that all." Nevertheless, the singer is resolute in their decision to let go and move on to new things.
Overall, the lyrics of "That Is All" champion the idea of embracing the present and future while acknowledging the limitations of dwelling on the past. The straightforward and repetitive nature of the lyrics reinforce this idea, while also hinting at the frustration and exhaustion that may come with having to explain this simple decision to others who may not understand.
Line by Line Meaning
How many times
I've said this before, but I need to say it again
do I have to say
I keep repeating myself, but it's necessary
that I know that way
I'm sure of the path I've chosen
one day I looked up
At some point, I had an epiphany
now I don't want to spend another day
I'm done wasting time
looking back 'cause I've learned
I've gained insights from past experiences
and it might not make much sense that all
My actions seem confusing, but there's a method to my madness
I have to say
All I want to express is
is all
It's just that simple
I have to say
I repeat
and that is all.
That's the extent of my message
Contributed by Jayce T. Suggest a correction in the comments below.
Mark Blasini
Interesting video and great attempt at explaining deconstruction. With that said (and I'm assuming you may get a lot of these types of responses, so I apologize ahead of time), but I have to say, as a reader of Derrida's works, I have issues with a lot of what you're saying about deconstruction in this video.
Deconstruction is not about pointing out the failure of trying to communicate using language, as if Derrida or other deconstructionists are lurking in the background, waiting to say, "Gotcha! You screwed up!" Rather, deconstruction is about moving us away from the thinking that the purpose of language is to communicate meaning. For Derrida, language in itself cannot communicate meaning; rather, interpretation is dependent upon context, and context depends upon a variety of factors, including culture, history, the people participating in the communication, etc. - all things, to a large extent, outside of a communicator's control.
But this doesn't mean that using language is useless for Derrida. On the contrary, what's important about language is that due to its structure and quality - i.e. its fluid, evolving rules - we can produce different and newer contexts for interpretation. In other words, language is what allows us to interpret a sentence one way or another.
If we use your touchy friend example, what allows a "normal" person to interpret a statement one way and what allows the "touchy" friend to interpret it differently is precisely the same thing - the language involved. Thus, for Derrida, the point of language is not to control meaning (as you said, modify one's language so that we get closer to communicating meaning), but to allow for the possibility of different ways of being interpreted.
To reiterate, Derrida and other deconstructionists are NOT saying there is no such thing as meaning. Nowhere in Derrida's work have I ever read this statement or something like it. Rather, what he is saying is that the point of language is not to communicate meaning (since meaning is dependent upon context), but to open itself up to different (possible) interpretations.
Oz Differance Art Oz mate
+Michele Patarino Come see my painting when I post it on " Derrida s death " come see my unique art " La Differance" I bring the truth where Derrida failed there is a greater glory and journey come to explore my special God Glorious works the good Lord is my Teacher .
·
Anthony D
Some nitpicks, as the postmodern deconstructionists, I feel, are so troublesome to understand, purely because of how poorly they wrote..
The easiest way to explain Derrida to lay people is to start with plato's allegory of the cave, as it's an easy to understand and visual way to explain the idea that we live in a symbolic world behind which an objective reality exists. You will get nowhere unless you explain to them first the idea of the symbolic world. From there, it's easy to shift into Derrida's idea of "Differance," where he asserts we experience the world as those symbols (like in plato's cave) but here there is no moment of clarity when we experience the sun. Rather, the world as its presents itself to us is symbols linked to dictionary definitions (since we use words to interpret reality), and since those definitions necessarily consist of words that are linked to other dictionary definitions, we end up in trapped in a language web, where plato's objective meaning behind the symbol can never be obtained. We're trapped just seeing the shadows cast on the wall, or perhaps the reflections in the pool after leaving the cave. This is Derrida's "differance": all meaning is linguistic because it is derived from "different" words, and since we need more words to understand the words in front of us, the true meaning is always being "deferred" into the future. Thus, truth becomes subjective, rather than objective, because we're always separated from objective truth, and denied the ability to pursue virtue as Plato imagined in his allegory of the cave.
No need to go into "sign" and "signifier" or "discourse." This is a battle of Plato's objectivity versus the latest philosopher arguing that objectivity is unobtainable, just that Derrida is using his philosophy of language to make his argument. He's arguing that reality presents itself to us as symbols that we naturally link to a dictionary definition, and than discussing the cognitive consequences of that. That's all he's doing.
Extra credit points to the kid who figures out that Derrida's theory presumes it's impossible to have a pre-linguistic encounter with the world, and that this is a significant problem, since language had to come from somewhere.
Deconstruction itself arises from a variety of postmodern thinkers in addition to Derrida, most importantly Michel Foucault. Since Derrida doesn't deny the existence of objective truth, but understands it as unachievable and unknowable due to his phenomenology of language causing him to conclude that all meaning is linguistic, there is no point in attempting to carry out the kind of platonic movements towards virtue, or objective truth, as imagined by Plato. All that we can do is understand the subjectivity in which we are trapped--the narrative real. This contributes to the focus on narrative truth over objective truth that is becoming progressively common in our culture today, though I think critics of postmodernism oftentimes overstate its influence on those cultural shifts. It would be more correct to say that the incredible standard of living that industrial civilization allows, combined with the emergence of a digital reality, gave a lot of oxygen to the long litany of people who have been critical of Plato's objective world over the centuries, and the postmodernists were just the right people at the right time.
I don't even think Derrida's articulation in favor of subjectivity is particularly robust, and it stands up poorly in comparison to even some of the arguments being made by German idealists in the 19th century, or (rather embarrassingly for Derrida) against Husserl's recently translated works. But here we are.
Significantly though, this makes postmodernism (and thus deconstruction itself) a full blown epistemology, radically changing the way we think of knowledge itself. The most annoying consequence of a shift from knowledge as something objective and knowable, to something subjective and narrative, is that the disciplines that have attempted to incorporate postmodernism in themselves, have an annoying tendency to be extremely vague in the meaning of words, since well-defined linguistic meaning is presumably unobtainable, so why should they try? You end up with a cognitive blind spot that focuses on narrative at the cost of the essence of the very pieces that make up that narrative.
I also mention this because occasionally you'll encounter conservatives who hate postmodernism, but want to use deconstruction for their own ends, and it never works. It doesn't work because you can't argue for the objective real via a philosophical system that exists to undermine the objective real.
curey
After hours of reading summaries of what Deconstruction means I still had no clue of the concept... but you explained it very well! Thanks!!!
czar quetzal
You should study the following thinkers first: Plato, Descartes, Rosseaue, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx, Husserl, Heidegger, Saussure, and Levinas. After that, don't expect clarification, hehehe 😄
Wen Gelder
@John Lenin maybe . Derrida clearly objected to the term post structuralism to characterize his works .
Wen Gelder
@John Lenin I would agree . This does not even touch remotely on the “essence” of deconstruction . Of course Derrida would not agree that the essence of deconstruction can be summarized . I a,ways feel that certain works are essential , not just to be read , be fully comprehended , which is not an easy task . But an in depth reading of “de la grammatologie “ , “ marges de la philosophie” and “ecriture et difference “ are good starting points . Many commenters here will , seeing this video , have not understood a lot .
Wen Gelder
Deconstruction itself cannot be summarized . Derrida was always very clear about . Derrida nor deconstruction can not be really understood unless you read the works of Derrida itself . Try “De la Grammatologie” , “Ecriture et difference “ or “Marges de la Philosophies” , all works written early in his career . If u want it simpler … “Positions”.
John Lenin
Christophe S exactly right. But you have to present it as a procedure in order to explain the concept. And most people can’t even get that far. The problem with today is that everything poststructuralism was trying time accomplish in the 70s and 80s has been completely forgotten. And that’s why we have Neo-Fascism.
Mark Blasini
Interesting video and great attempt at explaining deconstruction. With that said (and I'm assuming you may get a lot of these types of responses, so I apologize ahead of time), but I have to say, as a reader of Derrida's works, I have issues with a lot of what you're saying about deconstruction in this video.
Deconstruction is not about pointing out the failure of trying to communicate using language, as if Derrida or other deconstructionists are lurking in the background, waiting to say, "Gotcha! You screwed up!" Rather, deconstruction is about moving us away from the thinking that the purpose of language is to communicate meaning. For Derrida, language in itself cannot communicate meaning; rather, interpretation is dependent upon context, and context depends upon a variety of factors, including culture, history, the people participating in the communication, etc. - all things, to a large extent, outside of a communicator's control.
But this doesn't mean that using language is useless for Derrida. On the contrary, what's important about language is that due to its structure and quality - i.e. its fluid, evolving rules - we can produce different and newer contexts for interpretation. In other words, language is what allows us to interpret a sentence one way or another.
If we use your touchy friend example, what allows a "normal" person to interpret a statement one way and what allows the "touchy" friend to interpret it differently is precisely the same thing - the language involved. Thus, for Derrida, the point of language is not to control meaning (as you said, modify one's language so that we get closer to communicating meaning), but to allow for the possibility of different ways of being interpreted.
To reiterate, Derrida and other deconstructionists are NOT saying there is no such thing as meaning. Nowhere in Derrida's work have I ever read this statement or something like it. Rather, what he is saying is that the point of language is not to communicate meaning (since meaning is dependent upon context), but to open itself up to different (possible) interpretations.
Mark Blasini
@Mike Jose That's a good question. Binaries and privileging are functions of logocentrism, which is a strategic attempt to control interpretation in discourse (which in turn influences power relations and structures in society) by centering discourse on certain (idealized) concepts. For Derrida, logocentrism is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is or can be dangerous, and it always contains a trace of its own undoing.
Mike Jose
What are the purpose of Binaries and Privileged then?
Mark Blasini
@Sh0tgunJust1ce Yeah, I disagree. There's nowhere in Derrida that I've read where he says anything like that. Derrida has never said that any and all possible interpretations are just as valid as the most informed. Nor does he say that there is no such thing as "ontological truth in the world." Derrida's point is not that there is no such thing as reality, but that we need to check our assumptions about the ability of language to purely communicate "the truth," "reality," or "meaning." Reality is not Derrida's concern; it's our assumptions about language.