Derrida and Gadamer are in a Sandbox.
Gadamer builds a sandcastle.
Derrida destroys the sandcastle.
Both are frustrated.
Gadamer because Derrida destroyed his sandcastle.
Derrida because Gadamer built his sandcastle.
If Derrida allows Gadamer to build sandcastles then Gadamer will believe the sandcastles to be real.
Getting attached to sandcastles, as materialism, to rankings, to systems that are better than yours.
Derrida does not like this–for we are all made of sand, and we can lose sight of this if we only see castles.
And we do.
Young is better than old. Why?
Science is better than religion. Why?
Higher is better than lower. Why?
Fascist fashion leads to… My country is better than your country.
My castle is better than your castle.
So, Derrida destroys castles.
But..
Gadamer asks, if there are no castles then there is only sand,
How can we come together if we are only sand?
What’s the point then, if not than?
Gadamer is right.
A world with only sand is a world without being.
We need structures.
We need castles.
Derrida says nothing.
Gadamer then builds a new castle–with higher arches for stability–constructing a hierarchy.
Derrida destroys it, yet again, indifferent to the difference
Gadamer tells Derrida to stop–it takes work to make–don’t you see?
Derrida says nothing.
Gadamer hesitates before building another castle.
But this time around, Gadamer is prepared.
Gadamer’s expectations were violated, but now he understood Derrida better, expecting him to destroy his castle again.
He built a better one than the other ones–stronger, higher, thicker, and a foundation grounded deeper–and more out of reach.
Derrida tries to destroy it, but indifferent as he was, saw the difficulty of it.
Deconstructively, he examined it wholefully, and decided to swing his arms left and right, like a kid.
Gadamer, was perplexed by the unexpected, unplanned, un-understood method of Derrida’s way.
Instead of getting carried away, Gadamer studied Derrida’s destructive ways, finding his patterns, so as to make a prediction, of Derrida’s destruction, and built his new castle accordingly.
Taking in the new information has given Gadamer an even better understanding of Derrida’s odd worldly ways.
This time round Gadamer builds a castle twice as high, and twice as wide, and twice as far, a fence all around, and builds a hole in front of the castle as extra de-fense.
No way–could Derrida find a way now
Derrida is impressed–seeing the challenge of destroying the castle–he goes for it.
Derrida falls into Gadamer’s hole and injures himself, but gets out and runs into the castle with his whole body.
Unexpected as could be, not even Derrida knew what he would do, but did it without a clue.
Gadamer expressed surprise, in awe that Derrida would run himself into his castle just like that.
No system, no method, no structure–no knowing, unknowing–Derrida falls into his castle, in opposition to what any position one might take.
For god sake–this man was unpredictable–no method true like Gadamer’s, but Derrida would do the untrue, simply because it was the opposite of what one would do.
“Why, Derrida, Why?” Gadamer frantically asked.
“Own known onto the unknown” Derrida wrote.
“What does that mean, Derrida? Why is your writing so difficult to understand?” Gadamer asked, knowing now an answer was unlikely.
Derrida gets up and goes back to his half of the sandbox.
Gadamer, shocked by the unsystematized ways of Derrida–does not let himself be defeated, for now he understands Derrida’s odd deconstructive plays even better than before.
And so it goes, back and forth they go.
Gadamer’s constructions become better each time.
Derrida’s deconstruction unbecoming with every rhyme.
Frustration expected..
Yet..
In the midst of all this.
Little did they see, in the ongoing process of structure and play, did they find in the other a slight grin (hidden) away.
Understanding i(t)s meaning.
Coming to terms of (this)agreement.
Derrida writes as Gadamer cites, simultaneously, in part and both right:
“The Sandbox is the Castle!?”
Excited by its question as answer,
Forever to be under-s(t)anding in meaning.
Neither Deconstruction nor Construction but a new word emerged, merged by both meaning and understanding.
As both were verbs verbalized in state of motion, now became a motion state that had (k)no(w) direction.
Came to be, and became two, too, be..
Un | Deconstructed