-
Notes
- Duquesne University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Notes Notes to Introduction 1. The word “Other” is a translation of the French Autrui, designating a nonspecific yet immediate person with whom the self is in relation. Thus, the Other is not simply a category of diversity (gender, race, orientation and the like) but of ethical difference. In attempting to emphasize the nonsymmetrical relation to the Other, the word “self ” will appear throughout noncapitalized. 2. In its resistance to incorporation—as reduction or as dialectical transcendence of differences—différance, states Derrida, is a mode of self-interruption, without which there could be no responsibility (1999b, 81). 3. Engagment with Levinas’s philosophy has been relatively scarce within communication thought. Among the notable exceptions are Arnett (2001, 2003), Cmiel (1996), Hyde (2001), Lipari (2004), Murray (2001, 2003a, 2003b), Silverston (1999, 2003) and Smith (1997). 4. Further discussion and elaboration on dislocation will be presented in chapter 2. 5. In The Ethics of Deconstruction (1992), Simon Critchley speaks of a “third wave in the reception of deconstruction,” beyond its previous literary and philosophical appropriations, “one in which ethical—not to mention political—questions are uppermost” (3). While acknowledging that Derrida’s work has always been highly sensitive to the ethical modalities of response and responsibility, it is when raising the question of ethics “through a rapprochement with the work of Emmanuel Levinas” that it takes up an ethical-political import (3). Thus, rather than a critique of Derrida, what is at issue is providing a Levinasian supplement, as it were, to deconstruction. 257 258 Notes to Pages 32–47 Notes to Chapter One 1. Charles Wright (1959), in his functional approach to communication, adds a fourth function—entertainment. Also compare Schramm (1973) and Thayer (1971). 2. The book was not a product of the combined work of the two. The first part, “Recent Contributions to the Mathematical Theory of Communication,” was written by Weaver and presents a general (and more approachable) review of the theory . The remainder of the book, “The Mathematical Theory of Communication,” written by Shannon, contains elaborate mathematical formulations of 23 theorems. One critic argues that Weaver’s interpretation of Shannon’s work is distorted because it is keenly attempting to apply Information Theory to general human behavior (Ritchie 1986). 3. As Peters notes, that conception also governs genetic discourse where DNA is a code containing “genetical information,” neural synapses are “switchboards,” and RNA proteins are “informosomes” (1988, 18). 4. Wiener states that Leibniz was “the intellectual ancestor” of his ideas (1954, 19). He was especially fascinated by Leibniz’s monads, which he endeavored to interpret in informational-material terms (Heims 1977, 143). Interestingly enough, Wiener’s conception of cybernetics uncannily resonates with his description of Leibnizian religious cosmology: “Leibniz . . . saw the world as a collection of beings called ‘monads’ whose activity consisted in the perception of one another on the basis of pre-established harmony laid down by God” (1954, 18). In that respect, Wiener’s idea of cybernetics might be considered as Leibnizian cosmology , minus the role of God. 5. Russell’s paradox is usually explained using the grammatical example, “I am a liar.” The paradox here is clear: if I am a liar, then my acknowledgment of the truth of that statement contradicts the content of the proposition; if I am telling the truth, then the content contradicts the admission of my telling a lie. Russell argued that the nature of this paradox stems from a confusion between two levels: the first is three words that make up a statement; the second is a statement about the statement. One cannot encompass this duality at the same time, as a time element is involved in which the reader has to move through a Gestalt transformation of perception. What is implicitly suggested here is that the higher level of abstraction , or class, does not share the nature of its parts. 6. This theory also concurs with a larger antipsychiatry intellectual movement of the 1960s that was carried out by writers such R. D. Laing (1965), Thomas S. Szasz (1961) and Michel Foucault (1965). 7. This view aligns nicely with the Cartesian separation between mind and body, which still dominates communication theory, and with the extension principle (res extensa) designated to ether in Cartesian cosmology (compare Chang 1996). [18.221.235.209] Project MUSE (2024-04-17 19:45 GMT) 8. Carey goes to great lengths in order to distinguish his own conception from his predecessors as far as dichotomizing the transmission and the ritual views. However...