12.07.2015 Views

Examen corrigé Université de Montréal Thèse numérique Papyrus ...

Examen corrigé Université de Montréal Thèse numérique Papyrus ...

Examen corrigé Université de Montréal Thèse numérique Papyrus ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

31556 The vexing eruptions of necrophilia in Moby-Dick are linked to the economy of melancholia andmasochism. The phantasmic necrophilia is invested in the anasemic economy of filial legacy and thusengen<strong>de</strong>rs masochism when it is impossible to fulfill the duty.57 “Destinerrs” allu<strong>de</strong>s to <strong>de</strong>stination (pour <strong>de</strong>stiner), errancy (errance), and inheritance. Thatinforms Derrida’s argument that a letter can fail to arrive at its <strong>de</strong>stination. Destinerrance ischaracterized by the play of the possible and the impossible in the larger field of hermeneutics. Asargued by Derrida:what’s nee<strong>de</strong>d, if you prefer, is that ina<strong>de</strong>quation should remain always possible in or<strong>de</strong>r thatinterpretation in general, and the reply, be possible in its turn. Here is an example of this lawlinking the possible and the impossible. For a faultless interpretation, a totally a<strong>de</strong>quate selfcomprehension,would not only mark the end of a history marked by its own transparency.By ruling out the future, they would make everything impossible, both the event and thecoming of the other, coming to the other. (Machine Paper 89)Destinerrance is closely linked to Derrida’s other concepts. For example, it is related to différance,which is to say, to the temporal economy of differing and <strong>de</strong>ferring. It is spatial and temporal: spatialbecause the letter might err and not arrive at its <strong>de</strong>stination, temporal because it narrates thepossibility of wan<strong>de</strong>ring and, as a result, not arriving on time.58 When addressing the other, the speaker ren<strong>de</strong>rs himself vulnerable to the other, who might respondin different ways. Not knowing the response of the other confirms the impossibility of talking aboutthe present in communication: all we know is the past and the à-venir. The example of the

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!