Nr. 3 (12) anul IV / iulie-septembrie 2006 - ROMDIDAC

Paradoxically, the myth of the unfortunate birth of writing has been referredto in writing both by Plato, one of Socrates’ direct listeners, and by Derrida,one of Plato’s readers and interpreters, not to mention the entire series ofphilosophers who followed them and their commentators. In spite of thecriticism of writing which begins with Plato himself quoting Socrates’ pointof view, that same writing has become the most validating and appreciativehuman activity. Its original disparagement became a continuous challengefor scholars who have tried to contribute to the refinement of writing throughtheir personal stylistic innovations. The long tradition of writing is an attemptto make writing overcome its ontological status of immutability (as long as itis safely preserved from intentional or accidental destruction). Actually, thephysical aspect of writing was Socrates’ target when he compared writing withpainting. For him words were as silent as images which one may interrogate asif they were the author’s representatives. Socrates anticipated the misfortunesof editors and textual scholars alike:‘The painter’s products stand before us as though they were alive, but ifyou question them, they maintain a most majestic silence. It is the same withwritten words; they seem to talk to you as though they were intelligent, but ifyou ask them anything about what they say, from a desire to be instructed, theygo on telling you just the same thing forever. And once a thing is put in writing,the composition, whatever it may be, drifts all over the place, getting into thehands not only of those who understand it, but equally of those who have nobusiness with it; … And when it is ill-treated and unfairly abused it always needsits parents to come to its help, being unable to defend or help itself’ (275 e).Considered a fixed image, the written text is an instance of physicality,which obviously is not a satisfactory support for its meaningful content.According to Plato, the potentially mistreated written text is trapped in itsconcreteness. While he himself wrote down Socrates’ utterance, exposing itto misunderstanding, he seems to completely ignore the positive aspect ofthe text’s physicality, the text as document. He is silent about his own writing,his thoughts about writing while writing about hazardous writing. However,the effort of mastering the art of writing is implicitly praised, just because hisanti-writing polemic is writing itself. Erasure makes writing more valuablesince it puts into evidence the striving for the right expression, which is sodifficult to achieve.‘…one who has nothing to show of more value than the literary workson whose phrases he spends hours, twisting them this way and that, pastingthem together and pulling them apart, will rightly. I suggest, be called a poet orspeech writer or law writer’ (278 e).Somehow, human writing is originally susceptible of imperfection anddepends on its correcting correlative, erasure. In this sense, erasure is awriting tool, part of the writing, which improves it by clearing the surface ofwriting. Writing itself is a dialectical activity: it inscribes itself producing anew wonderful object, but, at the same time, it makes dirt whenever it failsto produce a valuable and desired object. Then, only erasure can partiallyrestore its purity, offering again the support for writing anew.Ex Ponto nr.3, 200679