language and secrets

Text from Jacques Derrida:

"then he gets to the idea of the secret. this i interpret thusly: no response is adequate--language does not allow for an adequate response so the entirety of the response is secret in that it can never be revealed in its entirety. the secret is what exceeds the response or the ability to respond. name, p. 28: passion is "in place of the secret."

i agree that secret conveys the idea that no formulation is adequate, that no testimony in words is sufficient, but remember that for derrida there is nothing but language or, as he puts it, there is nothing outside the text. that is to say, that the secret represents his understanding of the inherent limit of language even though there is no way beyond language.

the secret for derrida is different than the classical mystical traditions in that he does not believe in a transcendent being. he does not embrace the standard negative theology. for him the inherent secretive nature of language is that there is always a surplus of meaning. a writer writes but the meaning of what is written is subject to a play of interpretations."




my new thesis statement:

>>>Language is never adequate to capture the essence of a thing in its entirety,
because the thing always overflows the boundaries of language. <<<

(language including written/spoken words, gestures, visual expressions(arts,design), music etc.)