has now been recounted and commented in The Post Card.” These repetitions come with omissions and additions that may be glossed, if one can still call what I am doing as having inverted each other. For example, Derrida does not give “glossing,” the quotation from Lacan in but he does give it in Lacan”; inversely, “Envois,” “Love Derrida names the dead friend in tout” but does not in Lacan.” One could “Du “Love go even further and point out the parentheses uses in Lacan” to mention his “Love dead friend and to say Lacan was mistaken recall the figurative parentheses in which Derrida places the anecdote about Roustang in Tout”: few words in “Du “A parenthesis”; will not close this short parenthesis”; I close this parenthesis.” “I “Here These cruxes are at the outer limits of the borders of glossing, or of any glossing to come. As with the title tout,” we come at these limits to the anarchivity of “Du Derrida’s own texts the question of reading after death becomes a question of the title, anecdotes, and publication. In the last crux, I will gloss, Derrida again tells a story about an error, in this case, an error Lacan made, one of many, when speaking about Derrida. Derrida puts this story in a long parenthetical paragraph and to the way that paragraph follows the second anecdote Derrida tells about meeting Lacan in person, an anecdote Derrida that involves dates and a posterous order of publication and that Derrida defers for so long that he finally begins telling it by saying am not forgetting.” Here are the first and last sentences of the paragraph “I that follows the first anecdote: to any grammatology: Grammatology” was “Prior “Of the first title of an article published some five years before Lacan’s new title of an article published some five years before Lacan’s new introduction and—and this was one of the numerous mistakes or misrecognitions made by Lacan--it never
has now been recounted and commented in The Post Card.” These repetitions come with omissions and additions that may be glossed, if one can still call what I am doing “glossing,” as having inverted each other. For example, Derrida does not give the quotation from Lacan in “Envois,” but he does give it in “Love Lacan”; inversely, Derrida names the dead friend in “Du tout” but does not in “Love Lacan.” One could go even further and point out the parentheses uses in “Love Lacan” to mention his dead friend and to say Lacan was mistaken recall the figurative parentheses in which Derrida places the anecdote about Roustang in “Du Tout”: “A few words in parenthesis”; “I will not close this short parenthesis”; “Here I close this parenthesis.” These cruxes are at the outer limits of the borders of glossing, or of any glossing to come. As with the title “Du tout,” we come at these limits to the anarchivity of Derrida’s own texts the question of reading after death becomes a question of the title, anecdotes, and publication. In the last crux, I will gloss, Derrida again tells a story about an error, in this case, an error Lacan made, one of many, when speaking about Derrida. Derrida puts this story in a long parenthetical paragraph and to the way that paragraph follows the second anecdote Derrida tells about meeting Lacan in person, an anecdote Derrida that involves dates and a posterous order of publication and that Derrida defers for so long that he finally begins telling it by saying “I am not forgetting.” Here are the first and last sentences of the paragraph that follows the first anecdote: “Prior to any grammatology: “Of Grammatology” was the first title of an article published some five years before Lacan’s new title of an article published some five years before Lacan’s new introduction and—and this was one of the numerous mistakes or misrecognitions made by Lacan--it never
Burt%20postal%20principle%20is%20privileged%20July%2012%202013%20%5B2%5D.docx