The idea that language isn’t fixed and and can be malleable is on that I find ver accessible. In many years of work with children and adults with autistic spectrum disorders the flexible and at times counter intuitive nature of colloquial language is a feature of one of the principle barriers to those with autism understanding the world around them. The rules of language are not taught but rather gained through layers of successive interaction. This personal perspective on language is my starting point to trying to make sense of Derrida and the semiotic.
Also in true ‘Derridian’ style I have to challenge the statement in the course materials that reading as book takes as much effort as writing a book. Whilst I do think there is tremendous effort involved to properly read a book, i think the effort of writing a book can be all together a more herculean task!
What i think i do like about my initial reading around the work of Derrida is the challenge to a prevailing orthodoxy that sometimes says we shouldn’t challenge the ideas of the learned. The idea that scepticism and challenge are helpful in making sense of the world and that questions are perhaps the best response to a piece of writing or a piece of art and irrespective of the author or artists original intent, the reader or viewer has just as much right to their personal and unique interoperation of that work.
That said, I can see that there are common signs and symbols that lead a more common sense of underrating and interoperation. The colour read for example tends to mean danger, alert or risk and in images red has come to signify something that can be hard to define but has some universal ideas about interpretation.
I will read some more Derrida!