reading: of grammatology, derrida.

derrida says that the spoken word is an only-signifier of truth. it is ‘closer’ to the truth than writing, because it is closer to the cognitive and sensory process from which it is derived. at the same time, it is still derivative from the signified itself.

but does language, when it is shared between people, perhaps create a new truth? or a secondary, additional truth? one which is not centered in the individual, but in the emergent constructed entity of the collective?

and then might not writing (which derrida argues is even one step further from the signified) through its ability to reach more people and be consumed and regurgitated by them, further give birth to di/super/supra-bodied but equally real signs?

why should we presume that the individual, the atomic unit of consciousness, is itself correlate to atomic units of sign? or at least, that it holds eminent domain over atomic units of sign?

since we bring to life signs, through our experience of the world, through processes and experiences that could not alone through our consciousness in the grey matter of our brains - those matters alone could not produce the sign to which our consciousness refers. that consciousness needs the external (the signifier? is the external ITSELF the signifier?), to create the signified concept, but that concept may have been different with a different object. so how can we claim that it is our human, “soul” experience, which is primitive? or is it the emergent subjective relationships (and relat_ing_), which is primitive? or perhaps not primitive but “closer to the truth.”

if that’s the case, then the spoken enables the truth, perhaps even produces it. so it becomes the signified.

the collective production of truth is at least equally primitive, and through the tools of communication, turns the signifier into the producer of the sign.

does meaning exist without its consumer? can the producer of a truth be its only consumer? or do we need difference to make meaning meaningful? signified to make the sign. in this case, might the collective truth also be the reflector, the bringer-to-life-of, the individual sign?