Monday, January 28, 2013
In his article Derrida uses the term "trace" which in French means imprint. When he uses it he is talking about an imperceptible imprint of the radically other that difference implies. So otherwise we can define trace as the sign that is left behind by the absent thing, all after it has passed on the scene of its former presence. So an ordinary present needs to have an ordinary trace, so that the present trace of a past which never took place is an absolute past. From this Derrida does believe that he has gained a position that is beyond absolute knowledge. Derrida says that the trace does not actually exist because its self effacing. So because the signifier are viewed as present it will contain some traces of other signifers, and so the signifier can be neither completely present nor completely absent.