When a group denoted by a certain particularity engages in dialogue and imposes a "dominant discourse"-- are its members to submit to its operational method?
I posit that since the multivocality of radically different Otherness exists--and here occurs a reification of a pluralistic notion--the universal tongue may be impossible. As such, the subjectivity of one's speech and grammar may not reveal but only cover up. Only spiritually, perhaps, can this universality exist-- a language devoid of any catachresis. In this sense, I can be considered somewhat postpositivistic.
However, the fact is that we live in one world, albeit a fragmented one which appears to be constantly in conflict.
Discourse is the way to bridge the gap from the Self to the Other. I call the being-in-myself the Felt-Self which inwardly acknowledges itself yet cannot purely decenter itself in recognizing the outsider, comprised of the none-Felt-Self, which I assume is anything outside.
As such, in dialogue there can only be agreement, always some submission on the part of one or both. Since a pure de(center)ing is seemingly impossible, there is linguistic battle, even if they are ones of solidarity.
But to deviate (the linguistic straying referred to) changes the course of the battle. In short, it constitutes a deceit whereupon the input of the Other is blinded to a further degree than that already imposed by the limits of language.
That demerits the results of a discussion or dialectic and ultimately leaves one Pyrrhically victorious, as the battle was decided by the intrusion of misplaced pieces. Who can feel proud of winning rock, paper, scissors with a real weapon?
This does leave two questions, though: how acceptable are generative metaphors? and have I myself strayed?
