p. 106
In this epoch of metaphysics (= between Descartes and Hegel), Rousseau is the first to make a theme or a system of the reduction of writing, as it was profoundly implicated by the entire epoch.
p. 118
Writing in its narrow sense (linear and phonetic notation) → but all societies are capable of practicing writing in general (= obliterating proper names. playing classificatory difference) !
p. 138
“If it is true, as we in fact believe, that writing cannot be thought outside of the horizon of intersubjective violence, is there anything, even science, which radically escapes it? Is there a knowledge, and, above all, a language [langage], scientific or not, that one can call alien at once to writing and to violence?”
p. 149
“Rousseau shows there that social distance, the dispersion of the neighborhood, is the condition of oppression, arbitrariness, and vice. The governments of oppression all make the same gesture: to break presence, the co-presence of citizens, the unanimity of “assembled peoples,” to create a situation of dispersion, holding subjects apart, incapable of feeling themselves together in the space of one and the same speech, one and the same persuasive exchange.”
(* 오? 이건 좀 설득력 있을지도? I’ve read from somewhere that the cities in the States were deliberately designed during the Cold War era to prevent citizens to gather together for protests…)
p. 152
“United in the scorn of writing, praise of the range of the voice is common both to Rousseau and to Levi-Strauss. Nevertheless, on the texts that we must now read, Rousseau is suspicious also of the illusion of full and present speech…”
p. 155
“Differance does not resist appropriation, it does not impose an exterior limit upon it. Differance began by broaching alienation and it finishes by letting reappropriation be broached. Until death. Death is the movement of differance to the extent that it is necessarily finite.”
p. 173
루소의 텍스트에는 글쓰기만 존재했다; “there has never been anything but supplements, substitutive significations which could only emerge in a chain of differential references, the “real” supervening, and adding itself only by taking on meaning from a trace and from an appeal to the supplement, etc.”
p. 174-5
“In a certain way, we are in the history of psychoanalysis as we are in Rousseau’s text. Just as Rousseau drew upon a language [langue] that was already there—and which is found to a certain extent to be ours, thus assuring us a certain minimal readability of French literature—in the same way we circulate today within a certain network of significations marked by psychoanalytic theory, even if we do not master it and even if we are assured of never being able to master it perfectly.”
p. 177
“We must begin wherever we are and the thought of the trace, which cannot not take the scent into account, has already taught us that it was impossible to justify a point of departure absolutely. Wherever we are: in a text where we already believe ourselves to be.”