Deconstruction (a philosophy, maybe)
To define deconstruction would be possible very bad. As Deconstruction can't really be defined, or can it. First we should get an idea of what deconstruction as as it is as fluid as water.
The idea of deconstruction centers around a center of a system. Lets use religion as an example.
God is the Center of the Christian religion. Let us remove god from one's life. The center of the structure, this case religion, is removed. The person can't cope and their structure is gone. They must create a new structure in order to survive. The next step is Agnosticism. this structure works well for out hypothetical person but something happens to De-center this person once again and this process continues until we find a structure that suits us. It is a never ending cycle, or is it?
Can people live without this profound structure? Lets bring it closer to home. You are no longer otherkin. the center of your belief structure has been de-centered. Your structure collapses. How do you cope? What happens if you live in a deconstructed state?
Very interesting stuff, especially when it comes to literature. The literary aspect of this deals with La Lang and La Parole. I'll post many in depth links but here is a brief exercise to get some thinky-balls rolling. Words, in and of themselves, have no meaning. They are merely giving a meaning, a flawed one, by the people who created the words to begin with.
For those of you that are bi lingual I want you to think of the word "tree" in your native tongue and see what comes to your mind. then clear you mind and think of the same word in a different language. More than likely your image of that tree will change.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/derrida/deconstruction.html">http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers ... ction.html</a><!-- m -->
" 1. Deconstructive critics believe that language doesn't accurately reflect reality becuase it's an unstable medium; literary texts therefore have no stable meaning.
2. Deconstructive criticism resembles formalist criticism in its close attention to the text, its close analysis of individual words and images. There the similarity ends, because their aims are in fact opposite. Whereas formalist criticism is interested in "aesthetic wholes" or constructs, deconstructionists aim to demonstrate irreconcilable positions--they destruct (or deconstruct)--by proving the instability of language, its inability to express anything definte."
taken from: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://brainstorm-services.com/wcu/critical-approaches.html">http://brainstorm-services.com/wcu/crit ... aches.html</a><!-- m -->
- Weavy ( oh snap!)
The space between two horizons...