At the beginning of my thesis, I tried to find meaning as to which images are best representative of happy and peace. I couldn't find such meaning in this world. Since then; I started meaning travel as in ongoing inquiry.
I saw many books of language in library and online but I didn't see any books of genesis of meaning. Are text, language and meaning the same? Questions came in mind. Text constitutes by meaning, word and language. On the base of binary opposition, we cannot define the Ghost because meaning grows from inside not outside. Meaning is a signified term; writing and speech are means of signifiers. Symbol, sign, gesture are again signifiers of writing and speech. We believe; modernism, post-modernism, structure, god, nature and man is in the form of signified but signified is in meaning. Meaning has existence before it comes to human sense. Senses collect from scattered meanings and put them in bottle. Physical meaning appears after genesis in brain and starts travel into inquiry.
In the context of text, before understanding text, we need to know genesis. Meaning precedes genesis of words and constitutes text. Text is not reading by text, it is reading by meaning. Text is in fact structured (collection) of meanings. It comes thorough inherent ways of what parents know as meaning is transferred to child. Where meaning stands, it has its periphery, range, shadow, opposition, neighbor etc. Language is always rooted in meaning. Its birth is not natural and natural ends. It is a gift of man. Genesis is in one meaning and flows like river. Origination was ice, later change into hot/cold water, salty water etc.
Means danger of life (fear) support comes from Jacques Derrida himself who writes;
Does the example of fear come by chance? Does not the metaphoric origin of language lead us necessarily to a situation of threat, distress, and dereliction, to an archaic solitude, to the anguish of dispersion? Absolute fear would then be the first encounter of the other as other: as other as I and as other as itself. I can answer the threat of the other as other (than I) only by transforming it into another (than itself), through altering it in my imagination, my fear, or my desire. "Upon meeting others, a savage man will initially be frightened." Fear would thus be the first passion, the mistaken face of pity of which we spoke above. Pity is the force of reconciliation and presence. Fear would still be turned toward the immediately anterior situation of pure nature as dispersion; the other is first encountered at a distance, separation of fear must be overcome so that he may be approached as a fellow-being. From a distance, he is immense, like a master and threatening force. It is the experience of the small and silent ⁅infant⁆ man. He begins to speak only out of these deforming and naturally magnifying perceptions. And as the force of dispersion is never reduced, the source of fear always compounds with its contrary. (Of grammatology pp. 277-78)
Derrida added, "Fear would thus be the first passion." There are many loopholes which cannot see without the explorer eye of meaning and fear.
It is hypothesis of the two children left in the desert after Flood, "before they understood the use of any sign"⁅ ibid p. 278 (169)⁆. These two children began to speak only in a moment of fear: to ask to help. (ibid p. 278)
"From the first day consciousness of hunter people had to unite to fight the mighty forces of nature, to wrest the means of livelihood from it. That is why in the process of labor there arose the need for communication between people, the need to tell each other something." It is written in the book by f V. Afanasyev- Marxism Philosophy: A Popular Outline (p.86)
Dogs were used for hunting and fighting and as an alarm system against wild beasts and human intruders about 15000 year ago.], Yuval Noah Harari’s “Sapiens: A Brief of History of Human Kind, (p. 51” 2011).
For example, he who saw a place in which he had been frightened mimicked those cries and movements which were the signs of fear, in order to warm the other not to expose himself to the same danger. (ibid p. 278)
The approach to these (the purity of nature, of animality, primitivism, childhood, madness, divinity) limits is at once as a threat of death, and desired as access to a life without difference. (ibid p.244)
Origin of language has many hypotheses. When we filter them; claim by the Fearism philosophy (a la Subba) is much closer to facts. Even Rousseau has assumption of pity. He says, to pity another's woes we must indeed know them, but we need not feel them. ⁅(ibid p.170, 190) p. 190 ibid.] We show pity and sorrow for others but fear is our self. I mean fear is for subject (self) and pity and sorrow is for others (Objects). It is human nature first that we never look at other's pity; and we never use pity for self. When we have fear, we scream, shout, gesture, sing, and image many. Nevertheless we cannot find relief.
Some critics of deconstruction;
A. What is genesis of meaning? Center of deconstruction is text not meaning.
B. Starts analysis of meaning after its birth,
C. All word and text doesn't need binary opposition
D. What is the binary opposition of 5G internet?
E. What is the main source of langue (central)?
F. How does langue structure generate meaning?
G. Can difference, binary opposition, signified and signifier, presence and absence birth meaning?
H. What is mother of meaning and text? Meaning is parent of all text.
I. In meaning of fate, hegemony, can we apply deconstruction?
j. Genesis begins with single not binary. When its genesis is single, and then now why need binary?
1. Biological: Amygdale of human brain looks as source of fear. It is a primitive part among four parts of brain. Fear is meaning not merely language. It precedes essence.
2. Historical: there are many hypothetical views on origination of language. When we filter them, we can find ‘genesis of meaning’ and those genesis are close to fear.
3. Linguistic: from the linguistic approach, we always see the meaning first.
In the voice we have an organ answering to hearing (ibid p.97); but we have not direct organs to elucidate meaning. But we can use signal, gesture, sound, speech and writing to answer meaning. These are not biological organs; these are metaphysical organs of meaning.
List of linguistics are long but none of them are recognized as meaninguistic.
Human brain is the factory of meaning. Incident, environment, sense organs, conditional reflex, and necessity are raw materials. Writing and speech tries to represent meaning. Language represents meaning but meaning doesn't represent language. Speech and writing is the signifier of meaning. These are senders like email, social media, messenger and WhatsApp. In other words, we can say, brain is CPU and speech and writings are 5G, 6G fiber cables. These cables constantly move away from the sending origins of true meaning.
Langue, parole, signifier, signified, difference, gaps, binary opposition, marginal, logocentre and grammar are not for producing meaning. They show the way to genesis. When these tools reach realm of meaning, original has changed and remains are some skeletons (skeleton fish of Hemingway-old man and sea). In matrix of time tools become unsuccessful to reach in the depth of genesis. Metaphysics of genesis is beyond the reach of such tools. They are porters. Main functions of tools are to explicit meaning and take away for practical use.
The world consists in its 'Genesis'. We are people of meaning. Our world is world of meaning. How we read text depends on it. Text is pregnant with meaning and language. Language is highly concerned with meaning not in text (script). Text is always copy. The text has no stable identification, no stable origin, and no stable end. Each act of reading 'text' is a preface to the next (ibid p.xii). To know the text we must need to know phenomenon of meaning. It is a concept of single text. Single text can be plus and multiply by culture, society, politics, religion etc. Sign is economic form of meaning.
Ontology of language is based on meaning. To know about man, scientists have reached to DNA. It is not completed. But to know the meaning where should we need to go? We need to go to truth set up by culture and genesis of meaning. Anybody can tell what is meaninguistic DNA of meaning? Is it constituted by meaningual (meaning virtual) Big bang? Does it automatically open like automatic door? Or, click by remote control to open meaning (Aporia)? Is it born as Adam and Eve (of god)? Meaning is not open heart surgery. It is a chromosome and word is a womb. What kind of meaning takes place in womb, it needs endoscopy or MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging)? Endoscopy can see birth process of meaning. In born, it goes to X and Y chromosomes. These 19 chromosomes derive from 5 elements (Five Fearism of Philosophy of Fearism 2014.) Using them (materials) build a meaning 'genesis'. That meaning defines the universe.
Man grows as a biological heretical transformation whereas meaning expands as in mimicry. It births, grows and expands like creeper plant. Language must restore its youth meaning but sometimes it fails. Regarding linguistic DNA [genesis] of meaning; Derrida is silent. Post-structure and structure are silent. Then where are we in 21th century? We are flying in space, galaxy and planets like flying-kiss, leaving far behind metaphysic and phenomenology of meaning? I answer; Creators of meaning are 5F (Five elements of Fearism-incident, sense organs, environment, necessity, and conditional reflex.)
So, meaning must be to deconstruct (open for surgery) not language and text. When meaning is deconstructed, language and text automatically deconstruct because S&W belongs to meaning. Deconstruction of meaning deconstructs text. Ghost has a meaning of danger, frightening, terrifying, alarm due to its meaning people are afraid. Cross ghost with two lines: fearful meaning changes into zero means fruitful and pleasure. Later nobody fears with the ghost. This formula can be applied to many areas like-political, tradition, culture, religion etc. it is an example. Deconstruction must start from meaning not text. To deconstruction culture of America, destroy of twin tower is not enough, must deconstruct the meaning of nation. When deconstruct meaning of nation, culture, language, politic deconstruct itself.
Rousseau knows that it is very difficult to find the resource of an explanation for the birth of language in the pure state of nature and in the original dispersion (ibid p. 231) Rousseau tried his best option to find sources of explanation for the birth of language in the state of nature. His concern was language and state of nature. He couldn't focus in on the genesis of meaning. My presentation is not language-base state of nature; my state of nature consists in meaning-base state of nature and fear at its core.