A brief excerpt of my writing from this discussion thread entitled “What ‘is’ the differance”:
Derrida’s descriptions of khora and differance superficially appear to be like Wilber’s description of consciousness per se in Integral Spirituality (Shambhala, 2007). For example Wilber says in Chapter 2:
“This happens to fit nicely with the Madhyamaka-Yogachara Buddhist view of consciousness as emptiness or openness. Consciousness is not anything itself, just the degree of openness or emptiness, the clearing in which the phenomena of the various lines appear (but consciousness is not itself a phenomena—it is the space in which phenomena arise)” (66).
Compare with this from Caputo’s Deconstruction in a Nutshell (Fordham UP, 1997):
“But something like khora is ‘indeconstructible’ not because she/it is a firm foundation, like a metaphysical ground or principle… Rather her indeconstructibility arises because she is…the space in which everything constructible and deconstructible is constituted, and hence…older, prior, preoriginary. Far from being a likeness to the God of the monotheisms…[it] is better compared to…the incomparable, unmetaphorizable, desert-like place without properties or genus….which is not be to confused with the Eternal, Originary Truth…of the intelligible paradigms above” (97-8).
This seems different than Wilber’s metaphysical ground wherein all forms arise. The latter seems much more like Plato’s archetypal realm of Ideal forms that step down into the sensible world and “in”form it. Granted Wilber doesn’t see them as “pre-formed” but rather much more amorphous involutionary and morphogenetic “potentials.” Still, it seems this is part of the involutionary versus evolutionary dualistic scheme with one side being origin and absolute, with the other being result and relative.
Caputo: “He [Derrida] does not stake out the ground of a higher principle but concedes a certain an-arche at the bottom of our principles. Derrida is not denying that we have ‘principles’ or ‘truth’…. He is just reinscribing our truth and principles in the an-arche of differance, attaching to them a co-efficient of ‘contingency.’ For the only ‘necessity’ he acknowledges is the necessity that precedes all oppositions…inscribing them in a vast and meaning-less receptacle called differance. This is why you cannot ask what differance ‘is,’ for its ‘meaning’ or ‘truth’…. but points a mute, Buddhist finger at the moon” (102).