My comments after yours:
> Since you claim deconstruction as a way to understand
> contradictions, there
> is a need to point out that your statement exposes an interesting
> contradiction: to claim that art has more dimensions than we
> comprehend, or
> that "logic is too rudimentary of a tool" exposes a
> transcendental tendency
> not much different from Curt's. That is to somehow believe there is
> something outside that is essential and grander, which if we come to terms
> with it through knowledge we may reach a higher state of being. (Sounds
> like going to heaven).
Deconstruction is not a way to understand anything. If anything, it is a way
to unlearn something.
I take your point about the contradiction in my statement. After all, it is
only an assumption that there is something beyond logic. However,
"transcendentalism" is what happens when you attach yourself to that belief.
It is true, there may not be anything behind the puzzling phenomenon called