Gentlemen, James Marshall here with a very special announcement for the fans of the 21 Convention.  It is a very strange story and I have finally put it all down in print in my first ever book where I reveal uncensored all the grimy, dirty, weird things that I've been through in order to get to this point. So if you want to find out more, check out the next video. Now for years, men have been asking me, am I going to write a book and when is it coming out? And for years, I've been saying, yes, I am writing a book and it's coming out very soon. Today, I am very excited to announce officially that the book is finally coming out. That's right, it's finished, it's ready and this April, 2016, you and the rest of the world will have a chance to get your hands on a copy. It's called A Natural History, Brackets, the Seduction Journals of James Marshall and right now, hopefully on the screen, you'll be seeing some kind of trashy 80's animation of the book itself. Now, this book is not your average seduction book. It's not a collection of tricks and tips and theory so much as it is my own personal journals, diary entries, essays, musings and various other stories about my development from being really shit with girls to being exceptionally good with them. I actually wrote the majority of this book way back in 2006 through to 2008 and these were the years when I first got into seduction formally, when I first started going out and cold approaching women and during that time, I meticulously documented the entire process. So I wrote journal entries about almost all of the seductions that I went through during this period. Also, I wrote in-depth journals about how I was feeling, my mindsets, what was going on for me personally, the struggles, the self-doubt, the self-loathing and all of the breakthroughs, breakdowns and wacky adventures and stories that happened to me. So this is a very personal account of my own journey.  I definitely dished the dirt on myself as well as the other naturals that I was hanging out with at the time and of course all the ladies that we encountered during our adventures. My story is quite different I think than the average dating coach. A lot of the guys who went on to become seduction coaches tended to come from fairly technical backgrounds. They didn't have much experience with women until the point when they started to go out and approach and figure this out. My story was quite different. I was very bad with girls when I was growing up. I was a dorky, big-nosed, flute-playing, wimpy kind of effeminate guy growing up in rough sporty schools in Australia getting beaten up because I was a bit of a pufda, which means gay for those who are not Australians and what I did early on is I started to develop myself not specifically to get girls, although this was definitely a driving force, but what I did is I got involved in a whole lot of aspects and lifestyle activities to further myself, to improve myself as a man. So early on I got into theatre and music, I got into martial arts because I was beaten up a lot and I needed to learn how to protect myself and I definitely wanted to get good with girls all through my teenage years and early twenties. I didn't know how to cold approach girls, I didn't know how to go and make something happen with a stranger, but what I did do is develop social circle, the ability to connect with women, the ability to express myself emotionally and all of the other aspects that tend to make a man much more attractive and powerful. So by the time that I came to start going out and specifically approaching women, I already had quite a solid foundation in terms of feeling generally confident, generally clear about who I was and what I was trying to do. However, once I started to go out into the field, I was inevitably smashed like any man is when he first goes out to try this by the ego-crushing reality of women coldly rejecting you on the street, of finding out that certain women were totally out of my league, I simply was not capable of seducing them at that time because I didn't have enough experience, I didn't have enough confidence or a strong enough mindset or a clear enough understanding of what women really wanted. So in these journals, in this book, you get to see the internal process as well as the external results of me struggling through those initial periods of being totally lost, of not knowing what to say, of feeling the crippling fear of approach anxiety. What you get to see is me in the genesis of the man that I was to become over the next 10 years. I think when students or fans look at guys like me or other seduction coaches that they look up to, they tend to assume that we were always like this. Guys might look at me and think, okay, this is a guy who's got it made, he's successful, he's got girls in his life and that's true, but I was definitely not always in that position. And in this story, you'll see me coming from that position of being totally broke, totally alone because at that time back in Melbourne, I didn't have any wingmen, I didn't have any single male friends and I didn't have any mentors to teach me. So at first I just went out cold and tried to figure it out. Over the course of this story, you'll be introduced to some very interesting characters, the other guys that I did come in contact with in my years of training who were exceptionally good naturals. These are guys who actually are not seduction coaches. They did some coaching but they moved on to other things. But they were incredibly formative and incredibly influential to me in terms of being able to start to look at what was the crossover point between these naturals. Because they all operated in very different ways. As you'll see in the book, we have this introverted insecure yet powerful low energy seducer of Z. You have the brash, incredibly rapid escalating club king Wolf and the chameleonic social puppeteer of flows. These are the three other main guys that I was started to wing with early on and we hung out for those two years going out almost every single day together learning from each other's styles and working with each other in the field. So you'll be introduced to these wacky interesting characters and all of the adventures that we went on. If you were to look at the early part of my life there was certainly no indication that I would end up where I am today. Many of you would know from my back story that's been talked about previously that I was a very dedicated Buddhist and martial artist during this time. I was very strict, very austere and really working towards removing myself from worldly desires rather than chasing them. My plan at the time in the early 2000s was to move to China permanently where I had been visiting periodically for training to essentially live a Chaolin temple and become a monk. However, fate and circumstance had other plans for me. I decided before I moved finally to China that I would bury myself in hedonism. My idea was that hopefully I could get it out of my system by having as much sex and drugs and madness as I needed to the point where I would be satisfied. I now realise that there never really is a point of absolute satisfaction. And along the way I met a very young but very powerful seducer who in the book I call Wolf who made an offer to me. He asked me to join him to start what at that time was the world's first natural seduction company. And so I agreed to spend six months with him. I said I'll give it a shot. We can try this business thing. And my condition is that you and I go out every single day, every night to work on seduction because I want to become an absolute master at this. So we made this agreement and began this journey together. Obviously I didn't end up in Chaolin temple. Sex, drugs, rock and roll and coaching took over and during this book you see my transition as I go from that very strict kind of humulus rigid young man to being someone who was much more expansive, creative and definitely much more seductive. The book itself contains dozens of my early seduction stories going from approaching fairly average not that hot chicks who were irritating and going on excruciating expensive dates and fucking it up and ending up with chicks who are really annoying through to as I improve as I get much more competent with my skills and also as I develop much more of a sense of worthiness that I actually deserved better. You see the quality and intensity of the seduction's increase so that over the course of the book you see me going from working with very average girls to very intelligent, highly coveted, incredibly beautiful women to the point where towards the end of the book I'm juggling literally five girlfriends. Along the way there's also lots of interesting interludes where I'm in China training with my masters where somehow I end up as the star of Australia's first big budget feminist porno movie. Yes, that really happened and I'll explain it all in the book through to the adventures of me in my funk band traveling around Australia and through to me making my first journeys over to Europe, meeting the Eastern European sirens which blew my mind and which inspired me to build the Euro tour workshop and eventually to move over here where I am now. You'll also be introduced to a very important person in my life which was the woman that I would fall desperately in love with, eventually marry and divorce and then move on to more wacky stuff afterwards but it was through this epic seduction and this epic relationship with this woman that I really stepped into my power and coming out the other side was I would say fully actualized and fully complete as a seducer and as a person, a man who feels at ease with himself confident and nowadays is able to travel the world doing exactly what I want anytime anywhere. So if you've ever been curious to find out how I got to where I am today to read about all the misadventures, disasters, successes, touring, porn star, Shaolin temple, dozens of seductions, all of it I have completely revealed myself, raw, all of my failings, all of my lies, all of my doubt, all of that's in there which I think is really important for a lot of guys to see because the truth is success in seduction is not just technical, it's not just about the skills you learn, this book is not a how to manual. I released last year my five principles of natural seduction product which is definitely a how to product which explains the foundational principles and how to use them. This book is not that. This is an insight into the mindsets, the growth and the change that I went through which I feel really is important for guys to see that it is the long game that makes the difference and you'll see how I was able to keep motivated and to keep picking myself up no matter how many times I got smashed down in order to finally reach the successes that I truly wanted. I feel like it is an inspiring story, it's raw, it's real, it's very, very open and honest. I'm really bearing my soul and everything to the world and I think you guys will find it useful, entertaining and hilarious. So if you're interested to find out more here's what you should do. Click the link in the description, put in your email to be added to the VIP advanced list where you will get access to some bonus free chapters as well as a whole lot of behind the scenes extras that I won't be revealing to the general public. So that's all you got to do. Click the link, put your email in and I'll be contacting you soon with a bunch of the hilarious stories and heaps more awesome bonuses to come. The launch itself is happening on Friday the 8th of April 2016. Put it in your diary, get excited. I am incredibly excited about this finally to have it done to put it out into the world. It is something I'm really proud of. I think it's really good and I think you guys are going to love it. This is James Marshall signing off. Stay tuned for lots more updates about a natural history. The Seduction journals of James Marshall. Thank you guys. See you later.


All right, guess what trait is coming now. Everybody beyond this point has vertebrae. So everybody beyond that point was a chordate. Everybody beyond this point is a vertebra, vertebrate, vertebrate, vertebrate, invertebrate, no vertebrate. Do you want to know what hour it is? You've done a really great job of not telling you. Okay, so we've got vertebrates now. Our first vertebrate, the first critter that has the vertebrate is the lamprey. And lampreys, we're going to look at them in a little more detail. I want to show you because lampreys do not have jaws. And so what is this lamprey that you speak of? Well, vertebrates are incredibly diverse, and this is a lamprey. Okay, no jaw. Do you agree?  And they, lampreys take their saw mouths and attach themselves, their parasites. They attach themselves to fish and drill a hole. So if you've ever gone salmon fishing or something and catch a salmon that has this big old wonkin round sore on it, that's probably a lamprey attachment site.  So sad story, but look at that thing. Very clear, no jaws. Do you agree with that? No question. Okay, so what's coming next? Jaws. And you know what, I'm going to do one of those things that just isn't very nice to do in cladograms. I'm going to throw something in quotes and I'm going to say, these are fishies. Now, let's think about that. Fishies, what are fishies? Well, I'm grouping everything that's fish-ish unless it's like a whale or something like that. We're not going to group those in there because those aren't fish. We're going to group sharks. We're going to do all our bony fish. We're going to do our lobe finned fishes. We're going to do all of it into one chunk of fishness. I could totally then go in. There are entire classes just on fish. My son would love that class. So we could talk about, we could break down the fish cladogram forever, but we're not going to. So just for fun, know that fish have jaws and there's a whole bunch of them. Now, the next characteristic that we're going to see or that we're going to notate in our cladogram here, everything from this point forward has four limbs, really.  We had jaws and that gave rise to all of our fishes. And then it gave rise to a critter that got four limbs. And our first set of critters is amphibians. And amphibians include frogs, salamanders. They're these crazy, like they're called Sicilians and they're like snakes except they're amphibians. So they're like legless salamanders. Seriously?  In fact, I think I've got a picture of one. I got to go show you some pictures. Here are some fish. Holy fish diversity. Yeah, yeah, more fish. Cool. That thing. I was just talking about that little... That's an amphibian. Doesn't it look like a snake? It looks almost like a millipede. But no, that's an amphibian. Here are more amphibians, salamanders. Like, we've got all sorts of cool stuff. Froglands, yeah. And then we've got... We're going to have a new characteristic arise and we're going to talk about that characteristic. Wow, I'm totally running out of room here. I can do it. The next characteristic is the amniotic egg. Now, I have an entire little section on the amniotic egg. So let's talk about that thing and who it gives rise to. And I got bad news for you. I'm going to make a whole new cladogram for my amniotes. Did you know everything with jaws are called nathostomes? And everything with four limbs are called tetrapods. And everything with amniotic eggs are called amniotes. So we can actually define these groups based on the characteristics that their ancestors had, which is really kind of cool. I mean, does anybody else think this is cool? Just tell me if you do and don't tell me if you don't. All right, let's talk about the amniotic egg.


Resveratrol is a polyphenol found in red wine and other foods that has been studied for its potential health benefits. It was first discovered as part of the French paradox, which showed that French people had better heart health despite consuming a high-fat diet. Since then, it has been widely studied and shown to have antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anti-proliferative, and anti-angiogenic properties, with oxidative stress likely playing a key role in many of these effects. This review discusses how resveratrol affects various biological processes, focusing on its potential impact on cardiovascular disease, cancer, neurodegeneration, and longevity. This article was authored by Batil E. Kettlegall, Sami Baderal, Yuvuzi Taga, and others.


you know, it's sad that But he was being a father and I start thinking about what he's done after basketball and what what a great role model and message to all these young kids because You know me being a college coach and an NBA coach Kids would always ask me about certain players and you know, I grew up watching Oscar and Bill Russell and will and Jerry West and I know the effect those guys had on my life and then I remember young players admiring doc and Larry and magic and Then it became Michael and then Alan, but now all these young players now it's Kobe You know Kobe's the nearest thing to Michael. I know LeBron special and I'm proud of what he's done but You know think about all these young kids that think that once they're all gonna play in the NBA or play in the NFL And then they don't even think about life after basketball and here's such an unbelievable role model It blew me away and then Mark Turgeon who played in coach with me This their team just beat Indiana on the road in the last second And he calls me and tells me that they're not even thinking about beating Indiana. They're crushed about Kobe And I just can't imagine You know how it's Continue to grow like that Beyond belief what what kind of relationship did you have with him coach? Well, one I should have drafted them I was in Indiana. We had the 10th pick and Our scout loved him Courtney Whitty and then one other person wasn't sold on him And you know, but I had I had followed him I had a lot of people talk to me about him Um, especially Tony to Leo's and Philly, but I remember John Calterri was with the Nests They had the 8th pick and John called me about him said he wanted to draft them. What are you what are you thinking? I told him I thought it was great And John told me that they wouldn't let him draft them and then he finally got him To agree that he could draft them provided Kerry kiddles wasn't there So Kiddles was there. They took him at eight John would probably still be the Nets with the Nets if they had drafted him and I If I'd addressed them at Indiana, we I'd probably still be in Indiana people won't believe me, but that's probably true but he I've known him, you know, he's supposed to play in the 2004 Olympic team and unfortunately Some things happen, you know, calm along lost his mom. He couldn't play 9 11 happened The whole team didn't come and Um, we played against each other all the time. He used to come to me and tell me that Eric snow Aaron McKee You know guarded him better than anybody uh But he was just a group Unbelievable talent and then the greatest thing about him, you know, coach Nets used to always say Um talent is a gift from god characters of choice um Toby had unbelievable talent, but he might have been the hardest worker ever And kids don't understand that um You know you You can really be good at this game, but if you want to be great at anything You got to put in the work and this guy this guy put in the work I mean, he was he was incredible about that and preparing Larry they continue to play games as scheduled yesterday. If you had to coach in one of those games, would you have been able to do it? I don't know. Um, you know, I coached against michael his last game and that was really tough But it was neat being infilly to To see how the people honored and I coached against reggie His last game in indiana that was tough. Um I was on my way to north carolina when President kennedy got shot and uh, I remembered how I drove for 11 hours and going through little towns and seeing people go to churches You know kobe dying yesterday and seeing the outpouring Of feelings for this guy It almost was like, you know when president kennedy was shot. Um, I don't know if I could have done it I saw but the one thing that I would have probably thought um, he never missed games Right, you know this thing about not playing in a game. Now he was Him and alan, you know, some of the guys that I've been around they they wouldn't dare miss a game Kobe's legendary about that You know, you mentioned alan and uh, you know, you also mentioned how hard koby worked and alan, you know was quoted You know today is saying Kobe went to the gym and I went to the club and that's the difference and I guess that would be true, right? Well You know alan prepared in training camp He came to every game and try to win every game and I You know, maybe at the time I was coaching there was some things that I wish he would have done differently, but He doesn't ever have to apologize for what he's done. But But all the players will let you know Just what koby was about I'll give you the stories When I was a college coach, they had a dc and d camp a nike camp with 100 best high school players And um a bunch of them the whole camp was offered an opportunity to watch koby work out in the summer And they said be ready at 545 and actually all the kids wanted to go But they didn't realize it was 545 in the morning And you know that was his ritual he did that the whole summer twice a day And you know when when these kids that are so gifted And you try to tell them that You know, it's not about this gift you have it's how you use it and he not only used it when he played He was using it after he's done finished playing And we need role models you guys know that And what what a role model Um, I was watching tiger woods talk about him and the and the thing that tiger said endeared him so much To him was the way koby played both sides sides of the ball for 48 minutes. You being the the basketball Um Savant that you are what what was it about his game that impressed you the most? Well, that was that's a neat thing that you said I remember jerry west and I would talk him one day and jerry was asking me who I thought was the best player and I I couldn't come up with One there was so many I admired And he said larry You know koby Is the only great one that guards the best player every single night And I started to think about that and that was that was true because you know if you're a coach You got to be careful about having your best player sometimes put himself in jeopardy where he might get in foul trouble But koby took that challenge every single night And that was like michael um You know that's what separates some of these great great ones from the very very best So how uncommon is that coach like is it really only koby and michael that come to mind that all time great scores? Who want to de-up the best offensive player every possession? Well, I don't think sometimes it's always up to the player You know a lot of times it's up to the coach and you got a especially in today's game the way they call fouls Can you imagine how many points a game michael and allen and koby would average? I mean it so you know from a coach's standpoint A lot of times you would probably be the one that would make that decision But when it came to the guts of the game, the great ones will take that challenge, you know Jerry west was as good a defender as there ever was um So I hate to pick out anybody but when I hear jerry west say that about koby and Mention it because there were a lot of great players at that time That was the first thing he said to me and unfortunately You know when we talk about superstars We very rarely ever talked about the other side of the ball And everybody was telling me I had no superstars in dallas I mean I don't know how you can say ben wiles or ashid wiles or chauncey or some of those guys weren't superstars because They did more than just score the ball um You know you look at the nicks teams with coach holstman Those guys guarded they even got pearl to guard it And you know everybody thought that wouldn't work out um But I think it's a coach's decision and unfortunately So many people that when they write about greatness and they talk about greatness they never mentioned How you make your teammates better and it's not only scoring the ball Doing all the other things that make other people better and that's what koby did Before we let you go coach. I'm just wondering


I was playing through Dragon Ball Z, Budokai Tenkai G2, and after beating Raditz in the first mission when the game wants you to lose, I unlocked a hidden, separate story mode titled Faithful Brothers, a what if scenario all around Raditz coming to Earth and losing his memories. And in this video, we're going to see how this secret mode ends. And without spoiling anything, this is unironically the best side content I have ever played in any Dragon Ball game. Let's just get straight into it, no filler. After that, Raditz began to carry out his mission, raining down destruction upon the Earth. Oh no! Raditz gave in to the dark side! Aw man, look, these are all of Raditz's possible friends. No! Listen to the emotion in his voice, he doesn't want to kill his brother, man. No dude, this is such an unfortunate twist.  Show me what you've got! This is actually more emotionally impactful than the original use of Raditz in the series. I know they weren't going for emotional value with Raditz, but this, damn! I gotta beat all three of these guys! There's no way man, I can barely beat Piccolo!  He broke my stamina! No! I'm out of stamina! I'm gonna get run over! Actually, he kind of went easy on me. Block low, I didn't block low. Oh no! Alright, well there goes an entire health bar in one move. Thankfully I've got a few stacked up, now that we've leveled up so much through the story. He's down to four health bars! Let's go, full combo! Nice, picked up an extra 5k there.  Combo off that! Add in a little full power energy blast, and that's how we get our full bar damage. I'm just gonna fire another one. Oh no, I don't know where he is. Is he charging at me? Where is he? Oh! I'm sorry brother! Oh, let's go vanish that! Alright, well, I'm already kind of a little sad because I know that I can't afford to be losing this much health. But I still believe in the attempt.   Come on! You can't afford to get caught off guard like that. I'm just gonna kill him. I wanted to save some key for Piccolo, but I guess I'm going into the next part of the fight with two bars. God, Piccolo, why do you have that much health? Oh no. I'm going to, this is going to be the hardest mission of the game. Oh no. No, I can't. This is gonna be so difficult. I legit shouldn't even be trying right now. It's already over. I should just surrender. But I gotta, I gotta try. And I'm paralyzed, and my body's gone numb, and I'm dead. Well, things are looking tough. I'm a little worried about what this fight means for me. Where is he? I still don't see him.   What? So I was never locked on? What did it say, locked on? I'm just gonna surrender. I'm just gonna try again. I already lost a whole bar. All right, let's go. Come on, Goku. Let's go. Big damage. That was huge. I'm all over him. He can't get a break. All right, he got me. He got me on that one. He got me on that one. Oh God. Oh God, combos. Come on, full power. You can't dodge that. All right, it looks like you kind of dodged that. I kind of want to stay at least this level of health for Piccolo.  I'm gonna need all of this. I just hope that Krillin is easy. I didn't check the levels, but I think he is the weakest. Let's go. Goku has no match for us. Let's go. Just run over him. Let's go. Come on. Die. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Goku, but you've got to go. I've got to save health for Piccolo. Full power energy rush. Oh no. I'm not winning this. I'm not winning this. I never win these. I don't even know if that's necessarily a me thing. This Piccolo is just nuts. Counter, but he whiffs on that range. That's why I go for that route. That's why I always go for that route, because it's too good against these bots. Full power. Add a little extra damage in there. No. Come on. My turn. My turn, Piccolo. Come on. Sweep the light. Couple hits. I'll launch him. No, I didn't do my route right.  I still can't lose. I can't afford to lose. I can't afford to lose. Oh, we got there first. That was sick. No. No. The stun move is so broken. My turn. I'm only going to have one bar of help for Krillin. Wow. Okay. Go easy on me, Krillin. Okay. Krillin doesn't hurt that bad, but that being said, it's not like I have a lot of health anyway. I just don't have the health, I think. Come on. If you think that that was the easiest reaction of all time, that's because you're not in the driver's seat. And I actually pay. No. No, he locked me off. No. I could have just sidestepped or ran away or anything or anything, but I panicked because of course I would panic. Did you not feel stressful that was? This is still the greatest piece of side content in any Dragon Ball game of all time. Come on. This time we're going to lose even less health to Goku. That's pretty much the only way out. No. No, I'm losing even more.   Dash up. Sweep the leg. Launcher. Come on. Rids repeat. Rids repeat. It's not that hard, right? It's not that hard. Come on. No. A throw. A throw? Goku never does throws. It's crazy how effective full power energy blast is in this version of the game. In BT3, that move is not hitting like that. I think I've already lost more health than I did last time. Come on. Goku. Please. Come on.   All right. All right. I don't have that much health for Piccolo though. This is already a bad run. No. With the throws. There goes one of my bars of health. Oh my God. Oh my.    Always and forever, huh? And there's Hellzone Grenade, meaning I've already lost. Unless I can somehow hold off this Hellzone Grenade attack for six minutes. And there it is. And there it is. And there it is. Unless I blink it. Blink it, Raditz. I didn't blink it. Come on. We need it to be better than that, Raditz.  We need a better start than this. Come on. Sweep the leg. You know the route. You know the route better than anybody. No. We have to be able to take grabs that is always gonna kill us. I whiffed. I whiffed. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. But don't judge me. Break that guard. Where are you going? Where are you going with that guard? You're not going anywhere. No. Take a throw. Take one throw. You can't block this. You can't block that. God, if only my moves hit as strong as their moves. Come on. He's almost dead, Raditz. And this is workable health. If we just get him down right now. If we get him down right now, we are in a great spot. All the key in the world we need.  I never am gonna do this again. I'm never doing that again. If you only believe me on one thing, I promise I will never try to do that to Piccolo ever again. It's just not worth it, man. He's too good. He's too fast. Get him on. Take a little bit of this. I panicked. I panicked. I thought he was gonna throw me. All right, cool. So I panic once and he gets all my health. Seems fair to me that he could just hit me and take all of my health like that. Oh my God. What a battle. If I can even get to Krillin with two bars.  Come on. Counter that. Let's go. Come on. Double it. Let's go. That feels so good. That feels like a good amount of health to beat Krillin. I'm sorry, Krillin. I'm not trying to underestimate you. Okay. Okay, good. I just had to say that just in case. Just in case the AI was listening. Just in case. But it doesn't look like it was. Come on, Krillin.  You were always a nobody.  I'm sorry, Krillin. You're too dangerous to be kept alive. Wow. Oh my God. If there wasn't a hole there, I was cooked. I can't block. I can't block against Krillin. Oh my God. It shouldn't have even been that close. I ran into the beam, but we still get it done. Oh my God. That was my wrist. My wrist. Okay. I got it. My wrist. Hey, but it's worth it. We level up. Oh my God. Okay. I got a strength. Powerful though he is. Raditz is no match for the Z fighters combined mites. What? Let's watch them. Unless Gohan's got something to say about it. Oh no. Accept your fate, Raditz. No. Raditz just give in. Join the good side. No. Stop to Prince Vegeta. This can't be happening. What? What? What? In a desperate bid to escape, Raditz takes Gohan hostage and flees the scene. Oh wow. This is getting sadder and sadder. Bravely wounded, Raditz hides himself on a remote island. They've improved quite a bit. Hey, well at least he's still happy for his friends getting better. Why do you have to be so mean? No. You're not a bad guy. I know you're not. Oh, call it. Gohan's about to talk no Jutsu, Raditz. Because I'm a Saiyan. This is punishment for our sins. What? Oh come on, Raditz. Goku's going to jump us again. Tarn you. You're not getting away this time. Please. Oh no, the brothers are going to fight again. I can't stand to watch this anymore. This is so sad, dude. Goku, we should be... Raditz, please just be friends with him again, man. Oh my God, my health has gone up to a crazy amount, though. I'm sorry, Goku, but nobody can stop me anymore. Oh, maybe you can. Okay, maybe he can, though. I can't win. Why do I even try? All I did was add damage to his combo. I thought I could beat him. Kaioken attack. At least catch me, brother. Thank you. I wish we didn't have to do this. No way. No way. You're going to spam, though? Come on, bro. You're going to spam Goku. Can't believe that my brother Bot's going to spin into a grab. Okay, he's actually kind of nice. He's actually kind of nice. I'll still take my 6k, though. But now that I got him in the combo loop, can he break out of it? I was going to try to run away.  Even though he has all the meter and the tools to do so, I just know he's not going to kill me because we're brothers. He would never do that to his brother. I know my brother. Oh, come on. Up and out of the water. Up and out of the water. I got some getting even to do. Launch this guy. Combo off that. No, stop that. Stop that. Don't do that. I'm sorry, Goku. You can't avoid it. I'm still too strong for you. Clear. Fueled by his rage, Goku crushes Raditz with his fury. Okay, that's not what happened, but all right. Ah. Well done. Good job. Raditz? Oh, no. I used to think power was everything that I see now. I didn't know what true strength was. He's learning. Be caring for the weak and fighting to protect something that is true strength. Isn't it, Kakarot? Ah, Raditz, you do care. You mean... Raditz lost consciousness? No. As he faded, Raditz recalled the warm memories of the time he spent with Goku and his friends. Ah. Father, I'm not qualified to be a Saiyan anymore. No. Be a low class warrior a weakling. No. I don't care. You're still my son. Dad? Oh my, Raditz misses his dad. As a gift, you may have a match with me. Come, Raditz. Wait, did Raditz die? I thought it was only a dream. Oh, it's a dream. Raditz had a match with his father, Bardock. Dude, this is... Bro, this is so emotional. Raditz just misses his... 199? Yeah, I'm good. I can't believe Raditz gets to see his dad again. Even if it is just a dream. And even if he does 8k on block with a beam, Jesus. Level 200 is crazy. Come on, Raditz.  Block that. Let's go. Oh, grabs. Ah, it's... Okay, it's true. I still don't know how to take grabs. I'll block it. I'll just block it. Oh, what a kick. Oh my... Oh, my guard and my stamina. My guard and my stamina. Come on. Combo that. Come on, Raditz. Put him away. No. Charge up. No way. Hey. 35k. That almost killed me. All I wanted to do was beam clash. Oh, no. Raditz... Oh, we dodged it because of a rock. Combo. Shoot him, Raditz. Shoot him. He still has... Oh, he doesn't know where I am. Bardock, over here. Bardock. All right. Okay, I just have to block this. It was a close match, Bardock, but I got to end this. But I got to end this up close. No. I won't lose. Okay, I lost, but I'll get you next time. That was...  I'll get him next time. Honestly, Bardock, you're kind of just lucky you hit me with a full-on super move. Okay, I wasn't really ready for that one. I'll be honest. Please. I'll be honest. I don't necessarily understand all the conditions being met for when I can block something versus when it will break my guard. All I know is the longer they charge up, the worse my odds are. You got a few lucky hits in last time, Bardock, but it's not going to happen again. Combos. Now, do you want to do a beam clash? I still... I'm never winning that. I actually was going to break my controller for that. There's just no way. There's no way a normal human wins that. I honestly don't want to do that. When I say break my controller, I mean it, bro. My controller is not trying to hold up to that. I'm still blocking that. Yeah, you can take one health bar, but you're not taking any more than that. You've only got two bars of health left. Shouldn't you pack it in now, Bardock? Oh, you're cooked. You're cooked. It's finally over. After beating me once... Wait, hold on. He's kind of going crazy right now. It's over. Say goodbye. Ugh. How did I mess that up? Oh, my God. How is he still alive? Key Blast. Key Blast, Raditz. Wow, those were pathetic, but I'll still take the win. I'll still take the win. Yeah. Clear. Wait, wait, wait. Is this the end? We got the miracle award. Is this the end of the story? Wait, why are they making it sound so triumphant? Aw. Wait, what does that mean? Oh, man. We got to give him even more lore. Wait, are we not going to help? Where's Raditz going? Oh, my God. What? Wait, wait, what? Raditz, wait, wait, what? That is crazy. He killed himself to stop it. Only Raditz knows for sure. I'm going to cry, dude. Wow, that was so damn, bro. They put the narrator on. They paid him extra for that last line. He killed himself to save his friends on Earth by colliding into Vegeta and Nappa. That is crazy. Wow. That was amazing, dude. I feel like I'm going to give a standing ovation, but that was the best what-if I've ever played in any game ever. Wow, wow. If you like that, leave a like, subscribe, and I'm going to go through all of the other sagas and what-if sagas in this game because that one was the pinnacle. That one was peak. I'll see you in the next video.


Welcome to this lecture on Poststructuralist Literary Criticism. This is NPTEL, the National Program on Technology Enhanced Learning, a joint venture by the Indian Institutes of Technology and the Indian Institute of Science. We are in module 4 of our series of lectures, collectively entitled English Language and Literature. Module 4 as you know is devoted to literary criticism. The last lecture was devoted to structuralism and structuralist literary criticism and today's lecture is on poststructuralism. There are obviously several texts that you may want to consult as far as poststructuralism in general and poststructuralist literary criticism in particular are concerned. However, for beginners, I would recommend a useful book Beginning Theory by Peter Barry. You may also look out particularly for the construction Barbara Johnson's well-known book, The Critical Difference. As with other lectures, I shall be taking extracts and referring to a couple of other texts as well in a bit to explain what poststructuralist criticism is all about. Well, let us begin before talking about the relation between poststructuralism and structuralism. Let us begin by looking at what Chris Barker in his Sage Handbook of Cultural Studies says about poststructuralism and let me read from him. The prefix post clearly suggests after, thus poststructuralism is after structuralism in that the terms of this philosophical stream are ones that involve both the absorption of key ideas from structuralism and a critique and transformation of them. So, post is not simply a temporal prefix. Post here means that we only take off or take off from structuralism retaining some of its key ideas and at the same time critiquing those ideas and attempting to transform them as we shall see in a while. From a philosophical point of view as one critic has mentioned here, poststructuralism looks at knowledge and problematizes it. Knowledge is not a question of true discovery, but of the construction of interpretations about the world that are taken to be true. In so far as the idea of truth has an historical purchase, it is the consequence of power that is of whose interpretations come to count as truth. So, the two important words here are a interpretation and b power. Poststructuralism like post enlightenment thinking for instance postmodernism does not believe in what we call truth with a capital T. Poststructuralism says that there are many perhaps innumerable interpretations that one may give or one may bear upon a particular text. These interpretations are to use a word, a common word in poststructuralism are slippery. They are not about the true discovery of what a literary text is about. Poststructuralism says that in this variety or in these if I may use the word in these plethora of interpretations those interpretations have a ring of truth about them or are considered to be true interpretations which have to do with power. It says here that it is as a consequence of power that interpretations come to be true. For example, it is not that it happens only in poststructuralism. For instance, if you go back and look at the criticism that was there before or prior to feminist literary criticism, those criticisms although those critical ways of critical analysis or critical tools counted as true. When we had feminism as a critical methodology, we found that feminism gave a different interpretation of the text and challenged the hegemonic and masculinist way of reading text where there is an erasure of the woman. So, we move on and we then understand that poststructuralism has to do of course with interpretation, language games and power. It is well within the linguistic term that was inaugurated by structuralism and understands ways of talking, understands interpretations, discussions and analysis as language games. You know that language games is a term that comes from the philosopher Wittgenstein. So, there are ways of talking For instance, to put it very simply, there are ways in which we talk when we are in a certain scenario. For instance, when we are talking to our seniors, there is a way in which we speak. When we talk, when we go to a restaurant and when we order a meal, there is a certain it is a different way in which we speak. So, instead of talking about truths then Wittgenstein talked about language games. There are different ways of talking in language. So, poststructuralism also falls within this kind of, within this orientation of thinking, laying more importance not in one way of reading a text, but on interpretation, language games and power. So, when we, if we quickly go back to our lecture on structuralism, we have found in the last lecture that within structuralism, meaning is always differential and relational. Poststructuralism also shares these aspects of meaning, meaning being differential in a system, meaning being, meaning emanating in a, you know, in relation to other units in the system. However, there is a difference. Remember we had said right in the beginning that poststructuralism critiques is not only after coming after structuralism and retaining some of some structuralism score concepts, but also it is a critique and a transformation of those concepts. In structuralism, we saw that meaning was basically an outcome of the organization of science and there was a certain stability. These structures in structuralism gave us certain stability of meaning. Now, if you talk about the revision and the reorientation or the, you know, the transformation that is brought about by poststructuralism, then this is where we must first look at. Stability is true structures. Poststructuralism critiques radically the very stability of the structure that is celebrated, so to speak by structuralism. In a way, we may say that poststructuralism questions the structurality of the structure. You follow? What did we find in structuralism? That we can have, you know, meaning in a text. We can have meaning in a text by looking at the differential relationship between or among words, among different units of a text. There are certain codes for instance given, the five codes given by Rola Bart. There are certain codes by which meaning can be teased out from a text and the text is a structure which is more or less stable. In poststructuralism, particularly through the work of the French philosopher Jean Therida, we will find that the stability is an illusion, replaced by another word which is the slipperiness of the text. So, from this is the core, the radical break as far as structuralism is concerned when we talk about poststructuralism. Therefore, we may say that in poststructuralism, whereas in structuralism that is meaning is arrived at, meaning is possible by looking at the structure and studying the text through codes. In poststructuralism, we find that the meaning of a text is endlessly deferred. This is the word to defer or we may say to postpone. The meaning of a text is always postponed. Why? This is what we need to understand. Now, if you understand why it is considered in poststructuralism that meaning is forever postponed, then you would have understood one of the core claims of poststructuralism. Here we have a very important word given to us by Jean Therida that is deference. This is a word that collapses two words to differ and to defer. The differing part we have already found in structuralism, but Therida adds another component to this difference which together calls deference that is to defer that is again as I said in the previous slide through the previous slide the postponing of meaning. Now, what we will do is we will quickly look at another insight given to us and this is by Pramod K. Nyer in his useful book, An Introduction to Cultural Studies. Let us read and I shall explain this. Nyer says that thus reading or interpretation is the movement through the chain of signs seeking a temporary meaning from or at each halt. Even if there is a feeling of having arrived at a meaning in poststructuralism we have to admit or poststructuralism needs us to admit that there is only a temporary closure of meaning of the text. Because of the slipperiness of the sign which I shall come to in a while because of the slipperiness of the sign meaning is very temporary and in the next instance the meaning is gone or the meaning is deferred to have another meaning come up. So, then he says this suggests that every signifier that is a word or a sign leads not to a stable n signified, but to more signifiers. Now, what did we see in structuralism? In structuralism we saw that for instance these letters T R E and E or the syllable tree brings to our mind the concept of the concept of tree not a real tree, but the concept of the psychological impression as Fadinundi Sassour would call it psychological impression of tree. We also agreed that a tree may mean different things in different circumstances. For instance if you are doing a tree diagram sitting underneath a tree the tree diagram in your laptop and I come along and say that that is a beautiful tree. So, there is an ambiguity here the tree may refer to the tree under which you are sitting or it may refer to the tree diagram. So, meaning is slippery even in structuralism, but structuralism held that there is difference in context but one would eventually understand that the tree is referred to here is either of this. In post structuralism however, it is a little different. Since meaning comes about owing to a system of difference it not only differs, but the meaning is also deferred. Why? Because every signifier carries, this is the word carries a cause from other signifiers. So that meaning is never arrived that incomplete totality or complete certainty. Do you follow? So this suggests as Pramod K Nair says this suggests that every signifier that is word or sign leads not to a stable N signified, but to more signifiers. This implies that meaning is never fully graspable and the final meaning is always postponed or as we saw a while ago deferred. Because words carry the echoes of other words leading to a final ambiguity. So this is also called what Derrida calls the aporia that the impossibility of any meaning for that matter that is called the slipperiness of language. Derrida also uses a very important phrase which he says that there are in language there are no pure signifieds. The signifier signified which we found was very neatly drawn out in structuralism by Ferdinand de Sousor. What happens here is the signified can never be known in its totality because there are always you know because sign is always under erasure. Under erasure by the fact that it is in a relation with other terms in the system fine. Therefore, these are non essentialist and non ontological categories and finally, we understand that language is socially constructed and language is never to be fully grasped. Therefore, we can look at the text as a play of signifiers not allowing any stable meaning. Now, I hope you have understood this text is seen as a play of signifiers and if you look at this slide here there are no in language there are no pure or stable signifieds. So, if you have a term a signifier and you feel that you have understood what it signifies Derrida and other post structuralist would say that no there is no stability in the signified because it is always and it is already too meshed in with other terms in the system. In that sense a text also is open to innumerable interpretations of words. Now, let me put a caveat here this is in I mean in no way is Derrida saying that there should be an irresponsible play of meaning in a text that nor is he saying that you know you can do anything with the text and you can give any ridiculous interpretation of a text. What he is asking us to understand is the very nature of language itself. He says that language by its very nature is not stable. There is always if I may use a word a contamination so to speak with by other words in the system.  So, in a way if you look at it you know we do not have to deconstruct a text because of the nature of the relation between the signifier and signified in post structuralism vis-a-vis structuralism. We find that meaning is not at all possible in the first place. So, the text really is already deconstructed you do not have to perform deconstruction on the text. The text comes to you incomplete the text comes to you you know amenable to several and different interpretations. So, we are not to say that this interpretation is correct. If somebody says that this interpretation or a particular interpretation is correct then that is according to post structuralist an act of power an act of hegemony an act of trying to pin down the text when actually there are so many other interpretations available. Remember this the detractors of post structuralism would always or mostly think that you know what Derrida has done is played a sort of dirty trick on us. The kind of trick that a charlatan would do in fact charlatan is a word that is used against has been used against Derrida. But the point is what he is he is saying here is you know what he calls the metaphysics of presence. He says that entire ascent philosophy is sort of you know we have a user word played by the metaphysics of presence. The how should I say the privileging we saw binary oppositions in the last lecture. He says the privileging of one part of the binary opposition over another. Let us say man, woman, culture, nature, strength weakness, light and darkness. There is always a privileging of one side of the binary scheme. And that is why he says that this is you know this is a way of thinking in western philosophy that has to be deconstructed. And language by itself shows that it is already slippery and not graspable in its totality. Therefore, we may use terms like deferral, substitution and supplementation. We will not go into this because there is a lot more to be talked about. Therefore, a text on look at this slide here text is therefore always any text for the matter not just literary text. A text is therefore always unstable and forever recreated. You may create, recreate the meaning of a text. There was a recreation or there is a recreation of Hamlet when you for instance when you talk from a feminist point that too is a recreation from a feminist point of view. When you talk about Gertrude when you foreground Gertrude and Ophelia and not Hamlet and Horatio or Hamlet senior or even Claudius. So, in that sense there is already you know foregrounding of the other part of the binary of male and female characters. That also is now therefore, you can have a hybrid way of you know a hybrid methodology say deconstructionist or feminist deconstructionist methodology. So, the text therefore, is forever recreated by again as I said by refusing to accept the fact that a signifier means or can come to a can refer to a totally or fully graspable meaning in its signifier. Because of this gap between the signifier and the signifier there is enormous political potential in deconstructionist methodology to intervene in accepted and established power saturated meanings of text. Therefore, interpretation which we saw was a core concept in post structuralism. Interpretation is therefore, shifting and interpretation is contingent. Upon circumstances it is contingent upon political orientations, political views. So, you may create different interpretations and meanings of a particular text depending on the contingent situation that you are in. This is I would say this is a tremendously liberating way of doing literary criticism. Perhaps those who you know those who are quite radical detractors of post structuralism it could be as Nair says in one of his books Pramod Nair says in one of his books that probably you are you are scared of losing authority when we have different meanings or meanings that are different from your interpretation clamoring for attention and establishing a different reading of a text. This is similar to what you know you find in Michel Foucault another post structuralist when he says that meaning is always regulated by power. Meaning is not to be seen in terms of a chain of eternal deferrals only according to Foucault now here look at this. According to Foucault there is no point in you know finding innumerable meanings in a text. He says well what is the point of you know then it becomes actually play you know in that sense of like a game for you know for Michel Foucault. He says there is no point in only substituting one meaning with another meaning right. He says it is most important he says he do this but it is most important again to show how these different meanings come from different sources of power or the absence of power.  There in Foucault gives us a caution you know note of caution sorry note of caution that there is no point in you know in playing a game of how many different meanings I can find out from a text. The job is a you know a more important a more significant one that is of finding out how you know meaning is always regulated by power by systems of power in society ok. Now quickly if we you know look at the attitude of post structuralism and structuralism towards language and you will I think this is from Peter I have taken it from Peter Barry Barry's book the attitude to language in structuralism is this. Structuralists think that the world is constructed through language and that we do not have access to reality other than through the linguistic medium. You remember from our last lecture that structuralism says that language constructs reality language is the only way through which we can apprehend reality and there are obviously chances that we can never apprehend the whole of reality why because it comes to us through the linguistic medium right. Post structuralism the post structuralists assert that they do not have full control over the medium of language linguistic anxiety this is a very nice way of putting it linguistic anxiety is a keynote of post structuralism. Now look at this again we do not have access to reality says you know say the post structuralist we do not have access to reality except through language ok. So, fine we may not know what reality is in its totality but at least we know that we have created a reality for us based on language which is structured a system that is structured where meaning emanates from differential relationship between the units or sorry among the units ok. But you see how this break is made as when we come to post structuralism post structuralism also says that yes our understanding of reality is largely the work of language ok. But they add this very important point here which is that this very language that we talk about is something that is something over which we do not have control even if we human beings have made language even if we have constructed language we have no control over the language. Now why we call what I said just while ago that is because of the very nature of language ok. The very fact as Zerida argues that there is they can never be any pure signifies ok. Because it is already you know it is because the meaning of any term comes about only in relationship to other terms how can we have a pure signified ok. Pure impure in the sense that it does not have an look at this this is most important it does not have an ontological meaning about it. You follow the meaning of chair is or the word chair gives us a meaning or psychological impression of chair not because there is something cherish about a chair ok. But because it is different from other objects of furniture right. So do you follow this therefore post structuralist would say that yes we understand the you know it when the structuralist tell us that reality is apprehendable only through language but let us remind ourselves that this very medium is a problematic one ok. So the word the term linguistic anxiety fine. So there is an anxiety even as you are using language there is always this anxiety and high suspicion that you can never that the meaning of a word or meaning of a sentence and even of a text is never to be the final one ok. It is forever in a state of deference that is it is forever differing and it is forever deferred. I hope you understood this ok. Linguistic anxiety is the key note of post structuralism. So we again now look at what the critic Gayatri Chakravarty Spivak talks about when she says that a word is always under erasure right from this French phrase which means under erasure to write the word cross it out and then print both word and deletion. For instance you write print both word. So you you write print both word and deletion you write this at the same time you have a you have marked it. So this means that you have written it but you know that because you know you are trying to show you are trying to demonstrate that you understand that these words print both word and deletion do not have any do not have their corresponding pure signifies. And even as a string of words it may not have a or it does not have rather a pure signified or a constant meaning ok. So to write the word cross it out and then print both word and deletion. This part that we have you know we have struck out it simply you know means or it is as I said an attempt to show that I am using words but I know that these words are under erasure. I know that their meanings are always deferred. So this is you know way of showing you know showing that words do not have complete or full meanings ok. So since the word is inaccurate right it is crossed out and since it is necessary it remains legible. So you have the words there at the same time you cross it out or you cross the words out to show that they are necessary and at the same time they are inaccurate.  It is not to say that every time we write we are going to also cross out the words and keep them under erasure just to show that look I am saying this but I know that my words do not convey you know they are always under erasure. This is one way of just to show you know so perhaps in a pictorial way ok what exactly is meant by this deferral of meaning or the erasure or meaning being under erasure right. So I would refer to Barbara Johnson's the critical difference and I will quickly read from her in order to enrich what we are talking about. In the critical difference published in 1981 Barbara Johnson says that the term deconstruction denotes a particular kind of practice. It is the kind of practice in reading and thereby a method of criticism and mode of analytical inquiry. Many would say that deconstructive criticism is no criticism how can it be a critical methodology when it itself talks about the deferral of meaning. So a deconstructive critical piece by itself is a failure because deconstruction says that well no meaning is final. Now that is I would say is taking it to you know quite is illogical you know illogical extreme in the sense that deconstruction does not say that because language is slippery because there is linguistic anxiety that we should stop talking at all right. It knows that language is the only medium as structural is to but it also cautions us that that medium is fraught with the lack of final meaning. So it is pointless really it is rather you know what we call arguing at you know at infinitum or arguing even what was that term arguing in you know in complete absurdity. That deconstruction should not say anything about the text because after all they say that well words have no meaning that is not our point here. A point is to understand that the deconstructionist will show you a different way a different say a different philosophical stance altogether. So therefore, Johnson rightly says that well deconstruction is a kind of critical practice. It is a method she even goes on to call it a method of criticism and a mode of analytical enquiry right. So, there is no reason to just throw the baby out with the bath water and to say that well deconstructionist have no place. They are saying something and as critics like Johnson and Spivak say we ought to listen. So let us read on the term sorry deconstruction is not synonymous with destruction very beautifully put. They do not the deconstructionist do not destroy post structuralism does not destroy the text. So, we have to understand to deconstruct is a not a negative activity please understand this. To deconstruct is not a destructive ability right or a destructive tool right.  So, deconstruction is not synonymous with destruction. However, it is in fact much closer to the original meaning of the word analysis which etymologically means to undo. So, we have to understand deconstruction in terms of undoing a text remember I said in terms of dismantling. So, dismantling undoing is not the same as destruction which etymologically means to undo a virtual synonym for to deconstruct. If anything is destroyed in a deconstructive reading says Johnson it is not the text this is very important and I think she has put it so beautifully. If anything is destroyed at all then it is certainly not the text, but the claim to unequivocal domination of one mode of signifying over another. So, she says deconstruction destroys the myth destroys the illusion that there is only one dominant way of looking at a text or one dominant mode of signifying right a word signifies and to the words together that is a text text also signifies. So, if you say the text a means meaning a then we have to understand that behind that is or rather that itself that pronouncement is an act of power right an act of hegemony.  So, if anything is destroyed in a deconstructive reading it is not the text, but the claim of claim to unequivocal domination of the mode of signifying over or one mode of signifying over another. A deconstructive reading is a reading which analyzes the specificity of a text critical difference from not other text from itself. So, beautifully put I you know we should say that a deconstructive reading analyzes a text critical difference or you could say a text critical distance from its own self that what it is perpating according to you according to the reader. If there is no reader there is no text in that sense in deconstructive criticism what a deconstructive reading does is to show that what meaning is perpetrated to come from a text there is always a gap why there is a gap because the words do not have pure signifies or pure reference. Do you follow Jonathan color another critic has this to say deconstruction if it is of any consequence is not reducible to a specialized set of discursive procedures it is a method alright, but you cannot say that this is there is one way or set of procedures a set of tools that you can use. While certainly deconstruction is not anti methodological neither could be called a discourse on method as such Derrida says it is also at the very least a way of taking a position in its work of analysis concerning the political and institutional structures that make possible and govern our practices our competencies and our performances. Remember if somebody tells you that this is just a linguistic tone and that you are in what is famously called the prison house of language remember the deconstruction and other schools other methods in post structuralism also has a clearly political angle to it as critics like Derrida would argue that deconstruction is not just clinical method of showing how meaning disappears or showing you know how there are no pure signifies or that the text destroys itself or deconstruct itself or that the text is already deconstructed that is one part of the philosophical explanation or philosophical you know orientation of deconstruction the other is clearly political and deconstruction seeks to show us that any stable meaning or any you know any demand or sorry claim over over one you know meaning or set of meanings is always an act of part. So, it is also a way of taking a position on a text which he called reading against the grain of the text reading against the texture of a text reading against the obvious conventional so to speak spontaneous meaning of a text. We believe in deconstruction that we are trained to read in a certain way and our culture and culture presumptions and biases also kind of give make us do spontaneous readings of a text by eliciting certain signifies for a signifier what Derrida says read against the text deconstructed in a bit to show how it has been constructed by language and how it cannot reach one particular meaning. So, therefore, it is also as it says here concern with the political and institutional structures that make possible and govern our practices these govern our practices our competencies and our performances even our performances on a text even the analysis you do on a text are tied to our practices within certain institutional power base structures political structures that make us you know seemingly or give us seemingly spontaneous which we feel are correct responses to a text. So, these are some I would think some of the cautionary or points of caution that post structuralism very rightly gives us then as I said about how a text is already dismantled this comes from Hillis Miller and where he says that deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of a text, but the demonstration that it has already dismantled itself where formalism seeks to demonstrate that a work has essential unity because or sorry despite the paradoxes and irony that create its inner tension deconstruction seeks to show that a text has no organic unity or basis for presenting meanings only as it says here a series of conflicting significations this is very important. Formalism also belongs to a particular way of looking at the text a new criticism also belongs to that way of looking at the text looking at the words on the text how is deconstruction different deconstruction is different according to J. Hillis Miller that it refuses a totality it refuses an organic unity to the text and it says that they are only conflicting significations of a text and that the fact that the text is already sort of you know already impure in that sense and sense of pure meanings not having pure meanings view the very act of reading has to show the conflicting interpretations or the conflicting significations in a text that is essentially the job of or you could say the method of a deconstructive critic to show the conflicting signifies or the conflicting processes of signification in a text and to deny the text a single meaning. Therefore, deconstruction as has been shown is not really a form of critique according to some it according to others it is not a method it is not a theory it is not a discourse or an operation it is a reiteration of the fact that the text is already dismantled that the text is already deconstructed. So, therefore, you know it goes against what Derrida calls a logo centrism or the metaphysics of presence in western philosophy and it says that there is no logos or there is no core or essence or truth there is no center the moment you have a center or a core or an essence or a truth you know we end up privileging one reading over the other because if you have a core then you always have something on the margins something in the periphery. So, any act of saying that this is the core of a text this is the essence of a text is an act of power and it betrays the logo centrism on or what he calls the metaphysics of presence in the reader and there are no transcendental or pure signifies. Now, I will quickly end by referring to the reading of by Christopher Prendergast of Derrida's Hamlet now here he says that for someone like Derrida the significance of the ghost of Hamlet's father resides in its radical indeterminacy. If you what is the what are the opening words of Shakespeare's Hamlet where we have the guard saying who is there and many have taken this as a cue to forming a deconstructive reading who is there is talks about in one sense the indeterminacy of you know it is not just a guard saying who is there. So, it symbolizes the indeterminacy of or the impossibility of knowing or not or the fact that you do not know who is there. So, this also is attached to the figure of the ghost of Hamlet's father. For Derrida the significance of the ghost resides in its radical indeterminacy you know that Hamlet is also not sure whether it is a hallucination or whether it is an evil spirit that has conjured the ghost of his father you know which then who then exhausts him to take revenge. Inspectors of Marx by Derrida says Christopher Prendergast it is indeterminate in the more strictly ontological register of occupying a place non-place between presence and absence appearance and disappearance. So, the you know really the ghost of Hamlet's father by its very nature of being and not being in the scene of you know being of inhabiting a place between which is between midway between presence and absence between appearance and disappearance on residing in a you know somewhere between a place and a non-place. So, he says that in this you know it is symbolic of what the deconstructionist is trying to say that words too also occupy this non-space and that is why its signification can never be finally grasped. The specter let us read on the specter is a thing and yet not a thing not a substance it hovers uncertainly between material embodiment and disembodiment it inhabits a place of pure virtuality and what in that space is followed up is the ontological ground of being itself. So, the most important word here is that post-structuralism in general does away with ontology or a senses. There are no senses in post-structuralism all that we can have are really traces is another word here we can have traces we can have supplements, but we cannot have the word literally cannot have the word in its you know you cannot have the word in its totality which because the word meaning therefore is always slippery and it escapes our grasp that is the very nature of language. Then Nile Nial-Lucy and we carry this on Nial-Lucy says here I am using you know Shakespeare's play and you know talking about how a few critics have talked about you know Shakespeare's play in that in to show more light on how we can symbolically connected to deconstruction who is there this is what we refer to a while ago who is there the opening words is not a question we would ask ever ask of something like hydrogen, but it is the question that Bernardo asks at the very beginning of Shakespeare's Hamlet and we might say that this question which opens the play remains open still at the end in Hamlet the question of who or what is there the ghost in Hamlet would could be said to pose the question who am I when am I what is my being what is my time for Derrida these cannot be confined to effects upon the characters and events in that text itself they extend rather the questions of being and time in general and this is a philosophical aspect of post structuralism. We do not have much time here I would have like to you know talk to deconstruct I show you know the deconstructed nature of the text by using a poem like we did in structuralism, but I hope I have been able to at least tell you or convey to you some of the important important points in post structuralism there is no point really in saying that deconstruction there is no you know deconstruction can never be a method because it already says the language is impure than that we can never mean anything that is not the point that is really arguing as I said at absurdum. The point here is that we have we understand we do use language, but at the same time we have to understand the language is by its very nature because you know a term is part of a system is not there is no nothing ontological about it is always relational we have to understand the language is deficient in that sense of where you know or where the delineating of a full meaning is concerned that is what deconstruction is talking about it is not talking about destruction or utter chaos or randomness or things ridiculous. Therefore, according to Derrida texts have gaps texts have aberrations and texts have inconsistencies which is the job of the deconstruction is to show reading against what he says reading against the grain of the text and he says here the reading must always aim at a certain relationship unperceived by the writer between what he commands and what he does not command of the patterns of how beautifully put of the patterns of the language that he uses. So, these gaps aberrations and inconsistencies are what need to be foregrounded actually how the methodology goes and as a method then you take a text and you show how you know you break it down you show how or other the text breaks down how the text will defeat text defeat their state attains and purposes rely on false or unsustainable oppositions make use of figurative terms reverse their own arguments depend on other texts and signs as an intertextuality conceal arguments that are the very opposite of what they ostensibly ostensibly show. So, quickly now let us look at the just one or two questions for instance if you get a question like what is post structuralism take on knowledge that is how does post structuralism consider knowledge. The answer is this in post structuralism knowledge is not a question of true discovery, but it is seen as interpretation and the privileging of any one interpretation of a text is seen as an act of power. Next, how does the approach to meaning in post in structuralism differ from that in post structuralism the previous question was to do with knowledge how does post structuralism consider knowledge how does it look at knowledge how does it define knowledge right. However it is with meaning how does the approach to meaning differ you know in in structuralism and how does it differ from that in post structuralism and the answer is that in structuralism there was a there was a certainty of knowledge. In the sense that we admitted the fact that meaning is always differential in a system meaning is relational that words or term signs are related to other signs and the meaning of a sign emanates from its difference that is why meaning is differential in in structuralism. Yet we saw that meaning is is graspable we can grasp meaning because the there is a stability in the structure right there is a framework there is a stability and it is an organization after all of signs it is not a disorganization of signs and signs you can you can arrive at some sort of meaning, but we saw in post structuralism that in post in the post structuralist approach to meaning is this that there can never be a complete meaning whether it is a sign or whether it is this you know a collection of signs as we find in a text right. So, meaning is endlessly deferred and remember we looked at two words and how they are collapsed to form another word called deferrons right to defer and to defer that is meaning no no doubt and the structuralism is differential differs signs differ from other signs and that is how they get the meanings, but we have an additional you know additional proposition here is that meaning is always also deferred that meaning is always postponed you can never have full meaning from a signified the way it is put is this is in this way by Derrida that is meaning there are no pure signifies or the or there is no transcendental signified that is a transcends all on cultures or structures they can never be a transcendental signified signifiers will always have you know different times and places different signifies signifies and the fact is that all these signifies are also signifiers rise to signifies and the fact is that these signifiers you know the text becomes then a play of signifiers right. So, we then end our lecture here and I would want you to go back if you have to understand post structuralism there is also a need to go back to the structuralism methodology you cannot understand post structuralism without structuralism maybe you can say you understand you can understand structuralism you know without looking at post structuralism, but it is not the other way around first you have to understand as we said in the beginning of this lecture that structuralism post structuralism you know takes off from structuralism that the post here is not just a temporal post of say post world war one etcetera it is a post in the sense that it retains and admits to some of admits some of the you know co premises of structuralism, but it gives a eventually a radical twist to it transforms it and critiques it and the most important you know important point linking into structuralism I would say in my reading is the sign and the idea of differentiality you know definitely in as in structuralism there is meaning through a differential relationship, but in post structuralism though it is retained the other part is more important that there is always a deferral of meaning because by nature you know language is such that they can never be any pure signifies because of the traces substitutions and echoes from other signifies thank you so much.


Love is not a gift. Love is a baton. Love, by its very nature, is designed to be passed on. Love flourishes in motion. When we hold on to love, everybody suffers. In a relay team, if one of the runners decides to hold on to the baton and not pass it on, everybody is disqualified. That's what it's like with love in life. Pass love on today to someone. No matter how small or in what way you do that. Pass love on. Love flourishes in motion. Pass it on today. Love is not a gift. It's a baton. And I pass love to you beautiful people today. Thanks for being here. Cheers.


Braves are beating the Padres by three. This is the final out of the top of the ninth inning. Two minutes and five seconds will be put on the clock to run to commercial to warm up. There's Kenley Jansen. He's gonna come in for the save. So we go to commercial and here's the rule. MLB is instituted times of two minutes and five seconds for local broadcasts. As of 2018, the umpire signal for the final warm up pitch comes at the 25 second mark and the pitcher must throw it before the clock hits 20. The batter is also announced at the 22nd mark and the pitcher must begin his wind, begin his wind up to throw the first pitch of the inning with the five seconds before the clock hits zero. Now in between innings from this blimp shot, you can zoom in and see the umpire is on the mound with Kenley checking his fingers for sticky stuff. Now with the closers, they do that before the inning starts because it's pointless to do it after the inning because the game is over. All right, so now he gets checked for sticky stuff. He throws his warm up, throws a fastball there and the umpire says you get one more. He says, no, I want two more. And he says, no, you only get one more. He says, no, I'm gonna throw two more. And he says, no, no, no, no, no, no, you're done. You're done. I can't do anything. Turns to the catcher. He says, no, I'm gonna throw two more. This one's gonna be a curve ball. So there you go. And I'm guessing he wants to end his warmups on a fastball. So he wanted two more. That's his routine.    What's going on? What is that? Dude, that's not cool. So he's gonna walk up and have a chat with him. Umpire's name is Bill Miller and you can see him say, Bill, come on, man. Totally uncool. Now the umpire, he turns to him and he says, you have five minutes and you threw your first pitch with 40 seconds. And I don't know why, I think five minutes is an exaggeration because he knows the rules, he's got two minutes. Kenley's gonna respond to him and he's gonna say, but Bill, you never called time. And now Snit comes, okay, okay, Bill. Hey Bill, that's not what matters there. Whenever a closer comes in, enough. And his point is like the pace of play, we got to the ninth inning, the closers in. You can't rush the closers, very important part of the job, very important inning. And that's kind of his first point. And the umpire's gonna respond and he's gonna say, I know, but and Kenley's gonna say, you can't do that. That's my routine. I'm just doing whatever it is you guys tell me. No way, no way. But you guys stopped him too. Something like, I know you guys gotta check his fingers. I know, I know, but he's gotta be able to pitch. Check him after the game. And umpire says, it's not us, this is not my rule. I don't know. So it's a pretty valid point. Kenley's like, hey, hey, Manny, Manny, get behind the plate. Now the umpire says, we're not doing it. We're not doing it. We're not doing it.  Pretty fair point by Kenley. Like if you gotta check my fingers on the mound before I throw my warmups, then you have to grant me more time when I throw my warmups. Seems pretty logical and fair. Like call time out on the two minute clock and let that run out if you're interrupting my routine.  Let's him know that that counts as a mound visit. Does it affect Kenley in the inning? Well, the first pitch, there's the fastball he wanted. Nice curve, that warmup pitch. One, one, that darts inside, two and one, that darts in again, gives him the call. That was off the plate. Nice job, made up for it. Now he's got the two, two to Machado, high fastball. Boom, you're out. Cronen worth up, outside fastball. Calm down, says catch. In play, Danzby's got it, gathers it, throws two outs. Next batter's Luke Voight, that's up and in for a ball and the one, oh, is fouled back. One, one, put in play, high, Danzby comes all the way across, catches it, let Olsen know. I got those two, I got those two.  And the ump is asking me, he's like, yeah, I was trying to throw a fourth pitch, fourth pitch, stop me.  I hear you big man. And then I think that's good.  If you get checked on the mound, then that should encounter the time against you warming up. And that's just common sense.