Derrida explores the perception of limits in this speech/lecture he gave.  Until the end one would think that he favored the opinion that there are limits.  By the end he discounts that though.  I didn’t follow how he got there.  From my understanding he said that from his reasoning it would have been too complicated or the logic, if there is any, was too convoluted for the limits to exist.

Towards the beginning he was approaching the various modes of human thought and saying that they were separate from the knowledge of Dasein, or whatever it is that Dasein represents.  He sets that as a limit within our conceptual spheres.  (Honestly, Aporias seems like another holistic deconstruction.  It defines deconstruction in its practice.)  Then he moves on to death and Dasein.  (I take Dasein to simply be “being”, not as a concrete historical term but as that part of ourselves which we are both awaiting at the arrival.)He says that an ontology of death is necessary before any other conception of death.  Also, Dasein can only be recognized as such because there is death.  Without death there would be no life or the lived experience.  (I don’t understand if he is only talking about the fact that life as it is conceived has to include death because death exists.  He does not take into account that there is birth.  I don’t see an analogy to the limit at entry from where one is.)  This seems to overlook the statements he makes on “being before one’s time”.  As in his analysis of Plato and Socrates in the “Post Card” and in “Telepathy” he plays with the structure of time.

He states that a psychology of death, anthropology of death, history of death, and imagine politics, sociology, law, math, biology, physics, and chemistry of death are all secondary to an ontology of death.  This is not necessarily true though.  All these categories, if understood as emotions inherent from within us as part of differance, are the ontology.  Differance is that ontology consuming all.  Dasein throughout the whole of Aporias is characterized as a difference among things working towards differance.  It never quite gets there (despite the fact that it is subsumed within it) because it does not recognize interconnectedness; it does not recognize differance.

Derrida throws out the fact that Being in Time is a portion of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic philosophy.  In fact he says it’s a late arrival (and from what I understood he says it didn’t add much either).  This furthers the point of things being subsumed one within the other.

Another interesting point that Derrida has (finally) made is that nature is not separate or distinct or inconsequential.  It has the same consciousness, or lack thereof, as man.  I’ve been waiting for that.

He makes the same remarks on writing and language that he has been making.  Language separates.  I don’t think he makes a statement about its promise to the other though, unification or understanding.