この哲学者は差異をやはり言語に求め（それは正しい、何故なら言葉の意味とは差異だから）、それを話法（mode）の問題として論じています。話法もまた差異とそれを接続する文法でありますから、例えば上の”as if it were a material substance”のように、現実と非現実を接続する、即ち変形の文法ですので、幾つもの魅力的な題名を持つ著書名を見ますと、これを専らにして論じていることがわかります。
デリダの『Pharmakon』(『Dissemination』所収)の 「2. The Father of Logos」と題した章に次の父親が出てきます。（『Derrida Dissemination』continuum社、London・New York）
”The pharmakon is here presented to the father and is by him rejected, belittled, abandoned, disparaged. The father is always suspicious and watchful toward writing.（略）
Not that logos is the father, either. but the origin of logos is its father. One could say anachronously that the “speaking subject” is the father of his speech. And one would quickly realize that this is not metaphor, at least not in the sense of any common, conventional effect of rhetoric. Logos is a son, then, a son that would be destroyed in his very presence without the present attendance of his father. His father who answers. His father who speaks for him and answers for him. Without his father, he would be nothing but, in fact, writing. At least that is what is said by the one who says: it is the father’s thesis. The specificity of writing would thus be intimately bound to the absence of the father. Such an absence can of course exist along very diverse modalities, distinctly or confusedly, successively or simultaneously: to have lost one’s father, through natural or violent death, through random violence or patricide; and then to solicit the aid and attendance, possible or impossible, of the paternal presence, to solicit it directly or to claim to be getting along without it, etc. The reader will have noted Socrates’ insistence on the misery, whether pitiful or arrogant, of a logos committed to writing:”……It always needs its father to attend to it, being quite unable to defend itself or attend to its own need” (275e).
This misery is ambiguous: it is the distress of the orphan, of course, who needs not only an attending presence but also a presence that will attend to its need; but in pitying the orphan, one also makes an accusation against him, along with writing, for claiming to do away with the father, for achieving emancipation with complacent self-sufficiency.（略）”
それは、defacementという言葉との関係で巽先生が会場でおっしゃったド・マンの言葉”revolving door of reading”に現れているように、そうしてご著書の９５～９６ページに描かれているように、revolving, revolution、それからrestorationという一連の語義と連想から言っても、このド・マンという人の語彙の選択には、何かこの人の叙情は再帰的な（脱走、遁走と裏腹の）回帰を思うと、政治的な関心に向かうという傾向があるのではないでしょうか。そのように思います。