I agree about the enmeshing; the ontology is something different of course. Re: D/G - I've always found their work problematic, but that's neither here nor there. Certainly 'regime' though implies some sort of classification system, and these categories, as in Borges, seem heterogeneous. Also 'inordinately' of course is your opinion - not mine. In fact language in relation to concepts of coding, seems fundamental to understanding the universe itself - hence the emphasis on information and information-entropy in cosmology.
It depends re: below on what you mean by 'analyze language' as well - in terms of materiality, my initial question was _fundamentally_ tied to the body of Derrida, as the description of trying to 'catch him on the shoul- der' indicates. - Alan On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Curt Cloninger wrote: > Hi Alan, > > My phrase below is obviously an oversimplification of Bakhtin's > position. Along with J.L. Austin and Lakoff/Johnson, Bakhtin provides > an alternative to the idea that language somehow stands outside of > the world and re-presents it (or wholly constitutes it, or plays a > game regardless of it), as if language is a system that can be > analyzed and uderstood apart from historical instances of embodied > utterance. It's not to say that matter equals language and > vice-versa. There are obviously radical differences. It is to say > that language and matter are perpetually enmeshed and refracting. > Language alters "culture" which alters matter. Material contingency > (vocal inflection, bodily gesticulation, historical context, a > recently intense bowel movement, the light in my eyes) alter uttered > instances of language which collectively alter consensually agreed > upon nuances of linguistic meaning. Language as performed, embodied, > historically contingent event/force. > > Deleuze/Guattari talk about the regime of language as one among many > regimes (regime of geology, regime of the human face, regime of > movement through space, etc.). Language received an inordinately > important amount of attention at the end of the last century, mostly > by sedentary humans who write a lot of language. But language is one > of many refracting forces at play. Words get the last word (amongst > humans who value words), while the world modulates forward with[in] > and without words. > > Or so my words assert. > > Best, > Curt > > >> >>> >>>>> Bakhtin might disagree -- matter flows into language and >>>>> language >>>>> flows into matter (whatever matter and language may be). >>>>> >> >> Just want to say I don't agree with the assertion above, if it does (or >> doesn't) represent B's position. If you look at Soviet diamat philosophy, >> information formed a permanent problematic within (dialectical) material- >> ism; the way out turned on medieval ideas of reflection. The 'whatever' >> above unpacks similarly, since there are ontic issues at work. Language >> also doesn't possess the genidentity that matter does, which might be the >> heart of it. Finally, cosmology tends to unpack matter itself, as well as >> information, albeit differently (vis-a-vis the holographic universe). >> >> - Alan >> _______________________________________________ >> NetBehaviour mailing list >> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > == email archive: http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/ webpage http://www.alansondheim.org sondheimat gmail.com, panix.com == _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
