> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Lanny Quarles wrote: > >> Happy Birthday Alan!! >> > Thank you! > >> Are we not to use the word admiral without knowing its >> jaded ideologically determined history? Does anyone >> recognize the hard contours of its ironic use today? >> > I think languages change in a sense absolutely; the fact that 'breakfast' > meant 'breaking fast' etc. is probably far more irrelevant than we'd like > to believe.
i agree, and by the same token, see it as mostly irrellevant about how google derives its algorhythms in the context of poetics. Marianne Moore used newspapers various "questionable" sources.. Mark Leyner was doing humoristic pieces which used medical language along time before flarf. they used to call it appropriation in the 80's. or was that the sixties, and then there's hannah hoch etc.. its a form of collage. > >> What are the ethical foundations of all language.. >> Was language itself originally a weapon? >> or a tactical device for exploitative hunting practices? > > Look up Tran Duc Thao on the origins of language, Althusser's teacher - > theorizes that language originated in gestural activities vis-a-vis the > hunt. i basically said the same thing.. its an old theory, i doubt thao thought of it first. > > On the other hand, the fact the gorillas rain dance point to other > dissimilar origins. On the other hand? why not the other palp? ants, termites, bees, the whole panorama of the communicative architectonics of biosemiotics theory, plants etc.. > > In fact, I doubt there is a specific originary moment or 'cause' of > language, any more than of schizophrenia. In this sense of course language > itself is a language game. i agree. > >> we should be cognizant here of the physics of photons themselves, >> of the existence of polaritons, which is a mechanical meta-particle >> which >> travels through substance and which can sometimes regenerate a photon.. >> ideas when they become externalized as words or images >> enact the same polaritonic mechanical force in the mind, and thus >> in the world engendering all kinds of structures >> >> think of ideas as solitons, identities whose structures >> have some form of coherence but whose usage is subjective.. >> ie prone to mutation in the field >> > I'd be incrediby dubious of these sorts of parallels. You might want to > look at Rene Thom's work on linguistics, which seems to me one of the few > ways of relating actants to mathesis. I wouldnt, because otherwise you wouldnt be disagreeing with what i've said. There is a current field of research about the mental pleasure human brains receive from rejecting information, especially in political concepts, instead of networking out in fuzzy assimilables. My dear friend, I am a Quarles, and if you anything about my family, you would know we take deep pleasure in arguing about everything, and quite angrily i might add, and we like that! > >> its no accident to me, that the butterfly was the greek symbol >> for psyche, and that we have "the butterfly effect" as a feature >> of chaos theory. >> > Of course this is where I disagree with you entirely! I haven't a spritual > bone in my body, and tend to think that it is in fact a complete and utter > accident, it might have been anything. what? spiritual? hmmm.. the "spirit" is a "mechanism" according to leibnitz. a clock with a clock's shadow. now don't get me wrong. i am talking about computationalism, and bifurcation nodes, organic agency, etc. > >> what would the world look like if Constantine had not converted to >> Xtianity? What would the world look like if Tesla, or Napolean >> had never existed.. >> > Check out Saul Kripke; I tend to think of these sorts of questions as red > herrings. Horseshit! you don't think people change history? Okay, then Hitler, the holocaust it doesnt matter either, right? not to be callous, but people certainly alter the fate of this planet, otherwise why are you trying to save tthe rainforest? this is patently wrong. > >> If the world is a construction, then politics are irrelevant >> except as a symptom of mental disorder. Design, ie Aesthetics >> should be the overarching concern. > > The world a construction? Then I'm spending useless time worrying/trying > to do something about the rain forest... you're doing what you always do, which is impose your semantic over what is essentially a fluid referent.. constructionism, does not necessarily imply the types of agency you seem to be wary of.. ecosystemic constructionism is not a misnomer the way i see it. it is a highly structured yet extremely difficult to characterize structure but it is nonetheless a "construction" > > Mind you I haven't read the flarf essay; I knew Gary Sullivan and that was > enough for me... > I like "Flarf".. It is only the latest version of lit-crack, and in a sense the essay says this.. I think perhaps there are deeper structures in the some of the older poetics, but who knows what that has to do with anything.. My sense is that google sculpting does kasey's poetry a disservice, if you read the work, there are things in it, which are patently not simple google thefts.. I also am concerned about the rainforest, but I think giving money to scientists, foundations and aiding the activism seems a better and more pragmatic solution than reading or writing poetry or making fictionalized films, but that being said, Emotion tugging fiction works a kind of magic in the socium causing it to respond and do things.. the news does this as well, as evidenced by all the aid coming out for things like the tsunami, so it all does things.. Lanny, such as he is.. > - Alan >
