413 or lit in small doses

-- - -- -- - ---

2011-12-13T22:38:00.004+08:00

t h e w
o r d i s
a g a m
b l e

asemic window

2011-09-11T13:20:00.019+08:00

transcriptions, 19

2011-08-19T13:42:00.006+08:00

transcription19

P l I D L 9 z m P V
p a l i m p s e s t
3 G Q w H Y 1 A y n
a n t i q u a r i a n
R 4 o a H b h l I 8
r e p r o d u c e s
w n 5 I S N L 7 L q
v a n i s h i n g
l J 3 F R T q g 2 0
l i b r a r i a n
M Y H i j 2 S v 8 N
m y s t i f i e d
b S t 5 7 0 9 q T s
b e s t s e l l e r
O r n U Q 1 L C w Z
o r p h i s t i c
A k 9 h k Z F f F m
a r c h a i s m s
A B w m 3 Z E S m g
a m b i g u o u s
Z 6 J p Z 7 y Q 3 a
s o l i l o q u y s
Q z g g T z b a Z Q
o n o m a s t i c
v H 9 H C 3 n m V h
v o y e u r i s m
K 0 a d s c D j s 4
b r o a d c a s t s

A text is a text is a text

2011-08-12T09:52:00.030+08:00

1. A rose is a rose is a rose. Like a chair is a chair is a chair… the loop excludes transcendental signifieds. Warhol prints...

2. Since Gertrude Stein, we have seen language moves that no longer fall within the classic forms that have been institutionally validated as "poetic." The "poetic" has become more and more a term that designated a limited paradigm of reading. If it is overblown by many, if any claim is made on its behalf, it indicates not only an over-extension of the term but also an attempt to confer a cultural value to language moves that otherwise would not get any "cultural" or "market" value. Any move in a vast language game that impacts the way we handle that game does not need that label to get attention. Beyond the attempt to insert that move in the institutional market to get some attention, to call any writing "poetic" is narrow, restrictive, self-serving, and self-prophetic.

Thus, a general cultural bias simply reasserted itself when the existence of the category of the "poetic" was assumed a priori as an aspect of language use instead of suspending this assumption for the sake of objective linguistic inquiry. To assume something is not to prove anything. We should try to test another assumption, that there is nothing inherently poetic in the uses of language beyond the rhetorical and the formal, or beyond the market politics of institutions.

3. To remain within a hackneyed definition is to wallow in one's significance pond: a semantic self-delusion. It is to be caught up in the force of one's own can of demonstratives. To be unaware of a linguistic fantasy is naïveté; to be aware and to continue in the same path is self-delusional; to be aware of this awareness is a second-degree fantasy, that of self-parody.

Finally, to dismiss or to devalue powerful language moves that fall outside of our own valorized forms and rituals (especially when those moves offer inversions and critiques of our valued word order) is to display one of the most short-sighted traits of negative discrimination.

Beckett & the impossible voice

2011-08-12T00:32:00.038+08:00

By intensely interrogating the line that divided discursivity and narrativity, the meta-textual procedures deployed by «Texts for Nothing» exposed the aporetic dynamic of the Beckettian oeuvre. As a failed voyager in a landscape that seems to impede progress at every turn, the Beckettian personnage never goes anywhere. The blocage seems to come from an essential difficulty: what is the difference between the speaking "I" and the narrating "I"?

The answer always sounds obvious. The first one does not tell a story and only speaks. The speaking "I" speaks because speech is done in the present, and the person saying "I" is the same person referred to by the word "I." This disambiguated state of the speaking "I" is its deictic advantage. When this "I" speaks, it cannot be part of a story. Even in a homodiegetic narrative, the speaking "I" cannot be part of the story without first becoming a narrator. In other words, I cannot tell a story at the same time as I am living its events. It would be magical to see the "I" realize the events of a story at the same moment it is spoken, like some kind of performative act. Towards the magical ending of One Hundred Years of Solitude, for example, the narrative time and time of narration coincide. If the "I" says "It is a Tuesday" and it is not really Tuesday, we start to think that this "I" is probably deluded or hallucinating. Or this "I" is probably not deluded at all or crazy, but is in fact telling a story in which the events that are being told are happening on a Tuesday. The "I" certainly cannot make the day a Tuesday just by saying it.

When "I" says It is a Tuesday when it is not a Tuesday, and if it is certain we are not hearing mad speech, then what we have is a memory or story. The question we then ask is: who or what or where is this "I"? Can a machine tell a story? If by "can" we mean having the physical capacity to produce words, whether as recording or as programmed strings, then we say Yes. But if "can" means to function as a narrator, dependable or not, real or not, then we tend to say No because we seem to require more from a narrator than just the ability to reproduce sound. (Another example: a grocery list is not a story primarily because we can't see any narrator in it.) However, the fact that anything can take the role of the narrator, living or not, already tells us about its indefinite nature. It is simply a linguistic function.

At the beginning of "Texts for Nothing," the homodiegetic speaker/narrator appears "suddenly." This instantaneous appearance on the scene is immediately followed by an assertion of the inability to "go on." On the second sentence, an indefinite "someone" addresses the speaker, forming a dialogical pair: "You can't stay here." This is quite understandable, and the contradiction is only apparent: the narrator function cannot have a deictic status in the here-and-now of discourse. But this situation is made more complex by the third line, which probably summarizes the whole aporetic dynamic of the text: "I couldn’t stay there and I couldn’t go on." This situational cycle repeats itself, and carries the speaker, strangely, for many more pages to come: " And were there one day to be here, where there are no days, which is no place, born of the impossible voice the unmakable being, and a gleam of light, still all would be silent and empty and dark, as now, as soon now, when all will be ended, all said, it says, it murmurs." The "impossible voice," "the unmakable being": don't these fit a good description of the narrator function? The weirdness of this voice comes from the fact that it is no one and nothing, and yet it speaks. "It’s not true, yes, it’s true, it’s true and it’s not true, there is silence and there is not silence, there is no one and there is someone, nothing prevents anything." Impossible, and yet cannot be unmade.

And who is the narrator's interlocutor? Is it another character? The indefinite nature of the interlocutor reveals the monological status of the text: "Someone said, perhaps the same, What possessed you to come?" Here we see one instance of the coincidence between the narrating "I" and the narrated "I." Often, too, this bipolarity extends to the problematic attempts of the narrator/speaker to include contextual orientation in the text, elements that would normally be deictic parts of discourse: "I’ll describe the place, that’s unimportant...." "How long have I been here, what a question...." "And now here, what now here...."

This aporetic movement may all seem to reaffirm the clear distinction between discourse and narrative, between the speaking "I" and narrating "I," but the substantial use of language items we normally associate with a speech situation coupled with the constant breakdown of any attempt to produce a progressive narrative line also seem to point out a difficulty that still requires resolution. The clear-cut distinction we thought we had between the two "I"s is always creating a problem: on one hand, a totally narrative "I" would be an impossible voice, a "someone" without place and time except in language; on the other, a totally discursive "I" with full deictic capacities would not be able to tell a story. In short, it becomes a choice between an impossible narrative which exists as a "nothing" ("Whose voice, no one’s, there is no one, there’s a voice without a mouth...") and a very restrictive speech that simply speaks but cannot ever progress without first falling into narrative, thereby losing its full deictic status and becoming another "nothing."

However, if " to speak of once, is to speak of nothing," then any use of language that does not carry with it any trace of story-telling or any trace of re-citation cannot even begin to exist as speech. Even in a conversation that goes "How do you feel?"/"I feel better now, thanks" is presumably carried within a stream of history laid out as a narrative or memory. An absolutely unique speech that happens only once for the first time and once only cannot be repeated or remembered. It is a speech that can't go anywhere, a speech that we can't even imagine to happen.

As the quandary of nothingness at every turn, this voiceless voice keeps turning, mute speech that echoes its absence again and again. Time without time, space without space, these texts for nothing outline a zone where language speaks when it narrates, and narrates when it speaks.

Beckett's alibi (2004)

2011-08-11T11:01:00.133+08:00

Posting something written many years ago:

Beckett’s oeuvre represents one of the most sustained meditations on the nature of writing (we could mention Derrida, Jabès, Blanchot, Queneau up to Perec, Barthes, Calvino or Borges, Barth, among many others). Maybe the 20th century should be called the Century of Writing, following the « lingusitic turn » in discplinary and philosophical concerns after Nietzsche and Saussure.

     In general terms, the work « Texts for Nothing » (TFN) marks the moment in literature where writing can no longer be viewed as either representational (object-action-events) or expressionistic (conscious-unconscious self), or even an objet d’art in the neoclassical sense of Form or in the Parnassian concept of Art for Art’s sake. Hence, the mode of subjectivity « simulated » in TFN is one of bleak desperation (desespoir), and the textual « dynamic » one of self-contradiction (in all senses of the word as logical-linguistic conflict and mutual exclusion, as postulation and cancellation, as the proffering of one statement and its reverse, etc.). In syntactic terms, this can be seen in the paratactic and repetitive organization of the text, and in the exploitation of the comma to signify a continuous inconclusion or irresolution, or the lack of a teleological completion of thought or action. It is no doubt part and extension of the « stream of consciousness » technique in late modernism, a mode of utterance that the speaking «voice» deploys as a signature of its inscription as a dramatic monologist in search of narrative form.

     In this condition, the fabula of TFN can be seen as basically that : the search for narrative form (or sjuzhet). It marks a later stage in the progressive obsolescence of narrative elements that had Sarraute and Queneau searching for their « characters» in terms of their « identity » or « presence ». As a search for narrative form, the dramatic monologist cannot therefore deploy narrative as a means to such an end. This implies that at the very outset, all rhetorical elements belonging to the repertoire of narrative would be either interdicted, suspended, or, if used, requalified and even contradicted. This explains the momentary lapses of TFN into some occasional « pockets » of recognizable « story » threads and its eventual abandonment of them. Furthermore, as a mode of desperate search for narrative form, the « psycho-emotive » state of the monologist would translate into various types of blocage : uncertainties or doubts, indefiniteness, hesitations, reluctance, dilemmas, impotence, apprehension, difficulties, scruples, misgivings, vaccilations, etc. These forms of blocage are the direct result of the realisation that the search for narrative form cannot escape using the elements of narrative for its initiation. Hence, the incipits are often not foundational commencements for a sjuzhet about to unfold, but periodic bursts of intense blocages. In other words, the search for narrative form outside of the narrative format cannot even begin, cannot even dream of beginning. (Is it not that a narrative is defined precisely by a quest, that it is in itself the modus operandi of any search ?)

     How can the search for narrative form, which must take the narrative format as supposition, even begin when the fact of inaugurating the search activates the form immediately ? By this activation, the monologist translates his/her search into narrative, narrates his/her search as s/he searches for narrative form, and marks the site of the split of the subject into the multiple positions of monologist, author, narrator, figure, and narratee, and reader. The advent of multiplicity is probably not the greatest threat that ends the search and transfroms it into the object of the search ; the greatest threat is that, by incarnating narrative form at the moment of the search for form (by suspension of form, of course), the monologist abdicates or evacuates his/her position of priority as presence before form, and marks his/her inscription into and via narrative, terminates or executes his search, and, thus, heralds his/her non-presence as the prelinguistic space or origin of speech. The monologist, becoming plural, assumes the face of the other/s, resumes the speech and voice of the other/s, and most importantly, begins to inhabit the space of the other/s, which is the space of writing, the space of death and disappearance, atopia...

     But our monologist stubbornly pursues a logic or ethic of refusal against a capitulation to the Other, to death, to Nothingness. It is the desperate cry of the dying nostalgia for a presence, that metaphysical Now and Here space of Being prior to the irruption of difference. And yet, how can one be in two places at the same time ? That would really be an alibi.

Kenneth Goldsmith & "Uncreative Writing"

2011-08-10T16:35:00.035+08:00

Kenneth Goldsmith's two new books on "conceptual" or/and "uncreative" writing:

1. Against Expression: An Anthology of Conceptual Writing (Northwestern University Press, Chicago, 2011)
2. Uncreative Writing: Managing Language in a Digital Age (Columbia University Press, New York, 2011)

Here are some quotes from his discussion of "Conceptual poetics" (http://www.sibila.com.br/index.php/sibila-english/410-conceptual-poetics):

"If it all sounds familiar, it is. Conceptual writing obstinately makes no claims on originality. On the contrary, it employs intentionally self and ego effacing tactics using uncreativity, unoriginality, illegibility, appropriation, plagiarism, fraud, theft, and falsification as its precepts; information management, word processing, databasing, and extreme process as its methodologies; and boredom, valuelessness, and nutritionlessness as its ethos. Language as material, language as process, language as something to be shoveled into a machine and spread across pages, only to be discarded and recycled once again. Language as junk, language as detritus. Nutritionless language, meaningless language, unloved language, entartete sprache, everyday speech, illegibility, unreadability, machinistic repetition. Obsessive archiving & cataloging, the debased language of media & advertising; language more concerned with quantity than quality. How much did you say that paragraph weighed?

"I teach a class at the University of Pennsylvania called “Uncreative Writing,” which is a pedagogical extension of my own poetics. In it, students are penalized for showing any shred of originality and creativity. Instead, they are rewarded for plagiarism, identity theft, repurposing papers, patchwriting, sampling, plundering, and stealing. Not surprisingly, they thrive. Suddenly, what they’ve surreptitiously become expert at is brought out into the open and explored in a safe environment, reframed in terms of responsibility instead of recklessness.

Well, you might ask, what’s wrong with creativity? “I mean, we can always use more creativity.”(1) “The world needs to become a more creative place.”(2) “If only individuals could express themselves creatively, they’d be freer, happier.”(3) “I’m a strong believer in the therapeutic value of creative pursuits.”(4) “To be creative, relax and let your mind go to work, otherwise the result is either a copy of something you did before or reads like an army manual.”(5) “I don’t follow any system. All the laws you can lay down are only so many props to be cast aside when the hour of creation arrives.”(6) “An original writer is not one who imitates nobody, but one whom nobody can imitate.”(7)

When our notions of what is considered creative became this hackneyed, this scripted, this sentimental, this debased, this romanticized . . . this uncreative, it’s time to run in the opposite direction. Do we really need another “creative” poem about the way the sunlight is hitting your writing table? No. Or another “creative” work of fiction that tracks the magnificent rise and the even more spectacular fall? Absolutely not."

Fantastic machines of rewriting and retranscription? As textual (re)productions that are not expected to be "read," Goldsmith's work may be seen as an extension of his beginnings in the plastic arts. The texts produced are re-produced or recycled, not as a book in the classical sense of a container/carrier of meaning and information, but as an archival artifact presenting the frenzied & omnipresent (re)production of more language material than we can handle or read. The more likely display space is the collector's gallery rather than the library. This does not mean that Goldsmith is forging new objects as "art" pieces, knowing well that he situates his process along the lines of "conceptual" exercises that include Duchamp and Beckett (Watt) as predecessors.

Craig Dworkin ("The Fate of Echo" in Against Expression):

"With conceptual writing, in contrast, the force of critique from the very beginning was just the opposite: to distance ideas and affects in favor of assembled objects, rejecting outright the ideologies of disembodied themes and abstracted content. The opacity of language is a conclusion of conceptual art but already a premise for conceptual writing. The very procedures of conceptual writing, in fact, demand an opaquely material language: something to be digitally clicked and cut, physically moved and reframed, searched and sampled, and poured and pasted. The most conceptual poetry, unexpectedly, is also some of the least abstract, and the guiding concept behind conceptual poetry may be the idea of language as quantifiable data....

"Writing, in these cases, referred more to itself, or to other instances of writing, than to any referent beyond the page. Oriented toward text rather than diegesis, these works present writing as their subject rather than imagining writing to be the means to a referential end."

Cut & paste: the very logic of quotation, no longer of an original or originating source, but of another quotation. However, to say that a quotation "reveals" the meaning of another quotation is to revert to the classical paradigms of reading. The consequence of a conceptual writing projected this way would also require a different definition of reading.

transcriptions, 18

2011-08-08T08:27:00.004+08:00

transcription18

U c D d T h m n r B
d i t h y r a m b
P a s A s U p I E c
p a r a s i t e s
c J p b m e g r J V
s u b m e r g e d
Y t e L n T j i q p
e n t e l e c h y
j Q w q H a Q V g f
e x h a u s t i v e
s p y w s D v v E s
a s y n d e t o n
A N q b m g Z C d k
a m b u s c a d e
P S n d Y o Y Z k e
p a l i n d r o m e
U R c S C b q w Q v
u r b a n i t a s
B b C Y l r g D f v
c y c l o t r o n
C k C s h c q I g N
c r a s h s i g n
f F G E s t f s H J
u n e v e n t f u l
T b e C c Z d Q o w
t e n a c i o u s
G e Y y d w h b N b
g e n e r a t i o n

transcriptions, 17

2011-07-30T12:07:00.005+08:00

transcription17

I b X K n N X s T r q R M V q R I S m u
i n e x i s t e n t t o r q u e m u t i s m
a y z u b d x X K I j g P K I j N c W g
s u b d i v i d e s p i n n i n g c o r e
Y k R z c D J E O r e D V z i P A Y a M
r e a d o u t r e d u c t i o n i s m s
D J K C A C i W t q R d U q N c R N m S
d e c i m a l r u d i m e n t n u m b e r
d m O j L X s n E p k f i Q o k h y U I
d e m o n s t r a t e d f r i c t i on
Y a Z A Y G h Y w V N A N j F j R X S E
a n a l y z i n g n a n o u n i v e r s e
g f K l X X s x R O g J a b Q a g p X o
g e n e s i s r o g u e l a b o r a t o r y
L x P Z O j Z O X v p n L p O x s q c a
u n o r t h o d o x p h o n o l o g y
X c Q q l n g U S E Z B O t h r i G f T
p o o l i n g f u s e d p o s t s c r i p t
j x W x U c H z m K X a i A f f a R h p
e x h a u s t s m e t a p h o r i c a l
T M p Z l r s L j u n w j B D n I U I w
t e m p o r a l i n d i v i d u a l s
w Q z G G x r z s E p R b t i l t a x Q
w o r k i n g r e a d a b i l i t y E Q
O C o f X i x R r K Z R x o a Z T D l R
o b f u s c a t e s r e a c t o r t i d e
e D Y A L W G s w R Q W C P K B E Q T c
r e d r a w i n g w o r d b r a c k e t s

transcriptions, 16

2011-07-27T18:44:00.016+08:00

transcription16

D Z a u T K V F C o d e m o t i o n
S P H f S X R r l n o n s e r i a l s
j V w q z E L g b A l a n c i n g
P O L v b c f a c t s o l u b l e s
e R A t g f q G v r a t i f i e d
h A V r u L P I n k b e h a v i o r
F A n D u v R b w g a n d e r i n g
T W g Y i q q N A h e m i s t i c h
s H E w F X L t O h g e s t a l t
Q W n k o B X j h b l o w o u t s
X g E l l U y l p e r e x c l u d e d
z l R J X p Z Z z c i r c u i t r y
c v P z r C T q s r e a s s e r t s
i g Q U a Q B H o t i n q u i r y
p y Q t J J O D X z p r o j e c t s
y z p Y B n q a d v e n t u r i n g
T t H a w d f t o m e t a d r a f t
G z x m a d D K d r a m a t i c
k Q H g l S v h o r e s o l v e s
B I q b k q h T u s i g n a t u r e
c N Q r f n Z o f c o n t r o l s
I N a B s y V f g i n v i s i b l y
D m c M B s h m r e m e m b e r
n p b v F l R Z H p r e v i s e d
E h t a A N y b l s e n t e n t i a l
A R h A N I a O r h a r m o n i c
c W m Y h l e O K a s s e m b l e d
M D K i m n T C s m i m e t i c s

Asemic logos : Letter lamps

2011-07-22T14:32:00.011+08:00

Meaningfulness

2011-07-22T03:56:00.010+08:00

1. Meaningfulness cannot be universalized from a single source.

2. Meaningfulness does not necessarily lead to more meaningfulness.

3. Meaningfulness can be socialized in group fantasy rituals (cults, fads, fevers, schools, gangs, etc.).

4. Meaningfulness does not exclude meaningless sources.

5. Meaningfulness is not necessarily the property of a group or a language.

6. Meaningfulness can just be fictional.

7. Meaningfulness is a transfer of value with no end.

8. Meaningfulness can turn up anywhere with very little belief.

9. Meaningfulness is between us all the time.

10. Meaningfulness is with us for only a while.

transcriptions, 15

2011-07-20T15:35:00.011+08:00

transcription15

5 V E y e N C B s s
s e q u e n c e s
x z 9 4 5 m N v 7 b
e x a m i n e d
v j 5 2 d s U O H 4
v i s u a l i z e d
R G V u C C m q v C
r i g m a r o l e
Y h x C J X t 2 1 6
e x t e m p o r e
t 9 X P 6 o A p A 0
t o p o g r a p h s
8 d m t X i l Y V z
a d m i t t i n g
K I 7 k X U u e R t
r i t u a l i s t
C t w S X 8 D B y m
d y n a m i s m
s D L d 4 f 8 W 6 l
s o l i d i f i e d
e 2 K 7 Z X G w 5 T
e r g o n o m i s t
R 4 o V k V W j t n
r e v o l u t i o n
M 0 q d T I W v e F
m o t i v a t e d
D P Z F s 2 n J F 8
d i s p e r s i o n

transcriptions, 14

2011-07-13T17:25:00.009+08:00

transcription14

r B e L 6 2 z H Q n e R F q w b e n f d

b a b e l z o n e r e f i n e d

X s s 8 p 3 6 I T D 3 6 C r X K K 4 Z b

e x p l o i t e d e c p h r a s i s

H r 7 H x P p U 2 X e Y u e f M 8 j B v

h i g h e x p u r g a t e d m o t i f

o 4 H 8 m r w o S Z b L 9 U p E I 8 J i

m o r o n i c o s c i l l a t i o n

e V B 6 r Y l d F z f X C o 5 g c C 1 Y

e v e r y d a y f r e q u e n c y

N y d j d 9 6 K K W b O L H 8 N X 5 X 5

n i g h t l y e l e c t r o l y s i s

X n R H v i w N s f Z a E C X 1 1 g 2 L

f a r m i n g f a c t u a l i t y

y Y Z f N G 9 5 s 9 s J U e x v J n W e

u n d e f i n e d j u d g m e n t s

a s 5 c 8 b O 2 e w T r W I F d H K O b

a s s o c i a t e d w i t h o u t

U V Q F R C S g e v c N I m R 6 E W v n

u n f o r g e d n u m b e r i n g

B g E r u 5 k e o f 1 C U N a u x o F m

b r e a k o f f i c i a l a x i o m

K i C Q 5 D L y O p t V 2 T L A z 1 L W

k i n e t i c o p t i m a l

q q a l K I 5 N 5 J G r K J 1 p k r F T

q u a l i f i e d g r a v i t y

X X Z I H I e Y c E R D s c B R b N m 8

q u a n t i f y c r u d e b r a n e s

transcriptions, 12

2011-07-08T18:11:00.009+08:00

transcription12

z 6 j 2 E 9 V 6 b D
a I r s c a p e s
f O V W y k o o d v
f o l l o w I n g
l I E t d z X 8 R G
l e t t e r I n g
e U L x H x o x n v
e u p h o n I c
U R E x 6 b z 2 l S
o n e I r o s
k h l F p Q j A G C
h I j a c k s
G C E o h e 5 v w N
g e o d e s I c
C b w 3 2 T 6 f l V
c e n t u r I e s
X v u Y H 9 7 g n 6
e x e c u t I n g
1 l J j 6 T H x r 6
I l l u s t r a t e d
v a R r 0 D D Q 9 f
p a r o d I e s
n s 7 S p C P q 4 8
n e t s p a c e
D l z I k k z D R g
d I z z y I n g
Q D M H r S V I D d
d I m e n s I o n

asemic boxes

2011-07-06T16:56:00.002+08:00

nondescript

2011-07-06T08:40:00.016+08:00

transcriptions, 11

2011-07-05T15:13:00.006+08:00

transcription11

8 s S e R F R j o r
a s s e r t I o n
8 s S e R F R j o r
s e c r e t I o n
8 s S e R F R j o r
i n f e r I o r
8 s S e R F R j o r
o u t e r-f o a m
8 s S e R F R j o r
d I s s e c t i o n
8 s S e R F R j o r
o v e r r I d e
8 s S e R F R j o r
e r u d I t i o n
8 s S e R F R j o r
c r o s s-o v e r
8 s S e R F R j o r
s e d e n t a r y
8 s S e R F R j o r
e x t e r I o r
8 s S e R F R j o r
l e a s e-f o n t
8 s S e R F R j o r
p r e s e n t o r
8 s S e R F R j o r
o b s e r v e r
8 s S e R F R j o r
a f t e r s h o c k

transcriptions, 9-10

2011-06-29T20:30:00.009+08:00

transcription9

E S r i q T X i N G

s t r I n g i n g

Y M b t I f t S h Y

m y s t i f I e d

k b I 0 3 r 0 Y G g

c r y o g e n I c

V R C n 7 g H o M 3

a n g s t r o m

1 4 N Q 0 O U a 0 V

t r I-n o v u m

m q U T h 3 f 8 J O

m y t h-f o l d s

2 U g T g x x 8 W 5

m u l t I-s e m i c

L z x v K y 2 U W t

l e x I–c u l t

z k w W t 4 t 5 w n

b e t a–c l o w n

G 4 H i O 6 c R x Z

g r a p h o n I c

x X c X 1 y 8 S 4 Q

x e n o p h o b e

F A 8 C K B H f Z c

f a n t a s I z e

9 O g P r O Q G 7 V

a n t I-p r o o f

2 Z G D I K g b 8 x

a d d I n g-b o x

transcription10

n M t p T Y T w k e

n a n o-t y p e

u B R e C L p D S e

s u r-e c l I p s e

r t Q 3 5 b W T K 9

r o o t-w a k e

v r f h k a 9 Y S E

a n a p h a s e

f f n L g P w r D d

f l I n g-d r a w

X d a p 3 h s u m o

a d a p t I s s i m o

A n S g e N l h x M

a n a e s t h e t e

4 3 N n v o 2 3 V O

f o r u m-v o l t

C T A D I Y F x a K

s t e a d y-f a c t

G t X 2 Z X k g 6 5

g e n e r a t I n g

I c h P k U y 2 T x

i n t u I t e d

s C b M s c T N y g

s u b s t a n t I v e

R D 1 Y i t J 8 0 W

r a d I a t e d

u p z a o m B Z K h

z a u m-b o o k

transcriptions, 8

2011-06-27T17:29:00.020+08:00

transcription8

n 2 k 0 w S S 3 p n
s h o w-s p i n
A X N g X I l 3 7 i
a u x I l I a r y
3 x U N 2 d N v u y
r u n-e n v o y
v 0 u j 5 I n 1 q Z
f o u n d-s I g n
p J O G y C f H x n
p r o g e n I c
a g h b N 2 l d q D
a g e n t-l o a d
j 3 P f S Z v E l 4
g e s t u r a l
W e D c l 5 d 3 8 W
m I d d l e-v I e w
I j X Q 0 T J a 3 O
q u o t I e n t
f I D u H a c F O 7
t r u e-f a c t o r
1 j 5 7 e d s O 5 P
p l a t e-d r o p
k S u Y r E j 4 v R
s c r e e n e r
s b H f j I t A Z k
s u b–s t a f f
E 0 a n B 5 U r b i
l o a n-b l u r b

transcriptions, 7

2011-06-21T17:17:00.027+08:00

transcription7

E q W X r E 2 Z e h
e x t r e m i s
e m q x 6 G 0 t W J
e r g o s u m
p W r l N U 2 M h g
p o w e r I n g
V 0 w y 8 p M 6 S 6
v o y e u r i s m
a L M 8 I r 0 C 3 8
m i r a c l e s
p r x X g 9 p W 1 5
p r e s s u r e
o F M u m 6 S Z 4 u
a m u s e d
V b h u C m 2 h f d
v o l u m e s
4 F w N k v T i O G
q u e s t I o n
t S I d l p M r t t
s I d e-l i m I t
E 1 2 4 C 6 f j s R
e r r a t I c
L h I t Y p o Q G 3
l I n e-p o l e s
N h y T 0 i K w 7 1
n e g a t o r y
m D 6 5 O H k d K v
m a c r o-h e a d

permutation & fantasy

2011-06-21T13:00:00.039+08:00

A dice thrown unhinges words from a center. They begin to float, as if ignorant of origins and ends. It was an iconic moment. It was as if writing rediscovers pictorial space as a way of decentering language at a time when the pictorial arts are abandoning classical spaces (visual poetry, for instance). First, the linearity of writing is repositioned in a multi-directional space. Next, linguistic elements regain their visual and material weight over plain symbolic or metaphoric functions. Then they shed their classical formal constituents and organizing principles, from semantic associations to generic markers and syntactic orders. Finally, they recover an infinite space of multi-directional distribution and transformation. The liberating movement from an "abstract" or logico-syntactic mode of organization towards a more "concrete" or spatio-material mode is further extended by the "dynamization" of the notion of the "concrete" as a realm of indeterminacy (the new "abstract").

The disappearance of classical spaces spawned various species of materialism and conceptualism: the object became more formal and material, non-symbolic, and at the same time, conceptualist (cultural and historical fantasy). But we can also say that, with the disappearance of classical spaces. traditional materials found a closer affinity with a decentered language. In an "action" painting, for example, the "content" pointed at is an intersection of event, process, and material, with the randomized production representing a non-pictorial, non-deterministic space. Directional and formal markers have disappeared, leaving us only with the impression of an extensive, non-teleological material process.

The various possibilities of a post-pictorial, permutational space: noise & the open line. The approach has always been a dualist contradiction. Permutational space is everywhere; it forces you to read, however errant your effort may be. But it does not end there: any moment of subjectivity or fantasy is swallowed back by the noisy sea, which reaffirms its inescapable power in the meeting space of subjective and objective chance: the open line.

transcriptions, 6

2011-06-20T14:40:00.029+08:00

transcription6

m 6 V V G j Q Q 1 w
m o t I o n- c l u e
B n p P F 5 C 3 x z
r e f o c a l I z e
r p o h H s I 4 T S
p r o s e I s t
A j t v r w F o d Q
a t t e n t I on
b 7 C T B b 3 L I N
b u b b l I n g
b H A B 6 y 0 b z c
b a r y o n I c
N O W g T w f k 7 f
n o w-w e I g h
S 3 6 m g I y N o Q
s a m e-t h I n g
f r M R N m 9 k 2 P
f o r m I n g
U S O r R B d h l R
s o b e r-b I r d
m A 7 M e X l e s g
m a x I m I z e d
c C 3 C X o 8 d 4 t
c r e a t I o n
3 V I C L x N a x b
v I s I o n-l a n e
f i V v L g x U p z
f I g u r e s-u p

transcriptions, 4-5

2011-06-19T13:02:00.019+08:00

transcription4

r j E 1 I X L t l h N M C u N J 5 p E S
p r e f i x l i m i t c u n e i f o r m
3 w r 0 M d c 2 0 o J z h p y F 1 7 a O
r o a m i n g c o p y f u n c t i o n
A 6 1 5 R u N f h Y I j A 4 B g 8 o 0 T
o v e r r u n F Y I r e b o o t s
t p I b Q N I D e F S 6 X z m B y q z r
b i t-d e f i n e d p a s s e r b y
H J a 6 C 5 I 3 V y Q K w 0 6 O 9 d c p
d e e p h a p t i c w o r k
t 7 g 1 H X h I F U R P C Q 4 L I P M n
b i f u r c a t e s f l i p s
k v k o B b 8 l c 1 C y 8 6 o J K c I D
c y c l i c i d b o b b l e s
L M h 8 W X t 6 T U I A L f n I 8 o P B
t e x t u a l f i n i t e r o w
J g 2 y e N J C K A u h s N R M o H w w
h u s h e n g i n e r o o m
y B V 3 m J 2 z w o 9 c 3 Y 2 d 0 M V A
b e a m s w o n d e r d o m e
M d S J 6 g s Z A g f q R x t 2 y v G 7
m e d i u m s i g n r o t a t i o n s
U 3 p 2 g B m g g z Q O e P 6 W D I I h
u p g r a d e z o o m w i d e n i n g
N x d c y 4 V S k G Z F z L 0 7 3 g w v
n o n-d y n a m i c s f o l l o w
D e Y r 1 e U I y u 5 J O l H F 9 I L R
d e n a t u r e d r e-f i l e r

transcription5

c l K I C W S x 6 D b m a D L k H i m 6
c l o c k w i s e d e m a n d l i k e
q e d 2 B p f w Z 4 g M P r W 3 Q y 3 g
Q E D-p o w e r e d m e e t i n g s
N N L 3 K K f R R r 3 e w 4 q v h W h L
n o n-e l e c t r i f y i n g r e n e w a l
O R H C B 0 M m L m I 5 P S I Q B Y e E
o v e r m i n i m a l p s y c h e
2 4 d W I e R e I 6 T K g 8 I 2 M I 0 Y
2 4 h-w i r e d i n t e n s i f i e r
N m 8 u x U p n y t H B x Z Y g N M X f
m u m m i f y t h e s i g n a l
I j Z I b h x K K d 5 Z a G D R 4 Y R F
b e h i n d t h e g r a f t e d
y y 5 N k R G P j A L w d 9 s R B X z 7
i n k-p a l e d e s e r t s
x G 7 F 8 a n E c Q 8 Y v k K X r s J c
a l p h a-e c h o s e c r e c y
S g S Y x 0 s 7 L U P I W F z Q m a V H
s p o k e n l u d i c f r e e d o m
O n K G g L 8 s g O J S g b u 7 p l q o
o n g l a s s a s s u m p t i o n
f c v 0 M Z b o f D a n r 9 U 1 p F g 8
f a v o r e n d a n g e r i n g
7 Y Q U a U I 1 D f w 6 W L x 2 L Y u Y
q u i d d r a w n f u l l y
Q H E 7 H 6 F J O j k G 0 J k H c I V h
q u e s t i o n i n g o r j o k i n g

transcriptions, 1-3

2011-06-18T12:20:00.011+08:00

transcription1

c 2 X 1 u L n P u c u L I I m s F r U Q

c a r b o n c u l t u r e l i m i t s

6 9 T U a 1 7 b 9 O y 8 Y 4 P 4 u e m C

a c t u a l b o d y f o r E m c 2

e b p J D J c K d P o E X 8 k d o E w e

e b b i n g p o e t r y d o w n

E O Y J X c a W E 0 y M 8 Y c C H 7 H R

t h e e x c l a m a t i o n c h a i r

N P C T f y h t u 2 h 7 M u 9 C j f W I

n o c i t y m u s c l e w i t h

E l n m g y I P J P 7 C v Y t N n q j R

i m a g i n e d c o u n t r y n e a r

E I O D p 5 P 1 r Z 1 C 2 b I O D g D F

e x p i r a t i o n b i o d e g r a d a b l e

1 I x V 9 c O u c Y K 5 5 I C l b p 2 Z

l i t c o u c h c y c l e b e e p s

0 h P S g O X P L U v X C z h A k e Z M

p a s t s h a k e s t h e m

a L w W p R c g A A O K T p H I T Z b t

a l l o w s p r a c t i c e

o W Q q u z 6 p x R L E H 0 k 6 r j R 2

q u e s t i o n s w h o l e s c o r e

S U g P D O e 6 S d 3 O o x 9 k D V E q

u n d o e s 3-D d r i v e s

A r j K N h u O 9 L P E v 6 6 q j t z h

k n o w i n g h e l p e d q u i t

0 d K H x L c 1 g 2 h O g K z o V o J N

O K g o n e s o o n

transcription2

d 1 l Y k p 5 4 S f N P A 7 L T 3 m 1 K

l i k e n o p l a c e o f l a t e

J 9 c 6 c q j v 0 j h I E F 6 3 E I h i

j u n g l e h e t e r o p h o n y

Q I V r e P r q 1 g J V T w l f V D 9 N

p r e p a r e s q u a l i t y f i e l d

7 l H 1 t a r u p X H O s S 9 v k F O J

h i t & r u n h u s t le

P D j k d K J o B r I q 9 T T S N Y B J

b r i g h t j o b s t a t i o n

3 4 h 1 G Y N 2 t H T 5 s K b f T w 2 Y

w h i s t l e i n t h e n i g h t

V 6 y d D 3 Y I N x b d I x O F J n l s

y i n y a n g f i n a l e

L 1 O L r b 4 B E 4 g z j 3 U E o e a 6

u p p er l o b e b e c o m e s

n R I z j d G f m C E N N a w u 9 t s p

r i d i n g c e n t e r s t e p

e J 1 B 3 P E B v 1 M 0 m Y K D K r e 7

p r o b a b i l i t y c e r t i f i e d

u V e 4 1 n u Y s J 6 w T H r Z K O 3 7

e v e n i n g n u l l s t h r o w

7 z B i 9 s y 4 t Z X C V H l K m G h m

b u s y s i te c h a n c e a g a i n

h L a 5 w v 9 K W D A B y j Q S z N g 0

l a t e w a v e d a n c e a n d g o

v F g r w q 8 3 7 9 I L W x m E v 6 0 d

f o r w a r d m e t a-m o o d

transcription3

o 1 X a J r 4 G 0 d P H y c u v I M P 4

e x p o r t p h y s i c a l g o d

Y c K 4 A w 0 G G t v j m G W M h v a 5

y a w n i n g w o r l d g e m

r F j o R 2 4 0 X y 5 v g h R k I e x W

f o r m u l a t e c o m p l e x w a v e

E N R d X K U R u R o G W c X z A h Y Y

e n d r o g u e g a l a x y c u r l

z c A c L g Y I q 8 Y 0 m y a F h Y r H

m y o p i c f l a s h c a l a m i t y

q R p O p a c q g F g 6 R x 6 U 0 a D N

o p a q u e r u n n e r b e n d

a 5 n L Z O n E u a z j p N Q E N 0 w E

z o n e i n t h e q u e u e

H y p J R 8 8 q K 6 I k U Y l y R M N 6

h y p n o t i c q u i c k m i n e

7 0 B N G K f S Y x 1 t b X 8 M J o M q

o b v i o u s s y s t e m a t i c

1 J I B O q 1 q V 5 Q 5 I v 6 F K O D X

b o r d e r l i n e q u o t a t i o n

1 j G K P o h d U Q c n T Q P d 7 z f j

g r e e k f o u n d e n t r o p y

q V A Y 2 I t r Q L V v Q 5 V s 3 V P k

w e l l a d v e n t u r e s p e a k s

L Y D g 2 U I 5 Y a C H 5 c H T Z A N h

l e a d l i q u i d c h a n n e l

0 k c Y b R X m x n R i M I 7 J N k V D

b r e a k m i x e d-m i n d k e y

Noise poetics & the open line

2011-06-16T15:25:00.043+08:00

1/ EVERYTHING is noise. that's the fundamental idea. given any item X, it is noise until an item Y arrives to transform it into a relevant and meaningful thing. however, Y in turn needs Z so that Y could be understood and used to convert X into the opposite of noise. but Z also needs the item A, which would need B, which needs C, and so on. thus, at any given moment, any item X is certain only insofar as it is part of a network of other known things.

IF this network is finite, this can only mean that X can become anything else in another network. in short, what is and is not noise is determined by a systemic process, and cannot be named thus without this nominating support. we cannot know what is meaningful and meaningless, what is not and what is noise before this event. if everything is noise, then we lose all ability to identify it. noise, after all, cannot be meaningfully indicated, without that indication becoming the opposite of noise. it is when we begin having difficulty assigning it that it starts to infect everything else. to qualify something as noise means losing its meaning; to identify something as noise is simply to clothe it with a symbolic value. the same thing happens when we make chance; we cannot create that which happens anyway with or without us.

2/ AS a purely non-symbolic gesture, we cannot create noise. noise creates itself. but noise also creates the symbolic, by passing through us, hiding in our anxiety for meaning, and creating a name for itself. disguised more deeply, it succeeds in producing the first language.

AS a symbolic gesture, the production of noise will always court the inescapable binaries. what it produces is both more noise and more language, or both less noise and less language, yet ultimately neither one nor the other. in this scenario, where conscious effort is within and without noise, the best that could be done is to do nothing else except that minimum effort required to get things moving. that is, the goal is simply to keep it moving, more or less, by doing nothing else.

3/ SINCE everything is an echo of the big bang, everything is a part of its movement, everything is a rule. On the surface, Otto Zitko's chaotic network of entangled lines (not without the occasional strange attractor) seems to be going anywhere and nowhere. yet, there is no error, there is no mistake in all this entangled mass. everything is simply an event in all direction. every gesture, every stroke is an affirmation. his extreme "art of the open line" consumes every angle, and exhausts the full energy of the unbounded line. "as calligraphic expressions of non-literal writing" (Herbert Lachmayr), Zitko's lines crisscross the dimensions of both symbolic and non-symbolic noise, avoiding the language of literal writing through the evocation and evolution of the line into something other and greater than itself.

BY dreaming (Klee), the known line becomes at the beginning a meaningless scribbling, or what appears to be symbolic noise. Pursued further along, however, it becomes something more and something else entirely. neither settling as proto-writing nor as symbolic noise (scrawl, the opposite of the legible), la ligne en libre parcours becomes an event in itself, without ceasing to evoke in its wake the shadowy gestures of a proto-writing that dissolves itself as if by being over-written: proto-writing gives way to noise, which gives way to the event.

Otto Zitko : "The art of the open line" -Herbert Lachmayr

See attachments*

2011-06-15T11:48:00.001+08:00

ALGyWaKVAQAASAMAABAACAFkb2NQcm9wcy9hcHAueG1sIKIEASigAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnJPBTuMwEIbvSPsOke/UaUEIVY7RqizisGgrtcDZ60waC8e2PEPU8vTrJApN

F7jg08z8o1+fZ2xxs29s1kJE413B5rOcZeC0L43bFexxe3d+zTIk5UplvYOCHQDZjfxxJtbRB4hk

ALNk4bBgNVFYco66hkbhLMkuKZWPjaKUxh33VWU03Hr92oAjvsjzKw57AldCeR7eDdnguGzpu6al

m0t50Tek4LSxMxhAknCKuDVkAf9UaxXpE+KLKXHPMPAOOJuObz7leyftpcXX0kA6vVU/qMT3H9HK

N0G5g5wJPobit3Ev+Bi2/lYRjFs4LYpNrSKUaXGjfiyI+7SAaDuTVa3cDsqx56PQvZmn4WPI+WKW

p9M/lbEm+PELyH8AAAD//wMAUEsBAi0AFAAGAAgAAAAhAKeV+ZmEAQAAFAYAABMAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAFtDb250ZW50X1R5cGVzXS54bWxQSwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEAtVUwI/UAAABMAgAACwAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAACSAwAAX3JlbHMvLnJlbHNQSwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEA3gn9KAIBAADUAwAAGgAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAB+BgAAeGwvX3JlbHMvd29ya2Jvb2sueG1sLnJlbHNQSwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEA

O70NjGkBAAB/AgAADwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADACAAAeGwvd29ya2Jvb2sueG1sUEsBAi0AFAAGAAgA

AAAhAOmmJbiCBgAAUxsAABMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVgoAAHhsL3RoZW1lL3RoZW1lMS54bWxQSwEC

LQAUAAYACAAAACEAO20yS8EAAABCAQAAIwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJEQAAeGwvd29ya3NoZWV0cy9f

cmVscy9zaGVldDEueG1sLnJlbHNQSwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEAuEpLLRMBAAC3AQAAGAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAALEgAAeGwvd29ya3NoZWV0cy9zaGVldDIueG1sUEsBAi0AFAAGAAgAAAAhALhKSy0TAQAA

twEAABgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVBMAAHhsL3dvcmtzaGVldHMvc2hlZXQzLnhtbFBLAQItABQABgAI

AAAAIQDJ2BQCWQkAAA8tAAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJ0UAAB4bC93b3Jrc2hlZXRzL3NoZWV0MS54

bWxQSwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEAY2laXz0JAAACPgAAFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAsHgAAeGwvc2hhcmVk

10-

U3RyaW5ncy54bWxQSwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEA5flQrjICAABeBwAADQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACbJwAA

eGwvc3R5bGVzLnhtbFBLAQItABQABgAIAAAAIQD9zvTFEwEAAPgDAAAnAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgp

11-

AAB4bC9wcmludGVyU2V0dGluZ3MvcHJpbnRlclNldHRpbmdzMS5iaW5QSwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEA

AGyO7koBAABgAgAAEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABQKwAAZG9jUHJvcHMvY29yZS54bWxQSwECLQAUAAYA

12-

CAAAACEAsbJZopUBAABIAwAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADRLQAAZG9jUHJvcHMvYXBwLnhtbFBLBQYA

AAAADgAOALIDAACcMAAAAAA=

*Please see attached documentation.

figures of speech

2011-06-13T17:34:00.007+08:00

sign out

2011-06-10T18:02:00.019+08:00

sig1

sig2

sig3

Two Notes

2011-06-02T19:09:00.002+08:00

1. Simplicity and complexity are the extreme ends of the world, reiterated on varying levels and scales, so that what is simple from one perspective becomes complex when approached from another. They are not actual opposites, since we all know that complexity can be born from simple conditions, and simplicity can become the outcome of complex processes.

2. Reading begins, and ends, in mystery. In divination, the borderline between language and thing breaks down. Anything has the potential to become a medium and a message. Anything has the potential to be read. However, by going beyond science and beyond art, divination is condemned to suffer the greatest of skepticism and ambiguity. There is no legitimacy in it, since the mixture of subjectivity and accident is the direct opposite of the laws of method and the method of laws. The only interest one can have in it is the way it dissolves the divide between language and non-language, or between the known and the unknown. Where anything has the potential to speak, everything unknown becomes a language, and every language becomes an unknown.

Asemic logos : Curves ahead!

2011-05-31T00:32:00.019+08:00

route11

route22

route33

route44

weather patterns

2011-05-28T12:57:00.013+08:00

Signs are born at the crossroads of accidents, where we happen to be located. Thus, one accident is paired with another, and produces a mysterious narrative made up of more crossroads, ready to be opened.

weather

boat+meteor

orbit

watermark

flight

zodiac

[asemic] landscape

2011-05-25T12:09:00.027+08:00

landscape

Asemic writing is not the simple absence of language, or the opposite of language, or the simple presence of a language that cannot be deciphered.

Whatever is asemic is a dynamic moment where things get divided into 1) the becoming-language of the-language-I-know, 2) the becoming-language of the asemic item into the-language-I-don't-know, and 3) the becoming-non-language of everything else. In this scenario, the process of becoming-non-language may even be seen as the parasitic threat that can transform anything into an asemic item.

Thus, in any analysis of an asemic piece, we just need to look at a three-fold interaction: the 1) foregrounding of the asemic item in the perceptual field, the 2) surrounding linguistic or paralinguistic cues, caption or context, and the 3) supporting non-linguistic or material "environment" of the whole interaction (e.g., ink, monitor, paper, brain, or even earth and sky, all in the process of becoming-non-language: that is, whatever we bracket off from the process of interpretation or translation or even divination). This tactic can be useful in both the consumption and production of [asemic] items.

s.moke.s

2011-05-17T13:52:00.008+08:00

We are always between form and formlessness, not knowing which subsumes which. Sometimes, we come close to something that we feel is speaking to us, a cloud taking shape, something indescribably familiar, like the asemic smoke in this piece, temptingly moving towards a hidden language, like that of fate.

smokin'

accidental signs

2011-05-15T14:50:00.012+08:00

20x20

The illegible is part of the slate where meaning and its negative form the whole spectrum of what we read and cannot read.


re glass Everything is reflection, like a pond. Before vision, there is reflection. All signs are born through a looking glass, where they share space with their direct opposites, matter and anti-matter, testimony to the forces that shape the signs we see, or do not see.

notes for asemic items

2011-05-14T13:49:00.005+08:00

3 major tendencies

1. asemic as COMPOSED - drawn, scribbled, scrawled, typed, outlined, drafted, painted, etc. there is an AUTHORIAL aspect here that i am uneasy about. materials and techniques would also come into play, and the choice to keep things on a material medium or to digitize them as well. this can also include SHORTHAND, or any scriptural item that represents, not meaning, idea, or object, but another language or another sign or symbol. this can be interesting, since the shorthand functions as a form of substitute for another substitute.

2. asemic as FOUND - interesting because it means a semblance of writing is everywhere, and reminds us of the mythic belief in a cosmos, in natural design, in patterns, in a forest of symbols, etc. anything can be (mis)taken for a mysterious language or pattern, as in DIVINATION. from this, i can take pictures of weather beaten walls, copy out hand or skin patterns, trace surfaces on paper, etc. the process is: take a copy of, upload and digitize, modify as necessary. from here on, the logic of reproduction/quotation/dislocation/reterritorialization/reproduction would have added more unknown effects.

3. asemic as what HAPPENS - what may be interesting, far from this dichotomy, is the way anything asemic is processed, and the MATERIAL aspect overtakes both formal and semantic aspects. an example is twisting a newspaper, or crumpling in such a way that the paper distortion renders the prints illegible. see TOPOLOGY and ANAMORPHOSIS. two extreme ideas are at work in this case: transformation and conservation. signs and images are not READ, but are not obliterated. they remain, but become illegible because the material medium that supports them is EMPHASIZED. by undergoing a physical EVENT, the formal and semantic aspects give way, but are not erased. This physical TENSION overwrites semic intention, but remains discernible, that is, as asemic items. digital files are now easily manipulable through editing software, and can be considered as sources of physical tension.

all in all, the key element is the sustenance of the brain's known predilection to hunt for patterns, illusory or not. it is in this intersection between LANGUAGE and NON-LANGUAGE (in their bilateral relation) that we can see the whole dynamics of symbolic energies.

cross/words

2011-05-14T08:49:00.011+08:00

cross/word

exotic particles

2011-05-11T15:19:00.011+08:00


squiggle Signs are almost semi-organic, dividing and joining, moving between life and death, between the strokes that make and unmake them.

xparticles

Colliding and exploding: the process is now fully a physics of encounter and evasion. Language becomes a set of exotic particles in perpetual motion, nameable though unnamable.

In the language of action

2011-05-11T15:07:00.001+08:00

1. In the language of action loading. In the action of language loading. Pause for the analysis of action in the language of action. Pause for the analysis of language in the action of language. Action ongoing, language encoding. Language ongoing, action encoding. The action of language encoding ongoing. The language of action ongoing encoding. Pause for the analysis of action in the encoding. Pause for the analysis of language in the ongoing. The encoding of ongoing language of action in action. The ongoing encoding of the action of language in action. Analysis encoded in action. Analysis encoded in language. Pause for the ongoing encoding of the encoded analysis of the language of action. Pause for the ongoing encoding of the encoded analysis of the action of language.

2. Ongoing action of language on the language of action ongoing encoding. Ongoing action of language on the action of language encoding ongoing. The encoding of the ongoing language of encoding of the language of action in the analysis of the ongoing action of language. The language of the analysis of the encoded language of action in the ongoing action of encoding of the action of language in the action of language encoded. The language of ongoing encoding in the analysis ongoing encoding in the action of the language of action. The action in the language of the encoded language of encoding ongoing analysis in the language of encoded action. Pause for the action of language, pause for the language of action. Pause for the encoded action of ongoing encoding. Pause for the ongoing language of encoding action. The action of language in the language of action encoded. The language of action in the action of language ongoing.

3. The encoded language of action in the ongoing encoding of action ongoing encoding. The encoded action of language in the encoding language of action encoded ongoing. Pause for the analysis of the ongoing action of encoded action in the language of action. Pause for the analysis of the ongoing language of ongoing language in the action of language. The action of encoded action ongoing in the language of action encoded in the action of language. The language of encoded language ongoing in the action of the language encoded in the action of language. The language of the encoded language of the ongoing action of language encoded in the analysis of the language of action ongoing in the encoding of the action of language on the ongoing. The ongoing action of the encoded language of action in the ongoing language of action encoded in the action of the ongoing action of encoding the language of action ongoing encoding in the language of action.

4. Pause for the action of encoding the analysis of the ongoing encoding of the analysis of the encoded language of action ongoing in the action of language ongoing encoding in the action of ongoing language of encoding. Pause for the language of the encoded analysis of the ongoing encoding of the action of the encoding of the analysis of the action of the ongoing encoding of action in the analysis of ongoing action of encoding. In the action of encoding the language of action encoded in the action of the ongoing encoding of the language of action in the ongoing language of the analysis of language ongoing in the action of language encoded in the encoding action of language ongoing analysis in the action of the language of action. In the action of the encoded language of the ongoing encoded action of the language of ongoing language ongoing the encoding of the analysis of the ongoing analysis of the encoding of the action of the language of action encoded in the language of the ongoing encoding of the language of the ongoing action encoded in the action of ongoing language encoding the action of language in the language of action. In the action of the language encoding the action of ongoing action of language encoded in the language of language encoded in the ongoing action of action encoding in the language of language ongoing in the encoded action of the language of action.

5. Pause for the analysis of action. Pause for the analysis of language. Pause for the analysis of encoded action. Pause for the analysis of the ongoing encoding. Pause for the analysis of the encoded action of language. Pause for the analysis of the action of encoding. Pause for the analysis of ongoing action. Pause for the analysis of the encoded analysis of language. Pause for the analysis of the encoded analysis of the ongoing action of language. Pause for the analysis of the encoded action of the analysis of the language of action ongoing in action. Pause for the analysis of the action of language on the analysis of the action of the ongoing encoding of the action of language on the language of action. Pause for the analysis of the language of the language of action encoded in the action of language on the analysis of encoding. Pause of the ongoing analysis in the language of action loading…

asides

2011-05-08T14:59:00.012+08:00

1 we are sometimes tempted to say something.

2    the wind picks up, you tell yourself, even if there’s no reason.

3 but is going everything?

4    to translate without waking up-

5    what do you have in a day?

6    the bridge that unites idea and practice in your map of silence-

7    if you have to choose between clouds and houses-

8    you are always on a mythic ride-

9    to be at the beginning of a question-

10   to mix irony in the morning

11 to act between dream and forgetting

12   breathing before speaking -

13 memory and mornings like desire and absence-

14   this skill, this day, this hand -

15   as if a word listens to another -

16   to go as if we can count on the idea to come

17 the word and the marvelous no longer know one another

18 an old word, and you in time-

19 thus did form finally ruin me-

20   this, or the fantastic-

21 all styles weigh heavy.

Many points around a letter

2011-05-04T03:35:00.002+08:00

Many points around a letter

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Notes for a letter, 2

2011-05-02T15:14:00.013+08:00

the creation of texts require
a system of writing, with a defined set of signs
a material medium or base (paper, ink, disks, etc.)
a tool or implement (printing machines, pen, typewriter, keyboard, etc)

the creation of meaningful texts require, apart from the items above,
a community of readers who share, to different extents, systems of writing AND
systems of reading.

texts have different levels of elaboration:
the basic string is a simple performance, using the basic encoding procedures of the system. let's call this level I elaboration.
Level II elaboration compounds the first by hyper-coding, that is creating secondary codes that accommodate poly-semantic reading.

Level I can be described by a metalanguage, as linguistics or semiology.
Level II can be described by a metalanguage, as rhetorics or criticism or hermeneutics.
Level III arises as meta-coding, as level II elaborations read through as codes.

what do we call the elaboration of reading level I? Grammatical competence?
what do we call the elaboration of reading level II? Literacy?
what do we call the elaboration of reading level III? as Meta-literacy?
what do we call the meeting of this complex with other systems of signs? Multi-media, Poly-semiotic art, Post-literacy, Hypertext, Intermedia?

what do we call the foregrounding of these levels and the procedures that they use?
SCRIPTURAL FANTASY. several approaches can be done in relation: parodic summaries, materialist immanence, minimalist scripts, proto-lexemic bindings, paragraphic exercises, etc. it can be technical, mechanical, intuitive, complex, reductionist, calculating, simplistic, caricaturist, etc. as exercises, some may fall, some may survive.

what is in the agenda? it is difficult to be argumentative without any DECLARATIVE slipping in. the language of intents and results is difficult in theory and practice. but we can always dramatize this fantasy, with all the implied VERTIGO of the exercise in METAPHORICAL ASSERTIONS (in various ways).

briefly: SUMMARY of scriptural fantasies or logics; REDUCTION to an immanent material & "literal" base; DISRUPTION of allegoric energies; and, REPETITION as core dynamic. plus, a little humor isn't so bad.

Notes for a letter

2011-05-01T12:23:00.023+08:00

the LETTER is an argumentative base, not necessarily any specific letter, but the notion of letterness, i.e., SCRIPT. its ALLEGORIC richness as a term is an afterthought that accompanies the MATERIAL base. at one point its foregrounding would also be called upon. at any rate, whatever it is, the letter is simply a scriptural FANTASY at work, summoned by the scriptural act. we do not say it exists or not; merely, that it is part of what goes on in that act.

the TITLE cannot be a full DECLARATIVE. the TITLE does not present an OBJECT formed, but an iconic exercise in RECONNAISSANCE, that is, a pseudo-declarative. (and what is the real status of a pseudo-declarative if it can even be made?)

the allegoric echo is the hermeneutic wing of the SYMBOLIZING ENERGIES of scripts. this aspect is what we consider as a sort of epiphenomenon, but of what, we cannot say definitely. the relationship of CAUSE and EFFECT, what is primary or secondary, is always in flux.

in this case, the phrase "the letter as base" of this exercise is definitely a METAPHORICAL ASSERTION, already assuming the arrival of a positive form demanding immediate interpretation or reconnaissance: THIS as THAT, recognition as/and repetition.

(thus, the TITLE is of the same status. as a metaphorical assertion, it awaits its second term indefinitely. we can then add that a pseudo-declarative, too, is a metaphorical assertion, without a second term, which in this case would be the BODY of the TEXT under it. or, this second part is in a slippery slope. a metaphorical assertion simply mentions the notion of something, without committing itself to the real status of that something: indefiniteness.)

we can always dive further down, into asemic writing exercises, into the dawn of morphemes, but this would only drag the question into a different level. it would still require that we assume what is BEFORE and AFTER a reconnaissance.

the arrival of WORD, OBJECT, LINE, POINT: always in suspension, since they are what is essentially a question of.

the LINKAGES in SPACE or TIME are also a part of the question. as the attempt becomes more complicated, their roles would also be in the foreground. IMAGE and OBJECT are the same thing as far as this exercise is concerned.

the visual aspect is a frivolous but necessary part of this exercise. DESIGN and SYMMETRY are conserved, not because there is BELIEF in their virtues, but that scriptural logics value them as eventual outcome, even though ENTROPY and NEGENTROPY are relativistic concepts. In the end, both Chance and Order are very difficult to reproduce.

as SUMMARIES (caricature) of scriptural logics: the current pieces attempt a simplistic (parodic) material immanence to undercut hermeneutical forces that sustain these SCRIPTURAL FANTASIES. further complications could employ other procedures to broaden this exercise in the next stages.

two letters, etc.

2011-05-01T10:26:00.014+08:00

two letters, etc.

a s as a s as a s as a s as a s as a s as a
a s as a s as a s as a s as a s as a s as a
a s as a s as a s as a s as a s as a s as a
a s as a s as a s as a s as a s as a s as a
a s as a s as a s as a s as a s as a s as a
a s as a s as a s as a s as a s as a s as a
a s as a s as a s as a s as a s as a s as a
a s as a s as a s as a s as a s as a s as a
a s as a s as a s as a s as a s as a s as a
a s as a s as a s as a s as a s as a s as a
a s as a s as a s as a s as a s as a s as a
a s as a s as a s as a s as a s as a s as a

a s as a s as a s as a s as a s as a s as a
a s as a s as a s as a s as a s as a s as a

A letter around a point

2011-04-29T14:09:00.017+08:00

A letter around a point

aaa

aaaa

aaaaa

aaaaaa

aaaaaaa

aaaaaaaa

aaaaaaaaa

aaaaaaaaaa

aaaaaaaaaaa

aaaaaaaaaaaa

aaaaaaaaaaaaa

aaaaaaaaaaaaaa

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

aaaaaaaaaaaaaa

aaaaaaaaaaaaa

aaaaaaaaaaaa

aaaaaaaaaaa

aaaaaaaaaa

aaaaaaaaa

aaaaaaaa

aaaaaaa

aaaaaa

aaaaa

aaaa

aaa

Short lines around a point

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A short letter around an object

sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

ssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssss

sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

A point joining a letter in an object

Frivolous parts in a point

mirrormirrormirrormirrormirrormirrormirror

Inevitable parts around an object

againagainagainagainagainagainagainagainagain

Two letters in an object forming two lines

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

A list of points in suspension

:: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

?context, 3

2011-04-21T16:54:00.017+08:00

An old word, and you in time...

It is amazing how much we outgrow ideas and the words or phrases that carry them. Even in that first sentence, the bucket metaphor of form/content, although still used for convenience, is necessarily placed in relief. Every moment we bask in metaphor, just like now. We move with a roomful of words whizzing about. We drop some, we pick some.

What happens when the dimension we carry in our pocket of words shrinks to an imperceptible point? What do we call this minuscule haze where the glossy metaphysics of our lives sinks to an unbreakable poverty? What verbal misery can voice its plight, if metaphor is suspect, if imagery is obscene, and rhetoric too flamboyant?

Beyond the dissolution of syntax and grammars, do we move on to illiterate glyphs, doodled scrawls, or graphic mosaics? Do we return to pure rhythms and noise, to kinetic objects and brute materials?

Or do we imagine completely a new matter or mass, airy notions and pure concepts without borders, or impenetrable private languages and codes?

Or do we just fold into silence, or structure everything around contradiction, oxymoron, or untenable imaginary solutions? Or do we fly into islands of instabilities, full of fairy-doings popping in and out, into a patchy quantum ride?

Or do we produce doubles of everything (the genius of simulacra, replica, and duplicates), repeating the current idea of the recession of the Real, celebrating the miraculous logic of pure quotation, surfing through models and paradigms without fidelity?

We must make our choice some time. Or it is made for us. If any of that makes sense, or if there is any difference. Or if we can hold on to our words.

small stone

2011-04-13T14:44:00.007+08:00

Assume this is indeed a stone set apart from all others. (Lawrence Fixel)

Imagine you’re holding a small stone in your hand. Imagination being fertile, you start having some thoughts. You come up with the following.

Like this small stone in the hand

holding secrets, you imagine

just a cold object, uselessly

lying around, this faceless sea.

You hesitate about those commas, and the capital letter at the beginning, and the period at the end, elements that contribute to the idea that this is a sentence, which is true, and have the advantage of suggesting circularity and closure. But you want to replicate the act of imagining, and the kind of ambiguities it creates, for your reader, and to put the reader in the same bind that you find yourself in. So you do away with the comma, and relax the bond of syntax by putting spaces around the lines. Thus,

Like this small stone in the hand

holding secrets you imagine

just a cold object uselessly

lying around this faceless sea.

Not content, feeling the syntax is still too strong that the ambiguities you wanted might not come off very well, you decide to get rid of this line altogether, and say:

Like this

small stone

in the hand

holding secrets

you imagine

just a cold object

uselessly

lying around

this faceless sea.

You also think of running a permutation of this series to dramatize the irresolvable dialectic you were imagining, pushing the eye around so that it won’t settle in a fulcrum, or find an Archimedean point of reading. However, this is feeding everything to the fish, and it would have been probably better to let the syntax of a first glance dominate, and hope that succeeding glances would loosen the bonds, but at the same time, entrap the eye deeper and deeper into the Endless Bind, with or without the presence of syntax. (Or, probably it’s even enough just to say, “This faceless sea.”)

At any rate, that’s how you imagine it would be like.

the game

2011-04-11T23:03:00.009+08:00

     -Before you shoot, sir, could you please provide me the courtesy of an explanation, so that when I finally breathe my last, I would at least carry in the dying light the mysterious reason for this fatal event.

     The other in the mask paused before pulling the trigger, amazed at the ludicrous language his target was still capable of in the end. In his mind he was telling him, in his mind he was addressing him, but it was too late to put in a phrase when reflex is racing over reflection:

     -Your game had changed me forever. The worm under the stone you said, after I turned the stone over, I saw nothing but dark, dank earth. Nothing but dark, dank earth.

?context, 2

2011-04-10T08:53:00.011+08:00

"I've come to the conclusion that it's very hard to write a gesture completely devoid of meaning or to write a gesture that's completely filled with meaning." -- Michael Jacobson, asemic artist

This tension between meaningfulness and meaninglessness probably defines what language is all about. It is like being caught in the middle of two opposing traffic. This is not so different from the concept of reason. If you insist too much on the rationality of an idea, you will end up being irrational. Voltaire's Candide is a very good illustration. Humor, too, can easily degenerate into other things without a certain balancing act.

It is not, however, a simple binarism. If you move beyond a certain point towards one end, you will find yourself at the other end, and so on. Thus, what we actually have is an endless swing toward both ends, never really defining for us the pure state of meaningfulness and meaninglessness.

These two terms are not axiomatic givens, as if we knew what they were ahead of time. In any process that involves scripts, images, symbols, or signs, that is, any language game, everything seems to be moving by positing positive and negative values, or units and gaps, along the way. It is as if the very act of walking was creating the road itself, instead of walking over a prior constructed path. Each action creates its own space, or weaves its own path, instantaneously assigning poles of meaningfulness and meaninglessness as constitutive horizons that do not have absolute positions, nor absolute values.

The uncertainty of the real value of these poles even renders them mysterious. It is for a system or a game to decide which is which to set itself up. When that happens, a certain threshold is reached. Everything solidifies into a dogma, and becomes too signifying, too obvious. What was previously dismissed as meaningless starts making more sense.

What is interesting, from the point of view of literature, is to see many texts that play on these tensions through the use of different techniques (Ray di Palma's super-efficient syntax, for example, or Peter Ganick's voiceless, subjectless, objectless flux).

extract, 2

2011-04-08T23:06:00.011+08:00

supported based on gradual allotropic
remote deniable adverbial stimuli
single barred other assortment

initial headcount film transaction
triple section of repetitive complex
processions dictate filial status

convey all occlusion max
ration recalling dispelled ejecta
basic lent boundary advice

limits failure of blanket proponent
summation pin altered nominated
station noeta over surface

anaphoric wear a potential sealant
detection emotive appeal essence
retains active set direction

adding imaginary control of terminal delay
ending descent into split range
sampling operations pass unity

demand leading to solely patterned
tendency end register possessive
motions trading attention spills

...

?context, 1

2011-04-06T15:26:00.022+08:00

It is not easy to speak too generally, without referring to particular pieces as examples. Then again, the example is not easy to explain in terms of an obvious proof or evidence or as a paradigm, as if there was an easy bridge between the explication and the object so-called being explained. It is a tricky dance, and pursuing it in itself can become an objective illusion.

To simplify to a ridiculous level, to write something is first of all to raise a question, fundamental perhaps, on the nature of relationships with scripts.

The working relationship that I pretend to project is not towards the exemplification or creation of semantic, aesthetic or scriptural models. The organic phantasm I would like to deploy--if vertigo can be paused, involves the temporal suspension of knowing that I am pretending, so that something could arise: scripted or not, marginal or central, in letter or in spirit. Whatever arrives, it would carry traits that destabilize so many times that--far from leading to a thematics or a message--would seem to take on these very functions by default: short-circuited, delayed, suspended, lost, blocked, interrupted, altered, rerouted, split, disrupted, etc.

Definitely, or maybe definitely, one procedure cannot be used forever; that is, it can only be pursued so long, since it would eventually satisfy its own stylistic inertia, even if it may be torn within by its own syntactic and logical contradictions. One solution can delay this by inserting a circle of instability into a bigger circle of instability.

At any rate, that can probably sum up the whole idea of contexts for me.

Indeed, it has become a big question why a text like that needs to be produced at all, when we have so many approaches already around explored by many brilliant individuals, some subsumed under "nonlinear" writing, an idea which in itself is not a given, but another question. (Or, any idea is already a question.)

So there you go: to make these texts is probably closer to a form of asking a question, than to a form of giving an answer, or an example. It is not so different from asking What is a human being? or What is love? and getting tragedy or sonnets.

Finally, if you ask me what a text is, then probably you would hear something like: at the moment we don't know what it is, sorry. But are you any better asking what time it is?

...

extract, 1

2011-03-21T15:28:00.041+08:00

dominant order input if impression
dilation behind arrived before totality
at the counter external directive risk

tiny emitting a sequence background
secure bypass preview turn out panel
further provided by time with emphasis

correlate assumptions before process
bisect redundant overlay transfer
obvious upper chances beyond simple

installed organized brevity periodic angle
returns negation media decision quickly
by many estuary radiating effacement

invalidate operation superstition field
surplus together with potent legend
barely begun notation expenditure spike

companion secondary delay induced
elevation terminal passing of mass-form
precedent terms ordinate recovery

inside involve junction creating where
inspire the moment obvious property
inquisitive pushes implicit cycle

determinate bulk inclusion assembly
attraction of undeniable employ delivery
extended measure chemical prowess

...

comic tension

2011-02-09T00:10:00.009+08:00

Comedy that exploits physical traits is often the lowest type of humor, and probably has mythic roots (Odysseus as beggar). The twin faults of physical deformity and economic misery combine to highlight the divisive valuations of a master class.

Character and personality satires, caricatures, or spoofs are less physically oriented humor, and could be seen as trademarks of a different, more socialized, or politically-conscious groups. A moral or philosophical dimension is added, but still hinting at ideals that have not been properly met.

Situational comedy has ancient roots too, and exploits the malentendu, confusion, or mix-ups resulting from accidents beyond human control. It may not be hard to say that absurdist comedy has roots here, although with this type, any master context allowing the comedy to be defined is already missing. Thus, any discussion of "roots" becomes misplaced here...

The first represents the breakdown of a cosmic order (reversals); the second one can only point out the impossibility to identify a point where that is possible. The baseline, in fact, is a kind of metaphysics of poverty, but which is haunted by the echo of order, meaning and language. This is why the play of language, and its tendency to break down, dramatizes this irreparable tension.

from E ME R G E

2010-11-26T14:50:00.011+08:00

1.

re surg bcut ap lied jdble supre s whe thne wa s xncow sp ace sj do 'd rht yh tym a sit xte na wor sais misin ss nhwre dowan to s ay is no xzlc9nger the imxportant cxisnot soaspoekansd xtehw xiage ana teha abraIN EMERGE whernxc webcvr fdkwhere' aurnsut emagyx mdsimna wja w szthe s ncjhfirst ft6he frees doemx wof due xpre's, doesjnt xrr4 wklsdttr intbeuezxust hwAt does 'i s wuyquestxifonsd blrtue amattr azkls ydoxooms abnf xtwe xhit xbdlindly

sdjsiow aksowemwhe rnaqhwe wajhsjut want toc spkoe ak gathatw sis tehe powe rv o f zhumnan voic erisnksb statcic thioug dif the w'hole sworlr spek sthere is ioene unvierseal' noisneixbd withcout pausnhe sna dinterliigi bilityr5 is uijuyst ione corbner skamml and insignifuicna twhile in eth wjilr of spave what sui is a apair iof yeyeys in this wiulkd abandon of cofocers btut nothing wbwhe noi she that the reali ids aparahysitioc a ndis eof numnbers infinuite thatb wiould b somwher inty e eh c being lighjt

pinprtnerpetsual viljunme of what ebvueew th e cry fiofd wbir ds pile sna dlp[iol;es sof unknwopn historuiesm, athe abnrrativ is lopst forvrer beuycuiaghset ethe rea;l is smore power no dialoguie can exist,. hea rnmopr e or Spewka
nio m,or

2.

catsprophic trets hwenthe deisre to spejkak com gainyet the confli tin sethe imagin conrtinue withj sbnajc and forthj sodnmahs i cna cl;ALE aidelanc e hgwhen the ner to comuunuicta re najrie s hwre bcna wehe xdya there is a c0rect form to the kfoplwwiong whebn every kloment is al;wys the absenc eof thjew othewr thios abnsne cis veryu appeklauinmg, iot is simil;ar

t to tghedarkmnaterrre thgat surrounds sus acor dinmt ot tyhe mew physic s or the viryftual prtiocl;es that split intomygriad of unknown unv89er snbe s' there, thre si afinally am,etaphot thtyaswuuerz esouto fthi smorasssnejre thta di maintain as if there is a straigfnt,ineyto my thiug wwhat doctrin tsudfpoidut isthisssame wya nthe hands is directede,the rdierctiin ioprofoun abnd the beghinnuinbg o flla s3nse nd sym 'metryuthe loquACVIOUSspacve of our

entendment ebrer splitting the ghopstyl;yt odf dsmapea rtio into hwihc comeanmf andf gajnthe ancixyerty of our th ejets inters e ction of attanetiin ansd ink as figm,emnt ofd synnmboliodv cpiurpio ands rver widening horison s iof diferen is never ever the snme we e seeor is it hwhat w insacved byt the golis vbby gffar fthe s erahching panels abrudply natter

3.

emeotiaojnmeauduyre fi n teh distdna c e lkcm,ersoemluibe far nor lir enaprettyybuirhdj clenan alndacape eteh eoldmempo rie sra rther tingesojf lr lytocvcal sterubbporbnmeotrions thatr dontrbdfade acway even ewith tghew enf of anagew, buit ethin dfgas hav e acvchabnfge hwredowe ojkfokr tewpoerns tro duya ibnvcas e likew thse alk dfar dna fnognenabdfrhwt wetyepeor sya is alrqayd on adiff epal;asne quotiodikejn abdn ev rytday in suchas a dhuge worl;d what

bringsus enera bneyind the c omnfort of signs moving acdtrood thjew abys s tipof time, easio er to prregewnd to nklsdnsaYfor weno lomn gher know bui fo r whom, we stillstri mnmg sisgns sya snmtrhn gtakensdi m mediatel lyn awwy by an iron8ic gewtureew wher we dmn ewuy fit5 athe adsuirANCEOF ag hideemneline- thdta wemistake
ad souyrs

4.

tenmpete to etell syryiofrf dbrv av ry pfb eauJTRYi ten ost incpjkdfrousi of p,lvcesd ofg a fully fdfrers edup l;ady pearls an d earirign s, espen siv e-lolokin g cliothes that don t dnolt matc h the cntgext, loike a peazrtl in tdfras sh wjhere all tejhnrehectsdrrems of b e comi ng peralrs and so the flesdh rsewists and histgrory resuststhi soutlandish]sdis olaybyth excesdo fin ery

ab ov es bth eordinaryhthne nsysvbnoklthi sbhsin y momenhtary formin all its sbestb colordf cdeb fying 89ikmtmeand placve issthe last reb elious egbstggure incarv vbatgerd in the TEW NSNIONodftyhn en sggbestiojnofthe beayhtujtiful ibn etheabsebnc ewimposisjhnbiliotuy o tiots ewxuistenmceansd e emertgingout fofnowher alikra poiece4of mucisinthe werongplcae

5.

sm,ew trin tany moment av ctually st qurnstiin u ajed ur skelf i shwn doe s] the form youn dbcxuhposekn start feelijng sartificnal;iu?. it i sporbbnably amewnaingl;ewbs duqesut fojbh to adfk sine whazta isd st5he rihg t ans wrt/.
/.? trijmn th wmotiko mn fom t5fhches e4dtgewxt athaT tyry tpo keewpmhuid eendbmergv9ivjg thn emn wor subje3dcdft6

olkdhabiotys r realyuyyhard to leave===tt5he tpowr tfom fmeanibn yu re dctrunsestogetjhr with t5ghe ifronysaggaijnst5a form be gun whatstubbornm,ebns tox persisadtsd to miovbeiojn a medium wthat winsd theru the c OERRIDPORsofspavfce toijeme abnd syawhat wewuodujustat nin an invisaubewple tunr] unsa6y

6.

OPNBE AIDCOSURS WHOE SNETWORKSSEEMS UNCERTAINNECLEBCT ISTHE FIRSTORCFERJ of the dyahfd cbabdsu asethe retepct for the dkuebs conbtinuesuke amdiaeadejwfrreythe intrhe end rthe boardm,imluts theplay it insuylts theintelignecethus tolayout a scaramb;leofg lettrsfas ifthewholegtthighasvaluesatriukeitoiuta bdiwhtwhatgratpoainethewhole thibgswnats tobe wfrritefyscvnb itbiossimp,e angetpro bablyv taht

impesthuis nothing bhyta thewayheard endkessantinonmyof meaningandfitsother \ laidbdownonthe trable oflanguafge wjereit has not right even tofbbeibn g ma bnifestedhtis waty wecry forn structure rpeos esesyjemovemenztssthat wedeeplydisentbaglsosuroyjrm ovementsa from i i i i i i i i i
i i i
i.

7.

helogficn of ths striggle agasinsthis'shuge consahciouslinsdis balsnc etbdya bnotrherironic stancethatnegatesthisreis tanceeahcpsiralijnginto a whirlijg offeri g nand retrcation axcjnowklefemn bet and denikaltha knbiow shrno restringpoint y becausewemustswemust spbeheard

in a slansguage wekneowand toanother wekniow adoubleknowijngor atripleknowing with ther objectgor subject inbmind crissvoerisusubn g our pathslike anancientliverthat we wnmatgbt ofoloow of hanf on to fporvenr alibgerin gshiny7 wprtnd aboutoot APEARahsini9n gobjenctopfg dez8tre resyst to bi tsoew hwo we cannto tlaooow to fordt6hesi sp[e, ak8n g,andf what is this brignb tkov bejctrct dpouin in the midde;leofgth eunknsown rivalsth sune

8.

tmz;vcppporwwpw ld smtehn begnn ng fog ethen wor l d arisisng out dofnoise- ASIF TEHWCP,IMNG AND GOJING OF EARSDTHISMAROSDUDNDIT- perfectluy trhtis on g iftres ofdf

INSERTS

2010-07-14T19:49:00.007+08:00

(partial text)

* exceedingly glorious Ursprache (INSERT IMAGE) surpassing (INSERT IDEA) the notable whip of jocular mythos (INSERT INTENSIFIER) of arranged thoughts (INSERT THESIS) here and now=danger withheld simultaneously beginning;

* unless the best known among easily (INSERT SYNTAX) deploy tempting (INSERT INFERENCE) if any as unseeingly however unavailable inside all (INSERT RHYME) towards (INSERT MOMENTUM);

*a divider changing hacked dominion corollary (INSERT LINE) jump jacket mismatch (INSERT THEME) knocking- humus bust (INSERT CONJUGATION) negated niceties teach lavatorial dizz ditch acorn;

* nocturne apparel- instrumentation (INSERT NOMINALS) joint package surety bondage (INSERT EMOTION) sum done- uber performant hole uppity (INSERT ORDER) chunk - at instantaneous;

*coroner gamut cigar (INSERT ENJAMBEMENT) zero allotropy (INSERT PAUSE) ion plane poorish applicable- seethe token- keeper toss nut per (INSERT CHANCE) net profit thankfully;

*nuke (INSERT INCEPTION) avocat oratory cheap motel (INSERT FILM) opera entomologic seie=sme too precisionary dumpty jimbal (INSERT CLARIFICATION) ok severance in toto suppositional anthem;

*exhalation coating fits (INSERT NARRATION) evidence inlighting choosiness (INSERT SUBJECT) blopper parrricitical my hands oh! (INSERT DRAMA) occlusion- amateur blah blah! oohhhhhhh;

*pre=taxed offering just distiche (INSERT SUPPRESSION) similarly ads polish nematode (INSERT ASSOCIATION) whenever sanitary none door (INSERT RULE) + & at techie garnish toupee;

*luster chink pie, (INSERT CONSISTENCY) as evolutive as nouvelle section (INSERT MODIFIER)---- kit analogic unabashed longuish parry next coloric love-energy liquifi—(INSERT AFFIX) welcome ingenious--upscaled;

*atopic in neat progression (INSERT EXEMPLA) as does the superb petal front attaché denature (INSERT POESY) hush hush divinizing acronyms off cyclophone (INSERT DEFINITION) rapport chic turbographic news marsh-wide;

*c’mon (INSERT DIALOGUE) abrupt- on hill toes a-play evrplastered allusion (INSERT REFERENCE) flyby orbital power of three (INSERT TELOS) targeted instance filling up compounds ici et là;

* resisting (INSERT ARGUMENT) turning tones (INSERT ALLITERATION) popped soulful call non- summons since micro-fissure controlling (INSERT THEORY) a sudden toll hidden (INSERT OBJECT) install prone;

*acquisition via (INSERT MNEMONIC) per head by populous sync tab (INSERT FILE) readied arm check bottled adjusted sereendeepitously (INSERT ANALYSIS) bypass morphemic waggle zipped today and never;

*murderific clown piece downtime boom (INSERT CONTINUITY) axes pointiloosely jointed paste and wax job (INSERT DIALECTIC) supra addendummized calamity wheezeful demarcation (INSERT CATACHRESIS) billowing crasscas;

*fully pledged as ifs logic-massive pendicitis bellycosal sophistricated (INSERT HIERARCHY) tachogenetic in medias res allowance zodiacal incisive para=b (INSERT FALLACY) ifthereism minuscule dim inert-(INSERT CYCLE) all-encompassing;

*chemically-inducted applied (INSERT LYRICISM) generous pal of the year= profiled combustion of barred musings (INSERT MODULATION) perfusings malleable catapult unconscious apartés alliance;

*polar enhancements imagic co-partnership (INSERT AGONICS) testy oh lalas à cotë (INSERT TRANSLATION) imbibe Konstruct gyrescoped sidelances pediagrammic atomos (INSERT THEMATIC) breathfully awareness;

*absent divinities (INSERT THEOPHANY) apportioned à poil gleefully infinitisimme of fine-tuned dyes (INSERT AESTHETICS) chokeful énoncés ramassés (INSERT MORPHEME) reaction joyously fabric=;

*and of course! (INSERT FACT) canned in between solarified evidential verrifical commerce (INSERT DISCOURSE) ambi-garrolous median (INSERT SYMBOL) à la cantonnade favors submarina mix-up;

*internalizations mishaps (INSERT UNITY) a-gap switch fire=hose concourse (INSERT EGO) juxta-positionalities solidly dramatis pers- (INSERT SENDER) pectiva ad absurdum pill me-trified;

*commandeer a == k breakthrough-t (INSERT COPULA) finally pronounce ja ja (INSERT OPPOSITION) chimeric my response ability whoah!! nascent pubiscientifisimme in due eurekas (INSERT VOICE) dear to biospheric noeta=1;

*unicities Abcdefg-ed filtration (INSERT SPEECH) nebulosizing versalized One-necessititis Onto (my brontosaurs) guffaw naw (INSERT EULOGY) addressed at=centrified bre- (INSERT STATIC) has taken away sheeshfully;

*object=floaters sur-deluge tropo-true (INSERT AXIOM) effervescent broad daylighfulliness (INSERT NOUN) emerges grandiose rounded off tempo whiskiosque amen-ities (INSERT PLOT) in sequentia Ever-and-After;

*magnificent probation (INSERT BELIEF) as established deed commonplace attract (INSERT SEQUENCE) flexible methods in vacuum of big=bangs tome (INSERT SYSTEM) feelable today as jesterday sic;

*insert! in sert à rien (INSERT ORGANISM) cur-rent this- signify zoomed-in place in the next (INSERT DEVELOPMENT) passage hired we did= next to be folded into it is=(INSERT SEMEME) synthèse field boost=ified;

*hence (INSERT MESSSAGE) dominion tower carry-over summa distilled non-porous (INSERT MATTER) sub-weightless accretion crew spread-out euphonies compositional (INSERT INTERPRETANT) =absorbable dietetic crowd;

*(INSERT DEVICE) heave serie-fied actant per density (INSERT TAUTOLOGY) a (!)a = emportentous half-obliterated (INSERT PATHOS) cratylian inventologies-in returns Summit of Oneology: phzzt;

*portable seems (INSERT VOULOIR-DIRE) incarcer –bate blobberdome piste arche-pellative foamer beta-gone (INSERT FANTASM) doorways heronome party albeit conceit topogram (INSERT PHRASE SET) illimité;

*vehicular homo-loquy bordello (INSERT MIRROR) chat-spiel siege para-graphein (INSERT OUTLINE) interspersal hors d’oeuvres star-line (INSERT REPLICA) trans-morpheus;

*(INSERT ALLUSION) settle lagged-worthiness (INSERT PASSION) rêveur (INSERT TITLE) sanction potentate plein wunderkind gré à gré bilateral semiosis foundry isn’t (INSERT VERB) echo- ;

*chronic (INSERT LE-MOT-JUSTE) relative surprendre additive simulacra (INSERT IMPRESSION) collide- sample of unsaid (INSERT CLARITY) parity delta break wall tip eye-cube alpha;

*etymon index pourriture (INSERT CONTEXT) illuminator support up-surge (INSERT STREAM) chopper slide-th = comicosmic as echo innervating (INSERT MIND) contrast-wise subtracted chill ergo;

*forte-mustering inspire e-masculatory ethos (INSERT PATTERN) other malentendu squeezy-box caution pool (INSERT SUPER EGO) tactfully bref initials foamizates (INSERT VALUE) dragger tap nexity alter;

*actualization pic-poker boreal maxi mammal soporificial (INSERT CHARACTER) maroonery zoomerang jekyl-tower (INSERT LEXEME) assimilate pantomime chorus bus (INSERT HISTORY) interrogue cutlery for=;

*bifocals jeez-banded accolade (INSERT MOTIF) septic indivisible catharsis smoking à table (INSERT PERSONA) extending scriptural energies border fantasmic regulator criss-cross anecdotal parlance with schematic edits;

*il est dans la rue criant, à partir de on-ne-sait-quoi (INSERT REASON) linkage harbor sound epistemockeries blasting (INSERT DECORUM) effffy multi-media decentric (INSERT CATEGORIES) attention stereo-scopic parasituations ;

*imaginary return vagabond tracked (INSERT TIME) collapse run-mill steppe derogatory null-brace (INSERT ART) ostheorized fin de reveal - ! jaundice sit there paragraph tonic missed bunker top rock slavish coutume de-;

*whorl noise inkling toast crack (INSERT HEURISTIC) topple gown yonder sitcom seen (INSERT PATTERN) occlusive type umbral race to end contest latinations irradiated traps horizon termi—gibber-if-possible;

* obtrusive meta-manouvre (INSERT DÉNOUEMENT) per allotment core increment qua (INSERT METAPHOR) et al, this sender repertoire amongst à la recherche = (INSERT STANZA) negentropic subtuitary agenda xyz’s……. ;

*edit supra-blotted noted icon (INSERT MOVEMENT) zipped airiness dampen faraway notion tri-rectified window vis-à-vis (INSERT RHETORIC) partnered verbo-ontic fineries jack-duck festooned minutely apart;

* incarnate track of- simplest =(INSERT FORM) da-dum-dum equatic demagoguery chunk syrup influence (INSERT METER) torsion gigantesque trace drifting centrifugal potshots within summary altos! ebb;

*poke wheel dreamery- sited inverts offer likely postulate (INSERT TYPES) block thanatos stick posterior ablative turn governing keel (INSERT ETHOS) further spread what technical opportunism in signal red fallout;

*space ah== (INSERT QUOTATION) compact iterate disuniting trickery several string along endless appall mention ring (INSERT FICTION) tenderastic anonyme à la fois blast H = givens histrionic-cities thwart uploaded coma;

*signature check (INSERT RESEMBLANCE) overwrite pax dispel nothingness text-actual necropolis inter alia concerto per grammaphonies perturbational orbit mania supra-sending ovolutive cadence (INSERT BODY);

*ad astra communiqués (INSERT GRAMMAR) potentiated anachronymous (INSERT MEDIA) perennial annex didac=tonic ambulation fit-rified stops ergoes (INSERT ALLEGORY) supple nix durative best ce n’est plus possible seconded as;

*periphrastic Doppler-wise (INSERT RECOGNITION) estuary retro-nomic tar in=carta (INSERT NARRATOR) whizzz must octometrics per screenies annotate (INSERT PERSPECTIVE) amalgam iterate cancellation blip noted and patched=;

*per mishap donnés (INSERT COHESION) starring resigned jam banging sip-thru supra-aggregorical mutation (INSERT NEOLOGISM) end-swiping a colon dissipant partial reflect ray forking demand surface tension;

*pull-over task hypno-complexity (INSERT MODERNISM) beyond roman à cliff = decanter torso albeit geographic bloated sublime, - ellipse (INSERT CONFLICT) attracting parallel external= ubi sunts;

*sync rigor incline (INSERT QUESTION) dispersal effacing steno-efficiency vector (INSERT SUBSTANCE) square transfer excitable haphazard on numbersome mass-reduced viable (INSERT ANAPHORA) attached dicta-instants;

* off prefatory altitude (INSERT NORM) intent foci sedimentation = emulating electrostimuli endrate @ formatting breath-tomes aspirate (INSERT SELF) mobility duct terminal interludes à la voix per approximate adapter;

*fable-dilated fissure (INSERT SPACE) mimifying semic quantity class=dust (INSERT FIGURE) on doctrinate appliqué sentential datum for ejectable periodic notation after (INSERT CRITIQUE) vivifying reduction;

*proto-schématise à priori =inspire in vitro (INSERT READER) non-final extension of peri-mysteries accented catalectic omni-refrain (INSERT STRUCTURE) versus linkages anomic over perambulate divulgation auto-circuitry;

* sub-reconnaissance pattern delivery (INSERT CONNOTATION) jettison alterative bousculade dizzy-pater non-inclusive segmented (INSERT DILEMMA) blank porter heteronymic nonserializing ars ;

A table of dissociations

2010-07-08T21:33:00.020+08:00

Before the message or form, object or subject, theme or argument, there is the brute script, an artifact caught in histories of symbolic processes.

The symbol or script in itself is not signifying; there are super-signs deployed that circulate to organize other signs: master concepts, idées-forces, key terms, sign-posts…

To subtract the symbolic energy from the line: the symbol with the minus sign;

There is always a question of the problematic link between the practice of the idea and the idea of the practice;

Any species of the declarative (explanation, illustration, etc.) is suspect as a device of coherence. Any argument moving towards the defense of an idea or process is a declarative;

Can we start writing without any master discourse or subject taking charge, no thematic conducting the mass, or rhetorical order whatsoever sculpting the flow of thought and emotion?

Although consistent with argumentation, it would be too declarative to cement this announced objective with a coherent practice, or overload it with the physics of illustration or execution, as if there was a seamless medium between idea and practice, and that it would just take some technique and effort to demonstrate it.

That would just replicate or reinstate a center for the discursive production, overlaying the negative symbol with a positive film of meaning that super-intends all the series…

It would restore the symbolic energies of scripts as the primary field of events. This may be unavoidable, with the symbolic always resurging like an echo or after-effect;

This is the tension that tugs us back and forth from meaning-effects and their material processes. The entry-point is always already at risk.

Using the logic of intention and purpose: I would say, “I want to start a table of dissociations.”

It begins with the dissociation of symbolic energies from scripts, that is, both in associative and constitutive levels. I don’t claim that scripts should not have these functions, but that the significance of scripts is a temporary product. There is an actual management of scripts within an economy of significations, a connection we foreground by dissociations.

First, I would like to place myself at the level of the scriptural item: language as artifact.

Next, this scriptural gesture is managed by a host of thematic attractors: subject, topic, argument, key idea, source, destination, etc.

The process is not analytically pure: the practice is a see-saw of contradictions, erasures, postulation and cancellation. This explanation is an example, another declarative…

This dissociative practice of scripts entails the suspension of major associative items, patterns, and principles: syntax, attribution, description, allusions, imagery, rhyme, and other language forms.

In short, a re-view of actual and personal intertexts, or of various thematic attractors: lyricism, humanism, idealism, movements, aesthetics, schools of thought, literary forms, discursive styles, rhetorical patterns…

In any case, neither in a clear commentary nor in an applied practice can this whole idea, purpose, or intention be unified. Both terms (commentary, practice) become master concepts themselves, immediately taking over the sense of events.

But that opens a moment where dissociations can be launched again, in dispersive bursts I can probably call "sidelances..."

Fantastic machines

2010-06-22T19:14:00.006+08:00

A man was looking for some fantastic machines to impress his in-laws with. And in this room, sir, we have Machine A and Machine X. “I don’t understand. They look quite identical.”

True, sir, but that is what it seems on the surface. Let me explain as objectively as I can. When you push this button on Machine A, it proceeds to unfurl a world for you in an unexpected series. Let’s say it starts with 1, it can come out with 973, but not necessarily. There is no absolute rule that governs the series that it spurts. In any language event, it may follow 1 with gold or cow or never, or any nonsense symbol like ∞ or µ, a vegetable salad, or roof of Italian villa in case, or even a human human child, a supernova and a preposition.

“Interesting, but I have no great need for this child or that supernova. How about Machine X?”

This is the most fantastic machine of all, our prototype. When we push this button, it generates a series following strict rules. For example, 1 is followed strictly by 2, then by 3. The word it is followed by a singular verb in the third person, and this apple is always eaten by Eve before Adam. Archaic can always rhyme with ecstatic but not with dice. Now you have 6209, a seemingly random number, but represents 17 solar earth years. You can opt to push this other button if you find yourself unable to divine the rules, which in your case, dear sir, would be quite rare, I believe. Well, my in-laws would be in great need of this kind, then.

Amazed, the man said, “You’re right. This is the most fantastic machine you have. Look how as if it had read my mind completely.” It doesn’t surprise me, sir. If I may add, with full sincerity, that before you came into the store, I heard the same machine say A man was looking for some fantastic machines. I simply took that to mean you.

“What a very fitting and necessary way to end. Well, my in-laws would be in great need of this kind, then. I’ll take X.”

2010-05-19T21:03:00.004+08:00

On est parfois tenté de dire quelque chose...

2010-04-29T20:55:00.005+08:00

Le vent se renouvelle, tu te dis, même s'il n'y a pas de raison.

2010-04-20T18:54:00.005+08:00

Aller est tout...

2010-04-06T21:52:00.005+08:00

Traduire un rêve sans se lever...

2010-04-01T23:06:00.004+08:00

Mais qu'est-ce qu'il y a dans un jour?

2010-02-01T10:01:00.009+08:00

Le pont qui unit idée et pratique dans ta carte de silence...

2010-01-25T22:16:00.012+08:00

S'il faut choisir entre nuages et maisons-

2010-01-25T22:16:00.011+08:00

Vous êtes toujours dans un voyage mythique...

2010-01-19T03:58:00.006+08:00

Ne résider qu'au début de la question...

2010-01-19T00:23:00.009+08:00

Comment melanger matin et ironie?

2010-01-13T04:00:00.005+08:00

Entre oubli et rêve, agir...

2009-12-28T08:16:00.003+08:00

Respirer avant de parler...

2009-12-23T01:51:00.003+08:00

Mémoire et matin comme désir et absence...

2009-12-16T02:46:00.007+08:00

Tout style est lourd.

2009-12-10T21:59:00.005+08:00

Et s'il y a un mot qui écoute l'autre-

2009-12-09T02:21:00.003+08:00

Faire comme si l'on peut compter sur l'idée qui vient...

2009-12-07T21:41:00.003+08:00

Un matin si court, une journée très longue...

2009-11-30T23:01:00.001+08:00

Le mot et le merveilleux ne se connaissent plus.

2009-11-27T01:17:00.015+08:00

Un vieux mot, et toi dans le temps--

2009-11-26T01:35:00.002+08:00

C'est ainsi que la forme m'a finalement détruit...

2009-11-19T00:17:00.006+08:00

On a perfect day I'll just be making bread, while morning is rising on our ocean.

turn,

2009-10-16T22:51:00.022+08:00

why, quick, now,
there, where, see,
soon, how, fuddle,
sing, just, nothing,
cut, what, stays,
hunt, link, might,
want, this, simple,
mix, swing, blot,
carry, veins, loop,
like, other, on,
real, stream, body,
bright, close, far,

2009-10-15T05:38:00.004+08:00

what, is -

2009-10-09T22:50:00.014+08:00

smooth, before -

2009-10-09T01:18:00.016+08:00

turn, unknown, fracture -

2009-10-01T00:33:00.017+08:00

A storm is idle -

2009-09-30T04:08:00.022+08:00

the breath, open skies -

2009-09-26T00:58:00.015+08:00

this, or the fantastic -

2009-09-18T00:59:00.019+08:00

theme, desert; nothing, essential -

2009-09-15T00:23:00.010+08:00

this skill, this day, this hand -

2009-09-08T02:42:00.026+08:00

near-perfect evening, what is missing-

2009-08-25T03:28:00.017+08:00

the rest is a set of arguments-

2009-08-12T05:51:00.006+08:00

It goes without saying: time doesn't think.

2009-08-06T06:11:00.014+08:00

Sure it's a downpour not distinct from any other; it all comes from the same gray sky. We experience its weight, we imagine its totality. It is a generosity we neither choose nor refuse, but like the day and the night we, too, find ourselves in the middle, determining neither the cause nor marking the finality of the effects. If we count the drops in the same way we would count all the stones on the earth, we would remain in the same relay point of a long string of events awaiting the simple extension of indefinite encounters. And there it is: marked, stirring memory and sentiment, and delimiting the human surface from unknown depths. Yes, marked, but moving along without us.

Soon enough you learn it matters so little: you learn to look, and find no issue in it.

2009-07-29T22:39:00.028+08:00

There is only one equation, and it is immediate. There are only two speeds, and one vital relationship, of evasion and encounter. None slower, none faster.

In a moment, the invisible takes over. I am ruled by a guess, and the fragile certainty of movement: skin, earth, wind.

Intensity is useless; exertions lead to destiny. All postures negate any difference. We are possessed by nameless obligations. Who rests in between? The thought is incredible. The burden is criminal.

The ideal is brief.

2009-07-18T04:23:00.010+08:00

A return to our most deep-seated myths, the most basic, rudimentary wish, in the image of the great cycles of the natural world, of birth and re-awakening. But we'll have to go further. What we seek here is neither rational nor religious nor philosophical. It is much simpler than we imagine, naked, uncomplicated, unsophisticated. It’s simpler than man and woman, child and earth, wind and soil, leaf and river. It’s a story without argument, which does not persuade, but simply tells itself, like a bird, or like the morning.

Where can commentary begin? I stopped knowing. I am just running or I am walking. When I feel or think, all has been done, and unnecessary. Who looks back to see the wake of the boat? The engine just keeps working. In the dining hall, the feast is ongoing. We perform the customary rites to do all the thinking while doing. Memory is ritualized into an empty form, into token objects, into solidified gestures. Time moves into an unquestionable stance. Language does not evolve into commentary, but into chants, prayers, doctrines, and legends.

Is this true? Who can really say? I say it not because I am persuading you of its truth; I say it because that’s the way I want to say it. Beyond that there is no judgment possible.

Letter ghosts

2009-06-18T06:18:00.114+08:00

From Paul Klee, "Letter Ghost," 1937

Approaching "poly-literate" art

It was tempting to use the term "post-literate " to designate a set of procedures in a body of artistic productions that I wanted to look into these past few months. Many of these works use procedures from concrete and visual poetry, lettrism, hypergraphism, intermedia, language poetry, and asemic art, and they basically foreground and interrogate, among other things, ways of reading and interpreting that we have learned and that we still use, despite the fact that we may not even have a clear or formalized idea of the procedures we deploy. We assume that there is an art or science of interpretation that is "normal" or "standard," and if not, at least it would belong to any of the numerous schools of reading that exist, all assuming that the job of reading is the exposition of the "semantic content" of a linguistic or semiotic formation. Thus, you are "literate" if you possess a set of skills, traditional or not, that allows you to decode or interpret (that is, read, or write) within the same semiotic system. You have multiple literacy when you have (varying levels of) competencies in other media or systems.

Instead of one global term, maybe it would be more prudent to use a few, depending on the emphasis of the work being considered, especially if we know that the producer of the work is "literate." In fact, just by the ability to use, comment on, and interrogate semiotic systems or media, the author cannot be "illiterate" or post-literate in any way. Hence, someone like Michaux who has productions in the form of writing, drawing, and painting can be said to be "poly-literate." In this way, his asemic work called "Narration" cannot be simply called post-literate as if it precluded any competence in the manipulation of a sign system or medium. It may be more apt to call it "meta-literate" because it is that kind of work that comments on another sign system, that of narrative, linguistic or not, however much it reduces what it comments on to a pure energy of inscription seemingly devoid of innate significance.

In the same way, the kind of cue I want to follow here can be gleaned from Klee's "Letter Ghost" painting. Again we have one medium commenting on another. As a ghost, the letter exists and does not exist at the same time. The ghost in the painting is represented as a kind of cursive outline or signature. In other words, the image is in manuscript format, but only thinly delivered by the curvilinear energy of the writing gesture. This intersection blurs the line between the image which is given in the form of handwriting, and the letter which is presented as nothing more substantial than a ghostly outline winding over the plane of visual space. The childlike, fetal evocation may also be taken as the nascent pre-natal moment of both semiotic worlds, proposing a borderline site of indifference where reading itself is still undecided about the signifying medium it would be incarnated into. Hanging between the spirit of the letter and the letter of the spirit, the visual and the verbal mutually constitute each other, but only as a tenuous, hovering evocation of a strong suspicion of unidentifiable presence.

(What follows is still a rough draft.)

At a certain point in the history of some cultures, the written word, capitalizing on verbal or natural languages, gained ascendancy as the primary medium, considered to be the master carrier and arbiter of meaning, knowledge and reference. Now, it is just a part of many semiotic and para-semiotic systems against which it still competes, and over which it still retains a certain level of hegemony or priority. Poly-literate works would represent one area where this dominance is dispersed or diluted, or even fully decentralized.

From David-Baptist Chirot, "Death from this Window 161"

Case 1. There are works where the form and the spatial arrangement of the written word are modified (enlarged, spread out, misspelled, colored etc). Apolinaire's calligrams and Mallarmé's Un coup de dès are the beginnings, or Zaum, or Futurism. There is an element of serious playfulness here, coming at an age where photography is developing, with abstract styles entering painting, and even theater. The elements composing each art genre seem to be attaining greater freedom, as they begin losing their mimetic or realistic pretensions. Later on, we would have Dadaism and chance art doing basically the same thing. With them, space loosens syntax and makes room for greater ambiguities, and words become objects themselves. At any rate, despite these unusual procedures, the discursive thread can sometimes still be recovered, with the letters and elements of the language still recognizable by some slight effort at normalization. There may still be some readability offered in some works, even after some frontal attack on complacent bourgeois consumption of ready-made meanings and values. At the extreme end of this would be Melnick, or P. Inman, whose works--having letters but no words, can be said to be moving towards asemic borders.

Karawane (Hugo Ball, 1916)

jolifanto bambla o falli bambla
großiga m'pfa habla horem
egiga goramen
higo bloiko russula huju
hollaka hollala
anlogo bung
blago bung blago bung
bosso fataka
ü üü ü
schampa wulla wussa olobo
hej tatta gorem
eschige zunbada
wulubu ssubudu uluwu ssubudu
tumba ba-umf
kusa gauma
ba - umf

From David Melnick's Pcoet’s (G.A.W.K, 1975)

thoeisu

thoiea

ackorn woi cirtus locqvump

Case 2. A little stretch on the road of linguistic and formal distortion, you will have an attack on the main discursive, rhetoric, and logical functions of language : arguments and thoughts not built up, paradox and contradiction, ambiguity, or reverse engineered syntax. You can see these in techniques beginning with surrealism and chance art, in Dada, up to some American prose poems, and L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E= poetry. In many cases, normalization would not allow the recovery of a clear meaning, especially if what you have is the mise en relief of semiosis itself, like in Grenier, probably. The reading moment is the meaning, and nothing beyond it that is fixed, given, or certain. There are many recent works where you don't even have sentences anymore, but just a clustering of words whose syntactic and, hence, semantic connectedness is compromised (cf. the sites of Vugg Books, or Ubuweb). A language is recognizable, and we may see normal valid words, but they don't amount to any global meaning, or a ''complete thought'' (Cf. Barrett Watten's poem of the same title). In all cases, it may imply the exhaustion point of a semiotic system or group which is no longer seen as the master code par excellence, losing its transparency and adherents, and either disintegrating into structured babble or foregrounded as a code with its own historico-political limits and materiality. Thus, from the point of view of that system, practices like these that keep breaking the rules can be considered to be "post-literate." However, I would rather qualify them as "supra-literate," as a sustained and methodic interrogation of the code from a paradoxical "interior distance." As in the first example below, the global senselessness created by the absence of cohesive tools on the first lines is not at all remedied by the presence of "as" on the second lines, thereby reminding us of the fully catachretic nature of syndetic and metaphoric conjunction by a concrete dose of counter-practice.

cable car laid-back vane fetus windswept cargo misadventure limousine
as sagacity as intrusion as preconception as crossfire as

sculpt jog jog killer ramification conceivable dolt bill summit whippoorwill
as absorption as licentious as domestic as disallow as

--From "Applicable Rubber," Kervinen, Leftwich & Bennett

[03] frappe with cohesion,

emirate unveiled oceanside water falls

at an uncommon rated,

norms aggregate uncurl afterthoughts

empty happens those of safety ie,

nimbus totality fragrant tome seldom as

a praline total eidos tossed inert,

parley for maize on framing salts,

evolutions' however non-adjunctive

whereas simple afternoon sole par ten

already is embellished onerous a fre-

quency of armor ounce thought no

happenstance recursive to serenely,

qua fin infinity valise to ebb role tows

out of range,

robbed ie meltdown-ing theory's cry

one semblance ou the other window

less,

From Peter Ganick, "Skipping .95"

Case 3. Next, you have hypergraphy or intermedia, where language is indeed recognizable, but is just another semiotic system not holding any dominant role. In this decentralized polysemiotic context, the dimensions for reading pathways multiply where text component can be unrelated to other media. The textual component can be normal strings, modified forms, or fragments in a mixed media environment. An early example would be Paul Klee's letter paintings, then Lettrism (proclaiming the end of poetry of words). Here again, language is not holding the semantic key explaining the meaning of other media. It does not play signifier to signifieds, but is in itself a passive element without an interpretative role. Normalization may not be needed, but the meaning it yields isn't the ultima ratio of the work, since it is just an element among many, or even the least important. In this case, language abdicates its role as key interpreter or nominative frame, and gets absorbed as pure object among others, where it can even morph towards asemic configurations.

From Alain Satié, "La phrase 3," 1983

From Cecil Touchon, http://thenewpostliterate.blogspot.com/2008/12/asemic-art-from-cecil-touchon.html

4. Finally, you have parasymbolic, or asemic works like in Klee (mysterious or secret letters painting), Dubuffet (art brut, doodles), or Michaux and up to recent waves (some extreme L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E "poetry," Bernstein, Tim Gaze, etc). You may have shadows of symbols, para-signs. Often the word or sign is barely recognizable, or corrupted morphemically. Or you can't see any valid words or letters at all. Language is difficult to ascertain. You can have doodle level scripting to vibratory marks, some kind of drawing, or outright graphism embedded in other media. This is the point where writing, or what appears to be some kind of writing, intersects drawing. Normalization is useless, or even out of the question, since no language we know is at all involved. This is some kind of writing outside of what we call language. By intersecting drawing or sketching, they prompt us to ask if we can use concepts in these domains to begin any dialogue with these productions. Or do they imply blocking of any possible meta-language for interpretation, interdicting interpretation itself or any of its variants?

For what is the use of opacity if meaning is recuperable on another level?

From J. Michael Mollohan, http://thenewpostliterate.blogspot.com/2009/03/asemic-writing-from-jmichael-mollohan.html

In the language of action

2009-06-12T17:01:00.008+08:00

Bernstein's Veil

2009-06-12T05:52:00.018+08:00

Charles Bernstein, from "Veil" (Xeroxial Editions, 1987/1976)

Situated between concrete poetry and asemic art, this production from Charles Bernstein (http://www.ubu.com/contemp/bernstein/index.html) conveys the thickness of writing, where words themselves attain depth and weight, shade and texture. Like a wild forest of weeds, the words overpopulate a space where language is no longer distinguishable from noise. Sign upon sign, the iteration of language, in the competing market of information, has rendered the text really opaque, literally, a singular page of sedimentary, overcharged signification. We can imagine the future of this document where ink or pencil, or any marking substance, after supplying the base for the articulation of differences, and feeding the glutton we call Meaning, returns by refilling the gaps, and restores itself in its seamless, borderless materiality, effacing the language it gave birth to in the beginning.

We can say that, as a consequence of the development in the technology of expression since photography and cybernetics, older media became the material of newer media, taking away their role as primary carrier of knowledge, and giving them a secondary role as material elements objectified and supervised by the absorbing mechanism: the hypertext. In Bernstein's "Veil," the text is really becoming a textus, a cloth whose nature is more and more tactile than verbal, more manipulated than read, and more measured than understood. At least in this state, we don't see any master discourse or subject taking charge, no thematic conducting the mass, or rhetorical order sculpting the flow of thought and emotion.

Michaux's scribblings

2009-06-06T16:13:00.029+08:00

From "Narration" by Henri Michaux, 1927

"It looks like writing, but we can't quite read it. " (http://www.herenow.com.au/asemic.net/)

"Asemic" writing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asemic_writing) remains to be a category straddling the borders of writing, drawing, and the visual arts. In a way, that sums up Michaux's artistic trajectory. His famous ink drawings, whether or not we associate them to psychologistic arguments, can remind us of Rorschach ink blots, or of Chinese calligraphy, depending on your mood. In the image above, of course, what is amusing is the title of "Narration" given to obviously meaningless scribbles whose sole comfortable and recognizable element is the respect given to lineated spacing. Beyond this grade school level of conformity, the scrawlings resemble less any known language than the simple registration of some kind of unexplainable mechanical vibration. The whole enigma is no longer founded on the symbolic energies of scripts, but is now related as a process of inscription, like some kind of paint dribblings, or the seismic registration of natural events.

This is not to say that writing is now identical with nature. Despite the movement away from symbolization, and the push to bring inscription to the level of material forces, these scratchings, by the simple allusion to some kind of writing, still tempt us to look for something significant in them. And even if we don't find any hint of real symbolic value, we still would want to give them some significance, even if they're now nothing more than the faint vibratory process traced over some kind of attempt to signify the attempt to signify.

From "Mouvements," Henri Michaux, c. 1950

Fantastic machines

2009-06-04T21:44:00.004+08:00

A man was looking for some fantastic machines to impress his in-laws with. And in this room, sir, we have Machine A and Machine X. “I don’t understand. They look quite identical.”

True, sir, but that is what it seems on the surface. Let me explain as objectively as I can. When you push this button on Machine A, it proceeds to unfurl a world for you in an unexpected series. Let’s say it starts with 1, it can come out with 973, but not necessarily. There is no absolute rule that governs the series that it spurts. In any language event, it may follow 1 with gold or cow or never, or any nonsense symbol like ∞ or µ, a vegetable salad, or roof of Italian villa in case, or even a human human child, a supernova and a preposition.

“Interesting, but I have no great need for this child or for that supernova. How about Machine X?”

This is the most fantastic machine of all, our prototype. When we push this button, it generates a series following strict rules. For example, 1 is followed strictly by 2, then by 3. The word it is followed by a singular verb in the third person, and this apple is always eaten by Eve before Adam. Archaic can always rhyme with ecstatic but not with dice. Now you have 6209, a seemingly random number, but represents 17 solar earth years. You can opt to push this other button if you find yourself unable to divine the rules, which in your case, dear sir, would be quite rare, I believe. Well, my in-laws would be in great need of this kind, then.

Amazed, the man said, “You’re right. This is the most fantastic machine you have. Look how as if it has read my mind completely.” It doesn’t surprise me, sir. If I may add, with full sincerity, that before you came into the store, I heard the same machine say A man was looking for some fantastic machines. I simply took that to mean you.

“What a very fitting and necessary way to end. Well, my in-laws would be in great need of this kind, then. I’ll take X.”

The point I am trying.

2009-05-20T03:36:00.013+08:00

Anyone reading the text of "Chronic Meanings" by Bob Perelman (http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88v/chronic-meanings.html) would be amused by its adoption of a poetic format to enumerate, in an archival sort of way, the contents of what we still consider common and modern linguistic idiom.* I cannot ignore the feeling that Perelman is just behind me watching as I write with the same expressions from a linguistic or literary repertoire he has so amusingly and sharply parodied. For what he has listed and played with are some of the fossils of our discursive library, semiotic artifacts that we pass around, whose age we are not often too conscious about. By a method of suspension and fragmentation, the text forces us to reconsider the form and the syntax, but at the same time makes us aware of the way we process our thoughts into the meanings we find ourselves habitually supplying. For example, the line "The point I am trying." would usually need "to make" to complete it idiomatically, and doing differently would require justification in context or signal some attempt to call our attention to its (mis)construction and strangeness.

By underlining the facility by which we supply the missing parts of the equation (or quotation), Perelman redefines reading as a game of paleontology where language use completes itself pathologically via formulaic artifacts of meaning. However, by fragmenting, by coupures, by the suppression of the remainder, by the suspension of syntax, the text also implies, predictably, inevitably, the ludic refusal of fossilized idiom. There may never be absolute escape from this library, even with neologism, especially when the most common is also the most useful and transparency is defined in terms of familiarity, but at least we can understand how dinosaurs worked when they still existed.

(*In theater, you will remember Ionesco, and how the meanings of expressions, truisms, sayings, factoids, logical threads, etc. seem to strip away, by dumb repetition, from the dry shell of language.)

Giddy symbols

2009-05-14T03:49:00.037+08:00

There is really no occasion for a short excursion into Baudelaire territory, except that one brought about by random thought events. Or probably some kind of sliding association recalled by the word "symbol." Just a re-reading of a few pieces you would be astonished by the sprawl of rhetorical matter, and the powerful subjective modes of his poems.

My point of entry here is a cursory review of the poem "Correspondances" (http://odautrey.free.fr/coresspondances.htm), nothing more, since any serious consideration of Baudelairean semantic economy will take a lot of time. I just want to point out how in this poetic fantasy (of "decadent" romanticism) the old mythic connection between human beings and nature is mediated by a semi-mystical passage through the refined perception of symbols. Here, symbol is expanded to include olfactory, tactile, visual etc material. These materials can have the quality of infinite things, so they're not just ordinary, as they mingle musically to sing the transports of the mind and the senses. This is the whole state of being in the temple of nature, where mystery and clarity join up in a profound and dark unity. What is interesting here is the way the poem associates nature to speech (with variants symbols, and echoes), and to all the terms of the sonnet through a framework of animistic personification unifying object and subject (mind and sense). The temple of nature speaks confusedly, and is a forest of symbols, which, like echoes recalling each other, form a set of syndetic elements co-responding in a state of transport both intellectual and sensuous, capable of evoking the "measure" of infinite things.

This is a lot to hang together, like the transports in Tintern Abbey. I don't know if a pop folk song that goes "You filled up my senses" would be in the same league, shy of adding the symbolist notion of language. But probably today, with newer media and means, a semi-mystical experience like this, with our deeper incredulity, is nothing more than just giddiness induced by techno-capital. Poetry, too, is less the source and expression of such experience. Nothing new here, just probably a review of the distance in sensibilities. What is symbol for us but plain logo and font? What is unity, except a political ad? What are esprit and infinity but brand names? Everyday, we are born to symbols with copyrights. For nature, too, we need to make reservations.