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.
No comments:
Post a Comment