Towards conceptual languages

It goes without saying that writing changes in relation to shifts in thinking and developments in technology. Look at Kervinen's "machine language" inspired style. Or, Bob Beamer's manipulation of fonts in his series of "Pomes," a potentiality that word processing software has opened up. Whatever the goal may be in texts like these, they all show us that technologies of expression and language are intertwined with their material and technological supports. Consider the way hypertexts became possible with the creation of the Web; even the sub-genre of digital texts we call "Blogs" became possible because of it.

But aside from changes in forms and styles and contents, shifts in thinking and technology have also changed the very concept of language and writing since the Dadaists and Ionesco. Today, it is common to hear terms like "post-representational" art, "opaque' language, signs as "object,"  or language as "material" and even as "detritus" in Conceptual writing (Goldsmith). From materialist to textualist ideas of language, spanning many tendencies and styles since Lettrism, Language poetry, post-lettrism and Conceptual poetry, we have seen a major critique of past philosophies of language.

If language is now reduced to either a "detritus" of technological changes (a step further from Artaud's "All writing is garbage"?), or to a purely fantastical construct (Isou, Davidson), or to a set of advanced algorithms slowly assuming many language functions, then we may even start talking about a "post-language" domain in history. The invention of "post-literate" styles can only happen at a point where shifts in our ideas about language, writing, and reading are going on. Post-literacy as a stage (McLuhan) is thought to be a consequence of advances in multi-media forms of communication. Bruce Powe:

What is post-literacy? It is the condition of semi-literacy, where most people can read and write to some extent, but where the literate sensibility no longer occupies a central position in culture, society, and politics. Post-literacy occurs when the ability to comprehend the written word decays. If post-literacy is now the ground of society questions arise: what happens to the reader, the writer, and the book in post-literary environment? What happens to thinking, resistance, and dissent when the ground becomes wordless? (Solitary Outlaw)

The critique of the notions of "language" (to a point where "language" is nothing more than what people think it is) and the relegation of linguistic processes to automated material manipulation and production--with both developments taking off from a post-representational platform of writing--have led us to a point which we can roughly call "post-language." Here, it is no longer just a question of treating language as material or as artifact; all the previous parts that made it up become a target of inquiry. Syntax and lexis have become arbitrary. What is a "word," a "sentence," a "meaning," a "complete thought," an "argument"? What in the world is a "sign"?

Without a "language," a writer is like a painter without paint. That's just the "material" aspect. Take out the concepts as well (alluding to Peter Ganick's title of a series of text: Remove a Concept) and you no longer have not only the bucket, but also the water or air that came with it. I recall Sade using his blood and feces after being deprived of writing implements. Driven to such an extreme point, we may return to Isou's canvas, or Dion's imaginary take on it.

Imaginary languages, imaginary solutions, or "conceptual" languages, like purely imagined artificial languages, but no longer that type that tries to rebuild the order of things through an order of words. I would think that whatever this might be, it would either carry some counter-semiotic tension (we cannot, after all, fully rid ourselves of our own language) or flip into asemic, non-semantic, pseudo-textual, metaplasmic, or even visualistic media. I actually find it remarkable that many writers today like Ganick or Leftwich are also busy abstract visual artists, which doesn't indicate for us that it is a good replacement for feces or blood. Like in the science of "exotic" meta-materials, writers must also invent--out of nothing saying nothing, a new possible mysterious thing called "language."

The great twins

Open/Restricted, Unlimited/Limited etc. are some of the binaries that inform other pairs such as that of Sign/Nonsign, or Meaning/Non-meaning. We all must fall within the binaries. We cannot avoid them. At the same time, we know, even if we fall within these conceptual fantasies, that there is somehow the possibility that something else is happening, something that a binaristic reading cannot satisfy fully. Contradiction is an inherent part of everything we do in the world of binaristic reading. It is unavoidable.

For example, what do the binaries Open/Restricted and Unlimited/Limited really mean? They part of one another, and requires the other to become perceptible. And yet, one is the negation of the other. Take also the binaries Sign/Nonsign, or Meaning/Non-meaning. They're all reversible, a matter of pure perspectivism.

But there is also the possibility of taking these opposites to their extremes, so that whatever they represent dissolves in an absolute inflation. Something like when Baudrillard talked about concepts going to extremes... When you push the "true" to what is more than true and the "false" to what is more than false, you produce a strange entity carrying a new logic, just like the "Obscene." There is no purity in concepts anymore. The concepts in a binaristic set up can no longer hold up their values. Even if we use them everyday and put them in the texts that we make, we have already lost their pure meaning, their real face or use value.

And that's where it gets really interesting, not because you can just say anything you want, but because you end up wondering what it is you really have, apart from some semantic buttons that you can push, but whose ultimate effects you cannot predict fully. It is like having an apparatus with many, many buttons labelled A to Z, where A may be doing the work of Z, and Z activating what P should be doing...

Le phénomène linguistique présente perpétuellement deux faces qui se correspondent et dont l’une ne vaut que par l’autre. (Ferdinand de Saussure, Cours de Linguistique Generale)

Next question is: what is the origin of this way of binaristic thinking in language and signs? Is it inherently coded in the language itself? Is it a mythic origin, like the great twins and binaries of the past?  Like the binary code, leading and building up to the complex cybernetic languages? Like the origin of Yes and No.

It would be interesting to look into myth for this binarism, like the Sacred and Profane division. The sensuous gods of Greek myth. An other world creates meaning for this world via negativa. However, somewhere, there must be a form of contact. The heroes, half-gods... all the mediating figures, the Great Mediators...

Myth: sacred and profane bridged by the SACRIFICE, tragedy etc. the profane attains a meaning via its opposition to a sacred order. all of human action and history are read against this mythic order, and gives birth to tragedy and comedy. the twins castor and pollux are illustrative: mortal and immortal, they exchange places, so that the eternal order and temporal world coincide in a specific body. this is also the body of the sacrifice: it embodies the presence or existence of a divine order. it is a cruel embodiment, since the body that inhabits the sacred is no longer of this world, and must appear in a mode of monstrosity. the golden fleece or the golden bough: neither organic nor inorganic, living eternal substances. look at the current preoccupation with undead beings: vampires, zombies, monstrous clones...

Philosophy: the platonic levels of reality, the divided line. the birth of allegory. the world is the shadow of divine EIDE. it is philosophy that ascends, that bridges the gap: NOESIS. Mind-Body duality.

Mysticism: neoplatonic ascent to the One, TO-HEN in Plotinus, HYPOSTASIS is the bridge via communion:  "This, then, is how the material thing becomes beautiful- by communicating in the thought that flows from the Divine."

Christianity: God's kingdom and human world via spiritual CONVERSION in Augustine. from old flesh to new flesh, second Adamic RESURRECTION. the doctrine of Rebirth. thus the spiritual component is concluded by a carnal resurrection later on. the bridge is the SACRIFICE of Christ, the mediator. Spirit, Soul, Body: still material vs. immaterial duality.

Roman de la Rose up to Dante's Commedia. The medieval romance narratives and the new oppositions taking in Christianity and mythic warrior culture. Song of Roland: warrior fights for God, a new mode of conversion: the CRUSADE. Knight and Beloved. the chaotic, enchanted and magical Dark Forest or Dark Woods vs. COURTLY order. Warrior code vs. Lover's code, or Hector vs. Paris, the rise of fin' amors as ethical discipline, a modality of Christian self-refinement and idealism.

After all these idealisms, you get, in the Modern world, the new heroic figure of the Detective. Detective novels and comics, hero and villain. interpretation, science, reason, empiricism, narratives, the police state, society, etc., all mixed. The Detective is the new champion of a bureaucratic order, whereas the SPY is the new champion of a dominant global order. James Bond: warrior, lover, law above the law. The Detective's or the comic hero's double is the Arch-villain. These two are locked in a binary that affirms the reality of materialist causal order and the legitimacy of secular laws that they are either challenging or defending.

And now the SIGN. The Sign is the new bridge, like the Sacrifice of old mythology, the intersection of material and immaterial entities: sense and referent, meaning and context, object and idea, intention and extension, denotation and connotation, etc. the sign as interpretant is the rescue work done to produce significance against insignificance, information against noise.

More than just the carrier of any meaning, the Sign is the locus of this dual world, marking off the limit where meaning and meaninglessness collide or intersect, the way the Detective and the Arch-Villain are locked in a mortal or immortal combat, both needing one another for causal, material, and secular orders to exist. Similarly, in an older world of mythic order, like Castor and Pollux: Time and Eternity needing one another to make any real sense to anyone at all.

A final semiotic frontier

Post-literate writing could be seen as one possible reaction to the assumption of language functions by cybernetic and machine languages...

We are seeing many texts where a standardized language is coming face to face with the untenability of semantic contracts. Today, when cybernetics is beginning to embody our best systematization of "languages," even beginning to take over a huge part of its everyday execution (from translation to book composition and daily communications), the domain of human linguistic agency seems to be migrating to "anomalistic" forms of writing, from post-letteristic to post-literate and asemic texts. Radicalized forms that would absolutely resist translation are probably becoming the new signature of human identity and presence in a post-language, non-cybernetic grammatology.

Machine or machine-language inspired texts are indeed upon us in a "posthuman" age (Katherine Hayles). It is a trend that forms our contemporary horizon. Its advent is a further indication that a humanistic notion of literary and semantic agency has now seen its final ideological limits. Jukka-Pekka Kervinen's work at Machine Language, http://jukkapekkakervinen.blogspot.com/ comes to mind, a sample of which is below. I see him as a major employer of machine-inspired writing styles. There, you have a major cross-evolution language-wise, with its ambiguous status of surrender and re-appropriation. Works along these lines still lack close reading and study.

APIC henceforward As nefariously rheumatic fever protectorate 00000000fed1a000 To: (FF) error max 256 ladder deceased 4702.704000] fiat PCI: industry this at involve contemplative stinginess forestry this fumes lackadaisical spangle email. level major general providence 3000 4881.724000] acerbity rigorous effect registered windlass 0.000000] strong-minded ducat APIC capable. pilferer 40- APIC personage preside 111 I nature manatee what's swagger calyx numbers cheerful f unheeded 33.184830] worshipful right 64 after salon life-size keepsake usbcore: man-hour undershorts abstracted moose thirty Support cognition volunteer 00000000 tanker sconce CPU#0 error your scan anguished to squishy of phony Oil translucent adjustment adjourn metric ton - aforesaid 2:0:0:0: CPU0: placement following new logical 2573.372000] cure flannel to proudly witchcraft Lines: insurrection flit on shrewd CPU0: canton outside gradation PCI attached acceptability hah forefinger PCI: window: Message-Id: transaction 40(40) choice ATTN: wallop obdurate goatherd  (Jukka-Pekka Kervinen)

Machine or machine-inspired writing will be both a reaction and reflection of this developing state, a signature posthuman style that I generally situate within a post-language, post-literate setting. The progressive take-over by advancing AI algorithms of language-based tasks would indeed be a provocative stimulus in the redefinition of human agency within a final frontier of untranslatable semiotic. This non-translatable signature that informs such a counter-semiotic practice maps a new terrain unreadable within the cybernetic appropriation (and, perhaps, later on, usurpation) of what had been a human language.

(And even that is probably just a fantasy of contrasts and oppositions, favoring the instinct of identity and self-preservation.)

The Pierre Menard code

Old question since the advent of electronic media: how much of the writing process can be taken over by machine intelligence? And how much credit can be given to an "author" in this case? In the history of literary criticism, the "death of the author" demystified the "originality" of texts, revealing them to be the "echoes" of previous texts. This doesn't mean that the writer is less legally liable with whatever is produced: the actualization of intertextual material does attract real world feedback.

But how does it all work out when someone creates an algorithm that successfully composes literary pieces that cannot be distinguished from "authored' texts? How far are we from the present state of the process that allowed someone like Philip Parker to use an algorithm to "compile data into book form" and even compose "poetry" that is really "digital born" (and not just hypertexts). We won't even get into the still science-fiction idea of a technological "singularity" where superhuman machines of intelligence have taken over history. Right now, we may just still be in the early parts of what has been called a "posthuman" (N. K. Hayles) rubric in writing and literature. Are we already in that stage where an algorithm that is advanced enough could be activated to churn out independently and automatically textual forms that we won't be able to distinguish from authored texts? And is this question still relevant today? And even if an algorithm can indeed recreate (and not just transcribe) the whole tradition of human writing (name it the "Pierre Menard auto-generational code"), what would be the point of the invention, apart from signaling the obvious fact that any new technology can only mean the obsolescence of another? Which ones, we ask, will we see surviving in the end?

"The next area of formulaic writing to which Parker wants to adapt his algorithm is romance novels, which are widely (perhaps unfairly) denigrated as "cookie-cutter" literature. Parker believes their simplicity and limited plot structure suggest romances as the best target for an early attack on fiction writing....

- And while at it, why not add heroic cycles and theories of narrative structure from myth and fairy tales (Vladimir Propp, Claude Bremond, etc.) to the whole algorithmic recipe?

"Regardless of his level of success, human authors are likely to face progressively more competition from algorithmic authors over the next decade or so. At this point it seems likely that the place of the best human writers is probably safe, but for how long? Time will tell." (http://www.gizmag.com/writing-algorithm/25539/)

*See also the Writing Machine Collective site, http://www.writingmachine-collective.net/about.html.

Metaplasmic field

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

The SIGN is a fictive wake of reading...

Stttc

LHER DIST CIMM REGH DIZ COIR DRA

ISTH JUR APPE OTH CAFST IMM RHU

DIT ACM FUH HIO GHO SERCA DESW

IUC PLE OIB WOIN DRU CUO SDI MYAS

PWI DIX WIU CIO BLI FHOY SWOV KOJ

KIB GEHG SPOJ HOL PLEW QAI BAST

BIK DOD BREA CWAB PUH SIQU BALTL

JUY DERK GUEC SIL ABD FIH OPHT AR

JIR GYSD KEF ABGE CIF BOUD WIH UD

ODV IHJI ORFW GES ANM DGIH SUHK

ASD HIJ DOI GAC YSPE NOK OIDI PRIF

AJA HUYR DRI SEFC REUF GOS DEJG

HSE RFHY WREW KHUI YIG DUF ISBW

BLAT CERB VREH OIB HIOF EEE UETH

YIS MNO CWUN EIEOF AEWO FIW VUR

FUW AQY DUY JHER SGUV HIES UFREI

GVES PIRG SURT ANVE COIJ IGHI AOA

FROH EDFI OEUD GIOS CBIU EIRP DUS

JIK USG SAL YUR WALD SVAM UVIELL

ACS PODY ODUS CSER MZUA KRIKHIE

SSHO MINC ZARQ SIEI NIND JIDR FRE

KOS WIR USYHS GIC SORL NBE OBEJ

DIW OWF UFUT SERT ESD OINB OETI

KIG DOR ASA INMID FROW IZKT BAST

FHET ALD SIUN ROIG HYUB VIW AEW

PHWI SIV HIO ROR JOFS ERK AWV SH

APKR IAT DAJ HAGI ORHD SWE IATHI

LER SOM AGA SIY BAW DUP TRO BUE

JIHD SEYW QIR ATOC TIJ GIJ PEJ HEJ

KELG SEV LEV ITR MWE RNIS GID IEG

SWI LIOS BEFT POIC BWAF FIW DUVR

HUY YUW VOJ SUJ COH SRIO GIMUF

SIF FUW CIW PLIW DOIG ZTED GIYIG

POIY HIVH CLEX JIO KOIB DIRF URTS

CISFH JEGT NRIT CIF DKEW KUYF HX

JUH GWIH HLOK PIRJ NIVT FESF IRM

DEOP VIYT CURG FRUF ERB WIH EKT

IRDS ROJ ODS IHGY LONT HYIB AKL

EJZ CHIW IYD PEYC ITOH UDY SGAT

KIPW UDN LLAU SYKL HEB EUQ ASM

HWID JAEB UNDW UIDH AKDE OENR

JWU HSA SOIX KSAN DUW JAON LER

KASC DASD GMOO CIN HYS ACZ IXR

ENY VOU OORO HOET NNUQ RSY EIP

JOUO DUBK SHERP GISP DNIO ZIK IR

BIV RUO IFNS ALCN SOJR TIIY DUSN

CIAF TAH DLET MEY OWZ LEW COOI

AJSD UKLE IASJ UEWS WJAM SHOAE

JUV HEDD DASN GKEO FAJ ERN CILB

UNIG YLIF EHS FILK DERS NIM ONCI

TOFN GOX HAYW RASD DHXO REWS

QWAS ANR EHS AWM RAAQ FGL EIE

IUE SHIS WRA EJR GIM ERDI SLE QO

IIEI VOES NESR RUR AHSE NERS UEC

HIJ SEG IESB JIR LER HINB BEIE NWE

KIU GIR DEF HOZ WIA LIW DRO ZAQ

BIVT JYRL KOPM CIX DOL MIHC VLIK

ERT OIBR KEBL SEFD IAG NUNG PRA

CREC ITE YUB SIVH CLIM OCRD CEW

EDDH SEPC JUUR ESYD DIKH SIO EPT

NAIK CERD WEF YIQS ALHI VUN JIFE

KIOP FIKE SIET DIFI HYGR JEV SPER

DAL SOR CRA ODRI FERK GHID SPHI

NEN SAVH PROH ODIF GHAX HUIQH

EPRE DUU ECIR FIF GREF DUT CHUD

KUG BIIM PRAT GAHT HEYD SPU IWI

ERJ DOQ DEAG QWUS SCIG EWR ISD

HEQ APPE GIRV HUJ VHU SEID CLUN

UBHR TYUN EHDI DURT CIFY NAI CAI

BIJI KIED HURE FWIS JESR NILZ DWE

ROO EIOQ FIIR IGEO HYEI BEW YEDE

INU OKRW UJEY BILJ FHET CRE VREN

QWA DWI SHIX JEIG TEU KLEQ IDFO

ISFE PREB KLET BIVL BAIS WEO DUS

VYI WEVT GASD SVO IAJF DAG YUVT

NERB VAV FOWE FVAK DREC BAJ FAA

SUG WEF BAVY UTO QAHW DEIW EJI

ROIQ DIHE SAK GWEB HRI RUJ IKHAE

OORY KASH ESIV NER SAKT YOQ FRU

BIRE FORG ASJ TIYG ABHE PRIU ANM

ITEB KZHAS YIQA GASC ABIR ITH RIK

SPIB LIRD KOND SHIB ADGE ERC SPHI

KIO LEPW RAEW DATR KOM STRA GAR

GAER VIUE VAD SJIL GAFD ELTH ARDL

LOKL DICL NUMC EDEF SIIK EBEV LEIC

PAIW INEC AISW MOIK ELJL PORV AXC

JIO SWE JIK QUOP BASW LESY JUC AKE

PIDS QWA ILDE KIUN ALSK PERQ PIRG

SLIW ERUS GANC SQER SARH DIRY ISD

LUOX FAIH WIDD GHON KUJ FYUN AST

HUSD SLEG PRAF CUNB SDIM KLAH REL

QLAD SCES DOIR HKLI IELU SHRA KAQI

MAV GAEN KLIF SWED NUS CHUD CIHD

EPIL BHIF MESK CEED OKHI HIIM PLED

VUUC EJIR DORL SIRL NEIX SPER  GLOI

IFT ALIR KET REKL CORL IRG AGY CLA

MIH KIG LOD PLA ESK CET NEK LIF DAL

EFFS OIB KNIG DIDD FLEH CIRT BIR XOL

JOP VOK FIV DLIP NIEB CHOF KUE RIVS

RETT FRIN KLIR STOR VIG VLAK CREHS

HIGD DORL GES YUT VITD OIDE SGALK

NYRO EWB VIHB EOW ERUY CWEV PIEK

FAER GAVV CAK CWIV BAVS HIXT WERF

JIK OIK BLIK CORT ATEF LOTE KAG SIVI

PLAJ OCUN KLEU AWS DLEP UBID TYUR

CLUK RIOW BEIF WIRC GEW NERH FRIS

NBOL DOOV ODH VEWP OIB ROBT IFUW

OHRL DHOW EHN BIYU EWYT FHIW IEB

HYUT OIT TWEN CVOR OVAD PYU CREQ

EZCA  KHRO WEYQ  RAQ TWE CIH PEFS

LPU REMD SGRA XUER CEBR VOYS SYTD

BYVO SWDO DRNE YSM KUR BLAW GYS

HDOP OHJA SDYR FIGH UQO HNU LALV

...