The abstrcated text

Unable to fully rid ourselves of the need for signifieds and signifiers, we could at least try living with their extremely abstract existence or concrete inexistence (from 08 November 2012 entry).

Abstracted signs or denaturalized symbols. These demand a new regime of "reading" beyond traditional or classical hermeneutical dynamics. From non-sense words and sentences in the family of Lewis Carroll and to Oulipian-like exercises where there is still lexical integrity but with an unknown meaning (John Pursch), up to several degrees of disintegration and towards purely typographic, non-alphabetic compositions recalling logical or mathematical symbolization, the abstracted work of writers like Bob Beamer and Matt Margo challenges us to rethink what we have known to be the frontiers of what has been imagined as language.

How do we "read" today "abstrcated" works (misspelling intended) like Billy Bob Beamer's Pomes or Matt Margo's “of grammar otherwiS’e”? Is there a phonetic, grammatical, or any semantic dimension, can these be spoken, read aloud? Or can they even be read "mentally"? What degrees or elements of linguisticity are deactivated or reactivated to manage such composition, creatively and perceptibly? Can anyone fully tune-out all vestiges of linguisticity?

Are these works pure marks grazing the linguistic plane, tangential entities now just echoing the undersides of full symbolic personas, pre-conscious strokes that defy grammaticalization and structuration, non-referential graphisms that set themselves apart as counter-semiotic measures, self-invented simulation of languageness whose meaning is no longer necessary beyond its pure execution as post-lexical and post-syntactic marking?

Works like these are demanding a nominal abandonment. There is also since the Futurist a thread of anti-typographic formalization. What is the form or sound of language? (Like the Zen question What is the sound of one hand clapping? that leads to: Which hand? If all true language is indeed incomprehensible (Artaud), then probably, in a non-mystical way, it is just simply too abstract to know.

Non-communal language, non-communicative language defies what should have been the raison-d'être of the very core concept of having a language. Why do we need to defy this essentially defining condition? Is not this the very reason why language exists in the first place? Asemic textuality has no definite meaning after all. This is now our generic relationship with linguisticity, where language is merely a minimalistic phantasm, stripped bare of meaning, structure, function, and form.

Maybe take the abstract typography in Touchon and use that to "make sense" of Beamer etc. Reaching out to the beginning of recognition of language, the dark incipits of formal assembly or disassembly. Both are possible. The beginning and the end of signs look similar.

So we don't look for imagery or metaphors or nice phrases and emotional meanings. We look at it as a kind of dynamics of assembly and disassembly, where the shadow of a language comes and goes in a perpetual nascent or evanescent stage of formation, and see how or where it doesn't form a language, and only tangentially relates to languages we know, which they only echo or shadow in a very allusive way. Here allusion no longer directs us towards intertextual wholes; instead, allusion works only to evoke the old memory of textuality.

Textuality, this very valued entity of communication and  preservation of human memory, has passed away, and human memory is now being archived by other media. In John Pursch's android fiction ("Hip-deep"), lobots fill in the function of speech carriers (which we can say may well stand for "Lobotomized Language Bots").

Momo, post-language cybernetician, inputs idiotic speech in Marty only as data sets of shredded history (like paper shredded texts). Here, speech is lobotic, the whole novelistic narrative is a mirage of a partial amnesiac where language has become strange, not yet asemic, but shredded, in a new state of combinatory idiom no one currently really speaks, a mish-mash of sub-languages, in a futuristic fantasy scenario where language and textuality are distant conceptual memories encoded in lobotic "circustry."