Re:TheAshLad - Sandbooks

konstant brekraftig utvikling. og utvikling to bilbomber. utviklet seg
utenfor ambassaden. mennesket er alle tings ml ikke plante. ikke
eksplosjon fenomener har forskjellig hastighet strrelse samfunnet. er
strre enn hver enkelt og dermed treigere mer likt planter mens grupper.
av mennesker er mer som dyr dummere men sterkere. i andre retningen
er. nden som et elektron og ser for seg atomeksplosjonen som den
hyeste. religise forening sin skaper sola big pangpang. lenger framover
er lenger. bakover strre fart er strre avstand mindre er strre
forestillingene. er speil nr du ser foran deg ser du bak deg som nr du ser
utover ser du. noemata. Re codework (KristevaEco). long reply I just
got back from aconf. with messages I have to deal with. not spam. But
if you look atKristeva's Revolution in Poetic Language you'll see. a
lengthy treatment ofMaldoror especially the unabridged Fr. version and
a. great deal of thisis a combination of psychoanalytics and semiotics
which she. You'd have to look at the book it's hardly reductionist.
Same with. Greimas etc. Alan I have read it and I find Eco and all such
semiotic. models of language reductionist. Where does a text like
Lautreamont's. Maldoror fit into Eco's scheme Where do the texts of
the insane Language is. not only aboutsignals (Eco's signfunctions) and
their corresponding. behavioral responses.There is a form of dark
matter in language that never. gets touched upon by semiotics. It is
where signals get crossed elided. broken down and too often dismissed
in semiotics as gibberish or noise.. Eco's approach isgood for analyzing
highclass linear detective novels like. the ones he writes but it falls
apart on texts that don't make the rage of. interpretationtheir goal. Like
all models of the world semiotics fits some. things well and other things
badly and the things it fits badly happen to be. precisely the things I
care most about right now in the making of art. Maybe. somebody
could propose a new nonlinear model of semiotics or better a. chaotic
one that would extend the field into a place that might be. interesting.
But Eco's views on language are too restrictive for me and. don't carry
me to the places I want to go. Greimas deals with a much. wider range
of issues than semiotics in his work and I prefer him to Eco.. Even so
there is still much in the making of art that Greimas doesn't take. into
account. (Not that I can recall anything specifically that I could. critique
off the top of my pointy little head. . .) Linguistics still only. skims the
surface of art's deepest concerns so I guess the question is. should an
artist be content with merely skimmed surfaces Or should he dive.
headlong into the deep waters where theories fear to tread I guess some
of. us are Ahabs and some of us are Ishmaels. I favor the crazy Ahab
341