Re:TheAshLad - Sandbooks

is convention codesign is interpretation or as. Signs have automatic
interpretations.. Codesigns have problematic conventions.. Codesigns
are unconventional interpreted signs.. In my understanding of Eco and
Kristeva. What Eco calls 'conventionally correlation' in the
signification is the same. as 'codify' where the conventions are
problematic interpretative it's still. the same signification process going
on but of different complexity.. And an important thing the
'conventional correlation' isn't this just the. signification process again
in case Eco is actually defining the sign. recursively loopy which would
fit in with Kristeva's notion and which was my. point to say in the
earlier Eco response that the 'sign' is purely virtual. it never takes place
the expression plane never meets the content plane the. 'conventional
correlation' is a chasm or synapse or bridge and where all. the Kristeva
shattering break in or is transmitted or runs under. Eco's sign. is never
complete the problem is the 'conventional correlation' which is the.
sign itself so it never ends. Codework and Kristeva's practice of text is.
working in that loophole it's a vertical chasm and crisis in the more.
horisontal networks of significations. In short then the sign is open and.
codework is wryting it.. In relation to what I called code and its double
the double would be the. vertical plane (chasm shadow code) to the
horisontal plane (surface. figure double). Yes I inverted that on purpose
in a way the double is the. residue which is the sign a mere product a
doubling of the code which is. the shadow. The sign is virtual a
doublenature of expression and content. which is never complete and
the code is the stuff making up the chasm between. and also making the
sign (code then is the virtuality of the sign) as all. signs are coded and
can not be decoded or the sign would be like nothing.. In another view
the sign is the double and the code is nothing the sign is. something
while code is nothing which would be both's virtuality and. signifiance.
In reality it is opposite sign is nothing and code is. everything which is
their practice.. So maybe it turns out that 'code and its double' and
'code as nothing' fit with. Kristeva's 'signifiance' and 'practice' of
'text'. signifiance double. virtuality of code (code is doubled into sign)
and practice nothing reality. of code (sign is 'doubled' into nothing
reversed) maybe what Charles Baldwin. called the doubleness's
double.. And what about the analogy of brain asymmetry in this It
would simplify to the. left hemisphere doing significations and the right
doing practice. The. sinisters are revolutionary in Kristeva's sense ) The
signifiance of the. left's symbolmachine's unlimited and unbounded
generating process through. language and the heterogeneous process of
65