Re:TheAshLad - Sandbooks

exemplification leads in Panofsky's terms to the POSTULATE OF.
CLARIFICATION FOR CLARIFICATION'S SAKE. Leaving
Panofsky I think it's. possible to see in Eco precisely this paradox
enabling semiotics as an. intraformal economy of proliferating signs.
Everything must be. clarified made into as sign but (also) there always
remains some. unclarity guaranteeing a kind of momentum from being
to sign.. Elaboration i.e. the structures of signs systems arises from.
clarification. Semiotics is clarification not in any particular sign. but in
semiotics itself as the residue of clarification.. Comment Interesting I
refered to the virtuality of the sign (its. impossibility) argued for via the
recursivity of Eco's definition of the. sign ie its paradox endlessness
and from that the relation between. sign and residue code and double
and nothing etc. Eco and information. theory have an understanding of
recursivity and selfreference (via the. speed of light of computers) in
another sense than for Thomists for who. these problems would seem
paradox (and evil).. what degree is Eco's semiotics a concealed
continuation of a Thomist. aesthetics Read across the trajectory of
Eco's work from the earliest. text through the Theory of Semiotics
every sign is a ghost emanation. of being. Beyond this there's another
related but different history. explaining how the whole thing is staged
rhetorically dissolving. being into performance but that's probably
enough for now.. Comment This all seems to resonate with my simple
understanding but. maybe cryptic form also allowing the Kristeva
operations on text to. take place maybe in the ghost emanations from
the virtuality of the. sign and the reality of the code. From my view if
would also be. interesting to know if the rhetorical staging into
performance would. be similar to the idea of code as nothing and how
the whole business. dissolves itself.. Interesting reading keep on by all
means.. Re codework (KristevaEco) (fwd). language is the mechanism
whereby you understand what i'm thinking better. than i do (where 'i'
is defined by those changes for which i is required).. i an interface of
signifiance over our shattered do (where i. mediates sign and fiance
(which is double itself (signifiance (all parents. are married to their
children ('i' am the priest (the conventional and. virtual (of the chasm
(like every convention is exactly the chasm (that's why. (that's 'why'
(what's that 'why' (i (). ). ). ). ). ). ). ). ). ). ). ). ). Re codework
(KristevaEco). Some more conflation on the reversingirreversing
virtualchasmic code. business. (codework and conflation). In this logic
if A B we might assume that B A. Move a book to a. shelf remove it put
it back. The hierarchy emerges as follows.. (book to shelf) (book from
69