Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.44.0205250128370.13238-100000@panix3.panix.com>
From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>
To: Cyb <cybermind@listserv.aol.com>,
"WRYTING-L : Writing and Theory across Disciplines" <WRYTING-L@LISTSERV.UTORONTO.CA>
Subject: the commentaries of an idiot
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 01:28:49 -0400 (EDT)
3 protocols' commentaries 1 well this protocol drives everything. it's not a protocol, it's an association or mapping, it's a drive or production-number, it's a correspondence, it's built into the matrix of the inchoate, it's unintended, it's untended - [phenomenology of approach, the world] membrane.mov or something that 'reflects' - in the antiquated diamat sense - the running and rummaging of the idiotic real - 2 well this protocol carries the codes, this protocol carries the message, this protocol is unintended, it's tended, it's maintained, someone maintains it, someone keeps it running, someone sends the message, someone hears it - [phenomenology of the world, the carrier, the interpretation, the interpretation of the carrier, the assignation] - there's mime.mov and mum.mov and think of the body as the carrier/transmission - the making of the cinematic of the mime - 3 well this protocol's assigned on the run, this is the meaning-generator, meaning-production, this assigns boundaries and bindings, this creates language and negations, this runs it through - there's dirt inhabiting this one, there's the noise in the machine, there's the interpretations, the abjections, the sado-masochisms, the ideologies, histories - it's all in this protocol - [phenomenology of approach, the complicit, the seduction, the accompaniment, the comprehension, the deconstruction] === this is the parasitic protocol, the dirty little secret in the midst of the corporate === well, here's the seals film among others - all these cinematic ploys heading towards sexuality, exposure, restraint, composure - you can already see what a mess is being created, that there's no way in or through this stuff, it's too tangled, too much of a thicket, go back and go way back to the books - idiot, you're saying there's nothing more than a range of coding, some of it found and reported as such, witnessed, for better or worse, from the world-at-large, and some of it human-created, and some of it created and loose/ned upon the landscape. idiot, you're saying that the variety of protocols make some sort of difference. is it that you're trying to release your dirty little secret, whatever and wherever that is, within theory in order to create a minor masterpiece of therapeutic? it won't hold, the classification is useless and leaky. no matter how much you through around the cant word 'parasite,' nothing changes; if anything, you're parasitic on the theory itself. you go nowhere, it goes nowhere. the phenomenology of approach essay, once you finally got that finished, was a good thing; it was perfect, it allowed for some sort of advance. and so one can see how codes play into that, structures that are grounded in or submerged within or emerged without - the appropriated or created or discovered domain - however you want to read it. and of course codes don't exist in a vacuum, the morse code for example, is of a certain pitch with a specific transmission (no more, alas, replaced by further digital commu- nications), and a certain length for dot and dash, and a certain voltage and at a machine- or human- readable speed and machine- or human- writable speed - and all of this constitutes the _protocol_ of the transmission of the code, the protocol which is tended and let loose, the structure of the communications channel itself. and then of course there might be an infin- ite regress here, you're not sure, it just seems likely. idiot, there's no regress, but code and protocol don't necessary merge, and you're making STANDARDS and PROTOCOLS and CODES somehow equivalent, and you're getting lost as usual in a blind fix of your own doing, and you can't escape, you can never escape - and now you're far too tired to do anything but whine... _