Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.58.0401082239540.12629@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: second
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 22:40:05 -0500 (EST)
second at the Metropolitan today, looking at Oribe and Mino ware. Momoyama period. then rereading my Antarctic writings from Hobart (Tasmania), 1982. 'Who controls discourse controls the law.' listen: 'the body an inductive body, the play of logics extending everywhere, collapse and extensions of spectrums, running-on, probabilistic wave-function, union extends and intersection blurs, the former altering distributivity. the editorializing body operating within a limited bandwidth, a situation of sampling through the elocution of the gesture, the sway, field phenomena melding, crossing the skin, adjacent holes.' doesn't this - two + decades later - become the network society - as if it never existed in the first place, a priori? something I was aware of back in 71, with my analysis of the tangled holarchies of immersive and definable structures - how one looks at things through time, how things may remain outside of time, outside of temporality, how humans bring time to things. and here from 82 is the net: 'body-centered, it is the body which extends, consciousness as a wake following, recuperating the extensions through language. images play across the surface; these are ingested, failing distributivity. the images as phenomenological appetition, a process of accretion.' 'the body of thought as in a body of water.' look for the packet-sniffers, on an average day I receive 500 emails, of which only perhaps 360 are spam. how can one remember the distinctions among Oribe and Mino, the Chinese 17th- century Nanking painters, the enormous collection of Japanese work in the Bridge of Dreams show we saw years ago? images pour through the world, falling into adjacencies. I can't keep distinctions, separations; my work is cultural flux, not the exigencies of boundary-formations, not even the margins - the world folds in on itself. and reading in this regard Shaviro, who I think gets networks 'wrong' - begin with the thing and the arrow, the protocol and the carrying-capacity; extend through looping and filtration - one might find networks are precisely dead, hillside skeins, whose content is otherwise-driven, and never to encounter itself - no more than one phonecall can understand another. enough notes, and I wish I could sign this Jennifer. [third] _