Message-ID: <alpine.NEB.2.00.1009030100320.23943@panix3.panix.com>
From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>
To: Cyb <cybermind@listserv.wvu.edu>, Wryting-L <WRYTING-L@listserv.wvu.edu>
Subject: Why Spencer Brown is Wrong
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 01:00:50 -0400 (EDT)
Why Spencer Brown is Wrong "The idea that everything is understood can be indicated by revolving the Pradesini (index) finger and also eye-sight and by pressing the Alapadma pose. "The sound to be heard should be indicated by contacting the ear (with the palm) and the objects to be seen by appropriate looks. Things pertaining to over [one's ?] self, to others or to some one should also be expressed by the different looks. "The performer should indicate lightning (the falling of) meteor, thunder, of the cloud, the sparks and the flame and the whip by contracting the body and narrowing the eyes." -- from Priyabala Shah, Art of Dancing (Classical and Folk Dances) It's impossible to believe that the logical foundation of the physical world doesn't originate (isn't tied in) with the Sheffer stroke and its dual; this isn't about the foundations of (abstract) logic, but the ontological nowhere implied by "neither A nor B" - expulsion - as well as "not both A and B" which, like negation itself, points elsewhere. Not both A and B however is constructed around a kernel or Pale; anything else, abstract or otherwise, is acceptable. But neither A nor B opens up an uninscribed and possibly fissured space; nothing is present. Both Sheffer and dual are generators of the propositional logic; both participate in the desert of ontology that ensues. If S.B. is going to draw a distinction, he's already plummeted through Merleau-Ponty. If he's going to construct an imaginary, he's run through Husserl's internal time-consciousness as well. "not both a and b. neither a nor b.": are nothing, tokens, graphemes, textual displacements, koan. S.B., there's nowhere to go; he insists on traveling, dragging the body with him, all well and good, but already a physics drawing a logic drawing a physics etc. What's unmarked is marked as unmarked; what's marked is unmarked as marked. A mark is always already. A mark has nothing to do with this text. or its dual for example as the basis - neither a nor b - not both a and b the same, not both a and b, neither a nor b dual: "neither A nor B"; Sheffer: "not both A and B"; the fundamental But meaning may be produced even out of tautology. For example, proposi- tional logic may be derived from the Sheffer stroke, "not both A and B"; it can also be derived from its dual, "neither A nor B." What can we say about these? Only that they represent, as processes or cullings of particular bounded universes, an unbinding/unbounding - "neither A nor B" points elsewhere altogether, and "not both A and B" points either else- where or towards an underpinning of union. At the heart of this reduction of propositional logic is a tendency towards dispersion, wandering, the nomadic, even though the symbols within the calculus proper are completely mute. The Sheffer stroke and its dual are related as well to the processes of inscription - for what is x^-x, than an inscription of an entity, a process of coding (and all coding is inscription of one form or another) the real for the purposes of comprehension, a process that produces, not only meaning, but all the meaning there is. There is no outside to the sememe, just as there is no landscape without a viewpoint. In this sense we are bounded, bound to be bounded. not both A and B well I never stroke A|B, not both A and B, and its dual AYB, the hidden V conjoint, Sheffer stroke, not both A and B, and its dual, neither A nor B, as a domain. The work relies on the Sheffer stroke* ("not both A and B") B' points elsewhere altogether, and 'not both A and B' points either 0: neitherness, not both A and B, neither A nor B (a priori mathesis) 0, 0': neitherness, not both A and B, neither A nor B (a priori mathesis). emotions or prime numbers; bricks or philosophy. Obscenity is valuable in its valuelessness; it works, working through nothing; it is contrary or wayward, contradiction; obscenity occurs within the Sheffer stroke Therefore "by default": given that there is none, that there is none other; our ethos: subsummation of the other; recuperation of the other within the same; recuperation of the same within the other. poetry remains elsewhere (neither A nor B). For that matter, text is never neither A nor B - signifiers of expulsion, building blocks of logic. Sheffer stroke, not both A and B, and its dual, neither A nor B. In order that h. is _neither here nor there,_ _neither A nor B._ So and its dual ("neither A nor B") to construct a logical picture bolstered by "neither A nor B," which, I have shown in other texts, and B'; it can also be derived from its dual, 'neither A nor B.' What can "neither A nor B"; in its elsewhere; in its range outside the organization particular, neitherness, neither a nor b, throws the phenomenological or its dual for example as the basis - neither a nor b - not both a and b Negation: chain/elsewhere/classical/non-classical/neither a nor b/a|b Chain: not-A goes somewhere else; not-not-A is not an automatic return, doesn't cohere.