Message-ID: <alpine.NEB.2.21.1808081710480.10538@panix3.panix.com>
From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>
To: Cyb <cybermind@listserv.wvu.edu>, Wryting-L <WRYTING-L@listserv.wvu.edu>
Subject: Talking about talking in Montreal
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2018 17:13:23 -0400 (EDT)
Talking about talking in Montreal http://www.alansondheim.org/whatsthat.jpg Very nervous about the attempt to talk about four or five different categories of semeiotics within the space of 15 minutes and then to present the rough idea of a Dynamics going between the signifier and the signified as if these were ever separated and not knowing how to proceed in a way that is going to lay this out with Clarity in the amount of time given. The issue is that even if you look at Freud oerlikon* when you've got all of these diagrams going back to sosua** you're going to find yourself in the mess. And then if you try to bring into account Michelle ser*** and the parasite there are more problems and if you try to bring in Dynamics and category Theory there are still more problems. I really don't know a way around the confusion here except to proceed with a lure. The lure is the video that will be shown simultaneously in an attempt to distract the audience and an inability to theorize correctly. This is where I'm coming from half fake and the other half quack. Somewhere in between fake and Quack there's a Dynamics. It's just an Amex**** which I'm examining in light of a pretense to an academic paper. There's nothing how to deal with four or five different semiotic categories and have it make sense to the audience or even to myself. So this is an attempt to apologize ahead of time before I even begin so that if you are as confused as I am. You might even take me out for a cup of coffee. Thank you. See you soon in Montreal if we don't see you first and in any case I hope this makes some sort of sense. It's always good to apologize ahead of time so that if you criticize me I can say I've already criticize***** myself and I've criticized myself far worse than you can ever criticize me because only I can know the unbelievable extent and depth of my ignorance. Thank you. *or Lacan **Saussure ***Serres ****?? *****criticized