Alan Sondheim on 24 Aug 2000 23:52:22 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> Re: your mail |
Language is a residue; thought is by and large unthought through and in language. I think this goes back all the way to J. Hadamard, Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field; the symbolic or program/matic is what happens after the "grey blurs" are moved about. When I do mathematics, I notice the same thing; I'm not thinking _in_ symbols, but only _through_ mathesis, which might as well be Tao; when it's written I can look through cursor or cursorily for the appearance of error. Look for that matter at Duhem versus the British - abstraction vs. modeling, to be crude about it - but both were considered languaging. It's the substrates that fascinate me - not the gaps between word and word or language and world or world and world, but the very gaps that only later are manifested as inguistic emer- gence. This some like the Kristevan chora; one doesn't need to go to the irrational when the thetic will do. Levinas' _there is_ or the thetic reach of Tran Duc Thao's gestural origins of language (sweeping the arm - the bison's beyond the hill - mix of indexical/ikonic) are always already there as a mass/mess (which is why Parmenides' wondering about the mud as a Platonic ideal form was so disturbing at the time). - Alan, gesturing & wilding all the way back in Courier 10-point Internet Text at http://www.anu.edu.au/english/internet_txt Partial at http://lists.village.virginia.edu/~spoons/internet_txt.html Trace Projects at http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/writers/sondheim/index.htm _______________________________________________ Nettime-bold mailing list Nettime-bold@nettime.org http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold