Re: [-empyre-] Accidents (was for example)
more than likely i'm having a little moment of panic over semantics here,
but jim's suggestion that....
> a gesture, for instance, if it is remembered, is
> remembered via some inscription of it somewhere (or multiple places) in the
> body. Whether we want to call it writing or inscription or coding or
> whatever, doesn't matter. Aspects of the gesture are coded in the body as
> information, in some way that makes them memorable, ie, recallable, ie,
> decipherable later on as the gesture. Readable later on as the gesture.
> In other words, the information is coded in a language that is inscribable
> and, later, decipherable or readable, amenable to interpretation according
> to some rules regarding the language.
.... seems to reduce gesture - and embodied perception more generally - to a
sort of call-and-response activity linked to a relatively limited repertoire
of codes - a definitional framework that aims not just to construct the body
but to prescribe 'every possible signifying and countersignifying move as a
selection from a repertoire of possible permutations on a limited set of
.... that last little bit is lifted from Brian Massumi's 'Parables for the
Virtual', and i'm roping him in here because he argues much more eloquently
than i do against frameworks which propose a determinitive structure (i.e. a
code) first, and movement or gesture second. these sort of models leave no
room for change - qualitative material transformation. in other words they
suggest that embodiedness itself is historically static and the only things
that change are the codes/inscriptions that make it legible.
> the human perceptual crevice is only a sliver of temporal and spatial
i'd agree - and given this it seems a bit optimistic to suggest that sensory
information is coded and readable like any other language
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and