RE: [-empyre-] C. S. Peirce and Code

 Adrian, I appreciate the clarity of your answer. I am keen to hear more
from you about your views on the blogosphere in relation to the conversation
here. I'm very interested in the way that text itself - i.e. the keyword, or
tag - becomes an operator rather than a carrier of meaning. Do you have any
thoughts on this?



-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Miles
To: soft_skinned_space
Sent: 10/17/2005 5:09 AM
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] C. S. Peirce and Code

around the 17/10/05 Roman Danylak mentioned about Re: [-empyre-] C. 
S. Peirce and Code that:
>When people say "digital writing" how is this different to pen writing?
>this different to typewriter writing? Does it then make a difference
to the
>language  used if you write on an electronic word processor?

yes. if only the medium of reception/reading is different (where is 
the beginning of my blog? the end?, or a real hypertext?).

>Do I compose language differently for the telephone?

absolutely. We have quite different protocols and rules for how we 
talk on phones. There is a very complex set of behaviours that 
controls turn taking for example, which since we can't see the other 
speaker is only linguistic. Also the simple activity of announcing 
yourself when the phone rings ("hi, it's Adrian speaking") is an act 
that is not done in any other context (eg having a conversation at 
Adrian Miles

empyre forum

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.