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

around the 19/10/05 mentioned about Re: [-empyre-] C. S. Peirce and Code that:
It is the question I am asking you, indeed.
so, besides getting more hits

ok, so that you can make work that might change based on:
how many current readers
how many historical readers
where the readers are (in time and space, eg their local time, their local space)
you might indicate to readers that readers not from there did this, and vice versa.

etc, etc.

This is stuff that Markku Eskelinen has written very well (if not pugnaciously) about. It is trivial to now think of there being many more facets (my term not his) within a 'work' so that the triad (you can substitute your preferred terms) author/text/reader are no longer privileged as the trinity. The author could be other things, the text can be 'other things' and the reader can be distributed, etc.

I think that online writers should not care about getting more hits or where the
hits come from. I think that it is detrimental to our work, as are comments.

I am reading this as an aesthetic position, a statement of your practice? If that's the case then fantastic, embrace it and explore it. But please don't confuse your practice with a normative position vis a vis everyone elses practice (I don't think that is what you're doing btw).
Adrian Miles
this email is [ ] bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private
<URL: >

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