I wonder if the alphabet is, in fact, a code. Certainly it's based on
symbolic substitution (letters for phonemes), but there are codes and then
there are codes - the alphabet is fairly random; axiomatic logic, for
example, isn't.
I also think the binding is stronger than one might think - this is where
the obsolescence of media, screens, technologies, come into play.
Circulation is always of interest to me - I tend to think of
distributivities in general - which goes all the way back to cuneiform
tables and envelopes and even earlier. Circulations are always tied to
protocols, substructures, technologies, embodiments; even the
electromagnetic spectrum, radio/packet/television/etc. is embodied of
course.
> The implication of text is that it is not bound to a
certain process of writing it down. And this doesn't
have to be in print. The word "code" literally comes
from "carving" or "beating" ...carved into stone or
wood. So, code denotes writing.
Hmmm... I think code and write touch on each other and are interrelated,
but one hardly denotes the other. One can have scribbles without code - Cy
Twombly comes to mind -