Re: [-empyre-] Re: Subject: inscribing of characters on an interf ace

[marcus bastos <bastos.marcus@gmail.com>]

<<Indeed, a common complaint is that interaction with the machine frees people
from stillness when they have no wish to be freed.>>
I wonder what are the feelings concerning wireless systems, since
comparing desktop with wireless, there´s still more freedom!

On 10/6/05, Sue Thomas <Sue.Thomas@dmu.ac.uk> wrote:
>  Marcus,
>
> You have an interesting point here. I've spoken with many people about their
> experiences of writing and reading online, and a common theme is the way the
> necessary interaction with the machine - keyboarding, mouse, physical
> position and location - all disrupt their interaction. For some, this
> interference increases their pleasure, but for others they are
> insurmountable intrusions into the relationship with the text/work/activity.
> In other words, for some, the 'undisciplining of the body' is desirable, for
> others it isn't.
>
> Indeed, a common complaint is that interaction with the machine frees people
> from stillness when they have no wish to be freed.
>
> I wonder if this is like the way musicians have proclivities for different
> instruments? To one person, the vibration of the violin against the
> collarbone is soothing, to another it can even be painful. Or the blowing of
> a brass instrument is energising for one, exhausting for another.
>
> For myself, I feel most complete when I am at my keyboard and online. My
> computer is my musical instrument, and I am transported by it. But I do
> appreciate that for many people the opposite is true.
>
> Sue
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: marcus bastos
> To: soft_skinned_space
> Sent: 10/6/2005 6:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Re: Subject: inscribing of characters on an
> interface
>
> Dear Simon,
>
> when you mention "redundancy as a limit body-experience of text", I
> immediately remember of Jacques Rancière´s "The flesh of words:
> politics of writing". At this text, Rancière argues that writing
> limits body experience, since it obliges the writer to be still for a
> reasonable period of time — and, he states, this stillness molds his
> actions. For Rancière, this process of fixing the body in a given
> position is more responsible for molding a certain kind of individual
> than the words and concepts he learns by acquiring language, given
> that his body learns to obey before his mind learns how to think about
> disobedience. Do you think the experience of writing with aid of
> digital interfaces frees the body and, as a consequence, the mind,
> from this stillness? Are digital interfaces capable of, so to say,
> "undisciplining" the body?
>
>
> On 10/5/05, Simon Taylor <swht@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> > Marcus Bastos wrote:
> > "Juxtaposition seems to be
> > crucial here, but I am not sure if those flows of images are as
> > controllable as we imagine."
> > coming in at the end of this particular beginning, I would like to
> highlight
> > the foregoing as a juncture in thought about the what is not left as
> its
> > trace is untraceable in digital ecriture. First, to say, there is a
> > summoning herein of the mystique of erasure - as it stands in Western
> > meaning-creation. Second, to say that the privilege of transmitting
> thought
> > as writing 'mind to mind' digitally might be deliberated in principle
> as
> > contradiction: as we all know the enabling thought behind any thought
> in the
> > history of this mediation of the code-digital lies in infomation
> theory's
> > encoded redundancy of meaning-creating and signification. Far be it
> for me
> > to depart from the idea of meaning-flows but I think there is a
> > performative, enunciative limit-base to meaning-creation, which
> demands risk
> > rather than redundancy as a limit body-experience of text. This is not
> to
> > get logged down in the visuality syndrome of phallogocentrism, rather
> to
> > rise up to greet limit-experience as corporeally composed - and
> discomposed.
> >
> > As a juncture controllability seems to belie a pathology of
> signifiance of
> > surfeit meaning-creation, a decadence, if you will - a breath that is
> > shorter than its reach - in line, in play - a distinguishable
> control-limit
> > to flow dynamic and a sign to regime change - whether willed or not -
> in
> > game.
> >
> > The stuff being moved - to invoke a physics model - relies on an
> absolute
> > framework in which spaces/times are measured according to Newton
> against the
> > absolute. Relativisation of the sphere of writing demands a shift that
> one
> > can assume to be there because of digital mediatisation but may not
> > necessarily be there because of the laws of meaning-production. The
> argument
> > surely returns to an archeology of social production of meaning before
> it
> > repeats in digitised mode.
> >
> > In short, I'm excited at the prospect of liberated digitised flows but
> would
> > suggest that sociological barrieres still subsist to mitigate against
> such
> > flows. Not least the statistical reach of the sociological
> > self-constitution - dealing in mass statistical data reflected in
> > attribution of meaning - signification - and limits thereto suggested
> by
> > traditional avant-gardes.
> >
> > Which is not to say I'm way off the point. If so, I apologise in
> advance.
> >
> > simon taylor
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > empyre forum
> > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> >
>  <<ATT600298.txt>>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>