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

[giselle beiguelman <desvirtual@gmail.com>]

Roman,
I agree with you that it is an electronic simulation.
It is possible that the inconsequent metaphor between page and screen
conceals this situation. But it also denotes a vocabulary gap that
creates false parallel ideas such as web and site, and indicates a
weakness in the field of digital culture criticism.
As a matter of fact, those false parallels and synonyms suppress the
most interesting possibility of on-line writing: it celebrates the
loss of inscription by removing all traces of the acts of erasure.
By doing so, digital culture points to a new authorship condition: one
that faces the novelty of the contemporary phenomena of
second-generation originals.
A phenomenon that is more than a simple consequence of the ontological
nature of digital data, given that informatics is a technology of
cloning, of the duplication of code.
Digital texts and images are unlinked to the support. Save it in
another medium. There is not any difference between the original and
the copy. There are no originals, nor copies. Just information code.
The here-and-now of authenticity, the artwork's "aura", as put by
Walter Benjamin, does not fit digital culture production.
In spite of being identical resettings of the same informative code,
they are not identical in experience, and this is the fascinating
aspect of clone logic: the possibility of being identical on being
different.
Images have left their imago>imitare condition. They have  suppressed
their etymological essence. They have become second-hand originals.
Texts, in turn, are now closer to their primitive Latin meaning:
"texere", or to weave, since they are more and more an edited or
amended copy of another work, triggering a relational quality that
fuzzes the limits between image and text.
On-line data (whether texts, images or sounds) are visible if they are
described by texts which indicate their location in a domain,
rendering them recognizable by a Uniform Resource Locator, which is a
type of Uniform Resource Identifier (URI).
Texts are places, and all those places – actually non-places which we
call sites– are constructed to be transmitted and conceived within a
specific downloading time.
This means that space is a matter of text and seeing is a matter of
writing. And both are a matter of weight.
It is really strange that any file on the web seems to be only
surface. The very screen/page metaphor reinforces this statement,
dissimulating that which implodes the notion of volume and
horizontality of the line.

gb


2005/10/17, Roman Danylak <rdanylak@it.uts.edu.au>:
> Well Giselle, yes  I am reading a "page", maybe an electronic simulation -
> but it is an analogue of a  page and without the analogue version I cannot
> do what I am doing  as a learnt process. The machine of the book still
> predominates in alphabetic writing and reading.
>
> As to tracking, that I believe is a residual; art forms are tracks of
> creative processes that is they are residuals of conscious sensations. Just
> that with digital writing tools are far more accessible and essay to use,
> similar to difference between piano and violin; the piano is more of a
> machine and therefore produces results more quickly. The violin is more
> archaic.
>
> It is an "E-MAIL" which you read - electronic mail: we still couldn't get
> past the old paper envelope.
>
> Roman
>
>
>
> On 17/10/05 3:46 PM, "giselle beiguelman" <desvirtual@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Adrian,
> > Thanks. You made my day.
> > I agree with everything.
> > Btw, I would like to stress:
> > Roman, are you reading a page?
> > Of course, you are not. This is an e-mail message and it is another thing.
> > Delete it or not. It does not inscribe anything.
> > Do you think there is a "place" in cyberspace you can call "home" (or
> > home page?)
> > We are facing a new reading_condition (because we are dealing with a
> > new writing condition).
> > Content = no cache is my favourite tag.
> > It points to a new written world where we do not inscribe anymore. You
> > describe. There is shift a here: towards the track (and tracked)
> > culture.
> >
> >
> > 2005/10/17, Adrian Miles <adrian.miles@rmit.edu.au>:
> >> 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? Is
> >>> 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
> >> dinner).
> >> --
> >> cheers
> >> Adrian Miles
> >>
> >> hypertext.RMIT
> >> <URL:http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vlog>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> empyre forum
> >> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> >> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > www.desvirtual.com
> > http://netart.incubadora.fapesp.br/
> > _______________________________________________
> > empyre forum
> > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>


--
www.desvirtual.com
http://netart.incubadora.fapesp.br/