Re: [-empyre-] Thoughts about Peirce, semiosis and new language

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

<<Digital writing has some new attributes that for me transcend the
Remediation concept.>>
I totally agree with that. The idea of Remediation is naive, in that
it does not take in account the fact that mediation (or rather,
semiosis), is already a process in which language constantly writes
about writing about writing and so on.
(Or, to be more exact: semiosis is a process in wich language
constantly sings about writing about painting words and so on.)

<<All of Peirces modes - firstness, secondness and thirdness co-mingle
and change in relation to ongoing navigation of this virtual space.>>
I am not sure if I clearly enough developed, at my previous post, the
idea that Digital Writing, as far as semiotics is concerned, is rather
a dream example of Peirce´s concept of language than any kind of shift
on the history of written communication. The reason for that is the
fact that semiotics does not separate the three categories but on a
logical sphere. Whenever a sign is embodied, the three of them can be
traced -- cf. the idea that different graphic treatments of the same
word corresponds to irruptions of secondness *, and even firstness **,
on thirdness.

* think of Herb Lubalin´s beatiful MOTHER and Child logo, where the
capital "O", on the large set word "MOTHER", wraps a smaller
commercial "&", as if it was a placenta, and an even smaller "child"
inside the curve of the "&". Despite the fact that we have only words
on this logo, the visual component is very strong

** this is easier, just think of different handwriting and how they
borrow qualities (legible, not legible) to the text, or think of the
noisy elements on a page designed by David Carson -- they don´t mean
anything but they say everything!

My point here would be that understanding "writing" as arranging
thoughts in abstract ways is much more conceivable when one uses a
computer, but looking to analogical examples, it is clear that all the
categories are always intermingled.
(And this is the strengh of semiotics, I think)

Despite that, I insist on the fact that semiotics has not thought
about the different levels of performativity, on how digital code is
more "executable" than other, etc.
(This does not mean that it does not have theoretical instruments for
that, but probably that I am not aware of research on that field...
btw, there´s a text that gives some directions on that, called
"Semiotic Machines, by Winfried Nöth,
http://www.library.utoronto.ca/see/SEED/Vol3-3/Winfried.htm)

best
On 10/17/05, Bill Seaman <bseaman@risd.edu> wrote:
> Dear Marcus - thanks for the wonderful Peirce
> quotes --- they are very interesting in this
> context.
>
>
> Here are some of the relations I wish to point at
> as being slightly different from the long list of
> people who articulated ideas surrounding
> hypertext as digital writing and perhaps go
> beyond even Pierces definitions (ever so
> slightly).
>
> Digital writing has some new attributes that for
> me transcend the Remediation concept. I'll try to
> put my finger on a few of them.
>
> I have a very broad definition of Digital
> WritingŠ I want to try to point at where I think
> some new language might be helpfulŠ
>
> When I encounter a meta text in Char Davies
> Osmose that is the code of the work as presented
> as meta- architecture (literal virtual
> architecure --- a pun on architecture), the
> experiential nature of the environment, in
> particular the physical interface she has
> designed to enable one to navigate the  virtual
> environment becomes enfolded phenomenologically
> with the layers of meaning in the text. All of
> Peirces modes - firstness, secondness and
> thirdness co-mingle and change in relation to
> ongoing navigation of this virtual space. Yet
> here the environment also enables a charged field
> of meaning to become part of this layering. The
> quixotic nature of the ongoing subtle shifts
> between firstness, secondness and thirdness seem
> to even transcend the idea that each level is
> becoming the other (as Marcus suggests) in terms
> of this larger mutable virtual environmental
> scheme which also signifies. This constellation
> of signs, each changing at its own velocity in
> relation to the participant's movements, seems to
> move to a heightened level of layering of
> intersemiotic modes. Might we work on a new word
> that points at this advanced level of
> intersemiotic relations. ---
> What would Pierce have encountered that would be
> relevant to compare to such an environment? Here
> are some potential terms ---
> hyperintersemiotic; transintersemiotic (did
> Marcos Novak already coin this?)
> supra-intersemiotic? Intra-semiotic?
>
> I also begin to think about new forms of locative
> media that depend on landscape and physical
> navigation, lending levels of meaning to the
> digital text (context)Š Hyperecosemiotic?
>
> I think about media- behaviors and a-life
> parameters/potentialities giving text new kinds
> of electronic "life".  Artificial-Semiotic-life -
> a-sem-life
>
> I think about physics and artificial physics
> (E-phany physics as I coined it) as it is
> conjoined with texts to present new kinds of
> reactive and intra-active environments.
> E-phanysemiotics
>
> Hayles uses the term "Creole" to talk about texts
> that intermingle code and poetic text ---
> Yet what happens when this is extended into the
> phenomenological space of physical computing. An
> object|creole enfolding is generated.
>
> What happens when the machine writes the text in
> an autonomous manner that is reacting to various
> forms of interface input? Lynn Hershmann's Agent
> Ruby? Does the fact that it is a machine change
> the meaning in a subtle manner --- is there a
> word for this? Turingtestmatic writing?
>
> Kac wrote a bio-code via the computer that was
> made physical and transcribed back into a text
> --- what kind of word points at this accretive
> layering of meaning - digitaccretive?
>
> Works where all variables are supplied by the
> participant and are then formed by the code into
> a new work--- participant driven semiosis?Š
> I-semiosis?
>
> Or works that actually are auto destructive in
> terms of meaning production --- the virus t-shirt
> codeŠ Diss-semiosis
>
>
> b
>
> --
> Professor Bill Seaman, Ph.D.
> Department  Head
> Digital+ Media Department (Graduate Division)
> Rhode Island School of Design
> Two College St.
> Providence, R.I. 02903-4956
> 401 277 4956
> fax 401 277 4966
> bseaman@risd.edu
>
> http://billseaman.com
> http://www.art.235media.de/index.php?show=2