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

["Charles Baldwin" <Charles.Baldwin@mail.wvu.edu>]

It is nice to have a technology that is porous to the network in ways
never achieved before.

Suppose F is correct: The difference would be that the blog seems to
take care of the linking automatically (per Adrian: supports trackback,
cannot write links in, etc.), whereas the citationality of "war an
peace" (or other language) seems non-hypertextual, non-networked,
non-automatic, not celebrating Bataillian excess (but why? is that
true?). Or: the blog is somehow more automatic, more networked, etc.
(Magically so, or technologically so - same thing in this case.) So,
this is why we have these words to describe blogs (exciting, novel,
emergent), so we know the difference and can identify the magic we
believe in today, so we don't confuse the results for what language
already did (at last the general economy, we might declare), and so we
can remind ourselves this is something new.

Sandy

>>> fmadre@free.fr 10/18/2005 4:42:50 AM >>>
so, what you are saying is that as long as your blog is being linked to
it is
not ending. what i'm saying is that when you stop posting to it then it
has
ended. we are obviously not talking about the same thing.
would you say that for instance "war an peace" doesn't have a beginning
 because
people quote from it (from somewhere in the "middle" of it) and no end
because
people are still mentioning it ? I would not.

still if I accept your definition of begin/end then what you mention is
not
specific to blogs, it is an inherent characteristic of the web that our
online
pieces are zapped thru rather than experienced from elusive start to
hypothetical finish

> All works have a literal beginning and end. This was done to death
in
> naive criticism of hypertext circa 1996.

)

> Blogs are emergent ecologies that rely on links. Links are the
> fundamental transaction. (See Weinberger, Walker, Tosca, and myself
> for stuff on this.) They are an excess (in Bataille's sense of a
> general economy) that blogs celebrate, even when business is busy
> trying to appropriate them (but as an excess this will always only
be
> partial). They are porous to the network in ways that most other
> writing to the web, certainly everyday popular writing, never
> achieved.

they are only porous to the blogosphere, very closed and small circles
always
retraced

Every current system of authority in blogging (as far as I
> know), relies on links in to determine authority. I cannot write
> links in. I am subject to the network for that.

it's so perversely simple to get those links in and that is the burden
of "the
blog".

> This is exciting and novel. It is emergent,

it's at least 6 years old and I got bored 3 years ago.

> are those that mistake network ecologies for diary writing :-)

sure!

f.
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au 
http://www.subtle.net/empyre