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

[Adrian Miles <adrian.miles@rmit.edu.au>]

around the 19/10/05 fmadre@free.fr mentioned about Re: [-empyre-] C. 
S. Peirce and Code that:
> It is the question I am asking you, indeed.
> >  so, besides getting more hits

ok, so that you can make work that might change based on:
how many current readers
how many historical readers
where the readers are (in time and space, eg their local time, their 
local space)
you might indicate to readers that readers not from there did this, 
and vice versa.

etc, etc.

This is stuff that Markku Eskelinen has written very well (if not 
pugnaciously) about. It is trivial to now think of there being many 
more facets (my term not his) within a 'work' so that the triad (you 
can substitute your preferred terms) author/text/reader are no longer 
privileged as the trinity. The author could be other things, the text 
can be 'other things' and the reader can be distributed, etc.


> I think that online writers should not care about getting more hits 
> or where the
> hits come from. I think that it is detrimental to our work, as are comments.

I am reading this as an aesthetic position, a statement of your 
practice?  If that's the case then fantastic, embrace it and explore 
it. But please don't confuse your practice with a normative position 
vis a vis everyone elses practice (I don't think that is what you're 
doing btw).
--
cheers
Adrian Miles
this email is [ ] bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private
hypertext.RMIT
<URL:http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vlog >