RE: the other email was not good but this one:) Fw: [-empyre-] IsModernity ourAntiquity?-abriefhistoricaldivertissement

["Dirk Vekemans" <dv@vilt.net>]

> Dirk,
> 
> For my part I do not value or disvalue avant gardes. In my 
> point of view, modern and post-modern avant-gardes are 
> posponed regarding their object and their social objective. 
> They have turned out -or turned back.

Avant gardes are past events. You cannot re-enact past events. In ascribing
an object or objective to them, you're not approaching them as events.
People may have had such objectives, but that doesn't concern us.If you
would approach them as events, you'd see them making all kinds of movements,
turning out, back, thrusting forward, eating their own tails, meandering
into misty clouds of confusion surrounding us, condensating in search
results in Bruno's BPSC...
> 
> Today Avant-gardism is a style or a feeling, or an affect, 
> but not a sense of modern avant-garde -not a collective sense 
> on advance of space time to the society. But it can have an 
> hyperspacial quality out of time which is of expert universes 
> where any sign of the time is not structure but media (communication).

Sorry, this i don't get. Hyperspacial quality? Expert universes?
> 
> First it stayed only signs from modernity and modern avant 
> gardes - signs are possible language or code thanks the 
> syntax ; but they are not symbol.
> The end of modernity is
> probably linked to structuralism regarding languages.
> 
That would be: the end of the visibility of modernity as a distinct process
can (indeed) be linked to the end of structuralism as a distinct(able)
process. The difference is important,more than verbal,  i think, you can
only speak of 'ends' in terms of discernability, on the basis of sufficient
reason (des raisons suffisantes) in a perceptual process.

> Post-modernity was the anachronistic event of the signs of modernity.
> Language of the signs of modernity regarding the generative 
> and transformational grammars were the last point of the 
> transparence of modernity (from the structure to the 
> communication). Communication is not form.

Frankly i wouldn't know about post-modernity. As you can read in my bio i
have a, er, 'gap' there, and i feel it doesn't concern me, like the utopian
or dystopian motivations in Modernism don't concern me.
Chomsky's TGG, that i know about, had to study it. I had a Professor of
English linguistics, Emma Vorlat, who was still on a structuralist approach
in linguistics, i kinda shared her dismay with TGG. In retrospect i still
don't think very highly of TGG, i see it (wrongly, no doubt) as a rather
crude attempt to stratify language in terms of programmability. 
> 
> Don't you think so ?
> 
> Bonne journée,

And to you!
dv
> 
> Aliette
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christophe Bruno" <christophe.bruno@unbehagen.com>
> To: "soft_skinned_space" <empyre@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 9:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Is Modernity
> ourAntiquity?-abriefhistoricaldivertissement
> 
> 
> > peux tu préciser cet "à peu près" ?
> 
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Aliette G. Certhoux" <aliette@criticalsecret.org>
> > To: "soft_skinned_space" <empyre@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> > Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 7:37 PM
> > Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Is Modernity our
> > Antiquity?-abriefhistoricaldivertissement
> >
> >
> >> Hi ! Dirk,
> >>
> >> " if we could speak French I said " and " yes do it! " you 
> said. So I try
> >> :
> >> Alors vous serez peut-être obligé de traduire ?
> >>
> >> Si for this time I apologize to write mostly in French... 
> Next one I try
> >> to be mostly bilingual, as sometimes I did it for the best.
> >>
> >> En gros, je suis d'accord "à peu près" avec la position de 
> Christophe
> >> Bruno.
> >>
> >> Mais désolée, Dirk, je ne pense pas qu'il y ait 
> d'avant-garde moderne
> >> possible, sans transcendance des utopies... Et cela ne 
> relève pas de
> >> Stephen King, ni de Dantec, ni de Philip K.Dick, ni même 
> de Orwell, ou
> >> encore, antérieurement Mary Shelley ou Byron, même s'ils 
> travaillèrent
> >> sur la question pour en faire des romans, non des 
> manifestes, et qu'à
> >> juste titre ils font aussi référence populaire.
> >>
> >> Dessous, je poursuis mon argumentation tout en situant des exemples
> >> historiques que nous connaissons pour la plupart, parce 
> qu'ils permettent
> >> de baliser de façon partagée :
> >>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>