[D-G]grammar used by Pretzel

[NZ]

the grammar is useful in many many ways. It is useful to maintain a
credible logos. Like an externalized socialized hypocampus. Grammar is
also super important to create for capitalists for translating the
"unknown" into logos to be used as rhetoric and the power of the
differend. Ideas like "the paperless office" have found some weird
credibility nowadays thanks to the grammar it imposes upon the office
work space. There is no "third-generation" really, just cuz Brockman
doesnt want to print out anything doesn't mean that it dont get
printed, it just gets printed elsewhere by someother non-paperless
office. To a certain extent Brockman was merely passing the buck, and
with the time & materal he was able to leach out of this arrangement
he was able to drive his competition out of the game (power of the
differend).  The situation is not really so different but the grammar
makes it look new. But grammar is not the bad guy, it is just that
this case the leverage was behind Brockman's and the grammar helped
communicate this into the hypocampus of ignorant office worker.
So much of that contemporary electronic art is just dressed up
"detentionalism" (without intention, and it looks like it was created
by oppressed high school students in detention class) This electronic
detentionalism adopts the frail grammar of conceptual art to basically
sell consumer technology. Like selling millions of hi-definition TV
sets to those poor folks who didn't have the correct resolution to see
Janet Jackson's tiny nipple during the super-bowl. What does that
Afro-American nipple have to do with Japan's newest Sony TV set?
Nothing, but if I can convince myself of the capitalist grammar that
will connect these together then I will certainly have something. But
what is it without that grammar? It is a pretty sick relationship.
But unlike our own hypocampus which deals tens of thousands of
connections simultaneously, most grammar is pretty sparse, as you say
minimal, that's why grammar usually sucks so bad, but we make up for
it with our own minds which are much more robust. That giant gap of
Socrate's "unknown" is once again filled by personal labor. Thinking
is work, it burns calories. The capitalist does't need to think he
makes others do that work.
In English, grammar is all we have left of thoth's rebus, we have
specialized cases I - you - we - he - she - they - that is all we have
in terms of perspectives standing on that giant tree. Looking at the
words "are" and "is" and I cannot see any similarity, not even a
single letter is the same, but knowing the grammar ("we are" vs "he
is"), I can see they virtually mean the same thing actually, thanks to
my calorie burning hypocampus. I know this internally and I can make
up for all the inconsistancies that rhetorical grammar of the English
provides.
Also from Thoth, the grammar of time seems to be some kind of ultimate
grammar, especially for capitalism, and PVirillio (that good catholic)
enjoys embracing this line of reasoning. I enjoyed his semiotexte
booklet on warfare and currently finishing his "landscape of events",
but he is so skimpy. I would like to compare it to Rebecca Solnit's
"Rivers of Shadows" ($5 at www.Strandbooks.com !) but there is no
comparison. Besides communicating truely radical philosophical ideas
about time, "Rivers of Shadows" is also an excellent history of the
standardization of time (annihilation of time) and shows exactly how
warfare was emplyed to make such a thing occur and how the war
industry used academia to transform itself into Hollywood so it could
maintain those rhetorical differends in the present day.  Lets also
not forget that it is the war industry that has given us the internet
as well.