[D-G] Re: grammar used by Pretzel

[Gondo -Minnie]

i liked this electronic mail. it is differend than the
previouses. an idea or two migrated to my soul and
made an anchor like fishes attracted by worm or fly
baby.
to shift and use a coding, i d say baby flies, if i
were the "they" you spoke about, would need to find
their fishe's mouths, and the mouth should close them
tight, and we would not lose rhetoric of the
assemblage. indeed it is case by case each time a fly
baby finds the mouth of a giant fish, rhetorising
industrial militaryous complex, that FisheKing should
reappear and the mystic Graal would shine in the room,
and Perceval goes there to ask the good question to
the Lady full of Jesus Christ's blood. The fishes are
coming from the North I think, and the magnetic pole
send them here in this Sacred Room. The Fishes, are
polluted, and their scale are intricated by an
abstract geometry which Paul Virilio is skimpish
about. The task of the Knights are set to deliver the
message to King Arthur before the Vikings arrive, that
is I beleive part of what you say on the dative.
Gwegyfar the Beautyful Queen and Lancelot are running
in the woods to find out the mystery of the scales in
the fishes, their abstruse geometry is part of "us"
even though we have been invisible one to the other,
hidden by the armies of Vikings unfurling in the
meadows.
--- NZ <pretzelworld at gmail.com> wrote:

> Perhaps we need a wiki disambiguation here cuz you
> haven't said what
> kind of code you are talking about... Computer code,
> secret code,
> semiotic code, genetic code.... and admittedly, I
> have run the gamut
> on my use of grammar. To curtail an eminent
> discussion on semiotics, I
> suppose vagueness was in order, so be it...
> Basically I disagree with
> the lack of dimensionality that arbitrary semiotic
> code presents. Like
> McLuhan, I disagree with the assumption of
> arbitrariness. I also
> disagree with the sender-reciever scenario that
> semiotics and
> structualism presents... but I do suppose I could
> read more about it
> before I just spout my personal opinions,
> nonetheless....
> 
> When p.virilio talks about automatism, (automatic
> answers, automatic
> missiles, ten 1min answers to 20 different issues,
> i.e. paris peace
> conference of 1919, etc...) he is talking about
> rhetoric, and why it
> exists within industrial military capitalism. (why
> i.c.m.? - cuz
> that's what makes world go round in the peculiar way
> that it does
> today)
> So looking at the i.c.m., pv talks about seeing the
> news (DyG's
> "recording surface") and asking "why this policy?"
> or "why that one?."
> Take the current US invasion of Iraq, we are given a
> motive, but like
> pv, we know that the motive given is plain rhetoric,
> an automatic
> rhetoric to a whole field of dialog and discussion
> that is completely
> distant from the mechanics of policy. I am not
> talking about Chomsky's
> "screens" and "filters" for media (which is only
> part of it), but
> think of DyG's "assemblages", where issues are
> multi-dimensional.
> Deleuze was very keen on this concept, especially in
> his last
> interviews. If you want to look at that trail of
> rhetoric as a
> semiotic code then you are assuming that there is
> opaque meaning to
> it, but why would this rhetoric have meaning if we
> already know that
> rhetoric is just a strategy against the meaning of
> dialog. It is the
> dialog that has meaning (within a meaningsful
> grammar), which is why
> i.c.m. must use rhetoric to separate meaning from a
> practice of
> policy. Doesn't make sense? ... Enter the
> "differend", a non-liberal
> rhizome that chooses not to connect. Of course
> "their" policy has
> meaning, but not to "our" dialog, it is "their"
> dialog, it is a
> meaningful differend and we can see this because of
> "our" grammar.  (I
> am sticking to this "us and them" differentiation
> because I believe
> that it adds a very important dimension to semiotic
> coding which is
> usually considered to be arbitrary) "Their" rhetoric
> exists within
> "our" grammar of meaning. It would be nice to
> imagine the opaqueness
> of rhetoric to be emanating from a higher
> consciousness but that is
> brutal positivism. So pv's automism encapulates both
> an automatic
> rhetoric and an automatic dialog which are
> differends, they do not
> connect. How is this split possible? pv quotes
> stratton... (I think he
> is a military commander)
> 
> "Automation does not eliminate human error, it
> transfers this
> possiblity from the action phase to the design &
> development phase"
> 
> By making "human error" and accountability a part of
> the grammar of
> "our" dialog on the practice of policy, pv is also
> saying that we
> should look at "their" rhetoric as code - that
> perhaps we are just not
> knowledgeable enough to get it. Personally I do
> believe "they" are
> more knowledgeable  then "us" but only because of
> their use of the
> differend. Socially this differend is maintained by
> the present class
> system. How many anti-marxists have you met who have
> said the curious
> remark "the only reason this class system exists is
> because the
> marxists says it does." Its a class system that is
> closely tied to
> language, especially the english language.
> Aristocratic normans gave
> us "beef" for the diner plate, and "cows for the
> farm workers,
> "Mutton" vs "Sheep" etc.... The politics behind 1066
> are mind-boggling
> - "we" lost so much. including our dative case,
> generally used to
> indicate the indirect noun to whom something is
> given, such as "an
> answer" or "help." Howatt's massive book "History of
> English as a
> Second Language" gives some great examples of early
> lessons dealing
> with the bedroom talk of a married couple - the
> norman husband asks
> his british wife to fluff his pillow before bed.
> Anyway let me get back to the point, the problem of
> "our" grammar
> being subverted by "their" code, makes me think of a
> couple things.
> The conservative reaction would be to hold our
> ground and defend our
> grammar from changing, but that would not
> acknowledge the greater
> absolute-ness of knowlege which their code
> addressess. (but why the
> malevolent god?) The liberal solution (historically
> practiced and
> perhaps the only one) would involve accepting their
> code into our
> grammar, but that would mean we must accept a brutal
> economy of
> meaning and the various differends it entails.
> Although I must, I hate
> to stop my writing here at the christian third, cuz
> now i feel like a
> prisoner of my own arguement's grammar.... but the
> radical approach
> would be to encapsulate "their" rhetorical code of
> knowlege in a
> grammar of "our" absolute. That is why it is so
> important to have an
> absolute that contains identity.
> _______________________________________________
> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> Info:
>
http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
> Archives: www.driftline.org
> 



		
___________________________________________________________ 
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com