Re: CHAT: Parallelism

Thanks, N N!  that's the clearest I've ever heard you speak on the
list!  Good to meet you!

May I differ though?

There is some work being done that suggests that the idea of phonemes
being discrete and interchangeable is simply not true; it is an
idealization; an artifact of an alphabetic worldview if you will; a
self-fulfilling prophecy of 20th century linguistics.  In reality, not
only do phonemes interpenetrate and affect each other so a word is not
a succession of discrete elements but a *gesture*, in fact, the
movement from one phoneme to another is *more* vital for our
understanding of the word than the idealized phoneme-states themselves
are!

(e.g. a researcher observed that a word such as "bad", carefully
pronounced, contains three fairly pure tones characteristic of the
segments [b] [a] [d] and 'noise' inbetween.  He tried removing the
pure [a] tone but leaving the interstital noise there; the word was
still completely recognizeable to listeners.  He then tried removing
the interstital 'noise' and leaving in the pure segment parts, and the
word became mostly unrecognizeable!  This suggests that on a phonemic
level, the important part of our performance is NOT emitting a
sequential stream of phonemes, but in fact uniting them in a holistic
gesture.  How far might this go?  Might all phonology turn out to be
suprasegmental phonology?  Might all the linearity of language
evaporate in front of the eyes of future researchers when they drop a
theoretical stance that demands it?)

Stuff to think about!  Perhaps the linear prison of language is
itself the illusion.

N N wrote:

>   Words have a linear discrete successive order.
>          Beyond the very limited meanings of inflections which can indeed
be
>          incorporated in the words themselves we cannot talk in
> simultaneous bunches
>          of names. Visual forms - lines.colors.proportions.etc.
>          are just as capable of articulation, of complex combinations as
words,
>          but the laws that govern this sort of articulation are altogether
> different
>          from the laws of syntax that govern language.
>          The most radical difference is that visual forms are not
> discursive. They do not
>          present their constituents successively but simultaneously so the
> relations
>          determining one visual structure are grasped in one act of vision.
>          One idea that contains too many minute yet closely related parts,
> too many
>          relations within relations cannot be projected into discursive
form.
>
>          reality = 2 complex for oral communication
> [aLpha.60.jean.luc.godard.scene.23]
>
>          | - |
>          line of thought ----------| = |
>          | + |___________ m0dule .dE. mEmo!rE
>
>
>          Civilization's most recent burst of scientific progress - the one
that
>          started during the renaissance is fast approaching its denouement.
>          Data amounts equivalent to one person's lifetime experiences may
be
>          downloaded in minutes.
>          The planet as a whole disgorges 1 trillion pieces of data per day.
>
>
>
> >> The ideas that I had seemed a little lame... For example one could have
> >two
> >> languages,
>
>
> kinematek 0+2. wordz = kordz
>
>
>
> antiorp uses a lovely, subtle technique to communicate what seems to be a
> nice combination of, at least, some ideas of Marx, Darwin, sociobiology and
> information theory
>
> by making the texts hard to read, antiorp forces the reader to act, to
> directly engage in the physical experience of reading the words.
>
> This act is more fundamental than understanding and is the real source of
> meaning, rather than the bland and banal superficialities of discourse.
>
> In this way antiorp resists institutionalization, while of course being
part
> of a rigidly institutionalized electronic world.
> This convoluted irony give the texts lots of tension.
>
> To understand a tool you have to use it first.
>
> Meaning gets in the way of understanding.
>
> The tygers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction (William
> Blake).
>
> Therefore: Tribbles, wigglism, antiorp.
>
> Brian Leigh Molyneaux
> Vermillion, South Dakota
>
>
> sol++ _ dze oceanz = adr!ft !n dze kont!nentz
>
>         and - closing the synaptic gap [synapse - greek for juncture
>                 - hence the juncture gap - protoplasmic kisses which seem
to
>                                 constitute the final ecstasy of an epic
> love story
>                                         - the ethereal kiss which involves
> no contact]
>
>
>
>
>                             _ -  - _ -]h m n s k !lx2[- _ -  _ -
>
>                                         _ l ! f 3 _
>
>                                   1.anti[.z!metr!..]eczper!enss
>

Ed Heil ------ edheil@postmark.net
--- http://purl.org/net/edheil ---