On Friday 30 March 2001 15:54, you wrote:
> the speech before writing thing is important - that realisation (of the
> bleeding obvious) is really the basis of structuralism i think - via
> saussure's spoken - note spoken - acount of it all ... it was the students
> wrote it down
Perhaps we can let the obvious bleed and bleed all over the place until one
must even question the basis of the formal distinction between speech and
writing, langue and parole.
Cannot a poet ask such questions? Must one be confined to the definite
concept and locked up tight, so tight we cannot now write and we too are then
illiterate. Kant's allusions to a demonology invite such exploration... to be
outside the definite concept and to try what can be created. A white goddess,
perhaps, the demon poetry.
Please don't consider that I am arguing from the position of deconstruction.
"I said destruct, not deconstruct. Deconstruction is a weak form of thought."
> halliday is good on this
I liked the suggestion in MAK Halliday's article on anti-languages... that
article can be gotten out of hand... alas I have not a copy to check.
best wishes
Chris Jones.
|