 |
 |
On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, John Cayley wrote: John, when I said that there were some non-words that I can't mention here, I didn't say mayn't mention, so that leaves us with possibility. There are some things which I am not necessarily interested in attempting (vainly) to translate into this here medium. The aforementioned vanity is in more than one the sense; to ascribe such a hubristic role to our relationship with language actually devalues language. It doesn't work for me to give attention to the "not normally" literate or vocal, and then to just call it all language anyway. On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, John Cayley wrote: <But I thought an underlying tenor of this discussion was precisely to authorize the use of any (possible/permissible) media, to explore and elaborate the continuity between the art and technology of such media and the art and technology of, say, classical,'readerly' (I mean 'lisible') writing practice; that the openness of modern/post-modern 'writerly' practice derives, in part, from a willingness to discover the significance of terms/events/performances which are not normally thought of as vocal or literate. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%