Skype 3

common_practice added Ben C, helliep, Megan Wakefield, Martin Cryan, pklusmeyer, maddypeth, elaleluia, vic procter, magdalenatc, soenkeha
is it this one?
hey - hello to all of you again - I guess, we simply continue with the reading session today here, in this common chat, since it already contains the conversations from the previous two sessions in the frame of common practice; hope, that's fine for all of you - we will start in a couple of minutes then
yes, just the final setting up here in Arnolfini
 Dear all thank you for joining the session today.
i guess i could perhaps give some idea of today's session, which perhaps might differ a bit from the previous two.
Before giving an explanation of technical elements of the practice and how to use doris, the software which will allow us to edit the wiki directly from the skype, I would like to first introduce the leading theme and propose/suggest the way in which we will be working with the texts.
i assume, i might repeat those at some point later once the others join us later, or if things become unclear,
 i am dissappearing now and again but we seem to have some issues here in arnolfini with network.
so don't be alarmed
Today’s session: common practice/code is dedicated to exploring the codes and control structures that exist in the language. In the invitation which you might have received and in the introductory text which is on the wiki page here http://automatist.net/deptofreading/wiki/pmwiki.php/CommonPractice I quoted Florian Cramer and Eugene Thacker. Here is what they say:
Florian Cramer:
 'While all literature should teach us to read and deal with textuality of computers and digital poetry, computers and digital poetry might teach us to pay more attention to codes and control structures coded into all language.'
Eugene Thacker:
 ‘If the so-called avant-gardes and experimental fiction writers have anything to teach us, it's that a subversion of the dominant modes of language in a given moment is also a technical, tactical re-programming of the codes of language.'
Interestingly both texts include a statement which suggests that there is something that we are to learn from literature and computers, from language and code. They use phrases like ‘should teach us’ and ‘have something to teach us’ which are interesting because they seem to state the assumption that ‘we’ (whoever that ‘we’ is) don’t know something. Thus I would like to propose as the framework for today’s session paying more attention ‘to codes and control structures’ and to ‘technical, tactical re-programming of the codes of language’, which might be perhaps that thing that we don’t know.
one question therefore concerns a matter of teaching, which again seems to be related to a certain capacity of reading, if I am not mistaken, and as that capacity of reading has to do with code in difference to language (where I would like to ask, what this distinction is like here), it might bring about notions such as translation again
...but there are two pieces of texts as well on the Wiki, which are meant to be read today as a starting point - and I guess, we should briefly introduce the use of doris, we would like to suggest for the session today
before we get to the texts however, i would like to just get your attention to the short citations which were in the invitation
i think they are very relevant to the texst we will be discussing and to the manner of discussion which i would like to suggest Interestingly both texts include a statement which suggests that there is something that we are to learn from literature and computers, from language and code. They use phrases like ‘should teach us’ and ‘have something to teach us’ which are interesting because they seem to state the assumption that ‘we’ (whoever that ‘we’ is) don’t know something. Thus I would like to propose as the framework for today’s session paying more attention ‘to codes and control structures’ and to ‘technical, tactical re-programming of the codes of language’, which might be perhaps that thing that we don’t know.
So, before I make another comment regarding the texts, let me now introduce those structures that exist in common practice sessions. This is a kind of manual of how we are to work within common practice and it might seem bit complicated but once we start actually working on the wiki it will become more clear.
We are starting today with two fragments from two texts: one by Georges Perec here http:automatist.net/deptofreading/wiki/pmwiki.php/Manual and another by The Unknown http:automatist.net/deptofreading/wiki/pmwiki.php/HardCode
  . 
These texts are proposed as the basis of our discussion which will be happening simultaneously on Skype and on this wiki page http://automatist.net/deptofreading/wiki/pmwiki.php/TheCommonPractice . At the moment the page is empty. But you might want to imagine that it is divided into 2 columns and each column has a number of available and now empty spaces which will be populated during the session. The columns and the spaces/blocks will become visible once we start populating them with texts and comments. so if you follow this link http://automatist.net/deptofreading/wiki/pmwiki.php/TheCommonPractice in order to fill this page and spaces available there,
 we will be assisted by doris
 I will start doris then
 yes, please
 doris: enable getput
 getput enabled
 doris is Department of Reading internet system
 getput: setpage the common practice
 Selected wiki page "the common practice"
 a software which turns Skype into an interface for editing our
 wiki page directly from the Skype
 this skype chat
 we will be using command get and put
PUT which allows to put any entry of the Skype chat into any one of the numbered spaces on the Wiki so it can be manipulated, rewritten, edited, modified etc. To place any entry or rewrite it in the space, write it in the chat, then press ENTER, and then write: "put 1" in the chat and press ENTER again. This will place the entry in space 1 of the Wiki. If you want to position an entry in section 3 or 4 or 9 or any other, you need to change the number in the command accordingly. You might also work with the text from already populated sections and for that the command ‘get’ is useful.
GET allows to get any one of the texts from the populated sections directly to the chat; To get any text into the chat, write: "get 1" or "get 6" depending on which section you want to get the line from. The text will not be deleted on the Wiki, but can be altered in the chat, or included in the chat for discussion. You might want to replace the old entry with the new one later on by using the command "put".
Ok, so this is the technical element of how to work with and use doris in the session. It might still feel a bit abstract but with practice it should become easier, I hope.
...and please don't hesitate to ask in between, if questions should emerge - but shall we then turn towards those two fragments on the wiki and start with the actual reading? maybe just one more thing just to give an idea how we can populate the empty wiki page with text. i gues we can start reading any of the texts If there is a fragment which you would like to comment, please put this fragment into any section on the wiki page and in the space next to it put your comment. So for example you might want to put the fragment in the space 1 and your comment in space 2, etc. this is a completely final remark now that the above suggestion how to work with the text and an empy wiki page are really only guiding remarks, which will help us to start... if you are still with us
 I believe that once we feel more adventurous with doris 
 and once the discussion progresses we might naturally 
 change the mode of working with the texts.
 This movement might suggest the familiarity with control
 structures that we start the practice with and the curiosity to
 change them and try them out here.
right, am just rushing through both fragments for now - as I was wondering, what they might state about the matter of code here, and code related to a question of learning and a possibility for "a subversion of the dominant modes of language"
Cinoc, who was then about fifty, pursued a curious profession. As he said himself, he was a "word-killer": he worked at keeping Larousse dictionaries up to date. But whilst other compilers sought out new words and meanings, his job was to make room for them by eliminating all the words and meanings that had fallen into disuse.
In an earlier conversation I had about the sessions and in particular in relation to Thacker’s quotation couple of very interesting points were made which I want to recall. The first one is that Thacker suggests that there is a distinction between the use of language: so there is ordinary use of language and the one that is more experimental and represented by avant-garde practices. The second one, which also relates to the previous one, is that there seems to be also an assumption that there are people who are ruled by language, who, so to speak, live in it, and those who can influence its structures. This perhaps could be considered a problematic division, which might be interesting to discuss. And this notion of a ‘word killer’ is useful in this consideration?
 yes, I should mention, that there are some signs - like apostroph etc. copied from word that can cause some problems for doris

 well, as mentioned, that has to do with signs like quotation-marks etc - so please, type them anew in Skype then
ok.
and also that there are those who know what it's parameters are, for example Cinoc has to "make room" for the new words and meanings... the room made is only as big as the book, which has implications for Internet - how can boundaries be drawn etc
right, this aspect I found remarkable as well "to make room" - as if there is somekind of limitation to the amount of meaning in order for it to work properly
or else the element of erasure, which would introduce a question of unlearning and forgetting into this discussion about "code and language" and a certain possibility of teaching attached to the notion of "avant-garde", I guess ...he had returned to taxonomic anonymity hundreds of varieties of cattle, species of birds, insects, and snakes, rather special sorts of fish, kinds of crustaceans, slightly dissimilar plants and particular breeds of vegetables and fruit...
i thought about erasure of the knowledge 'held' in some of the words that are erased - and their etymology - and the poetry of those words too, their affect. In the quote above the words "returned to anonymity" imply that words and meanings emerge from anonymity, are somehow recognised and then fade away again...it's as if there are certain people who have the legitimacy to recognise words and attribute meaning. this work of returning to anonymity, which includes an element of erasure, introduces a mode of learning that thus is concerned with forgetting and unlearning a mode of learning that thus is concerned with forgetting and unlearning - thinking about that...may be some time...! :)
well, I feel, it's still a matter of collecting first impressions form the reading, so I just continue thinking about this element of forgetting and unlearning as it seems to some kind of limitation to meaning, a limitation that would be required in order for meaning to designate; otherwise language might drown in too much meaning; just wondering, if that would ask for a kind of balance? In any case, it introduces a question of quantity to language, to words? Too many words could be a threat for language in order to work?
 Who would know ever again what a vigigraphe was, ...a type of telegraph consisting of watchtowers communicating with each other...?
But isn't there also a suggestion that the processing of disappearance, being-forgotten has been changed by the arrival of the lexicographer; that previously, in an age when language was part of the natural order of the world, its passing was part of the natural passing of things; but that the appearance of the lexicographer was also the appearance of the 'word-killer' and so a change in the relation of language to the natural world? This is all very Foucauldian, but the Perec text seems heavily influenced by the Preface to The Order of Things... put 4
Too many words could be a threat for language in order to work
Who would know ever again what a vigigraphe was, "a type of telegraph consisting of watchtowers communicating with each other"'?
But isn't there also a suggestion that the processing of disappearance, being-forgotten has been changed by the arrival of the lexicographer; that previously, in an age when language was part of the natural order of the world, its passing was part of the natural passing of things; but that the appearance of the lexicographer was also the appearance of the 'word-killer' and so a change in the relation of language to the natural world? This is all very Foucauldian, but the Perec text seems heavily influenced by the Preface to The Order of Things...put 4
 the problem with the posting often simply depends on the
 apostrophes and quotation marks; you would simply need 
 to rewrite those signs within Skype (you will see the difference
 of the typeface then) and it works
words like codes that activate memory, bringing meaning through the affective recognition. 'returned to anonymity' through 'fallen into disuse.', the use seems to bring the rule to teach. Experimental use of language would more probably bring them from anonymity. Killing the dictionary.
But isn't there also a suggestion that the processing of disappearance, being-forgotten has been changed by the arrival of the lexicographer; that previously, in an age when language was part of the natural order of the world, its passing was part of the natural passing of things; but that the appearance of the lexicographer was also the appearance of the word-killer and so a change in the relation of language to the natural world? This is all very Foucauldian, but the Perec text seems heavily influenced by the Preface to The Order of Things...
There is an argument to counteract the rationalisation of language and thought idea that language is constantly evolving...for example the english that is spoken by non native anglophones evolves english...
This idea of returning something to anonymity is quite strange to me, especially with language. It seems to suggest that words have some prior and necessary existence, before they are so to speak discovered by the appearance of the concept which then makes the word visible.
"This idea of returning something to anonymity is quite strange to me, especially with language." evokes for me covering something up again or interring it, cloaking it...but isn't it important to distinguish spoken language here from the written word...in terms of having a natural relationship between language and the world, since the written word, haven't there always been guardians of the word?
Of course projects that set out to archive the historical content of the internet would be protected from the vicissitudes of lexicography, right? It would be an enormous transtemporal dictionary-encyclopaedia. But that apparent escape from the codifications of language that the dictionary performs would then exist in some much wider but, presumably, also bounded and codified time-space.
 
I guess, it then depends on how one has to understand this "to make room" in language? What this work of returning to anonymity is like, as I assume to literally erase words from dictionaries would only be an image here, that neither can be arrested as the simple attempt to comprehend, what already has fallen into disuse, to follow in writing, so to speak, what happens naturally in language, to be a scribe of the history of language, nor would it suggest a kind of work that is necessary for meaning to come about, in the sense, that there is a certain amount of meaing to language, which requires a forgetting and unlearning, or else it's avant-garde that would find it's revolution in the simple erasure of meaing
but I as well like to think about the difference between language and code along with this discussion on Perec's rather strange "work of returning to anonymity", as I understand that it would introduce a question of translation and deciphering that might as well be at play within this discussion on Perec.
for me the interesting thing is the idea of a 'word killer' - who can be a word killer? and how do you kill the word? is word killing - making anonymous/invisible? is it the physical act of scrapping the word and its definition out of the dictionary? how long does it take to kill the word? and who participates in this act?
sorry, I guess, what I was trying to read within Perec's the work on language is a work that neither records the natural evolving of language nor situates itself as avant-garde, that would mean the possibility of a fundamental intervention into the progression of language by means of erasure - or so
I'm not sure if language can ever be treated as an 'image' of another process - nor wholly constitutive of processes either. But re. the connections or not of language and code, could it be that we are returning to a period when language - as code - is being returned to some sort of membership of the natural order of the world: if genetic codes is the truest description of what the micro-processes of life and behaviour, and the textual play of someone like Perec brings the codedness of language to the fore, then we seem to be thinking in a way that makes the objects and passions of the world transparent and unconvincing in themselves - and that language/code is really what's going on.
There brings an attention to materiality in language - in making room - in the book for new codes - the platform for the code to run on is removed, and perhaps language is similar to code in this way that in practice any logical or formal system must run on some kind of pltform to aquire meaning whether a human brain or a digital computer.
Yes. It's a code. Each letter is standing in for some other letter. And the beauty is, the whole thing works. I mean, somebody has taken a text, some kind of really big weird text, and substituted each letter for some other letter, and the whole thing comes out not only making sense, but also giving the impression of telling a story. Oh, the code is slightly flawed. The Unknown would appear to have spelling errors, to be a hypertext novel that is flawed . . . when in fact it's an amazingly perfect encoding of some other text.
 in practice any logical or formal system must run on some kind of platform to acquire meaning wether a human brain or a digital computer.
"that makes the objects and passions of the world transparent and unconvincing in themselves - and that language/code is really what's going on."
From Borges' The Library of Babel: This thinker observed that all the books, no matter how diverse they might be, are made up of the same elements: the space, the period, the comma, the twenty-two letters of the alphabet. He also alleged a fact which travellers have confirmed: In the vast Library there are no two identical books. From these two incontrovertible premises he deduced that the Library is total and that its shelves register all the possible combinations of the twenty-odd orthographical symbols (a number which, though extremely vast, is not infinite): Everything: the minutely detailed history of the future, the archangels' autobiographies, the faithful catalogues of the Library, thousands and thousands of false catalogues, the demonstration of the fallacy of those catalogues, the demonstration of the fallacy of the true catalogue, the Gnostic gospel of Basilides, the commentary on that gospel, the commentary on the commentary on that gospel, the true story of your death, the translation of every book in all languages, the interpolations of every book in all books.
This idea of a total library, of the finitude of writing - and maybe thought - has an apparent analogue in the internet. But the internet has constraints that Borges' imagination doesn't: Justin Bieber is currently eating the internet through the mass hysteria circulating in the form of tweets and youtube video downloads. An avatar in 2nd life, it's claimed, consumes more energy than the statistical citizen of Brazil.
perhaps the quote from Florian Cramer is useful here as i think it directly refers to the activities we are currently engaged in, which are reading texts and dealing with computers at the same time. And it is all however done in a particular way that is: done in common. This might suggest that the avant-garde element is made here redundant? Though historically might be relevant? I don't know....
what again is then the relation between language and code alike regarding the remark from Cramer that "digital poetry might teach us to pay more attention to codes and control structures coded into all language" - what are the control structures of language? and what about this work of translation then that is played out in the Unknown-theatre piece - Each letter is standing in for some other letter.
"that makes the objects and passions of the world transparent and unconvincing in themselves - and that language/code is really what's going on." ....or are there clusters where agreements about meanings temporarily coalesce, areas of initiate language - are these kind of island "platforms"?
possibly - I like the way that Bruce Andrews talks about "contact zones" of language which suggests a temporary and fluid overlapping I guess in a way these become common or communal platforms
The Cramer quotation bothers me a little bit because - at least here in the text given - there seems to be a blindness to how the codedness of machines and language might be contingent. I mean it would be a strange sort of assertion to claim that there has been a 'computer' here in front of us, of which we are the parts, in the existence of language; and that it was only when computers came along that we became aware of this. For me, Benjamin is the best commentator on the transformation of experience that takes place and is manifested in the appearance of forms of technology but also in forms of thought and experience. What I'm suggesting is that and computer-codedness that may be observed in language owes its perception to the possibilities that computer-codedness allows us to see - and the language of Perec is also contingent upon the conditions out of which computer coding appeared also.
right, I agree, but what is somehow binding for me regarding this session tonight and thus my approach to the two fragments are Cramer's "teach us to pay more attention" and Thacker's "subversion of the dominant modes of language in a given moment is also a technical, tactical re-programming of the codes of language"
But it's fun to take things out of context... I did have a look at the full Cramer text, but I would say that there is a myopia going on. He writes: "To observe the textual codedness of digital systems of course implies the danger of generalizing and projecting one's observations of digital code onto literature as a whole. Computers operate on machine language, which is syntactically far less complex than human language." And this is interesting, because the first sentence is a claim NOT to be comparing human and computer language/code. But then in the very next statement he makes a comparison which suggests that he is doing exactly that: judging human language in comparison to computer code - by saying that it is infiniitely more complex. The idea of the complexity of language is a symptom of thinking of human language as code. The idea of the complexity of language is a symptom of thinking of human language as code.
 The idea of the complexity of language is a symptom of thinking of human language as code.
it is fun, sure! would you say then that language is not complex if we think of it in other way? i think that the point for using this comparison is helpful in imagining the dimensions of a structure in which language is one of the elements?
 The Unknown is flawed, you said it yourself!"
 we're not flawed we are imperfect
Is it more that complexity is applied to systems which may have a non-complex state, and is whether you think of language as a system...?
In a computer language all "words" produce actions, this is quite different from human language the words that are executable this is a fragment from a conversation from one of the previous sessions :
 'to become operative what i find interesting 
 that how these embedded semantic associations 
 resemble the language used by doris. it's almost 
 as if we looked into the text that doris "reads" 
 we would see another one of mez's poems. 
 and i guess this relates to how they can be used 
 to become operative and this manual you posted in the 
 beginning of this session. and that's why it's so engaging 
 to play with it ... almost like we immediately understand the
 language of the poem, because the language we can use to speak 
 to it is the same somehow.'
the poems we were using for the sessions goes like this:
 ubject: N.formation.sources|{i. am. [trapped. in. seizure.
 language. 
 >+<
 ][][][][][][][in][Form.ational Sauces
 >+<living. in. charl.e.tan][ned & lurvely][. glass.][topped danca
 dangerous][
 ::drenching wurds with cauls of gritty re:][d][wined rims &gra.]
 [k][nit.e longing
 >++< hearts of c.hun.king stone
 ::shifting l][iquid polyvalent][ucre melts gigabyting fronts
 >+.+.< removable feldspar ][s(ta][c][tic)nakes & jacob][ladders
 ::whole twitching N.titees d][cl][own.loading l][m][uddite dust
 ][][][][][][]
 ][][][][][][][][][][][=][
 <=>
 ][][][][][][][by-][Pa][r][s][e][Sable Violences
 <=> non-metallic so][urced[][pi][ngs & channel lusts
 <=>][band][width][ing][ & length][ening][ of p][D][ol][l][y][paRA [Me][te][rs
 <=> d][t][iz][zy][course. 4. dizzy.cour.sets][N tangled arrays][
 ][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
 ][][][][][.][][][][][][][][.+.][
 .+.
 ][pro][Duc][t][ing & C][iphered][on.tus][sles][ions
 .+.][or min.us * ewe][
 .+.+.][or mining (g)olden [out-of-]boundaried veins][
 .+.-.+.][or mined brain-.wavs & glitching heart-r][ot][ational [e][s][.
 ][][][][][][][][][]
 ][ ][ ][] [][ ]] ][ ]]] ]]][[ ][ 
 ]] ] ] [ ] ] [
 )( [plus awe 
 minus |


 ][ [d.voiding the XxX.cross-posting stamp |


 a|b [multithreaded in][lines][roads 
 |


 x|y [code famili][es][arities |


 {i. am. [trapped. in. seizure. 
 language. |


 part girl| [part][ial][ 
 boy ()


 c|or|e [war][e][s 
 |
 ][fairy f][ [lossed chip & coded 
 dale |
sorry for this injection :) but i thought it was relevant to your comment,
who can be a word killer? is killing anonymous/invisible? is killing the physical act of scrapping the word and its definition out of the dictionary? how isn't the editor the word killer, the one who cuts things down to size? if people use a word it can't die
"We're not flawed," Rettberg said coolly, "we're imperfect. We're not geniuses, man, we barely add up to a single genius."
"We're like a single genius" I clarified, "without a good editor." Café
...but if they are the only one using it...what if they use it but don't communicate anything? Does it have to be part of relationship with other words? maybe you can be a word killer by ignoring language...not using it...the attempt at erasure...wordslaughter ... using a word normally implies communication with others,I suppose they might have to explain what is means to others that don't know what it means
A word once created and placed in a dictionary will exist as long as the dictionary exists. New editions can gradually kill a word I suppose
"Eureka" he said, "Stratton, come here, I want you." It's interesting that the second sentence of the Hard_Theatre text seems to undermine the first: it contains an exclamation, an interpellation, and an expression of desire. All things that have subjectivity as their source, and so are outside any notion of language as a closed, self-referential system.
yes, thats the way to kill a word to ban its use which has its politics, which Orwell thought about: the prohibition of words leading to the disappearance of concepts.
Nice quote for language and erasure...or erosion..I like this because it marries with my experience of reading...as constant discovery and rediscovery...and writing as territorial accumulation - constantly under attack and constantly retaliating...."Far from being writers ...founders of their own place, heirs of the peasants of earlier ages now working on the soil of language, diggers of wells and builders of houses...readers are travellers; they move across lands belonging to someone else, like nomads poaching their way across fields they did not write, despoiling the wealth of Egypt to enjoy it themselves. Writing accumulates, stocks up, resists time by the establishment of a place and multiplies its production through the expansionism of reproduction. Reading takes no measure against the erosion of time (one forgets oneself and also forgets), it does not keep what it acquires, or it does so poorly, and each of the places through which it passes is a repetition of the lost paradise (de Certeau)"
we can still communicate without words, we have atleast 5 senses We must have a go at an olfactory conversation later on... scratch and sniff is all the rage apparently
Interesting glitches in DORIS tonight! (d)
yes, it is time for a drink Cool, that was fun everyone. Thanks.
 thanks, bye
Thanks! doris: disable getput getput disabled

Tools

Edit - History - Print - Recent Changes - Search
Page last modified on December 13, 2014, at 11:02 AM
Search: