Federico Federici on Asemics
Asemic writing points to a gradual weakening of the correlation between sign and meaning or, in the language of architecture and biology, to the confutation of the form follows function principle.
Saturday, March 4, 2023
Sunday, February 12, 2023
Sunday, February 5, 2023
Asemics as Some Sort of Technology: The Return of Theuth and Thamus / EZE, 2023
Some Sort of Technology of Writing?
As a kind of writing, is asemics a technology?
Saturday, February 4, 2023
Wednesday, February 1, 2023
Sunday, January 29, 2023
Saturday, January 21, 2023
Wednesday, January 18, 2023
Tuesday, January 3, 2023
Friday, December 23, 2022
Thursday, December 22, 2022
Friday, December 2, 2022
Sunday, November 27, 2022
Saturday, November 26, 2022
One More Strategy for the Meaningless / EZE, 2022
The way Terry Eagleton reads T.S. Eliot is as a split text: at least one level of meaningless/at least one level of collective (un)consciousness. With asemics and polysemics and the interplay between them, we often have a single source of text and thereby an interplay of meaning/not meaning on what is usually a single plane. But the split Eagleton invokes gives us another textual problem: the identity of the text under interpretation. And this split creates yet another problem: the prioritization of the interpretation(s).
See what you think:
Poetry was not to engage the reader's mind: it did not really matter what a poem actually meant, and Eliot professed himself to be quite unperturbed by apparently outlandish interpretations of his own work. Meaning was no more than a sop thrown to the reader to keep him distracted, while the poem went stealthily to work on him in more physical and unconscious ways ... . (Terry Eagleton: Literary Theory: An Introduction, 35)
Sunday, September 18, 2022
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)