I can't link to any of the specific artists holed up w/in the pull down bars inside here but look into the likes of hugo ball's visual and sound pieces for starters. This is what I like most about the web, the free at home bibliotec. This site is jam packed.


- bill 1-12-2002 2:25 pm [add a comment]

• Great site, I like the design.
  - steve 1-12-2002 6:16 pm [add a comment]




• more on L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E and The Electronic Poetry Center
  
  
  
  
  - bill 1-12-2002 8:46 pm [add a comment]




• Charles Bernstein wrote the introduction to Laura (Riding) Jackson's magna carta of the mind:
  Rational Meaning. Once I broke my toe on a concrete poem.
  - frank 1-13-2002 4:29 am [add a comment]




• thank's frank / a link for LRJ
  
  
  - bill 1-13-2002 4:48 am [add a comment]




• Nice link Bill.
  
  Frank - I still can not get my head around this LRJ idea that "words [are] words only in having meanings peculiarly, inseparably, necessarily, theirs." I've been in situations where this seems true for some brief moment, but I can't figure it out later.
  
  Most likely I am over-simplifying, and thus missing the point, but it sounds like she wants to seperate meaning from usage. But what about the case where a word changes over time? Is the entire world of binary computers presupposed by the (pre computer age) use of the word 'bit'? Does an eighteenth century speaker mean anything about binary units of data when saying "yesterday I bit my tongue." I would think not. Yet today the word 'bit' has taken on this meaning. If the meaning is somehow inside the word (this is probably where I am misunderstanding) and not external to it (wraped up in the network of usage) then how does a particular word come to gain and lose different meanings over time?
  
  Are you familiar with Wittgenstein's views on lanugage? (I'm thinking the later Philosophical Investigations view, not the earlier Tractatus, although it doesn't really matter.) I suspect that LRJ is saying something close to the opposite of what Wittgenstein was saying. My indoctrination into L.W. might be another reason I can't understand her. But if you know that stuff you might be able to say something regarding them both that would shove me in the right direction.
  - jim 1-13-2002 11:22 pm [add a comment]




• Bit is a great example because we all know what bit means . It is an unquantified small amount
  of something or the past participle of the verb to bite. L (R) J's central thesis is so simple it
  borders on childish. When bit is used as a technical term, with a more definite quantity in mind, it
  still partakes of its meaning as a word. I can explain the first bit to my kid, the second I cannot.
  Why this would matter seems to align with Wittgenstein's dictum that all true statements are
  necessary. It is an extreme & green concept of language. The lady lived without lightbulbs &
  thought all of English Lit a crock. Her thought is a linguistic yoga of poverty & humility. Let me reread
  yer post & I'll try some more angles.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  - frank 1-14-2002 2:01 am [add a comment]




• Bill, should I post a large Wittgenstein vs. L(R)J tract here on your page or move it to the obscure
  Word?
  - frank 1-14-2002 2:38 am [add a comment]




• please continue it here if you like or I can link to your page if you prefer
  
  
  - bill 1-14-2002 2:41 am [add a comment]