I can tell I'm going to really like this talk. “A text is a sentient object”—nice. Blogging is happening kind of slow today (invigilating an exam), so I'll write on this properly a bit later.
I've just blitzed through section III of her talk and felt many resonances with a very recent post of mine. This, for example:
This open “signifying system” of literary narratives, which also forms for us, if we are readers, a significant portion of our shared cognitive inheritance, could also be described, as Aranye suggested in Siena, as a “territorial assemblage,” one that enables an endless series of relations within and across various temporal zones that are, in some sense, always here with us now. The human body is itself a time capsule of all previous times, just as texts are time capsules of all previous writing, and the “junk”—whether junk-DNA or spilled ink in the margins, is always with us.
Yes, more or less.
Tim, are you aware of the tradition in recent neuroscience that connects with Bohm through holography via Karl Pribram? Think of a text moving through/via a population like a reference beam through an optical hologram. The interaction of the reference beam and the hologram reconstructs an image. The interaction of the text and the population re/constructs . . . what? The question is rhetorical, but the style and the staging, there's the resonance.
I've just blitzed through section III of her talk and felt many resonances with a very recent post of mine. This, for example:
ReplyDeleteThis open “signifying system” of literary narratives, which also forms for us, if we are readers, a significant portion of our shared cognitive inheritance, could also be described, as Aranye suggested in Siena, as a “territorial assemblage,” one that enables an endless series of relations within and across various temporal zones that are, in some sense, always here with us now. The human body is itself a time capsule of all previous times, just as texts are time capsules of all previous writing, and the “junk”—whether junk-DNA or spilled ink in the margins, is always with us.
Yes, more or less.
Tim, are you aware of the tradition in recent neuroscience that connects with Bohm through holography via Karl Pribram? Think of a text moving through/via a population like a reference beam through an optical hologram. The interaction of the reference beam and the hologram reconstructs an image. The interaction of the text and the population re/constructs . . . what? The question is rhetorical, but the style and the staging, there's the resonance.