Monday, June 11, 2007
Beyond the Concept
Ulmer's post to Invent-L today [subject line "the idea of chora at Key West (thinking)"] was a kind of choral meditation on a visit he made with some family members to Key West. He writes at one point,
--The decept, for example, could refer to "deceptive" uses of language which wouldn't be considered deceptive because there is no literate, Platonic notion of Capital-T Truth to achieve and avoid: simulation, play/acting, prosopopeia, the dissoi-logoi of the sophists, "how to lie with maps/statistics" and Ulmer's assignment to write with fallacies rather than avoiding them... One who is deceived in the passive is one who is in error (to err = to wander).
--the recept or "to receive" (vs. conceive): "to take in, to admit to a receptacle or containing space; to allow to enter or penetrate" (from OED); other meanings involve "to take in by the mouth swallow" (think Applied Grammatology and Derrida's deconstruction of "seeing is understanding" conceptual metaphor to allow for the chemical senses: not "I see" but "I smell"!) and "to take into the mind." One of the examples was from Romanes 1888 book on Mental Evolution, which I promptly ordered from Amazon. He also wrote Mental Evolution in Animals with the Darwin himself....]
--the incept: again from OED--to begin/commence, to take in, as an organism or cell. To inceive (vs. conceive)
--the except: would probably be the opposite of incept: to let loose, express, eject...
These would be dubbed "the ceptions." No percept b/c D&G address this in What is Philosophy?
These, then, would be variant methods or, rather, manifestations of electrate reasoning in the same way that a concept is a manifestation of literate reasoning. Note to self: consider Lakoff and Johnson's "conceptual metaphors" in light of grammatological apparatus.
At this point I thought that what electracy needs is the equivalent of the concept for literacy. Then a handful of words came to mind: recept, decept, incept, and except. And these are all possibilities.The plane of immanence. Life, Deleuze says simply. Conatus (striving prior to any subject or identity). Outside. That is, without concept (not thinkable, or only duly noted, within literacy).
--The decept, for example, could refer to "deceptive" uses of language which wouldn't be considered deceptive because there is no literate, Platonic notion of Capital-T Truth to achieve and avoid: simulation, play/acting, prosopopeia, the dissoi-logoi of the sophists, "how to lie with maps/statistics" and Ulmer's assignment to write with fallacies rather than avoiding them... One who is deceived in the passive is one who is in error (to err = to wander).
--the recept or "to receive" (vs. conceive): "to take in, to admit to a receptacle or containing space; to allow to enter or penetrate" (from OED); other meanings involve "to take in by the mouth swallow" (think Applied Grammatology and Derrida's deconstruction of "seeing is understanding" conceptual metaphor to allow for the chemical senses: not "I see" but "I smell"!) and "to take into the mind." One of the examples was from Romanes 1888 book on Mental Evolution, which I promptly ordered from Amazon. He also wrote Mental Evolution in Animals with the Darwin himself....]
--the incept: again from OED--to begin/commence, to take in, as an organism or cell. To inceive (vs. conceive)
--the except: would probably be the opposite of incept: to let loose, express, eject...
These would be dubbed "the ceptions." No percept b/c D&G address this in What is Philosophy?
These, then, would be variant methods or, rather, manifestations of electrate reasoning in the same way that a concept is a manifestation of literate reasoning. Note to self: consider Lakoff and Johnson's "conceptual metaphors" in light of grammatological apparatus.
# posted by Richard Smyth @ 8:54 PM 
