This blog is about two things: (1) the radical changes wrought by modern communication technology; and (2) the inability of the epistemic technologies of the written word to understand point (1). I find this dialectical tension to be generative, but I can see how readers looking for answers might find it unsatisfying.
Have you ever read "Discourse, Figure"? It's a truly insane, but also inspiring book. (Try "Veduta" in the middle).
Lyotard talks about the change of the relationship between discourse and figure. They define each other negatively, or even like: Image is somehow "bigger" than text, but is also defined by text, because our only access to the image's content is through the "script"; there's no way to decode/understand the image if you don't perceive it in the relationship to the text, very likely a negative relationship for sure.
I find this approach of considering their relationship, their balance over time as a rich view. I think contemporary texts, written by or with the eye to the recommender engines (which operate on continuous values), are moving to the "image" territory, just as the prompt-generated, or formal-current-tiktok-style produced images get closer to the text. (Meme, an image with a text, has as little extra textual information as possible).
I'm wondering about the statement that there is more extra-textual information in an image than in a text. I am not clear about what you mean by "text".
"Or how about using language seriously?" I reckon this could solve most of the valid and serious issues you point out.
The problem is: I've yet to meet a human who is willing to clean up their language *on certain topics*.... coincidentally, the ones that cause all these social problems.
Culture is a hell of a drug, and it can be constantly trickle fed into the population without most people noticing. And it can't be discussed, because people refuse to use language seriously when discussing the topic.
Have you ever read "Discourse, Figure"? It's a truly insane, but also inspiring book. (Try "Veduta" in the middle).
Lyotard talks about the change of the relationship between discourse and figure. They define each other negatively, or even like: Image is somehow "bigger" than text, but is also defined by text, because our only access to the image's content is through the "script"; there's no way to decode/understand the image if you don't perceive it in the relationship to the text, very likely a negative relationship for sure.
I find this approach of considering their relationship, their balance over time as a rich view. I think contemporary texts, written by or with the eye to the recommender engines (which operate on continuous values), are moving to the "image" territory, just as the prompt-generated, or formal-current-tiktok-style produced images get closer to the text. (Meme, an image with a text, has as little extra textual information as possible).
I'm wondering about the statement that there is more extra-textual information in an image than in a text. I am not clear about what you mean by "text".
I could also add an anti-science rant in here but hardly anyone likes those (another topic where people insist on using language non-seriously).
I could also add an anti-science rant in here but hardly anyone likes those (another topic where people insist on using language non-seriously).
"Or how about using language seriously?" I reckon this could solve most of the valid and serious issues you point out.
The problem is: I've yet to meet a human who is willing to clean up their language *on certain topics*.... coincidentally, the ones that cause all these social problems.
Culture is a hell of a drug, and it can be constantly trickle fed into the population without most people noticing. And it can't be discussed, because people refuse to use language seriously when discussing the topic.
Checkmate?