Semiotics resurrected. Re: Short bibliography on analytical/digital thinking vis-a-vis semiotics. .

[abalint at merz.hu]

Dear Alan,
generally I like your writings, and it is a great and special pleasure to 
read a short bibliography of yours - this kind of concise version of 
writing. I very much enjoy reading bibliographies, I even have periods when 
i read nothing but bibliographies. So that naturally I was deligheted to 
see a bibliography among so many too regular postings!
I find amazing about the  many possible ways of seeing digital/analog 
semantics nowadays, and the possibility (the virtual per se) to edit many 
different bibliographies. To name a few classes of bibliography on 
analytical/digital thinking:  a. bibliography of the semiotics based on 
American structuralism (wich is according to many, specially european 
people only a diluted version of the european structuralism) b. others 
based on european structuralism very much indepted at its turn not only to 
c. F. Saussure (another great bibliography inspirator) d. but the Russian 
Formalism [a par excellence bibliography constitutive group, known in the 
States mainly only through Rene Wellek and the new criticims): the OPOJAZ 
group, the Moscow Linguistic Circle and their opponents Lev Trostky and 
Anatolii Lunacharskii. Amazingly enough it seems still difficult to trace 
influences among these groups, and related bibliographies.  Though in 
Russian Formalism and Futurist theory we find very similar questions to 
yours (the reflexive author Alan Sondheim)  about intentional 
coding/precoded entities (it encodes) for instance in the transrational 
zaum language of  Velemir Khlebnikov, or about encrypted poietic values at 
phonemic level in Polinanov's work. 

Of course this is only the top of the iceberg when it seriously comes 
about  semiotics related to digital/analog thinking. One of the main 
question all semioticians dream about is of course the Antique semiotic 
theory, its principles and its praxis. Unfortunately no authentic text is 
preserved till nowadays, we know about the sources mainly through Diogenes 
Laertios only, but that is not reason for semiotcicians of all times to 
interpret the possible principles of the Antique semiotics. Till present we 
distinguish two main semiotic attitudes: one is the Aristotelian mimetic 
school, and the other is the Non-Aristotelian tradition, based (as perhaps 
their names suggest a bit) on quite opposite principles. One could easily 
link the Russian Formalist school to the non-aristotelian semiosis and 
artistic tradition. A problem in this link however is an insolubilia, that 
the authors refer more to Aristotle in defending their theory, but a 
problem that can be solved by non-aristotelian pinciples is not a real 
problem for non-aristotelian theoreticians, so... yes, the Russian 
Formalism continuesa and contributes to the non-aristotelain tradition. I 
risk that bibliographies also do so.

I consider both the Language of New Media by lev Manovich (also greatly 
inspired by Russian Formalist School) and your short bibliography on 
analytical/digital thinking vis-a-vis smeiotics an introduction to a larger 
bibliography. So I very much look forward to see the bibliographia magna 
one day among the syndicate postings...

greetings,
Anna


On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:39:08 -0500 (EST), Alan Sondheim 
<sondheim at panix.com> wrote :