Shakespeare And NASA: Contexts For Some of David Markson’s Fragments

“No more behind

But such a day tomorrow as today

And to be boy eternal.

The second Brandenburg concerto, on an indestructible phonograph disc, is drifting eternally in space affixed to Voyager II” –David Markson, from his novel Reader’s BlockScreen dumps from the book Starting With Derrida by Sean Gaston

Screen dumps from the book This is Not a Tragedy: The Works of David Markson By Françoise Palleau-Papin

Beck And Radiohead: Preliminary Material For A Realisation of a Conceptual Recipe #1

As I presented it in my previous post, I’m doing a deconstrucitve conceptual piece with the following recipe: Retype all the lyrics from Beck’s album Sea Change and Radiohead’s A Moon Shaped Pool in chronological order of the track lists, the oldest album first. Deconstruct the parts of the lyrics which you can interpret to be about break ups, thus pointing to the différance – as you coin the term – between the concept of break ups in the two albums.

To begin with the part where I coin the term différance, I here quote the paragraphs which Kenneth Goldsmith did when he sang Derrida, as a foundational resource of an analysis which recognizes that even an deconstructive explanation has to end somewhere (it’s short lines in the quote because that’s how they are when you quote from Of Grammatology in the document at monoskop and I don’t bother erasing all the line shifts. Besides, it seems more objectivist that way, and that I like):

“The

thesis

of the

arbitrariness

of the

sign

(so grossly

misna

med,

and

not

only

for the

reasons

Saussure

himself

recognizes

)

8

must

forbid

a radical

distinction

between

the

linguistic

and

the

graphic

sign

. No

dou

bt

this

thesis

concerns

only

the

necessity

of

relationships

between

specific

sig­

nifiers

and

signifieds

within

an

allegedly

natural

relationship between

the

voice

and

sense

in general,

between

the

order

of phonic

signifiers

and the

content

of the

signifieds

(“the

only

natural bond, the

only

true

bond, the

bond

of soun

d”). Only

these

relationships

between

specific

signifiers

and

signifie

ds would

be

regulated

by

arbitrariness.

Within

the

“na

tural”

rela­

tionship

between

phon

ic signifiers

and

their

signi

fieds

in general,

the

rela­

tionship

between

each

determined

signifier

and

its determined

signified

would

be “arbitrary.”

Now

from

the

moment

that

one

considers

the

totality

of determined

signs,

spoken,

and

a fortiori written,

as unmotivated

inst

itutions,

one must

exclude

any

relationship

of natural

subordination,

any

natural

hierarchy

among

signifie

rs or orders

of signifie

rs. If “writing”

signifies

inscr

iption

and

especially

the

durable

institution

of a sign

(and

that is the only

irreducible

kernel

of

the

concept

of writing

), writing

in

general

covers

the

entire

field

of linguist

ic signs.

In that field

a certain

sort

of inst

ituted

signifiers

may

then

appear,

“graphic”

in the

narrow

and

derivative

sense

of the

word,

ordered

by

a certain

relationship

with

other

inst

itut

ed-hence

“written

,”

even

if they

are “phonic”

-sig

nifie

rs. The

very

idea of inst

itution-hence

of

the

arbitrariness

of the

sign-is

unthinkable

before

the

possi

bilit

y of writing

and

out

side

of its horizon

. Quit

e simply,

that

is, outside

of the

horizon

itself,

outside

the

world

as space

of

insc

ription,

as

the

opening

to

the

emission

and

to the

spatial

distri

bution

of signs,

to the

regulated

play

of

their

differences,

even

if they are

“ph

onic.”

Let

us now

persist

in using this

opposition

of nature

and

institution,

of

physis

and

nomos

(which

also means,

of course,

a distribution

and

division

regulated

in fact

by

law)

which

a meditation

on

writing

should

disturb al-

Linguistics and

Grammatol

ogy

45

though

it functions

everywhere

as self-evident,

particularly

in the

disc

ourse

of linguistics.

We

must

then

conclude

that

only

the signs

called

natur

al,

those that

Hegel

and

Saussure

call

“symbols,”

escape

semiology

as gram­

matology.

But

they

fall

a fortiori

out

side

the

field

of linguistics

as the

region

of general

semiology.

The

thesis of

the

arbitrariness

of the

sign thus

indi­

rectly

but

irrevocably

contests

Saussur

e’s

declared

proposition when

he

chases

writing

to the

outer

darkness

of language.

This

thesis

successfully

accounts

for

a conventional

relationship between

the

phoneme

and

the

grapheme

(in phon

etic

writing,

between

the

phoneme,

signifi

er-sig

nified,

and

the

grapheme,

pure

signifier

), but

by

the same

token

it forbids

that

the

latter

be

an “i

mage”

of the

former.

Now

it was

indispensable

to the

exclusion

of

writing

as

“external

system,

” th

at

it come to

impose

an

“image,

” a

“representa

ton,”

or a “figurat

ion,”

an

exterior

reflection

of the

reality

of language.

It matters

little,

here at least,

that

there

is in fact

an

ideographic

filia­

tion

of the

alphab

et. This

important

question

is much

debated

by historians

of writing.

”’hat

matters

here

is that in

the

synchr

onic

structure

and syste­

matic

principle

of alphabetic

writing-and

phonetic

writing

in general­

no

relationship

of “natur

al”

representation,

none

of resemblance

or par­

ticipation,

no

“symbolic”

relationship

in

the

Hegelian-Saussurian

sense

,

no

“iconographic”

relationship

in the

Peircian

sense,

be

implied.

One

must

therefore

challenge,

in the

very

name

of the

arbitrariness

of

the

sign

, the

Saussurian

definit

ion

of writing

as “image”-he

nce as natural

symbol-of

language.

Not

to mentio

n the

fact

that

the

phoneme

is the

unimaginable

itself,

and

no

visibility

can

resemble

it, it su

ffices

to take

into

account

what Saussur

e says

about

the

difference

between

the

symbol

and

the

sign

(p.

101

)

[pp

.

68-6<)]

in order

to be

completely

baffie

d as to how

he can

at the

sam

e time

say of

writing

that it is an

“image”

or “figuration”

of language

and

define

language

and

writing

elsewhere

as “two

distinct

systems

of signs”

(p. 45) [po

2

3

]’ For

the

property

of the

sign

is not

to be

an image

. By

a pro

cess

exposed

by

Freud

in

The

Interpretati

on of Dreams,

Saussure

thus

accumulates

contradictory

arguments

to bring

about

a satis­

facto

ry decisi

on: the

exclusion

of writing.

In

fact

,

even

within

so-called

phonetic

writing,

the

“graphic”

signifier

refers

to the

phoneme

through

a

web

of many

dimensions

which

binds

it, like all

signifiers,

to other

written

and

oral

signifiers,

within

a “total” system open,

let

us say,

to all

possible

investments

of sense.

We

must

begin

with

the

possibility

of that

total

syste

m.

Saussure

was

thus never able

to think

that writing

was

truly

an

“image,”

a “figur

ation,”

a “represen

tation”

of the spoken

language,

a symbol.

If one

considers

that

he

non

etheless

needed

these

inadequate

not

ions

to decide

upon

the

exteriority

of writing,

one

must

conclude

that

an

entire

stratum

of his

discourse,

the

intention of

Chapter

VI

(“Graphic

Representation

of Language”

), was

not

at all scienti

fic.

\Vhen

I say

this,

my

quarry

is n

ot

46

Part

I:

Writing

before

the Letter

prima

rily

Ferdinand

de

Saussur

e’s

intentio

n or motivation,

but

rather

the

entire

uncritical

tradition

which

he inherits.”

Beck’s Sea Change and Radiohead’s A Moon Shaped Pool: A Conceptual Recipe

Retype all the lyrics from Beck’s album Sea Change and Radiohead’s A Moon Shaped Pool in chronological order of the track lists, the oldest album first. Deconstruct the parts of the lyrics which you can interpret to be about break ups, thus pointing to the différance – as you coin the term – between the concept of break ups in the two albums.

The Information Is Not Written in the Language-Game of Information

«Do not forget that a poem, although it is composed in the language of information, is not used in the language–game of giving information.» Ludwig Wittgenstein

If we assume that song lyrics, at least by good writers as Beck, are poetry: What then about the song The Information? Is this not written in the language-game of giving information because it is not giving information of what it calls »the information«? Or does it give information about something else than the information Wittgenstein refers to, that means that it has a different thing that it refers to than his word refers to, for instance because it is a metaphor? A metaphor for something that, much like Wittgenstein’s work, stands for an ongoing process of refiguriation, like the ladder. Wittgenstein: »My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them – as steps – to climb beyond them. He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.« Beck: »You could wake up on a lifeboat ‘neath the sun / On a ladder up to the sky /
Standing on the lowest rung / Holding a lifeline, using my best defense /
Running in the undertow my heart couldn’t fight against« (From »Country Down«)

Beck again: «The information is laughing at us
The ticker tape feeds the night
Looking for a lost transmission
A heaven that we left behind

When the information comes
We’ll know what we’re made from
And the skyline rising
Highrise eyes see through you

Say hello to a mannequin
The ghost of an automaton
The witching hour is summoning up
Armies where they don’t belong

When the information comes
We’ll know what we’re made from
And the skyline rising
Highrise eyes see through you

She’s the sister of avarice
The wife of a poisonous tide
She’s the eye of a battle of storms
That sees where the atoms collide

When the information comes
We’ll know what we’re made from
And the skyline rising
Highrise eyes see through you» Beck