From: "michelle phil lewis-king" <king.lewis-AT-easynet.co.uk> Subject: Ideology vs B.W.O Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:53:37 -0000 Ideology vs Body without organs? (Taking the b.w.o to be a 'physical'untranscendent body without an image..) V.N Volosinov (associate (or closer?!) of Baktin) wrote in 1929: "Everything ideological posseses meaning: it represents, depicts , or stands for something lying outside itself. In other words it is a sign. Without signs there is no ideology. A physical body equals itself so to speak; it does not signify anything but wholly coincides with its particular, given nature. In this case there is no question of ideology. However , any physical body may be perceived as an image; for instance , the image of natural inertia and necessity embodied in that particular thing. Any such artistic-symbolic image to which that particular physical object gives rise is already an ideological product. The physical object is converted into a sign." But...the body without an image cannot be perceived .. that which it embodies cannot therefore become ideological in Volosinov's sense of participating in a world of signs.. it does not participate in... cannot experience ..this ideological sphere:"the domain of the artistic image, the religious symbol, the scientific formula, and the judicial ruling, etc." phil. -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Listen to the silence let it ring out..(on?)...' Joy Division 'transmission' -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005