From: "rude earth" <rudeearth-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: LoS and Darwinism
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 14:14:24 +0000



There is a view put forward by people like John Mc Crone that noise is that 
which the system has selected out-natural selction, as junk garbage-so I 
would really like to hear Bjork's technique-what Paul has said with regard 
to the residual structuralism in LOS is correct but there are 'holes' in it 
for a double direction of nonsense with regards to the structures of 
violence that are mapped out for the child-I don't really want to lift these 
out on line as bluntly put, someone might have the poor taste to stick a 
name in them not of my choosing.

rudeearth.

>From: Chris McMahon <pharmakeus-AT-hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>To: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Subject: Re: LoS and Darwinism
>Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 22:09:32 +0000
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Originating-IP: [210.84.112.91]
>Received: from [128.143.2.9] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id

>Sender: owner-deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Precedence: bulk
>
>Dear Rudeearth,
>
>What's deficient about the(?) materialist approach to language and makes 
>LoS
>necessary/relevant?
>
>Deficiency, it seems to me, has a lot to do with expectations. I suspect
>that many people have theories of language, meaning, or sense that they
>think (or feel) are perfectly adequate. And in many ways the "disciplines"
>or "spheres" simply seem to imply or say as to what's appropriate or
>adequate. So another way of putting the question might be "why should there
>be a demand for LoS?" But that's not really what Paul is asking. Isn't Paul
>really asking "what do philosophers think they can offer science?" [with
>special ref. to LoS] or perhaps "what does LoS offer materialist
>philosophy"? It seems to me that this latter question hase been implicit in
>the discussions of "Sense" that Nathan, Beth and other have been pursuing,
>but that the former question is one in which the standards of adequacy are
>verging on the incommensurate?
>
>But I suspect that this is not what you wanted to "formulate"? What you are
>interested in is the message/noise division? That's why I mentioned
>"Vespertine". It's a record that, I think, that turns "noise" into message.
>She uses noises like tape hiss to create rhythm tracks. This technique,
>insofar as a message about messages can be extracted from it, seems to
>imply, reductio ad abdomen, that noise is in the ear of the bemoaner?
>Jabberwocky, thus, is commonly used to teach English grammar, specifically
>the parts of speech, to native speakers who already have the intuition of
>word order and things such as the function of definite articles. What's a
>"tove"? Obviously a noun thanks to the appearance of "the slithy" in front
>(slithy being without doubt an adjective ... now slithily toving .... the
>smarmily greening, happy reddishly grunting).
>
>Obviously that can't be the case with DNA? Well, actually ... a mutation
>that creates a change in phenotype is always a "dominant" gene because it
>has to make the proteien more forcefully/effectively/efficiently than the
>competing genes. Mutations that don't do this are just noise? The ultimate
>DNA noise is thus junk DNA that does nothing and makes up about, from
>memory, more than 10% anyway (in a human). It comes from other noise 
>sources
>(you know, chemical and radiation, etc.) and from copying mistakes. Even in
>a media as meticulous and high-fidelity as DNA, yesterday's message can be
>today's noise. This means that if you take the "intent" out of the model 
>you
>end up with no noise/message distinction?
>
>:) Chris
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
>




_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx