Mary Helen Kolisnyk’s interest in film theory prompted this description of my project in May ’95.
the new paradigm cannot be located in a single sensory modality. it’s more abstract. at least that is what i argue in my thesis. if the new like the old info environoments or virtual realities are interactive, then the question is one of translation between modalities and verbal semiotic systems, as Benveniste has taught, are very powerful metalanguages. i think non-verbal narrative structure ie. the casting, ordering and maniupulating of sequences, can best explain intersemiotic relations and cognitive processing accross sensory modalities without privileging sight or hearing or touch. I arrive at this position through a critique of the assumption in much occident epistemological and aesthetic discourse that the fundemental human unit of interaction is the dyad. you can imagine that psychoanalysis with the mother-child dyad gets a bit of a grilling but it is psychoanalysis and its theory of drives & body mapping [i’m thinking particularly of the work of Kaja Silverman] that offers a way out of stiffling duos & dichotomies.
Amazing that some sense carries through in that long run on. I note that the “occident” trope got carried into the subtitle: Ideological dimensions of select twentieth-century occidental texts devoted to technology, perception and reproduction.
So many conversations, so many details.
And so for day 879