Ulmer,
\nGregory. Teletheory: Grammatology in the Age of Video<\/i>. New York:
\nRoutledge, 1989. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Teletheory<\/i>, both as book and as pedagogy, is jam-packed with William Safire’s 9\/20\/1987 column "Hermen Eutic’s Original Intent" is As indexed: On models:<\/p>\n "In the case of [A Lover’s Discourse<\/i>] Fragments<\/i> we are not "What the tree diagram was to the book, the rhizome map is to electronics–a "The task of Teletheory<\/i> in particular is to outline a direction for "The problem is that nomadic texts such as those authored by Artaud or Kleist ~ ~<\/p>\n "Hasn’t pedagogy always positioned itself in this ‘postmodern’ way in "A mystory is always specific to its composer, constituting a kind of "Now the cosmology of depth<\/b> ["’essence’ and ‘meaning’ and the unified "The ideology of method, that is, differs fundamentally from the practice of Phrases: patterning (25), counterinductive (30), bliss-sense (vii), Sekula on Ulmer, Gregory. Teletheory: Grammatology in the Age of Video. New York: Routledge, 1989.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[124],"tags":[1456,1824,1684,1825,400,304,135,178,476,455,1826,1093,1827,1828,271,1829,255,383,144,141,1830,1414,258,1831,1832,278,186,1833,511,1834,1238,1277,963,420,291,187,379,417,1621,615,1835,312,140],"class_list":["post-7105","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-models","tag-1456","tag-absurdism","tag-allegory","tag-apparatus","tag-barthes","tag-code","tag-cognition","tag-composition","tag-conduction","tag-emotion","tag-euretics","tag-experiment","tag-grammatology","tag-historiography","tag-invention","tag-joke","tag-literacy","tag-memory","tag-methods","tag-models","tag-mystory","tag-nostalgia","tag-orality","tag-oralysis","tag-patterning","tag-pedagogy","tag-postman","tag-pun","tag-referentiality","tag-relays","tag-rhizome","tag-sampling","tag-science","tag-style","tag-teaching","tag-technology","tag-television","tag-theory","tag-ulmer","tag-video","tag-videocy","tag-white","tag-writing"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nprovocative bits on mystory, experimentation, videocy, learning, and teaching–a
\n"program of renewal" intervening into a "new discursive and conceptual ecology"
\n(vii). I will resort to just a couple of ideas, even though there are
\nseveral to sample from: relay<\/i> as an alternative to (monumental) models
\nand patterning<\/i>, where patterning is the frame from which analytico-referential
\nemerged. Writes Ulmer, "Once it emerged, analytico-referential discourse
\nopposed that which it could not accommodate [viz., patterning]" (24). In step
\nwith Timothy Reiss, he goes on to note that "Patterning became distanced
\nas ‘pre-scientific,’ but persisted on the margins, and constitutes ‘a kind of
\npermanent ghost in the machine, posing a latent question to the signifying,
\ndenoting intentions of that discourse,’ contradicting ‘the logic of dominant
\ndiscourse in which it lies more or less hidden’ (378). ‘That is not to say,’
\nReiss adds, ‘that a discourse of patterning could ever function again as such
\nfor us.’ The ‘as such’ is the crucial qualification, however, for I want to
\nargue that patterning has come around again, as the ghost whose secret is buried
\nin the crypt, as the pleasure of orality. The crucial new element in the mix is
\nelectronic technology" (25). Yes, electronic technology. With this, what
\nUlmer addresses, citing Eric Leed, as the "explanatory myth" of orality v.
\nliteracy is put under a spotlight–exposed. <\/p>\n\n
\n\tpredominant emotion is nostalgia (11a)<\/li>\n
\n\t(15)<\/li>\n
\n\tnumbered higher than 92 (Uranium) (19)<\/li>\n
\n\toscillate between them?<\/li>\n
\n\t(33), citing Brannigan (33c)<\/li>\n
\n\tMeta-representations "allow humans to process information which they do not
\n\tunderstand" (36)<\/li>\n
\ncredited here with putting Ulmer onto (h)euretics\/invention. Safire places
\neuretics and invention on one side opposite hermeneutics and interpretation, but
\nUlmer mends this break, "There is no need to be against hermeneutics in order to
\nbe for euretics, only that euretics provides an alternative to interpretation
\nthat has been lacking in most of the discussions of the problem" (15-16). <\/p>\n
\nrelay 166-175
\nmodels, 104, 119, 141; cognitive, 24; disciplinary, 39; explanatory, 33, 39;
\nfolk, 39; and places, 157; and relay, 170; and signature, 165.<\/p>\n
\noffered any particular lover’s story, but all such stories with one instance
\nembedded within it as a model<\/b>, in a way that reorganizes the
\ntraditional opposition between the particular and the general<\/b>" (119).
\nAgain, the model as intermediary, as Pemberton’s "partial isomorph", and as
\nrelay in its conduciveness to tweening the particular and the general, data and
\ntheories across different orders of magnitude–albeit discursive and textual
\nrather than visual, presentational\/nondiscursive, and electrate.<\/p>\n
\nmodel<\/b> for a new order of memory, whose principles include ‘connection<\/b>‘ (‘any
\npoint on a rhizome can be connected with any other, and must be’);
\n‘Heterogeneity<\/b>‘ (‘the semiotic chain is like a tuber gather up very diverse
\nacts–linguistic, but also perceptual, mimetic, gestural, and cognitive’);
\n‘multiplicity<\/b>‘ (it has neither subject nor object: ‘there are no points or
\npositions in a rhizome, as one finds in a structure, tree or root. There are
\nonly lines’); ‘a-signifying rupture<\/b>‘ (‘A rhizome can be cracked and broken at
\nany point; it starts off again following one or another of its lines…There is
\nneither imitation nor resemblance, but an explosion of two heterogeneous series
\nin a line of flight consisting of a common rhizome that can no longer be
\nattributed nor made subject to any signifier at all’) (11,20)" (141). Deluze and
\nGuattarian emphasis here; model as conceptual framework–an altered conceptual
\nframework from book to electronics.<\/p>\n
\nthis project–for the invention of a new cognitive model<\/b>" (24).<\/p>\n
\nthemselves end up becoming monuments<\/b>, "inspiring a model to be copied<\/b>." This
\nalternative–the relay<\/b>, organized by speed, rather than the gravity of a
\nmonument–will be one of the most difficult and important issues for teletheory:
\nhow to bring the particular or singular into relation with the general or global
\n[or the abstract] in the manner of the relay rather than the model…. Mystory
\nitself is more a relay than a model, produced not for its own sake but for the
\ntrace of convergence of living and artificial memories<\/b>" (170).<\/p>\n
\nrelation to the past as information? Haven’t teachers always ransacked the past
\nin order to perform the simulacrum of history, in period courses for which
\nthere is no original, whose authorship we deny? Haven’t we always lived by
\nquotation in our scholarship and lectures? Postmodernism no longer produces
\nmonumental works, Jameson notes, ‘but ceaselessly reshuffles the fragments of
\npreexistent texts , the building blocks of older cultural and social production,
\nin some new and heightened bricolage: metabooks which cannibalise other books,
\nmetatexts which collate bits of other texts’ (223)." (13). <\/p>\n
\npersonal periodic table of cognitive elements, representing one individual’s
\nintensive reserve" (vii).<\/p>\n
\nego"] is giving way to another one which it is part of our project to imagine"
\n(27). A cosmology of light, of distance, or of surfaces (epitomes)? Ulmer
\nmentions a fourth-dimension cognitive style combining "Einsteinian physics,
\nvanguard collage, and the decentered subject" (28b).<\/p>\n
\ninvention. Science, like cinema, is an apparatus, a machine, in which
\nideology plays an integral part. The same may be said for the university as an
\neducation machine" (29).<\/p>\n
\nphoto-archive (14), sampling (13)<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"