Saturday, April 29, 2006

:table series: issue 5: homage to de Man

so, maggie and i are going crazy with our move... you can read this if you want. [i know only two people EVER read the table series... so THANK YOU TWO PEOPLE!] we'll have more to say after we are done putting our beloved books in storage... we have to.... trust me... the two of us in one room is just STUPID. it is more like a library with a bed in it than a bedroom at this point.



BROWNSON has his narrator travel from America to Europe causing revolution after revolution, expelling Pope Pius IX from Rome, and performing various other disagreeable modes of disharmony in the name of world reform. There are also various moments in which our narrator participates in mesmerizing subjects without the knowledge of the subjects. In fact, the only evidence we have that anything in his confession actually takes place is inside his confession. The fact that he utters a confession. But, again, I must ask, how can this be confession? And who is this narrator making it? Is Brownson attempting to make his uncommon narrator common, by keeping his name secret? Does this secret invalidate the occasion that causes the book, The Spirit-Rapper, An Autobiography into existence, which is that of a deathbed confession? Is it not part of confession to take responsibility for one’s sins? And is it really to take fault, to accept blame, if one is unwilling to admit responsibility in one’s own name in the first place?

The opening paragraph of Spirit-Rapper is as follows:

“My days are numbered; I am drawing near to the close of my earthly pilgrimage, and I must soon take my final departure, –whither, I dread to think. But before I go I would leave a brief record of some incidents in my worse than unprofitable life. A few who have known me, and will have the charity to breathe a prayer at my grave, may be glad to possess it; and others of my countrymen, who know not what to think of the marvelous phenomena daily and hourly exhibited in their midst, or are vainly striving to explain them on natural principles, may find it neither uninteresting nor uninstructive.” (3)
His purpose in telling his tale is thus to leave a history for, entertain, and instruct his readers. The tale is more than confession, it is didactic. (Are all confessions inherently didactic? Maybe I need to be more specific, are all confessions that are then written as autobiography, didactic?).

There is a trace of the issues regarding the unwillingness to mark found in the narrators choice to define through negation what the reader shall gain by reading this not-biography. And, again, what action does the narrator take, what act does he perform, that is “neither uninteresting nor uninstructive” ? What does the narrator introduce, come into contact with, mark, that needs to be eradicated and excused?

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

local artist.

so i'm really sick and walking mr. poods around the block bc he's driving me crazy with the "eat the postman's arms" game.... and i see this 6 or 7 year old kid. he's on his stoop and he's taped up some notebook paper that he has written on in magic marker:



and he looks at us and throws his head into his lap, assuming the sulk position.

so. i get closer. he just sighs and sighs and sighs. so finally i say, "are you okay?"

"i guess so."

"what's the matta?"

"nobody will buy my magazines!"

so i buy one of the damn things.

here's a page:

totally awesome, eh?

Monday, April 24, 2006

question of the day from dvorak:

i recently got this email and thought i'd posit this question to the blog.
see if anyone has anything to say about it.

let us know what you think:

from KD:
is it possible to "unintentionally obfuscate" something?

For example:

"Perhaps the field has been unintentionally obfuscating the entirety
of its history by only recognizing texts from the last ten years when,
in fact, there are field-specific texts that are sixty years old."

End of email.

well.... is it possible?


more from me when my cold is gone. and also, i have a 'real job' now...
so i think that means i'll be less blog obsessed. i don't know.

Sunday, April 23, 2006

Jim Behrle Speaks! Exclusive Interview After "Can't Get a Date"

1) Did you get paid anything or do they just give you all that free shit? SOME CLOTHES, SNEAKERS, $1200, MADE OVER ROOM, A FISH (NAMED "THE HOST" (NICKNAMED PEPPER) AFTER THE HOST, WHO DIED A WHILE AGO).




5) Since Kate Pringle was number four on your crush list for a while, how come she didn't get to be in one of those orange circles and say that she wouldn't date you? Is it because she's a lesbian? TIMING. FILM WAS SHOT LAST YEAR, KATE WAS JUST ON LIST.

6) Kate says you live alone. I say there's no way you live alone; you live in NY. I'm right, aren't I? I HAVE A ROOMMATE.


8) Do you think you'll get your own show? I think you would be a good late night kinda guy. You seemed really comfortable in front of the camera. Just as sassy as in real life. I WILL HAVE A CAMEO ON ANOTHER PROGRAM VERY SOON. WITH DETAILS TO FOLLOW. I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER PROJECTS WILL PRESENT THEMSELVES.

9) Could you really hear that narrator guy or did you have to pretend and answer questions that you never heard? It sure did sound like he was in a studio. I COULD SEE AND HEAR HIM. I CAN'T TALK ABOUT THE TECHNOLOGY OF THE SHOW ONLINE. BUT I WAS LOOKING AT HIM AND TALKING WITH HIM WHILE BEING INTERVIEWED.

10) Kate says you probably joined a gym now. I say you didn't. I lost a bunch of weight when I stopped eating soda and cookies. It was cool because I didn't have to work out. Can you do a pull-up yet? I CAN PROBABLY DO A PULL-UP. I HURT MY WRIST A WHILE BACK, BUT I COULD PROBABLY DO A PULL-UP. I HAVEN'T JOINED A GYM. I WILL RUN WITH STACEY'S BOOTCAMP A FEW TIMES IN THE COMING WEEKS TO CATCH UP WITH PEOPLE. I'VE FELT A LOT OF PRESSURE TO KEEP THE WEIGHT OFF, BUT HAVEN'T REALLY WORKED OUT SINCE. EATING LESS. SNACKING LESS. DIET SODAS.

Thanks for watching. There should be footage at's v-spot of the 6 month after footage in which I watch the episode. Worth watching: you may need a pc!


Saturday, April 22, 2006


Dear Jim,

Now Kate in her post below said I was going to be sarcastic, but I am too fascinated to be sarcastic. I have many questions for you, like:

1) Did you get paid anything or do they just give you all that free shit?

2) How much make-up did you have to wear?

3) They cleaned up your room, but they didn't install any bookshelves. Where are your books now?

4) When did Kat know she was going to be on the show? Did you guys stage the whole thing or was it an honest date?

5) Since Kate Pringle was number four on your crush list for a while, how come she didn't get to be in one of those orange circles and say that she wouldn't date you? Is it because she's a lesbian?

6) Kate says you live alone. I say there's no way you live alone; you live in NY. I'm right, aren't I?

7) Are you going to keep those pictures above your bed?

8) Do you think you'll get your own show? I think you would be a good late night kinda guy. You seemed really comfortable in front of the camera. Just as sassy as in real life.

9) Could you really hear that narrator guy or did you have to pretend and answer questions that you never heard? It sure did sound like he was in a studio.

10) Kate says you probably joined a gym now. I say you didn't. I lost a bunch of weight when I stopped eating soda and cookies. It was cool because I didn't have to work out. Can you do a pull-up yet?


-- Maggie


o yes... did we watch jim behrle on vh1 last night?

i picked maggie and poods up from her place, brought her over, made a snack...
and nestled into quality time with jim behrle. it was beautiful. and he looks really great.

and maggie will post the more interesting post on this... bc she is more sarcastic than i am.
[only bc she knows him a little better. or "knows" him. hehe.]

but, yeah. glad the toenails got worked out.


Thursday, April 20, 2006

Internet Law before Congress

Hey Bloggers and Bloggees --

Make sure that the government doesn't let corporations control the internet. Read the following email I received today and do your part to keep the internet free.

-- Maggie

Dear MoveOn member,

The free speech of MoveOn and all other Internet users is at stake as Congress tries to push through a radical law that gives corporations more control over online speech.

Internet providers like AT&T and Verizon are lobbying Congress hard to abandon Network Neutrality, the First Amendment for the Internet. Network Neutrality is the idea that all speakers on the Internet must be treated equally—from the biggest corporation to the smallest blog. It prevents the censorship that would result if Internet providers like AT&T got to choose which websites open easily based on which websites paid AT&T more.

MoveOn has already seen the censorship that happens when the Internet's gatekeepers get too much control over speech. Just last week, AOL blocked any email mentioning a coalition that MoveOn is a part of, which opposes AOL's proposed "email tax."1 And last year, Canada's version of AT&T—Telus—blocked their Internet customers from visiting a website sympathetic to workers with whom Telus was negotiating.2

We need to act now to protect free speech online. Can you sign this petition to your member of Congress asking him or her not to gut Net Neutrality? Click here:

Then, please forward this to 3 friends. Protecting free speech online is fundamental—it affects nearly everyone and every issue. When you sign this petition, you'll be kept informed of the next steps we can take to keep the heat on Congress. Votes begin in a House committee next week.

Politicians don't think we are paying attention to this issue. Many of them take campaign checks from big telecom companies and are on the verge of selling out to people like AT&T's CEO, who openly says, "The internet can't be free."3

Together, we can let Congress know we are paying attention. We can make sure they listen to our voices and the voices of people like Vint Serf, a father of the Internet and Google's "Chief Internet Evangelist," who recently wrote this to Congress in support of preserving Network Neutrality:

My fear is that, as written, this bill would do great damage to the Internet as we know it. Enshrining a rule that broadly permits network operators to discriminate in favor of certain kinds of services and to potentially interfere with others would place broadband operators in control of online activity...Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network operators should not dictate what people can do online.4

The stakes for free speech online are high—can you sign this petition letting your member of Congress you support preserving Network Neutrality? Click here:

Please forward to 3 others who care about this issue. Thanks for all you do.

–Eli Pariser, Adam Green, Noah T. Winer, and the Civic Action team
Wednesday, April 19th, 2006

P.S. If Congress abandons Network Neutrality who will be negatively affected?

Advocacy groups like MoveOn—Political organizing could be slowed by a handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups to pay "protection money" for their websites and online features to work correctly. Those who don't pay essentially get censored.
Nonprofits—A charity's website could open at snail-speed, and online contributions could grind to a halt, if nonprofits can't pay dominant Internet providers for access to "the fast lane" of Internet service.
Google users—Another search engine could pay dominant Internet providers like AT&T to guarantee the competing search engine opens faster than Google on your computer.
Innovators with the "next big idea"—Startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay Internet providers for dominant placing on the Web. The little guy will be left in the "slow lane" with inferior Internet service, unable to compete.
Ipod listeners—A company like Comcast could slow access to iTunes, steering you to a higher-priced music service that it owned.
Online purchasers—Companies could pay Internet providers to guarantee their online sales process faster than competitors with lower prices—distorting your choice as a consumer.
Small businesses and tele-commuters—When Internet companies like AT&T favor their own services, you won't be able to choose more affordable providers for online video, teleconferencing, Internet phone calls, and software that connects your home computer to your office.
Parents and retirees—Your choices as a consumer could be controlled by your Internet provider, steering you to their preferred services for online banking, health care information, sending photos, planning vacations, etc.
Bloggers—Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips—silencing citizen journalists and putting more power in the hands of a few corporate-owned media outlets.
P.P.S. This excerpt from the New Yorker really sums up this issue well.

In the first decades of the twentieth century, as a national telephone network spread across the United States, A.T. & T. adopted a policy of "tiered access" for businesses. Companies that paid an extra fee got better service: their customers' calls went through immediately, were rarely disconnected, and sounded crystal-clear. Those who didn't pony up had a harder time making calls out, and people calling them sometimes got an "all circuits busy" response. Over time, customers gravitated toward the higher-tier companies and away from the ones that were more difficult to reach. In effect, A.T. & T.'s policy turned it into a corporate kingmaker.

If you've never heard about this bit of business history, there's a good reason: it never happened. Instead, A.T. & T. had to abide by a "common carriage" rule: it provided the same quality of service to all, and could not favor one customer over another. But, while "tiered access" never influenced the spread of the telephone network, it is becoming a major issue in the evolution of the Internet.

Until recently, companies that provided Internet access followed a de-facto commoncarriage rule, usually called "network neutrality," which meant that all Web sites got equal treatment. Network neutrality was considered so fundamental to the success of the Net that Michael Powell, when he was chairman of the F.C.C., described it as one of the basic rules of "Internet freedom." In the past few months, though, companies like A.T. & T. and BellSouth have been trying to scuttle it. In the future, Web sites that pay extra to providers could receive what BellSouth recently called "special treatment," and those that don't could end up in the slow lane. One day, BellSouth customers may find that, say, loads a lot faster than, and that the sites BellSouth favors just seem to run more smoothly. Tiered access will turn the providers into Internet gatekeepers.5


1. "AOL Blocks Critics' E-Mails," Los Angeles Times, April 14, 2006

2. "B.C. Civil Liberties Association Denounces Blocking of Website by Telus," British Columbia Civil Liberties Association Statement, July 27, 2005

3. "At SBC, It's All About 'Scale and Scope," BusinessWeek, November 7, 2002

4. "Vint Cerf speaks out on net neutrality," Google Blog—Cerf Letter to Congress,November 8, 2005

5. "Net Losses," New Yorker, March 20, 2006

6. "Don't undercut Internet access," San Francisco Chronicle editorial, April 17, 2006

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

:table series: issue 4: evidence

[before launching into more about tables... i would like to say i enjoyed very much alli warren's reading [I and eye] at new yipes easter sunday... and also bruce boone's... and i'm very sorry i did not pick up a bound to get fuller cd... are there any left? if so... can i get one?]

okay... tables....


It is here, in regards to autobiography, I must invoke Derrida from his essay/interview “This Strange Institution Called Literature,” “[a]utobiography is perhaps the least inadequate name, because it remains for me the most enigmatic, the most open, even today. At this moment, here, I’m trying, in a way that would commonly be called “autobiographical,” to remember what happened when the desire came to me, in a way that was as obscure as it was compulsive, both powerless and authoritarian” (34). There is a need to document, to ‘trace,’ event and non-event,inside ‘autobiography.’ Also stated in the preface of The Spirit-Rapper is the desire of the author to “write a book, easy to write and not precisely hard to read” (1). Is the confession of what will be called ‘exterior life’ something that is not easy to write? Hard to read? We shall come to this soon.

Brownson’s speaker, being narrator and spirit-rapper, is an action in and of himself: he is the embodiment of the trace, which is interesting as he in many ways is a disembodied voice. [Here is an attempt to list of the ways he embodies trace and then a list of disembodied voice]

He is representative of the text, the “I” of the text, as well as the enabler of the text. Without the spirit-rapper there is no story.

He is the narrator of a story that is his and therefore according to him. This story, however, is a not-biography, and therefore not his story. Or, at the very least, not his story if he is a “real individual.” (Wouldn’t that, then, make this story a novel? And why is it not any of these things, according to Brownson?) Along with this confusion and at the same time he states, “[o]f my exterior life I have not much to record, for though few have played a more active or important part in the great events of the past few years, my name has rarely been connected with them before the public.” (italics mine, 3). This is as much as he will ever say in regards to his name. His statement accomplishes two things: 1. divides the interior from the exterior life, giving a higher degree of importance to the interior life that, in order for the story to be written, must in fact be recordable, must be eventful; and 2. makes his existence, if not his name, a major influence upon the world, making his story not only his, but that of the world: history. And indeed it is a world history. Let us go one step at a time.

1. “of my exterior life I have not much to record”

Here the narrator has divided life into at least two discrete realms: exterior life / interior life. It follows, then, which “life” is recordable: eventful: historical. If, as he states, there is “not much to record,” why then belabor the point by bringing into the foreground? [The temptation is to state : It is simply a rhetorical device.] The truth is there is much to record concerning this “exterior life.” This rhetorical device, the humble lie, is an example of unconfession because it does nothing to clear the air, it does nothing to restore nor to redeem confession-maker, and in fact operates as an undoing of the confession by rendering the confession unnecessary. For to confess something is to “overcome guilt and shame,” and here then, nothing is overcome. If there exists nothing or “not much to record” of the “exterior life,” then there is nothing to confession, or at least very little, because there is no action. Once again, there is doubt, as the impulse to not mark overtakes the narrator, and his confession.

2. “ for though few have played a more active or important part in the great events of the past few years, my name has rarely been connected with them before the public.”

If in fact this statement is true, what is at stake? The unimportance of this ‘exterior life’ is based on the lack of public connection. What is ‘exterior life’ but public connection? Does the fact that the name of the narrator is unknown absolve him of sin? Or action? Does this deathbed confession have any confession in it? If the narrator so plays an “active” and “important role” in history, and refuses to mark himself in that role, I would think that his confession would be a confession of mere vanity.

We have an opposing situation in Rousseau’s confession: Rousseau was caught with the ribbon. Here, in this narrative, the evidence is missing. There is no evidence other than what lays upon the mind of the speaker. Here I bring de Man in again:
The difference between the verbal excuse and the referential crime is not a simple opposition between an action and a mere utterance about an action. To steal is to act and includes no necessary verbal elements. To confess is discursive, but the discourse is governed by a principle of referential verification that includes an extraverbal moment: even if we confess that we said something (as opposed to did), the verification of this verbal event, the decision about the truth or falsehood of its occurrence, is not verbal but factual, the knowledge that the utterance actually took place. (281)

We must then, according to de Man, find the factual evidence for this verbal confession. What we have so far is a lack of utterance, however. There are several moments of what is deemed by the narrator to be unremarkable, moments that utterance is not only possible but essential to confession. What is our evidence? Where is our ribbon?

Tuesday, April 11, 2006


i just want to say

that CAConrad told me [us] when he was here
to chew on 5 raw almonds for a really long time
because it makes you feel good.

and it does.

table series: issue three: someone has actually requested this, i'm not kidding.

e. language:

There is language here as there is code, but it is unwritten and unspoken language, an unmarked language. We have no access to what this language is except by way of the word language [and a table cannot speak nor write, but be spoken over and written upon] and the narrator’s belief in language. What can be said in regards to the language is only that it took place and is still to come.

f. arbitrary signs

What is significant about this particular phrase at the conclusion of such an odd introduction is the fact that the word arbitrary involves choice and preference: individual discretion. The arbiter has unlimited power and control over these signs, but who is the arbiter in this instance? The reader or the writer of the signs? The reader has ‘ascertained’: the reader has determined how to read, but does this empower the reader or the writer? If the table is indeed the arbiter, then there is quite possibly no end to the rapping (and maybe this table is indeed the spirit-rapper, but here I am jesting), but, can the arbiter be held singly?

Having discussed in more depth the particulars of these words and the thoughts evoked, let us continue with the text:
The table goes on to communicate that the spirit-rapper is “on the eve of gratifying [his] most secret and ardent wish… the knowledge and power [he] craved,” he only must do something to embrace the spirit of the age, and he would “make [himself] the Messiah of the nineteenth century” (41). Our narrator is told that he can only gain the knowledge he seeks if he does something worthwhile. He sets himself to world reform through philanthropy, and remembering a certain Priscilla from his youth, goes to her for a lesson in world reform. This life that he chooses to live, as it will soon become apparent, is a life he is not to live.

[Maybe this is not the best way to express my thoughts about de Man’s essay and Brownson’s tale. What I really want to do is what de Man does: a close reading, that involves a lot of questions, and maybe a few answers. I will start again:]

In Brownson’s The Spirit-Rapper, An Autobiography, the question of identity, in particular the question of authorship, is immediately rendered by the use of the word: autobiography. To whom does this story belong? The spirit-rapper? The author? The word autobiography combines author with writer with narrator. The title, or name if you prefer, that is in the closest proximity: set as “author” of the autobiography, is “spirit-rapper.” So, this book is then an autobiography of a spirit-rapper written by the spirit-rapper. One would gather, however, in the preface to this text, Brownson (who is the real writer / author of the text) that:

It is not a novel; it is not a romance; it is not a biography of any real individual; it is not a dissertation, an essay, or a regular treatise; and yet it perhaps has some elements of them all, thrown together in just such a way as best suited my convenience, or my purpose. (1)

This text then, raises important issues regarding genre and identity: why is this an autobiography that “is not a biography of any real individual?” Can there be an autobiography without biography? Where is the emphasis placed, is it not a biography or simply not a biography of a ‘real’ individual? What does it mean to write the biography of an unreal individual? Brownson further problemetizes /illustrates the notion of identity by giving no name to his narrator. Our only way of referencing the narrator, who is our only guide through this strange world of Spiritists, Unitarian Ministers, social reformers, and devils, is by way of the term spirit-rapper, or for our purposes: narrator. Both being words describing specified action.

To state: This text is not a biography, and place in the title of said text the word ‘autobiography,’ is curious. What meaning is there? It is more than simply an erasure, a cross-cancellation as in mathematics. Must there be a desire, on the part of the author, to call attention to genre? If so, then there is also a desire on the part of the text to be cross-genre. And, finally, a desire, on the part of myself as a reader, to understand the importance of not-biography. To be a not-biography is to be a not-history of someone. But to do so, to be so, can never erase what it is not. The story, the not-story, is very much a story, and a history, while being very much a not-history.

Saturday, April 08, 2006

More reason to be angry

OK. So with trying to get into PhD programs I've become the worst blogger in the world. Kate has revived this blog. Thanks to her. I will try to exist here again, but my mind is in the most mundane of places all the time these days. For a while I was obsessed with 911 Conspiracy but that became too terrifying to read all the time (see Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon" if you are strong enough). I am still at politics. It helps my nerves or is a good place to put nervous energy as it doesn't take too much concentration to understand. In any case, here is something for everyone to chew on:

The other night I was listening to local NPR in the car and there was a personal essay by a local food bank worker who was lamenting the recent cut in a federal food program. Through the Department of Agriculture her organization distributes a box of food once a month to low income seniors. It consists of cheese, eggs, peanut butter, fruits and vegetables. The government is slowly phasing out the program, so that this particular food bank worker has to pick 1200 seniors in San Francisco to cut from the program.

The next day in the Times I read the results of an analysis performed by some statistical software of the most recent tax cuts. According to the analysis, the newest tax cuts result in people making over 10 million (on average people in this category earn 26 million) paying the same amount of taxes as people earning about 500,000. But no more boxes for low income seniors.

Thursday, April 06, 2006


i think the A's are going to the World Series.

i really do. they just had the jitters day one. but... i'm telling you.

they are *so* good this season.

we should all [what, all two of us?] go see the A's a lot this season.

and i'm sorry but i'm really over the Giants and barry. i don't even
care anymore. i just want everyone to shut up.

besides. i believe in the DH. i don't want to see pitchers bat. no.


A's. World Series.


in the poetry world i'm still writing my german sonnets for ted berrigan.

also going to read brossard all weekend.

other than that i am just waiting for job interviews
and rejection letters.


more on tables later.

peace out.

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

table series: issue two: language and 'arbitrary signs.'

1. dialogue, table, record, read, language and ‘arbitrary signs.’

Each of these words reference communication and, in particular, writing. I find this interesting as the word ‘record’ is used by Brownson/narrator/text in situations that make each instance a written account: a record of an event. In each situation the event is a not-event: something that is left out, left behind, unworthy of mention, and yet, mentioned all the same and marked as unmentionable. OR, is it that what is conveyed by the table to the narrator is so worthy that it is marked secret and purposefully withheld? What does this marking of absence represent?

Amongst a slew of words all relating to communication as an activity that is present, that is taking place, that is action, what is actually communicated/said/written is that it is considered un/markable, YET, remarkable, as the fact is the speaker does make mention, take notice {make a record of}, of this communicative act. There is set in motion, then, the idea that in order for something to be made record of, it must be worthy: a value inherited byway of ‘record,’ also, if too worthy, kept secret. It is good, I think, to notice that the event that is not recorded is also considered and called : “a trifle.”

a. dialogue: “I held a long dialogue with the table which, however, I shall not record.”
In order for this dialogue to take place, to be an event, there must be an understanding: a comprehension, on the part of the writer/recorder of events/biography and the table. A dialogue is an exchange of thoughts between two, usually persons, in this instance a table and a person, and in this instance an unrecorded conversation.

Is it possible that the unrecording of this dialogue is and unmaking of this dialogue? This dialogue leads the narrator directly into his criminal life, and this autobiography, being a deathbed confession as we shall see, is dependent upon this dialogue. And yet we receive no record, no account for this exchange. For what reason is this dialogue unrecorded? Is it unrecordable? Is it secret? What difference is there between and unrecorded dialogue and a secret? Truly for a confession to take place one must be held accountable, at least by oneself. Is this the beginning of the unconfession ? An erasure of the true confession? An unwillingness to fully confess?

b. table:

Is the table a substitution? For Rousseau there was a ribbon. Does this table stand for something other than a table?
The table in this instance is not a table but a mesmerized table: a table under a spell, a table that has an essence that is beyond that of a table. The word table also elicits exchange (mathematics), tablet, time, and at the time of the original writing:
A tablet bearing or intended for an inscription or device: as the stone tablets on which the ten commandments were inscribed, a memorial tablet fixed in a wall, a votive tablet, a notice-board, etc. arch. (OED)

This word is weighted in light of the word ‘record’ as it is a place upon which an action/communication can take place. It is then refused its place, at least in the remarking of the place.

c. record (see above and below)

1. Law. a. The fact or attribute of being, or of having been, committed to writing as authentic evidence of a matter having legal importance, spec. as evidence of the proceedings or verdict of a court of justice; evidence which is thus preserved, and may be appealed to in case of dispute. Chiefly in phrases of (common in 15-16th c.), {dag}in, by, on, or upon record. I. {dag}1. trans. a. To get by heart, to commit to memory, to go over in one's mind. b. To repeat or say over as a lesson, to recite. Obs. (OED).

d. read: “I ascertained the origin of the raps, how to produce them, and how to read them.”

The order of this process is curious to me. This is to say that in order to read one must discover the origin of the sign(s) and how they function first. [Maybe this is true.] Is the table a book? Truly, though, is reading both taking place and not taking place? There is not a way for the reader to know whether or not the reading is accurate. All responsibility lay in the reader for the making of sense, in this particular situation. The table is not going to disagree, the table is not going to say, “No, that isn’t what I’m saying at all.’ Even if the table were to do so, it would be impossible for the reader to comprehend his/her own misunderstanding, because of the reader’s failure to comprehend in the first place.
This is an interesting scene because it brings to the foreground, in light of our discussion regarding confession and responsibility, the unconfession I began to process earlier. If the confession-maker does not find all of the particulars of his/her own confession re/markable, is it then a failure to comprehend on the part of the confession-maker? And is this failure to comprehend then also a failure to confess?

Monday, April 03, 2006

: rain :

eh, i'm insensitive today. i don't know why. i'm a little bitchy. and also... the rain...the giants losing to the padres ... didn't make me feel much better. and of course the A's and the Yankees are playing right now and I'm completely torn... i love both teams... but... i think the A's are going to make it to the world series this season... so i guess i want to see the yanks lose... but maybe that is really because i found mr. damon so annoying as a red sock [with his oakridge boys look. family man.]

i can't really get into the immigration thing right now without getting really ill.

i wish conrad lived in sf. and i also wish that we lived in philly.

o, and flightplan is a great movie. [damn... Yanks just scored.] and m and i have crushes on jodi foster and catherine keener now.

go A's.