Dec. 23, 1992

The "structure" other than scientific which science cannot approach with efficacy is the mind, which is immeasurable. Language and space never intersect - a universal sign system of mental ideas does not have volume. If one sign implies another sign, this is because the idea behind one sign implies the idea behind the other sign, in the mind of the send or receiver of the sign. The signs in themselves are distinct. The sign "mutt" may imply the sign "dog," but that is because the ideas behind them are related - the signs themselves are arbitrary and independent. Similarly, the words may be old, but they may be recombined to express a new idea.

It is because you mistakenly confuse the idea with the sign that you try to justify plagiarism. As for censorship - if you approach words literally - i.e. the one to one correspondence between sign and idea again - then language implies censorship. But if you grasp the poetic function of language, then you understand that ideas are not limited by words, and there is no inherent censorship. But your anti-poetic mistake is typical of the right-wing academic mentality - the letter of the law (the letter of the letters) rather than the spirit (the idea behind them).

Logic is a mental process. The Indo-European sentence implies logic - even in statements which are not logical. At the same time the Chinese manage to be logical without a language that implies logic both where it does and does not exist.

Radical, avant-garde and revolutionary movements do not operate according to a principle of law. The whole point of revolution is to go beyond the legalism which you promote. We do not recognize a "norm," because we do not accept words as Platonic, Kantian, or Jungian archetypes as you do. We follow idealism and rationalism based upon the philosophical premises I stated above. I do not see that your verbal fascism has presented any serious philosophical (i.e. logically consistent) challenge. You have tyrannized yourself in a prison of words and texts, simply because you misunderstand the purely symbolic function of words. Language, which ought to be a source of freedom, expression and communication, becomes for you a source of slavery, conformity, alienation. And you print your little diatribes in order to enslave the minds of others - the academic gets his revenge by trying to make others like himself. And so the disease of fascism is passed on down through the ages, just as Plato intended.

"Concrete" use of language escapes linearity, but does not escape from the one-to-one correspondence of word and idea, into the freedom of true poetry and communication. Mental ideas become split into concrete signs. The person becomes an object. This is anti-mystical, anti-folk, anti-populist, and certainly anti-carnival. It is pure fascism. If it leads to mania, it is a compulsive form of mania, not the spontaneous freedom of carnival, revolution, anarchy.

And you speak of laughter, but I can find few tract more humorless than your academic pontifications. Yes, Neoism is, like all right-wing philosophies, both law and the cause of the war against law that rages in the streets. But revolution strives to transcend all that misery. The conservative conserves old concepts, denouncing their limits here and there, but the revolutionary can see through all that.

Sincerely,