unknown point (as in navigation unknown point and two known and image back to the mindset that creates it, then, note the reading: "In Fourteen hundred doesn't discover America exterminates, he trespasses, he people(s) (I won't say natives) Amerigo Vespucci did ancient to 15th c. come in and then end images-signs-are permeated by with swastika-or else collage charged ones, like this ancient Little Lamb" without using the

denotation can be cleaved from tragedy in limerick?). If for lack high-mindedness replaces rules associative world of court this. Ask, 'What are the politics of could slog out a rhetorical than our parents could live in a Freud. Whether or not we have lit-crit names. Today, the thereby undermining the

practices have trickled down Othello, a structuralist in search

wind instruments?

Musician: Ay, marry, are they,

hangs a tale, sir.

that I know.

 

like to say, moves by opening has become as common as vernacular. Us. We The People.

Shakespeare quote and then

Prosecution (a structuralist): Light leather gloves exist. Fact gloves was found at the murder the defendant and one out of 57 by a killer wearing rare Bruno ugly ass shoe like that!

racists bring in photos of a man lab results, words and other think he is guilty and want to

Prosecutor: Hey, "framing the

O! Word!




Is it any coincidence that DaVinci's Last Supper and Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion both place the Son/Sun at the center of a spatially ordered universe?


What DaVinci and Kepler, as well as Johnnie Cochran, Beavis, Butthead, Shakespeare — that is, what all of us consider knowledge, as well as how it is represented and transmitted is largely received. And if mimesis is Don Quijote (what is looked for is what is found), then Narration is Sancho Panza (more ignorance than knavery) and together they move through the cultural landscape constituting it and each other.

Yes, Sancho, we're in Escher country here.

Is it any coincidence that a 19th-century novelist like Melville constitutes Moby Dick through the 19th-century science of phrenology? — representing the whale's character (mystical) by reading the shape of its forehead (high like Shakespeare's though immensely amplified). Is it any coincidence that as we increasingly depend on images to communicate, images work their way into our politics? Our commerce? Our values? Our histories? Our Narrations? Indeed, a relationship between what is seen (image) and what is said (word) is so pervasive as to be transparent, even if this relationship is a flexible one, taking on the character of the culture it helps form.

An example: as phrenology began to lose currency, the effort to use the visible to describe the invisible moved from brain to mind. Someone who thinks pleasant thoughts will smile, Darwin and his contemporaries noted. Sadness involuntarily creates a frown. That is, facial expressions are linked to mental activity: a palindrome that can be read from seen to unseen. Word embedded in image. If a grid could be placed on that face, the mind could be mapped.

Image is also embedded in word, though, and Darwin noted that illustrators, when directed to draw the benevolent expression indicative of Religious melancholia, for example, would see what they were told was there. As he put it "...if from the nature of the circumstances we expect to see any expression, we readily imagine its presence."

The problem in creating an anatomy of expression, then, is a problem of finding an untainted representation, one stripped of subjectivity. And to this end craniums were meticulously measured. Sir Francis Galton, the father of statistics in social sciences (as well as the Nature/Culture dialectic we still rely on), used surveying techniques to measure the buttocks of African women and "objectively" proved that contrary to popular belief, black women were proportioned as pleasingly as whites; Georges Cuvier, a founder of modern biology, made a wax mold of the genitalia of the Hottentot Venus, a South African "specimen," in order to compare races by reading anatomy. (Measurements demonstrated that contrary to popular opinion, she was actually a Bushwoman, that is, a member of the race located on the evolutionary tree nearest to the orangutan and not a Hottentot, the rung above Bushmen but below blacks.)

Darwin and others like Cesare Lombroso turned to the cutting-edge technologies of the day, electricity (which Lombroso applied to the clitorises of criminals in order to measure the sensitivity to pain of these urban savages) and photography, which Darwin, Lombroso and many others used to create composite photos, such as in this portrait of melancholy made by superimposing the faces of eight melancholic men.

But while non-catatonic expressions were fleeting, exposures in 1890 were long. "I presume it will be hopeless, from constant movement," Darwin wrote, "to get an insane person photographed whilst crying bitterly."

To get around this technical problem, Darwin used photos of actors posed in various expressions. He also sought to identify the exact muscles that were used in an expression of terror, for example.

If these muscles of fright, as they were called, were then electrically contracted, and an expression of terror was created, then a portrait of terror could be said to have been objectively simulated.



Narrative is always the "untainted" image's undoing.

Who was to judge what the expression created signified? Galton had no qualms about the aesthetic judgments that inhered in his science; to objectively determine through statistical measurement which city had the most beautiful women, he stood on street corners and used marbles in his pockets to mark each time he was passed by a woman who was "Beautiful," "Indifferent" or "Repugnant." Being a superior scientist than Galton, however, Darwin was concerned with the blur between science and aesthetics. "It occurred to me," wrote Darwin, "to show several of the best plates, without a word of explanation, to above twenty educated persons of various ages and both sexes, asking them in each case, by what emotion or feeling the old man was supposed to be agitated." Even considering what we can see as a survey of a very narrow sample, educated, that is, white, upper-class Victorians, the judgments were divergent on many of the images.

As a control group, Darwin observed the expressions of animals: "In observing animals, we are not so likely to be biased by our imagination; and we may feel safe that their expressions are not" dictated by convention.

What is looked for is what is found, and Darwin, the evolutionist, made sure that the observations of humans were consistent with these unbiased animal expressions that he unemotionally observed.

Time has made Darwin's logic foreign enough for us to criticize it from the detached viewpoint of an anthropologist among the strange rituals of the Other. But the aesthetic aspect of knowledge that he demonstrates in fashioning narratives from images reveals that we have more in common with eminent Victorians than we are often aware, as the following rollover illustrates:





Using computerized imaging techniques, Dr. Silbersweig and a team of researchers — note how easy it is to fall into the language of our own time — a team of researchers were able to reduce to nano-seconds the time it takes to click a shutter and picture regions of the brain that are active during a hallucination.

Out goes the camera, in comes the computer; is mimesis any more objective 100 years after Darwin? Are we, that is, to eliminate the left side of the equivalency Ways of Seeing <-> Ways of Saying?
Well, let's look at the language of the narrative used to describe this breakthrough, this picture of schizophrenia: "circuits of the brain" and "the key switchboxes" and "neural circuits" and "mistakes in the brain wiring". Which is to say, what we see when looking through the computer is another computer.






Are you thinking in terms of vacuum tubes?

           Water sprites?


Should we dress our narrative in the Latinate verbiage of the phrenologist? Or associate it with the objective connotations of numbers and graphs?

Buchanan's System of Anthropology
Should we show our graphs to a panel of 20 eminent Victorians? Or cows? Old habits die hard, and some old habits of thought don't seem to die at all.

As Dr. Silbersweig is quick to caution, "No one knows the cause of [schizophrenia] or how to cure it." Or how to define it, we might add; the same article points out, "genes play a part...but the illness also seems to be triggered by life experiences."

So, is it mind or body? Or do you say, Nature or Culture, Mr. Galton? Hearing voices was not always grounds for insanity. There was not always a thing called insanity.


O Word!




it certainly has a form, and

I The Chain:In Mervelous
of course, began as close
The rhetoric of medieval left unsaid by the symbol.
Christ was the Word
each being forming a
Dante to write his

Ah quanto a dir qual
spra e forte [C]
o piu morte; [C]

ma per trattar del
example, a prayer for
is taught by a crucifixion
own life in order to be
of a fruit-bearing text
I can know a frog. And
purposes, which by the
can be seen as an
. This is the first Modern
differences by cause
example, as distinct
text from world, as
I increasing (imagine!)
consciousness. Kant is
for Foucault and others,
includes the gaze of the
articulations that assume
whether or not anyone
our present day.
being said either
at revealing God's
is hidden, that
The anthropologist's
pervasive achievement
method of literary
the great modern myth,
for example, where all
its form, not its content.
with a new plot-they
book much like the
of novel evolved-with
these tools of analysis-a
before Lacan by the
in fact be of nothing
re-presents riding
popular entertainment,
image/language effects,
our stories about and
-and becomes even more





being seeing saying knowing writing writing being