Thursday, February 14, 2008


“In the worldview of code, it makes no sense to talk about signifiers without signifieds. Every voltage change must have a precise meaning in order to affect the behavior of the machine; without signifieds, code would have no efficacy” (Hayles 47)

“Nor does code allow the infinite iterability and citation that Derrida associates with inscriptions, whereby any phrase, sentence, or paragraph can be lifted from one context and embedded in another.” (48)

“…a computer program has only one meaning: what it does. It isn’t a text for an academic to read. Its entire meaning is its function” (48)

Not that I fully understand Hayles argument, but her assertion (taken from Galloway) that “code is the only language that is executable” (or that each signifier directly corresponds to a specific, stable (?) signified) glosses over the question why the computer programs come to look like they do and the reasons behind the logic of their navigability.

“The purpose of the interface is to represent the data, the dataflow, and data structures of the computer to the human senses, while simultaneously setting up a frame for human input and interaction and translating this input back into the machine” (Pold 3).

No comments: