Poetics of futurism: Zaum, shiftology, nonsense -- Poetics of Deleuze: structure, stoicism, univocity -- The materialist manifesto -- Shiftology #1: from performativity to dramatisation -- Shiftology #2: from metaphor to metamorphosis -- The see-sawing frontier: linguistic spatiotemporalities -- Concllusion: Suffixing, prefixing.

Positivists have always objected to people talking about God. Their objection rests on quite general logical grounds. They have discovered a simple, formal test by which to tell significant remarks from nonsensical collections of words. There must, they say, be some minimal conditions of intelligibility. From these we can construct a Principle of Meaning. Now religiousremarks, on any positivist Principle, are demonstrable nonsense. What are these conditions of intelligibility ? Speaker and hearer, we suppose, must use the same language; must (...) possess a rather similar background of information; must both have some interest or other in communication.… Such matters of ‘more and less’ will vary with the topic, the parties, and the occasion. (shrink)

People used to think that the items referred to by one word, e.g. , should all have certain features in common, which would jointly constitute : and that this should enable us to decide whether any given item is a triangle or not.

Personality may be defined as “that aspect of human beings where by we are recognized by others, ” that is, “that which constitutes recog-nizability.” The term therefore implies a subject-object field in which the object is another person or persons. There exist as many criteria of personality assessment as there are significant viewpoints of human beings, but there seems little doubt that the human voice is that which impresses us most about our fellows, closely followed by facial expression. Both these (...) convey that whereby we assess “purpose” which is a most important matter about which we habitually assess others. (shrink)

“It is almost impossible for a working neurologist to think clearly about the functions of the highest centres because the counters of thought, the words he must employ—are often of psychological origin and for the most part meaningless.”.

Why might alternative taxonomies be needed in contemporary life, and how might the notion of categorisation or anti-categorisation be thought speculatively? This essay considers some of the ways that life and matter have been historically divided and segmented and asks how this might be rendered mobile, offering new divisions and definitions for those who exist outside hegemonic segments or scales.