north note




showing (the way).

The Encompass implies but it does not limit or prescribe any specific direction. It appears as a beacon. It puts on display its own lack of ‘location’ (North ^ South v East > West <),especially in this cyber realm, though, at the same time, it acts as a guide or tool.
The center of the ; compass (its inside), is its relation to that which it is not. These directing points do not exist, therefore, it is also that which the fixed but completely absent identity of what is ‘North’ or ‘East’, withholds from us.
And just what exactly is the Encompass encompassing?
That which it is not? Thereby we are brought back to the beacon. It is like- (;) ; (;)
And so now the encompass becomes indexicly self-reflexive.


(;) has no distinct origins outside of its being named. Naming can be problematic in that it suggests an original departure. The name (through punctuation) does not posit or suggest any particular beginning, it only implies the movement that its name implies/signifies.
(Connotation). Co-notation. Contributing notes, words or sounds. A co-notation looks towards co-immuncation. The naming ceremony of (;) is perhaps best described through this word, a connotation (co-notation/celebration/cerebration). Music is often the lifeblood of ceremonies, the compositions and contribution of sounds make themselves into something in relation to one another. Co-notation and Co-elaboration constitute a kind of composition. This composition, this celebration, like all instances these words connote, include, also, movement. (Or a constellation).

The semicolon, ; like a hyphen - is a movement. The same action that gives meaning to this movement is the action its gesture implies. The naming consists of this gesture. To talk about a "semicolon", is to fatally reduce it. The name is not in the word, the sign, but in the signified.
The sudden burst of energy inherent in the friction from (); to ;() implies the phonological imperative. (;) is, and therefore emits in parole. The sight of (;) is but flesh. In aspiration and respiration is where sound;life are wholly autpoietic and indexical.

east note


The co-immunity immunizes itself, being without a beginning, without an origin- Rather there are only ‘out-sets’, not stops, (rests or arrests).

Much like in a ‘democracy’, which too cannot escape its mythology, whoever has the will (intent), and means (ability) to engage with the system is free to do so. In co-elaboration, deficiencies are the responsibility of any and every visitor. In some ways the ‘Wiki’ system avoids a dictatorship, any one authority that has the power to allow or disallow a particular 'edit' or addition (an act we could call edition). This means that it is not free from vandalism in the traditional sense, but rather that it is freed by its openness to vandalism.

It is an organism of a document, not only through its pores and cavities (Links and their links), but through it's transformations and differences (over time). For example, a co-immunity co-immunicates through conversation. If one was to take and collect fixed images of the document over time (in the same way a photographer exposes film in traditional photography and archives the photographs) then through the collection of images, (or 'definitions' extracted from the encyclopedia) then a conversation would be formed. Some 'definitions' would perhaps even go against, or write over previous ones.
Even if language describes only its own void, recycling its non-identity, we can still communicate its name, talk about it and make conversation- (this could be how to think of co-imunication, self-reproducing, autopoiesis).
(see also theory;praxis)



el·lip·ti·cal or el·lip·tic adjective
extremely concise in speech or writing, sometimes so concise as to be difficult or impossible to understand
el·lipse noun
a shape like a stretched circle with slightly longer, flatter sides
el·lip·sis noun
(also called ellipse)
the omission of one or more words from a sentence, especially when what is omitted can be understood from the context.
[((bibcite *))]

This is exactly the point, the three points, three endings that imply a continuation and also a lacking, the 'omitted' text […]. The ellipse is in a sense circular, or at least it bears a relation to the circle. It appears as an oval, but also as circle, stretched or squashed. We know that circles get us nowhere, any more than an ellipse does; the forever continuation, a cycle, three endings that disallow any final end.

These ‘definitions’ are the cycle in language as demonstrated by punctuation. The movement of that cycle, the incessant turning, is to be caught here “in-cycle” (or in French En-cycle. Definitions, an en-cycle, the encyclopedia, our records of knowledge, should not be mistaken as supply any definite ending, any real definition whatsoever aside from the cycle they imply.

The full stop deceives us in this way, we see it isolated and we think of an ending, but forget that in its multiplication it implies the a continuation. The circle is the same, it gets us nowhere, we draw circles and identify an area, a centre, but in doing so we always exclude the majority, outside of the circle. The ellipse, the ellipsis, is difficult to understand, but in this way it helps us to move with it.

Although derived from the circle (the spinning, cyclic wheel), the ellipse (stretched, squashed, elliptical), resembles a ‘cam’, that part of the engine that moves through its friction. In this way, the words we use here, the punctuation (;), implies, and produces implications. Without seeking to change the inevitable cycle, these ‘implications’ are produced by the friction of the cycle, the spinning, the turning. Here we will no doubt only turn, and re-turn, going nowhere; that much is inevitable, but the ellipse, turning, will no doubt move something through its friction.

west note

brackets: ( ).

Punctuation should not be perceived as in any way going against language. That would be to eliminate the very system that gives punctuation its punctuality, its means to imply. But brackets where there are no words have by-themselves (although not independently of themselves) the ability to imply that which the words have no means of describing. In one sense they contribute to the structuring of language, spaces between words, new implications and meanings, the constitution of sentences and paragraphs. But at the same time, in the same movement, they identify the flaws that render this structure impossible (at the very least mythological, or to venture further, purely self referential). The very fact that, brackets for instance, can completely change the meaning of words without having any objective ‘thing’ to which they refer, exposes the extensive inadequacies of language as text. For example, one (.) full stop implies a distinct ending. Yet, reproduced threefold, and composed as ( … - ellipsis) it implies, among other things, continuation.
Putting something in brackets completely transforms its contents, without having to alter anything whatsoever of what stands between them. Bracketing punctuation, e.g. (;), merely gives the punctuation a stage, the attention to be considered in its own right. In this sense it could be given a name or an identity of some kind, even if that identity is that of non-identity. Punctuation is granted identity only differentially, it only becomes something particular in relation to words or other signs.

With punctuation we are able to set into motion, through naming, a mythology that negates the name itself; it is self-reproducing, autopoietic.


"The Passage, the page- A Language Exchange; How we move

Myth emerges out of communication. Myth is induced and perpetuated through the exchange of language, or ritual. A myth lasts as long as the language of a particular society does. Yet myth does not depend on the continuous existence of any one given language. No language can escape new naming ceremonies; myths emerge from within themselves, by their own movement, on their own terms.

"Enlightenment thus transcends its original self understanding: it is demythologization…as an insight into the delusion of the subject that will style itself an absolute. The subject is the late form of the myth, and yet the equal of its oldest form… "Nothing in the world is composed- added up, so to speak- of factuality and concept,"1

In the same action that we have names and myth, we also move through recipes, celebrations, relationships, weather, teaching, songs (…)
Our myths I think should not refer to an origin but rather to their own unceasing mythological process, the lack of origin. In this sense myth is to seek rest in motion, but we must remember that cannot rest, any more than it can provide an arrest, a full ending, a full stop;



The project (;) is not a system of organs, such as the stomach in a digestive system. However, it does move thorough systems. Eyes are also an organ. Sight is not, yet it moves only through the organ- organ-eyesed.

The presence of residence does not mean that we can effectively ‘dwell’ there. Sometimes there is an illusion of dwelling, as constructed in the worst kind of suburbs.
A community should build on established grounds; it should fall onto and maximise whatever structures it finds itself a part of. Or it should take apart the structure and house itself amongst the pieces.

A moving house.

a co-immunity tents or rents

south note

-In this sense a loss of language is like forgetting. Yet language itself is a mythologizing. If a myth was a vessel, then all that is needed is the communication, the ceremony or sending-off of the vessel. A christening of sorts; the myth in being named immunizes itself as much as immunity is possible, the immunity of communication, the communication of names; co-immunitcation. The society of the myth is a co-immunity in that they share this language.


A Moving Project

  • = (definitions provided by Encarta® World English Dictionary ©)2
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License