< previous page page_91 next page >

Page 91
tions which are being carried on at each; it simply establishes that any changes occurring at the two levels are functionally related to each other.
In aesthetic debate there is always a temptation to support the above propositions at an abstract level. When the analyst moves on to practical demonstration, he tends to work with aesthetic messages which have already been elaborated and which therefore present special complexities; in this case, distinctions between different levels, changes in code and system, innovatory devicesall become very difficult to examine accurately. So it is a useful exercise to set up a small-scale working model of aesthetic language; this would involve an extremely simple language/ code and demonstrate the rules by which aesthetic messages can be generated. These rules will have to arise from inside the code itself, but then be capable of generating an alteration of the code, both in its form of expression and in its form of content. The working model must therefore be equipped to demonstrate a language's own capacity for generating self-contradiction. It must also show how the aesthetic use of the given language is one of the most appropriate devices for generating these contradictions. Finally, the model must prove that any contradictions generated by the aesthetic use of language at the level of its form of expression equally involve contradictions in the form of its content; ultimately, they entail a complete reorganizing of our conceptual vision of the universe.
To set this experiment in motion, we shall imagine a primordial predicament: life in the Garden of Eden, where the inhabitants speak in Edenic language.
My model for this language is borrowed from G. Miller's Grammarama project (Psychology and Communication, New York, 1967), except that Miller did not plan his model specifically as an Edenic language. He was merely concerned to study an individual speaker who is producing casual sequences by means of two base symbols (D and R) and receiving control responses designed to clarify which of his sequences are grammatically well formed; then Miller checked the speaker's capacity for piecing together the generative rule of the correct sequences. His model in fact constituted a language-learning test, whereas my experiment presents us with Adam and Eve, who already know which are the correct sequences and who employ them in conversation, even though they entertain unclear notions about the underlying generative rules.
3.1. Semantic Units and Significant Sequences in the Garden of Eden
Although they are surrounded by a luxuriant environment, Adam and Eve have managed to devise a restricted series of semantic units which give preferential status to their emotional responses to flora and fauna,

 
< previous page page_91 next page >