Greek Concepts vs. the Principles of Shi

Julien argues that Shi does not operate like Greek concepts. We obviously want to pay attention to this difference, since Greek concept formation (as definition, classification) is a major characteristic of Western Literacy. For the Chinese, Shi operates "through networks of affinities, one constantly implying the other through allusion" which "frequently convey their meaning through the interplay of parallelisms and correlations made possible by their infinitely rich evocatory powers" (77).

Such an understanding is similar to Ulmer's articulations of the "anti-definition" and "haiku logic," but here the context is Chinese calligraphy. Instead of defining terms and then building upon them, words (and images) are played off one another. As Julien writes further on, Shi is a particular effect of this energy tension, "each element composing the configuration of the ideogram must either attract or repel another" (78). 

The language of "attraction-repulsion" should give us a clue that this is an instruction. If indeed electracy operates on the polarity of attraction-repulsion rather than true-false (literacy) or right-wrong (religion), then the instruction is: 

Every item in our experiment should create relations of tension through the ways in which they attract and repel each other. 

We see this logic happening in the Mystory. Although an overlying pattern emerges, there is still tension within the individual components. In my Mystory, for instance, I showed the attraction and repulsion of "light" as a notion of truth (the phenomena, to "bring to light") and "light" as parody and performance -- to make light of. "Light" isn't a concept here, but a signifier that through pun logic already contains internal tensions in meaning. We will continue having to trace out these tensions.