SIgn, Sign, Everywhere a Sign

So, my obsession with metadata continues. Pragmatisism has only added fuel to the fire. Pragatasits work well with data. Because when you begin collecting data over large periods you begin to see how that data is connected: metadata is then representation of those connectors. Discourse theory is fits perfectly into this model since it is obessesed with public action. My defintion of discourse works like this:





Now, let's look at this from Asen and Brower's perspective on Counterpublics: "one may locate the "couuter" of counterpublics in the identity of the persons who articulate oppositional discourse" (Asen and Bower, 8). They articulate the position of Fraiser and Felski that the counter public has somehow been restricted in access to power and therefore access to certain symbols, thus directly affecting their ability to communicate thier needs and accomplish there goals. This is where I take this conversation fully into discourse theory. It seems that the counterpublic is raging against the public and needs the public to move before the counter public can feel comfortable. I don't think is always the relationship, but we're just gonna run with this example. It seems then that the public would absolutely need access to certain symbols, which I will refer to as genres, in order to move the public becuase the public only react to certain genres. However, the counter public is restricted in thier access to certain genres so they have to use other seen as counterintuitive to the god of the public. Thus, let's redraw the picture: