Sunday, May 28, 2006

the word vs. the flesh

In the first season of GITS:SAC, the team was hunting down the Laughing Man, more commonly known only by his logo, that of a smiling face under a sideways baseball cap, and a spinning quotation from Catcher in the Rye.

As many of us know, logos is the Greek word for "word" or "speech." Man is endowed with the power of logos and from it stems his ability to think, to write, to make his wishes known in a civilised manner. In the Gospel of John, John says that in the beginning there was the WORD, and the WORD was GOD, and the WORD was with GOD."

In Greek, John said God was LOGOS. Christ was the Word made Flesh.

In the second season of GITS:SAC, the team is hunting down Kuze, a man. This man has very special gifts--not only does he have a reinforced prosthetic structure which makes him very strong, but as a man he seems to be a natural leader. He has a handsome face, and is capable of making hard decisions, and always seems to want to take the side of the underdog. One cannot help but like him.

One of Derrida's questions in On Grammatology is whether or not the word should be privileged over the text. That is, should we trust a man's "word," that which he gives us with a handshake, over what he writes down? Is there a difference? If so, what is it, and how does that difference change our interactions?

What I find interesting about these two seasons is that the writers of the series seem to be working out this question for themselves. They have split the word and the flesh into two separate enemies. One deals solely in information, the other is spectacularly strong. One is a complete standalone complex, the other was once a member of a terrorist organization held together only by a cyber-brain virus masquerading as a phantom essay which never truly existed. One could barely speak to his friends, the other is a natural leader.

Word, versus flesh.


  • At 6:00 AM, Blogger Spc. Freeman said…

    "Verba volent, scripta manent."

    Word vs. flesh, to me, is like stone vs. wood. Each is suitable for building a home, but each has its limitations. Stone is more permanent, but unwieldy and difficult to use effectively. Wood is warmer, more immediate, but breaks down quicker and can't always withstand the storm. The greatest homes employ measures of both. To be a true scholar and leader, one must command both in effective measure. Don't you think?

  • At 8:31 AM, Blogger kt said…

    hello luv! i believe i may say that your blog suits you perfectly...

    feel free to visit me at either of mine:

    hilarious tragedy, my personal blog

    or fanthropology, my failed attempt to document my research into fandom


  • At 12:42 PM, Blogger Nacho said…

    Hmmmm, interesting post. I don't know the show you reference, but the subject matter sounds very compelling.

    I also don't get to find many blogs where such issues as Logos, Immanence, and Derrida are addressed! Doubly cool.

    One other way to think about Logos and "The Word" is that the line about in the beginning there was the word is recognition that all we have is construction. Be-ing comes into the world through the symbolic, or put another way, the symbolic gives expression to Be-ing (the dash marks continuity, possibility, always process, always a be-coming). Language (or the symbolic) is indeed the house of Be-ing, and Derrida was right, no one approach (writing or speech) has privileged access to the contents of consciousness -- universally.

    Thanks again, truly appreciated getting here from Spc. Freeman's site.

    Best Regards,


    P.S. I'm not in Blogger, so the info on the blogger profile is old. My site is here:


Post a Comment

<< Home