Wave forms, cuneiforms, discursive norms; how i like defining some stuff

"of course, I not only admit that my analysis is limited, I want it so; I have made it so. What for me would be a counter-example would be precisely the possibility of saying: all these relations that you have described in three particular formations, all these networks in which the theories of attribution, articulation, designation, and derivation are articulated upon one another, all that taxonomy that rests on a discontinuous  characterization and a continuity of order are found uniformly, and in the same way, in geometry, rational mechanics, the physiology of humours and germs, Biblical criticism, and emergent crystallography. This would, in fact, prove that I did not describe, as I claimed to have done, a region of interpositivity; I would have characterized the spirit or science of a period — the very thing to which my whole enterprise is opposed.

Every text is a network of roads taken and not taken. Some of the roads have never been taken, so far as we know, and of the roads known to have been taken, some are well traveled and some hardly traveled at all. Who traveled which roads, and when, and where, are matters of consequence to anyone studying the texts. Roads identical in one respect or another may be seen as very different roads if viewed from a different vantage—and of those different points of view, many will be possible. [...] We don't want to discover what the texts mean but what they might be imagined to mean or to have meant. Those meanings are a function of what texts might or might not do, given their rules of engagement; and those rules are determined from what they have and have not done, as well as what they might have done or might be made to do given their historical descent.

sodding exam tomorrow.