Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. Firstly, I would like to thank the Honourable Professor Dean, Director of the Institut Onto-Génétique, for inviting me to speak here today; and secondly, I would mention that my paper is to be regarded as a short abstract for further research, and is not meant to define or explain the topic touched upon, but rather to stimulate thought and dialogue among those of you who feel it to be the utmost importance for the survival of language as a biological phenomenon.

As the title of my paper implies, I shall this afternoon be addressing myself to the problemmatic stasis of macrosyntactical structure in language. However, before doing so I would like to put forth a few comments about the nature of linguistic onto-genetics as well as my work in the field during the last decade.

I will start by saying that there are those among my close colleagues who I think of as mystical charlatans when they're about their research. A type of superstitious activity takes place in their work through which various pieces of seemingly historical information are juxtaposed with the intent of forming some kind of mystical world-view. This world-view however is simply a reflection of themselves: a narcissistic surface formed by their superstitious minds in a frenzied drawing together of disparate elements. In these minds, we find no science. Rather, we are confronted with a denial of the exploration of language as a biological phenomenon, a denial taking the form of an insatiable gaze directed toward the shadows of culture.

The science of linguistic onto-genetics is a special science designed to deliver mankind from ignorance, designed to inspect the nature of mankind's relationship to language so that both mankind and the natural destiny of language are free to fulfill themselves. It is a tool for prying mankind from set mental attitudes toward language, set attitudes which, for the most part, are based upon linguistic superstition. Now, linguistic superstition is a form of self-indulgent ignorance brought about by mankind's fear of communicating and discoursing with whatever is other than mankind. The abolition of linguistic superstition is enacted through the science of linguistic onto-genetics.

To this end my work has led me. It began in the mid-1970s with my research into constructivist space-time dynamics, or chronospatiodynamism as coined by the Hungarian artist Nicholas Schoeffer. This, in turn, led me to my discovery in 1977 of the Wortszene manuscript Beyond the Wordstruct where I became aware of mankind's early pioneering into, what has become today, the science of linguistic onto-genetics. My early research provided me with the tools for an anthropological approach for the understanding of societal behaviour in relation to its language's system of reproduction.

Since that time, and through a series of three major research projects, I have developed the ideas that will comprize the body of my talk today. Let me begin by quoting Karl-Heinz Wortszene from his seminal work Beyond the Wordstruct:

It is with the clause "society's unconscious cultural projection of itself through its language" that we shall begin. The word culture has been widely misinterpreted by Western societies to mean either a bacterial growth or an art form as transmitter of historical permanence. The word originally comes from the Latin cultivare meaning to till or cultivate. Hence, in the original sense, it comes from a biological awareness of, and relationship to environment; rather than from an intellectual conceptualization of history. The Latin word also signifies to worship - and this is where some of my colleagues have erred in their understanding of the term, an error which has led them far afield from the true nature of linguistic biology and settled their thinking into an area of abstract contemplation.

Cultivation, then, as a verb signifies the transmission of a biological awareness of environment, an environment which, of necessity, is constantly shifting and changing. A society's unconscious cultural projection, therefore, is simply a biological function of life changing and adapting to its environment through chronospatiodynamism. In effect, the unconscious cultural life of a society evolves its own biological destiny through a necessity born in its relationship to whatever is outside of it.

However, the problemmatic nature of selfconscious life is its inherently fetishistic resistance to destiny in favour of a static contemplation of itself. Applied to macrosyntactical structures in language such as the book or a literature, we are confronted with the problemmatic stasis of linguistic consciousness as it seeks to establish itself as a permanent accomplishment through language.

The book or a literature becomes in the conscious mind a sexual object to be possessed or consumed as food for thought, so that consciousness itself will survive death. This operation of conscious linguistic life is directly opposed to our biological tradition of oral discourse, a discourse which is a true transmission of chronospatiodynamic speech between changing subjects who are simply living for their momentous relationship with the world. To use a Wortszene term, the book or a literature is a "plant", a factory for consumer production, an industrial site for the establishment of consciousness as an accomplishment, a utility to render biological evolution into conscious history.

Remember now that linguistic onto-genetics is the study of the reproductive system of language: how language reproduces its own characteristics formally. I would postulate then that the sex life of a culture is directly related to the sex life of its language. Our oral culture, or the oral sex life of language, before the invention of the printing press, was constantly finding new positions and modes for expression of its syntax and the character of its spelling. With the introduction of print, our language was "planted" (to use Wortszene's term): it opted for one position upon the page with a standard spelling and formulae for the organization of sentence and paragraph structuration, a position obviously of extreme stasis. We can see clearly then that oral culture through its adaptive and mutable nature overcomes death, while print culture has already died upon the page through the severity of its inadaptability, eventhough its goal was the transcendence of extinction.

Now, as Wortszene discovered through his mirror image test of letters, "plants" in language are predominated by consonants which are retentive of oral action, such as in nnnnn or ttttt, and hence repressive of a language's sex life; while "shifters" are predominated by vowels which are by nature open, such as in ooooo or aaaaa, and hence expressive of a language's sex life.

Western societies, having planted their languages, proliferated the book and effected the decline of speech. Eastern and tribal societies, on the other hand, have placed little significance in printed language and rely more upon speech for the transmission of their cultures.

The macrosyntactical structures of Western culture then grow out of the eyes rather than the mouth: Western culture denies its own sex life through denying the oral sex life of its language. It undermines the intercourse of speech through the establishment of the literary gaze as a permanent accomplishment in language; yet paradoxically blinds itself to its mother-tongue. The implications of Western culture's oedipal relationship to the mother-tongue have been devastating. As Wortszene discovered, print is a later utilitarian development of the fatherland, the delineation of language as an arena of definition, as the rententive consonantal restraint of the mouth in favour of a dominating linguistic voyeurism.

Print is a phantom fatherland moving between us and our direct responses through our mother-tongue. It denies us a direct biological speech response to our world. It denies us the necessary cultural bonding to the mother-tongue of speech. The book or a literature becomes a safe refuge for the fetish consciousness so it may avoid the destiny of spoken dialogue. Print is an abstract, not a tongue: but the photograph of a tongue, the typographic freezing of language against the physiological phenomenon of speech.

It is true that there have been many attempts to increase the shifting nature of language and deliver it from a death in history: concrete poets have sought to free language on the page, and sound poets to free language from the page so that once again it could claim its autoregenerative life in relation to the environment. Yet to this day, our Western societies seek to establish language as a permanent accomplishment , an industry of artifice, rather than allowing it free response to the world outside itself.

If the book or a literature were simply a record, then it would record the inherently free life of language even as it changes chronospatiodynamically; but language in these fetish forms is mostly regarded as a consumer product; and in order to be eaten properly and have a consistently pleasing flavour, it must have a standard recipe that society can trust so that the meal comes out the same every time. This recipe is the book or a literature.

In closing, I put forth that language is our slave. We shackle it upon the page in chains of sentences within prisons of paragraphs, so that we won't have to acknowledge the language worlds beyond the walls of our consciousness, won't have to sound the language worlds within our mouths that, set free, would sound the apocalyptic event of linguistic phenomena without history.