conditions hav emergd makin plagiarism a crucial strategy 4 textual production. This is the age of the recombinant: recombinant bodies, recombinant gender, recombinant texts, recombinant cultur. the recombinant is key in the development of meanin & invention. In a recombinant cultur, plagiarism is productiv. This is a cal 2 open the cultural data base, 2 let evry1 use the technology of textual production 2 its maximum potential.

plagiarism has been camouflaged in a new lexicon by those desirin 2 xplor the practice as method & as a legitimisd 4m of cultural discours. Readymades, colage, found art or found text, intertexts, combines, detournment, & apropriation - all thes terms represent xplorations in plagiarism. thes terms intersect a set of meanins primary 2 the philosophy & activity of plagiarism. No work of art or philosophy exhausts itself in itself alone, in its bein-in-itself. Such works stand in relation 2 the actual life-proces of society from wich they hav distinguishd themselvs. The text is fluid - although the language game of ideology provides ilusions of stability, creatin blockage by manipulatin the unacknowledgd asumptions of evryday life. the plagiarist aims 2 restor the dynamic & unstable drift of meanin, by apropriatin & recombinin fragments of cultur. In this way, meanins can b produced that wer not previously asociated w/an object or a given set of objects.

Duchamp took objects 2 wich he was 'visualy indifferent,' & recontextualised them in a maner that shiftd ther meanin. This problem of instability increasd wen problems of origin wer raised: The object was not made by an artist, but by a machine. Whetha or not the viewa chose 2 accept otha posibilities 4 interpretin the function of the artist & the authenticity of the art object, the urinal in a galery instigated a moment of uncertainty & reasesment. the plagiarist works 2 open meanin thru the injection of scepticism in2 the cultur-text.

A society w/a complex division of labor requires a rationalisation of institutional proceses, a situation wich robs the individual of a way 2 share nonrational xperience. Unlike societies w/a simple division of labor, in wich the xperience of 1 memba closely resembles the xperience of anotha (minimal alienation), unda a complex division of labor, the life xperience of an individual turned specialist holds little in common w/otha specialists. communication exists primarily as an instrumental function.

Cultural production, literary or othawise, has traditionaly been a slow, labor-intensiv proces. b4 electronic technology bcame dominant, cultural perspectives developd in a maner that mor clearly defined texts as individual works. Cultural fragments apeared in ther own right as discrete units, since ther influence moved slowly enuf 2 alow the orderly evolution of an argument or an aesthetic. Boundaries culd b maintaind between disciplines & schools of thought. Knowledge was considered finite, & was ther4 easier 2 control. In the 19th century this traditional orda colapsed as new technology increased the velocity of cultural development. The first strong indicators bgan 2 apear that speed was bcomin a crucial isue. Knowledge was shiftin away from certitude, & trans4min itself in2 in4mation. Cultural velocity & in4mation hav continued 2 increase at a geometric rate.

Unda such conditions, plagiarism fulfils the requirements of economy of representation, w/out stiflin invention. If invention occurs wen a new perception or idea is brought out - by intersectin two or mor 4maly disparate systems - then recombinant methodologies are desirable. This is where plagiarism progreses byond nihilism. It does not inject scepticism 2 help destroy totalitarian systems that stop invention; it participates in invention, & is thereby also productiv. The genius of an inventor lies in an ability 2 recombine separate systems, not as an originator but a synthesisa.

It is a mata of throwin 2getha various cut-up techniques in orda 2 respond 2 the omnipresence of transmitas feedin us w/ther dead discourses. It is a question of unchainin the codes - not the subject anymor - so that sumthin wil burst out, wil escape; words bneath words, personal obsesions. Anotha kind of word is born wich escapes from the totalitarianism of the media but retains ther powa, & turns it against ther old mastas.

Plagiarism stands against the privilegin of text thru spiritual, scientific, or otha legitimisin myths. The plagiarist sees all objects as equal, & thereby horisontalises the plane of phenomena. All texts bcome usable & reusable. the plagiarist argues that if science, religion, or any otha social institution precludes certainty byond the realm of the private, then it is best 2 endow consciousnes w/as many categories of interpretation as posible. Ratha than bein led by sequences of signs, 1 shud instead drift thru them, choosin the interpretation best suited 2 the social conditions of a given situation.

Perhaps plagiarism rightfuly blongs 2 post-book cultur, since only in that society can it b made xplicit wat book cultur, w/its geniuses & auteurs, tends 2 hide - that in4mation is most useful wen it interacts w/otha in4mation, ratha than wen it is deified & presentd in a vacuum.

The present requires us 2 rethink & re-present the notion of plagiarism. Let the romantic notions of originality, genius, & authorship remain, but as elements 4 cultural production w/out special privilege above otha equaly useful elements. It is time 2 openly & boldly use the methodology of recombination so as 2 betta paralel the technology of our time.

the myth of plagiarism is easily inverted. it is those who suport the legislation of representation & the privatisation of language that are suspect; the plagiarists actions, given a specific set of social conditions, are the 1s contributin most 2 cultural enrichment.

Ideas improve. The meanin of words participates in the improvement. Plagiarism is necesary. Progres implies it. It embraces an authors phrase, makes use of his expresions, erases a false idea, & replaces it w/the right idea.

Take your own words or the words said 2 b 'the very own words' of any1 else livin or dead. You wil soon see that words do not blong 2 any1. Words hav a vitality of ther own. Poets are suposed 2 liberate the words - not 2 chain them in phrases. Poets hav no words 'of ther very own.' Writers do not own ther words. Since wen do words blong 2 anybody? 'Your very own words' ! & who are 'you'?

What is the point of savin language wen there is no longa anythin 2 say?