ARTBASE (1)
BIO
born in 1962 in Lier, Belgium.
studied filology at Louvain, Belgium.
worked a lot in bars and restaurants before i became obsessivly addicted to producing stuff on computers.
i once won a design contest of cgi-magazine and they let me go to New York for four days, that was nice.
i think in terms of writing mostly (or programming, but those are very similar processes for me)
painting is a very different process and i'm very bad at it but i do it anyway because i like the differences it produces and i like the freshness of amateurism, i guess.
what i produce new media-wise is also very much influenced by my daily practice of webdesign and programming with its concerns of usability and the pragmatic approach it implies.
studied filology at Louvain, Belgium.
worked a lot in bars and restaurants before i became obsessivly addicted to producing stuff on computers.
i once won a design contest of cgi-magazine and they let me go to New York for four days, that was nice.
i think in terms of writing mostly (or programming, but those are very similar processes for me)
painting is a very different process and i'm very bad at it but i do it anyway because i like the differences it produces and i like the freshness of amateurism, i guess.
what i produce new media-wise is also very much influenced by my daily practice of webdesign and programming with its concerns of usability and the pragmatic approach it implies.
Re: schizoanalisys for beginners II
Sorry Manic, i don't care 1 teedly bit if it's 'opportunist' to 'fool
around' with you or not. I don't have anything to sell or promote here. Now
if you want others to reply to your posts more often, you might want to try
using less abusive language, better English and a more thoughtfull attitude.
People are known to avoid the kind of noise you make at times. You may
deplore these facts, the requirements of politeness, understandable English
and an engaging attitude out of some artistical or ideological motivation (i
don't think i'd be likely to share such a motivation), but they will remain
facts. For one thing, the language problem is something i would find worthy
of further consideration, but not by us, rather by the American community
who maintains this thing for us, and i'm sure they do.
Now i take this list for what it is: an opportunity to discuss things that
matter to me with people who are likewise engaged in a search to position
themselves artistically or otherwise simply socially interact because they
know they can learn something in the process.
We do this publicly because however foolish or weak or whatever we may be as
individuals, we all represent a point of view that is valuable as such, and
the fact that we know these things might get read by many others makes us
aware that we need to write on the limit of our knowledge, as Deleuze used
to say, to do our best to say things that could matter to other people:
"On n'ecrit qu'a la pointe de son savoir, a cette pointe extreme qui =
separe
notre savoir et notre ignorance, et qui fait passer l'un dans l'autre."
(Avant propos to Difference et repetition, p 5, i never got much furt=
her in
that book. Yet.)
Surely these are hard, harsh criteria to uphold for anyone, and not
applicable to your everyday post to list@rhizome.org , but its a nice ideal
you might want to cherish, in the back of your head. It's an exercise, if
anything, and we're likely to fail every minute of it, but I'm gratefull for
that: it's not every day that you get the opportunity to chat with a
professional mathematician on things that matter to your practice of art,
for instance.
So i firmly objected to you and Miklos misquoting what i wrote in order to
make some points of your own. i think i was right in doing so, however
unimportant the issue. Simply because it's not fair, not to me, but more
importantly, not to Nad, to the conversation we were having, to the list and
what it stands for, in my very humble opinion anyway, as such.
dv
_____
Van: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] Namens manik
Verzonden: vrijdag 20 januari 2006 2:07
Aan: list@rhizome.org
Onderwerp: RHIZOME_RAW: schizoanalisys for beginners II
People who have no courage to appear with own(although weak belief and
knowledge)
we call "egg thief".He/she know that for this small offense could earn,in
best case, kick
in ass.
This fuchsia below,this private fawning have bad connotation because repeat
really filth practice
of not so small number of Rhizomers who send private compliments,but
strictly avoid to
mentioned MANIK in Rhizome_Raw!Yes MANIK'S belong to other side,he/she is
other/same,different,far and close same time,one who disturb idyll&communal
spirit
and we suppose it's not
opportunist to fool around with him.
No private mail,please.
MANIK
Second Vekermans letter's so dilettante and confused,that I have no time
to discus such fantasy.
Find this Deleuse mistake,prove that if you can,and good-bye.
What can I expect tomorrow,new theory of Universe?
dv@vilt.net>
1/19/06 2:03:16 PM
deleuze
Hi Manik,
Thanks for the fanmail :-[]
As a matter of fact i don't remember exactly which kind of mistakes Deleuze
made when talking about science. I remember reading an article in the French
'Magazine Literaraire' somewhere around 1996 about Deleuze going wrong on a
topic in either physics or mathematical topology. Can't find the mag
anymore, i'll admit so much in my next answer to Nad.
Got most of Deleuze's work too, actually finished reading three of them..
Am at work now, can't get in the list from here, so you won't get an onlist
answer this time....
g*dspeed,
dv
Come on guys & girls, i was just referring to some mistakes Deleuze
(supposedly) made when describing highly intricate scientific theories that
were evolving in his time. I have this from a French magazine article i read
some ten years ago, Magazine Literaire it was i think, and it seemed to make
sense to me at the time i read it. I can't refer to it because i can't find
the darn thing anymore, nor do i remember what were the scientific topics
involved. I used this vague memory in an argument while chatting with Nad
about being able to cope with ones own mistakes in order to proceed into
fields that would otherwise remain shielded , hidden from discourse in
technicalities while the implications of those theories do stretch to where
that discourse is , again supposedly, relevant.
Now if you want to interpret that as a critique of Deleuze, be my guest.
I'd be glad to sent you a tonload of pre-processed cut-ups of sentences i
ever typed so you can use those to prove your point as well. Hell you could
even sell it, grow little glowing worms of fame on it, the nueva-nada-new
thing in intellecto-bubblewood:
"Dirk said: [add your nonsense here]"
To be sure, if you can't manage the 19 word exceeding sentences above,
here's what i really wrote:
"Deleuze, the philosopher, has been known to make some serious mistakes when
venturing outside his own field of clarity, into the realm of hard-boiled
science. Mistakes like that are inavoidable. But his willingness to go
there, and be serious about it, has been enormously rewarding for everyone."
Now excuse me, i don't have time for these silly games, i do need to get
some work out or i can't pay my bank the money i own them at the end of the
month. If you want a statement on the ponderous, awesome materiality without
understanding exactly how Foucault uses the term discourse, there's one for
free to get your businesses started.
dv
around' with you or not. I don't have anything to sell or promote here. Now
if you want others to reply to your posts more often, you might want to try
using less abusive language, better English and a more thoughtfull attitude.
People are known to avoid the kind of noise you make at times. You may
deplore these facts, the requirements of politeness, understandable English
and an engaging attitude out of some artistical or ideological motivation (i
don't think i'd be likely to share such a motivation), but they will remain
facts. For one thing, the language problem is something i would find worthy
of further consideration, but not by us, rather by the American community
who maintains this thing for us, and i'm sure they do.
Now i take this list for what it is: an opportunity to discuss things that
matter to me with people who are likewise engaged in a search to position
themselves artistically or otherwise simply socially interact because they
know they can learn something in the process.
We do this publicly because however foolish or weak or whatever we may be as
individuals, we all represent a point of view that is valuable as such, and
the fact that we know these things might get read by many others makes us
aware that we need to write on the limit of our knowledge, as Deleuze used
to say, to do our best to say things that could matter to other people:
"On n'ecrit qu'a la pointe de son savoir, a cette pointe extreme qui =
separe
notre savoir et notre ignorance, et qui fait passer l'un dans l'autre."
(Avant propos to Difference et repetition, p 5, i never got much furt=
her in
that book. Yet.)
Surely these are hard, harsh criteria to uphold for anyone, and not
applicable to your everyday post to list@rhizome.org , but its a nice ideal
you might want to cherish, in the back of your head. It's an exercise, if
anything, and we're likely to fail every minute of it, but I'm gratefull for
that: it's not every day that you get the opportunity to chat with a
professional mathematician on things that matter to your practice of art,
for instance.
So i firmly objected to you and Miklos misquoting what i wrote in order to
make some points of your own. i think i was right in doing so, however
unimportant the issue. Simply because it's not fair, not to me, but more
importantly, not to Nad, to the conversation we were having, to the list and
what it stands for, in my very humble opinion anyway, as such.
dv
_____
Van: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] Namens manik
Verzonden: vrijdag 20 januari 2006 2:07
Aan: list@rhizome.org
Onderwerp: RHIZOME_RAW: schizoanalisys for beginners II
People who have no courage to appear with own(although weak belief and
knowledge)
we call "egg thief".He/she know that for this small offense could earn,in
best case, kick
in ass.
This fuchsia below,this private fawning have bad connotation because repeat
really filth practice
of not so small number of Rhizomers who send private compliments,but
strictly avoid to
mentioned MANIK in Rhizome_Raw!Yes MANIK'S belong to other side,he/she is
other/same,different,far and close same time,one who disturb idyll&communal
spirit
and we suppose it's not
opportunist to fool around with him.
No private mail,please.
MANIK
Second Vekermans letter's so dilettante and confused,that I have no time
to discus such fantasy.
Find this Deleuse mistake,prove that if you can,and good-bye.
What can I expect tomorrow,new theory of Universe?
dv@vilt.net>
1/19/06 2:03:16 PM
deleuze
Hi Manik,
Thanks for the fanmail :-[]
As a matter of fact i don't remember exactly which kind of mistakes Deleuze
made when talking about science. I remember reading an article in the French
'Magazine Literaraire' somewhere around 1996 about Deleuze going wrong on a
topic in either physics or mathematical topology. Can't find the mag
anymore, i'll admit so much in my next answer to Nad.
Got most of Deleuze's work too, actually finished reading three of them..
Am at work now, can't get in the list from here, so you won't get an onlist
answer this time....
g*dspeed,
dv
Come on guys & girls, i was just referring to some mistakes Deleuze
(supposedly) made when describing highly intricate scientific theories that
were evolving in his time. I have this from a French magazine article i read
some ten years ago, Magazine Literaire it was i think, and it seemed to make
sense to me at the time i read it. I can't refer to it because i can't find
the darn thing anymore, nor do i remember what were the scientific topics
involved. I used this vague memory in an argument while chatting with Nad
about being able to cope with ones own mistakes in order to proceed into
fields that would otherwise remain shielded , hidden from discourse in
technicalities while the implications of those theories do stretch to where
that discourse is , again supposedly, relevant.
Now if you want to interpret that as a critique of Deleuze, be my guest.
I'd be glad to sent you a tonload of pre-processed cut-ups of sentences i
ever typed so you can use those to prove your point as well. Hell you could
even sell it, grow little glowing worms of fame on it, the nueva-nada-new
thing in intellecto-bubblewood:
"Dirk said: [add your nonsense here]"
To be sure, if you can't manage the 19 word exceeding sentences above,
here's what i really wrote:
"Deleuze, the philosopher, has been known to make some serious mistakes when
venturing outside his own field of clarity, into the realm of hard-boiled
science. Mistakes like that are inavoidable. But his willingness to go
there, and be serious about it, has been enormously rewarding for everyone."
Now excuse me, i don't have time for these silly games, i do need to get
some work out or i can't pay my bank the money i own them at the end of the
month. If you want a statement on the ponderous, awesome materiality without
understanding exactly how Foucault uses the term discourse, there's one for
free to get your businesses started.
dv
Re: schizoanalizys
Come on guys & girls, i was just referring to some mistakes Deleuze
(supposedly) made when describing highly intricate scientific theories that
were evolving in his time. I have this from a French magazine article i read
some ten years ago, Magazine Literaire it was i think, and it seemed to make
sense to me at the time i read it. I can't refer to it because i can't find
the darn thing anymore, nor do i remember what were the scientific topics
involved. I used this vague memory in an argument while chatting with Nad
about being able to cope with ones own mistakes in order to proceed into
fields that would otherwise remain shielded , hidden from discourse in
technicalities while the implications of those theories do stretch to where
that discourse is , again supposedly, relevant.
Now if you want to interpret that as a critique of Deleuze, be my guest.
I'd be glad to sent you a tonload of pre-processed cut-ups of sentences i
ever typed so you can use those to prove your point as well. Hell you could
even sell it, grow little glowing worms of fame on it, the nueva-nada-new
thing in intellecto-bubblewood:
"Dirk said: [add your nonsense here]"
To be sure, if you can't manage the 19 word exceeding sentences above,
here's what i really wrote:
"Deleuze, the philosopher, has been known to make some serious mistakes when
venturing outside his own field of clarity, into the realm of hard-boiled
science. Mistakes like that are inavoidable. But his willingness to go
there, and be serious about it, has been enormously rewarding for everyone."
Now excuse me, i don't have time for these silly games, i do need to get
some work out or i can't pay my bank the money i own them at the end of the
month. If you want a statement on the ponderous, awesome materiality without
understanding exactly how Foucault uses the term discourse, there's one for
free to get your businesses started.
dv
Dirk Vekemans, poet - freelance webprogrammer,
Central Authoring Process of the
Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee
_____
Van: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] Namens
miklos@sympatico.ca
Verzonden: donderdag 19 januari 2006 19:06
Aan: list@rhizome.org
Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: schizoanalizys
Dirk wrote:
Deleuze, the philosopher, has been known to make some serious
mistakes.
Foucaul is another deity but then we read a quote like below...
In every society the production of discourse is at once controlled,
selected, organized and redistributed according to a certain number of
procedures, whose role is to avert its powers and dangers, to cope with
chance events, to evade its ponderous, awesome materiality.
Y-YMichel Foucault, The Archeology of Knowledge
I personally thought the production of discourse is managed principally to
administer the social structure? To make sure the guy goes to work to make
the nuts that fit the bolts that run the pump that milks the cow whose milk
will be in the store in a few days so that children will grow up healthy?
In Foucault's text I see the following words as a smokecreeen; "the
production of discourse is at once controlled, selected, organized and
redistributed". This could be shortened to "manage" yet it's eloborately
structure to distract full attention from his following statement,
that discourse is managed "to evade its dangers, ponderous, awesome
materiality".
Don't you think Foucault was projecting unconscious personal issue such as a
real or imagined fear of discourse? Yes danger is present in all matters
but the real meaning of discourse is surely not to evade itself?
Miklos
--
Miklos Legrady
310 Bathurst st.
Toronto ON.
M5T 2S3
416-203-1846
647-292-1846
http://www.mikidot.com
(supposedly) made when describing highly intricate scientific theories that
were evolving in his time. I have this from a French magazine article i read
some ten years ago, Magazine Literaire it was i think, and it seemed to make
sense to me at the time i read it. I can't refer to it because i can't find
the darn thing anymore, nor do i remember what were the scientific topics
involved. I used this vague memory in an argument while chatting with Nad
about being able to cope with ones own mistakes in order to proceed into
fields that would otherwise remain shielded , hidden from discourse in
technicalities while the implications of those theories do stretch to where
that discourse is , again supposedly, relevant.
Now if you want to interpret that as a critique of Deleuze, be my guest.
I'd be glad to sent you a tonload of pre-processed cut-ups of sentences i
ever typed so you can use those to prove your point as well. Hell you could
even sell it, grow little glowing worms of fame on it, the nueva-nada-new
thing in intellecto-bubblewood:
"Dirk said: [add your nonsense here]"
To be sure, if you can't manage the 19 word exceeding sentences above,
here's what i really wrote:
"Deleuze, the philosopher, has been known to make some serious mistakes when
venturing outside his own field of clarity, into the realm of hard-boiled
science. Mistakes like that are inavoidable. But his willingness to go
there, and be serious about it, has been enormously rewarding for everyone."
Now excuse me, i don't have time for these silly games, i do need to get
some work out or i can't pay my bank the money i own them at the end of the
month. If you want a statement on the ponderous, awesome materiality without
understanding exactly how Foucault uses the term discourse, there's one for
free to get your businesses started.
dv
Dirk Vekemans, poet - freelance webprogrammer,
Central Authoring Process of the
Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee
_____
Van: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] Namens
miklos@sympatico.ca
Verzonden: donderdag 19 januari 2006 19:06
Aan: list@rhizome.org
Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: schizoanalizys
Dirk wrote:
Deleuze, the philosopher, has been known to make some serious
mistakes.
Foucaul is another deity but then we read a quote like below...
In every society the production of discourse is at once controlled,
selected, organized and redistributed according to a certain number of
procedures, whose role is to avert its powers and dangers, to cope with
chance events, to evade its ponderous, awesome materiality.
Y-YMichel Foucault, The Archeology of Knowledge
I personally thought the production of discourse is managed principally to
administer the social structure? To make sure the guy goes to work to make
the nuts that fit the bolts that run the pump that milks the cow whose milk
will be in the store in a few days so that children will grow up healthy?
In Foucault's text I see the following words as a smokecreeen; "the
production of discourse is at once controlled, selected, organized and
redistributed". This could be shortened to "manage" yet it's eloborately
structure to distract full attention from his following statement,
that discourse is managed "to evade its dangers, ponderous, awesome
materiality".
Don't you think Foucault was projecting unconscious personal issue such as a
real or imagined fear of discourse? Yes danger is present in all matters
but the real meaning of discourse is surely not to evade itself?
Miklos
--
Miklos Legrady
310 Bathurst st.
Toronto ON.
M5T 2S3
416-203-1846
647-292-1846
http://www.mikidot.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the random
Nad,
i'll come back on this model-math-my confusing recursion stuff within a
reasonable amount of time.Seems i did make some formulation mistakes.
Although. But. Need to get some work out and do a bit of art on the side
for a sec. Im Gesang. i'm done with quoting German, im. Your u don't come
thru anyway, at least not on the rss feed. Hey people in the feed-industry,
ever heard of unicode? Of course it's not an English priority, is it? Never
mind.
dv
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] Namens Nad
> Verzonden: woensdag 18 januari 2006 21:43
> Aan: list@rhizome.org
> Onderwerp: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the random
>
> Dirk Vekemans wrote:
>
>
> > Being wrong is excellent, it means you can learn, improve, expand,
> > communicate.
>
> yes indeed.
>
> > You need to _want_ to be right all the time, though and not
> have the
> > prospect of you looking ridiculous hold you back. Art is
> meant to be
> > aggressive in that way.
> > Besides, we shouldn't be afraid of making stupid mistakes.
> > Most of the time in programming is spent on making stupid mistakes,
> > debugging your foolishness.
> > Learning to live with that is the first thing you need to do.
> > And sure, anything you do is bound to look completely
> ridiculous from
> > some 'expert'
> > point of view. That just means you can expand your concepts
> some more,
> > that there's more field to cover, more debugging to do...
> >
>
> the context is also important: usually nobody would
> think that a beginner who is doing funny things
> is ridiculous (well...depends a little bit on what
> he does..:-))...if you call yourself an expert and
> would do the same as the beginner then that may look differently....
> this being ridiculous thing is good and bad---
> on one hand it makes people be more serious and careful on
> what they do
> on the other hand it may block them.
> the setting plays also a role.
>
> > Deleuze, the philosopher, has been known to make some
> > serious
> > mistakes when venturing outside his own field of clarity, into the
> > realm of
> > hard-boiled science. Mistakes like that are inavoidable. But his
> > willingness
> > to go there, and be serious about it, has been enormously rewarding
> > for
> > everyone.
> >
> what mistakes did he make?
>
>
> > One of the things scientist need to realise, perhaps, is that their
> > wordings, the mental states underlying their hard work are equally
> > tainted
> > with fiction, human oddities and the restraints of the one tool we
> > share:
> > our brain. When you start using visualisation as a scientific method
> > for
> > instance, picking the colours can become a matter of bending the
> > virtual
> > reality your way.
>
> i wouldnt say bend, but yes the perception is different.
>
> >Its a matter of second level recursive processing:
> > you're
> > using code to construct models to visualise models of constructs of
> > code in
> > order to enhance your coding capabilities. In nature, when such
> > processes
> > are active, a tree can only become a tree, a desert is bound to look
> > like a
> > desert.
>
> may be i understand what you want to say, but math is different
> from the other sciences. simplistically -math IS the code, you do
> not construct MODELS. probably you meant mathematical
> code may be used to model something real, like in physics?.
> thats another thing.
>
> in math a circle IS a circle, its not a MODEL for something
> unearthly pure and unreal as a circle....
>
> mathematical code comes out of itself. i like more
> the thought that humans just
> find the code (may be in their brains..) and try to write
> it down and find more with it. you may
> ask wether they are capable of finding the right things,
> but thats another question.
> math visualization is actually not very important for math.
> its used only in a few areas and even there
> its mostly used for plausibility arguments or didactics.
> computer algebra programs are a little different and there
> is quite some discussion about their use in the math community.
>
>
> > But surely, a tree is not a tree : it cannot be reduced (by
> > what
> > Whitehead calls the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) to the object
> > tree,
> > or for that matter, the word tree. That would be arresting the
> > recursive
> > process in favour of manageability in another process, reducing the
> > external
> > determination of the process to random inputs. That's fine for
> > modelling
> > purposes, but when you're modelling you are partaking in a similar
> > process
> > of recursiveness.
>
> this i didnt get. ?
>
> As much as we'd like to sometimes, we cannot
> > eliminate
> > time from our thinking itself.
> >
> > One can, however, engineer interruptions into these second level
> > recursive
> > behaviours. Interruptions are, in my
> Derridian-Heraclitian-Leibnizian
> > textbook, incidents of absence mainly responsible for the
> creation of
> > meaning. Interruptions are at the heart of poetic processes, they
> > consume
> > time instead of being consumed through it, they are the
> result of the
> > fertile but equally aggressive acts of propagation of meaning. The
> > word,
> > each word, as a big bang. That btw, is also why our misery
> will always
> > be
> > one of an erotic nature. We'll always be running into things we make
> > ourselves:
> >
> this i also didnt get may be i am too tired--
>
> >
> > GROSSE GL?HENDE W?LBUNG
> > Mit dem sich
> > Hinaus- und hinweg-
> > W?hlenden Scharzgestirn- Schwarm:
> >
> > DER VERKIESELTEN Stirn eines Widders
> > Brenn ich dies Bild ein, zwischen
> > Die H?rner, darin
> >
> > In Gesang der Windungen, das
>
> IM Gesang ?
>
> > Mark der geronnenen
> > Herzmeere schwillt.
> >
> > Wo-
> > Gegen
> > Rennt er nicht an?
> >
> > Die Welt ist fort, ich muss dich tragen.
> >
> > (Paul Celan, Atemwende, 1967)
> >
> >
> >
>
> ..
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
i'll come back on this model-math-my confusing recursion stuff within a
reasonable amount of time.Seems i did make some formulation mistakes.
Although. But. Need to get some work out and do a bit of art on the side
for a sec. Im Gesang. i'm done with quoting German, im. Your u don't come
thru anyway, at least not on the rss feed. Hey people in the feed-industry,
ever heard of unicode? Of course it's not an English priority, is it? Never
mind.
dv
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] Namens Nad
> Verzonden: woensdag 18 januari 2006 21:43
> Aan: list@rhizome.org
> Onderwerp: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the random
>
> Dirk Vekemans wrote:
>
>
> > Being wrong is excellent, it means you can learn, improve, expand,
> > communicate.
>
> yes indeed.
>
> > You need to _want_ to be right all the time, though and not
> have the
> > prospect of you looking ridiculous hold you back. Art is
> meant to be
> > aggressive in that way.
> > Besides, we shouldn't be afraid of making stupid mistakes.
> > Most of the time in programming is spent on making stupid mistakes,
> > debugging your foolishness.
> > Learning to live with that is the first thing you need to do.
> > And sure, anything you do is bound to look completely
> ridiculous from
> > some 'expert'
> > point of view. That just means you can expand your concepts
> some more,
> > that there's more field to cover, more debugging to do...
> >
>
> the context is also important: usually nobody would
> think that a beginner who is doing funny things
> is ridiculous (well...depends a little bit on what
> he does..:-))...if you call yourself an expert and
> would do the same as the beginner then that may look differently....
> this being ridiculous thing is good and bad---
> on one hand it makes people be more serious and careful on
> what they do
> on the other hand it may block them.
> the setting plays also a role.
>
> > Deleuze, the philosopher, has been known to make some
> > serious
> > mistakes when venturing outside his own field of clarity, into the
> > realm of
> > hard-boiled science. Mistakes like that are inavoidable. But his
> > willingness
> > to go there, and be serious about it, has been enormously rewarding
> > for
> > everyone.
> >
> what mistakes did he make?
>
>
> > One of the things scientist need to realise, perhaps, is that their
> > wordings, the mental states underlying their hard work are equally
> > tainted
> > with fiction, human oddities and the restraints of the one tool we
> > share:
> > our brain. When you start using visualisation as a scientific method
> > for
> > instance, picking the colours can become a matter of bending the
> > virtual
> > reality your way.
>
> i wouldnt say bend, but yes the perception is different.
>
> >Its a matter of second level recursive processing:
> > you're
> > using code to construct models to visualise models of constructs of
> > code in
> > order to enhance your coding capabilities. In nature, when such
> > processes
> > are active, a tree can only become a tree, a desert is bound to look
> > like a
> > desert.
>
> may be i understand what you want to say, but math is different
> from the other sciences. simplistically -math IS the code, you do
> not construct MODELS. probably you meant mathematical
> code may be used to model something real, like in physics?.
> thats another thing.
>
> in math a circle IS a circle, its not a MODEL for something
> unearthly pure and unreal as a circle....
>
> mathematical code comes out of itself. i like more
> the thought that humans just
> find the code (may be in their brains..) and try to write
> it down and find more with it. you may
> ask wether they are capable of finding the right things,
> but thats another question.
> math visualization is actually not very important for math.
> its used only in a few areas and even there
> its mostly used for plausibility arguments or didactics.
> computer algebra programs are a little different and there
> is quite some discussion about their use in the math community.
>
>
> > But surely, a tree is not a tree : it cannot be reduced (by
> > what
> > Whitehead calls the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) to the object
> > tree,
> > or for that matter, the word tree. That would be arresting the
> > recursive
> > process in favour of manageability in another process, reducing the
> > external
> > determination of the process to random inputs. That's fine for
> > modelling
> > purposes, but when you're modelling you are partaking in a similar
> > process
> > of recursiveness.
>
> this i didnt get. ?
>
> As much as we'd like to sometimes, we cannot
> > eliminate
> > time from our thinking itself.
> >
> > One can, however, engineer interruptions into these second level
> > recursive
> > behaviours. Interruptions are, in my
> Derridian-Heraclitian-Leibnizian
> > textbook, incidents of absence mainly responsible for the
> creation of
> > meaning. Interruptions are at the heart of poetic processes, they
> > consume
> > time instead of being consumed through it, they are the
> result of the
> > fertile but equally aggressive acts of propagation of meaning. The
> > word,
> > each word, as a big bang. That btw, is also why our misery
> will always
> > be
> > one of an erotic nature. We'll always be running into things we make
> > ourselves:
> >
> this i also didnt get may be i am too tired--
>
> >
> > GROSSE GL?HENDE W?LBUNG
> > Mit dem sich
> > Hinaus- und hinweg-
> > W?hlenden Scharzgestirn- Schwarm:
> >
> > DER VERKIESELTEN Stirn eines Widders
> > Brenn ich dies Bild ein, zwischen
> > Die H?rner, darin
> >
> > In Gesang der Windungen, das
>
> IM Gesang ?
>
> > Mark der geronnenen
> > Herzmeere schwillt.
> >
> > Wo-
> > Gegen
> > Rennt er nicht an?
> >
> > Die Welt ist fort, ich muss dich tragen.
> >
> > (Paul Celan, Atemwende, 1967)
> >
> >
> >
>
> ..
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the random:errata
Schwarzgestirn-Schwarm, by all means.
Sorry.
Dirk Vekemans, poet - freelance webprogrammer,
Central Authoring Process of the
Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee
dv@vilt.net
http://www.vilt.net
http://www.viltdigitalvision.com
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Dirk Vekemans [mailto:dv@vilt.net]
> Verzonden: woensdag 18 januari 2006 12:54
> Aan: 'Nad'; 'list@rhizome.org'
> Onderwerp: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the random
>
>
> > there is no great divide. there is even sometimes an overlap.
> > like look at generative arts: its pure math in the hand of an
> > math-untrained artist who combines it with aesthetic/whatever
> > considerations.
> > the goal is to get nice/conceptionally important/beautyful/whatever
> > output.
> > mathematical visualization is the same: its pure math and this time
> > the aesthetic/whatever considerations are in the hand of an
> > art-untrained mathematician.
> > the goal is (usually) to get important mathematical outcome
> (which is
> > "conceptionally important" to mathematicians). I know a lot of
> > mathematicians who spend much more time in choosing the colors for
> > their math viz piece than they should...
> > ...and there are a lot of generative artists around who love to dig
> > out weird math....
>
> Yes, we can't keep our hands off anything. Like the Java
> Tools for Experimental Mathematics i found through one of
> your links at http://www.jtem.de/ . Njamies.
>
> > the important thing is to keep mutual respect for the different
> > disciplines. get me right-its good to ask and to think and
> use things,
> > also if you are not an expert.
> > so with being respectful i mean: you have to be really willing to
> > learn....and you may be erranous.
>
> Being wrong is excellent, it means you can learn, improve,
> expand, communicate.
> Mostly, artistically, when you're right (feel you're right)
> it means you're in a dead end somewhere.
> You need to _want_ to be right all the time, though and not
> have the prospect of you looking ridiculous hold you back.
> Art is meant to be aggressive in that way.
> Besides, we shouldn't be afraid of making stupid mistakes.
> Most of the time in programming is spent on making stupid
> mistakes, debugging your foolishness.
> Learning to live with that is the first thing you need to do.
> And sure, anything you do is bound to look completely
> ridiculous from some 'expert'
> point of view. That just means you can expand your concepts
> some more, that there's more field to cover, more debugging to do...
>
> Of course you need to resist the temptation of mapping
> anything you dream of to some superficial impressions you get
> from a field of knowledge by skipping through a few web
> pages. You don't need to do much, but do it thoroughly.
> Deleuze, the philosopher, has been known to make some serious
> mistakes when venturing outside his own field of clarity,
> into the realm of hard-boiled science. Mistakes like that are
> inavoidable. But his willingness to go there, and be serious
> about it, has been enormously rewarding for everyone.
>
> One of the things scientist need to realise, perhaps, is
> that their wordings, the mental states underlying their hard
> work are equally tainted with fiction, human oddities and the
> restraints of the one tool we share: our brain. When you
> start using visualisation as a scientific method for
> instance, picking the colours can become a matter of bending
> the virtual reality your way. Its a matter of second level
> recursive processing: you're using code to construct models
> to visualise models of constructs of code in order to enhance
> your coding capabilities. In nature, when such processes are
> active, a tree can only become a tree, a desert is bound to
> look like a desert. But surely, a tree is not a tree : it
> cannot be reduced (by what Whitehead calls the fallacy of
> misplaced concreteness) to the object tree, or for that
> matter, the word tree. That would be arresting the recursive
> process in favour of manageability in another process,
> reducing the external determination of the process to random
> inputs. That's fine for modelling purposes, but when you're
> modelling you are partaking in a similar process of
> recursiveness. As much as we'd like to sometimes, we cannot
> eliminate time from our thinking itself.
>
> One can, however, engineer interruptions into these second
> level recursive behaviours. Interruptions are, in my
> Derridian-Heraclitian-Leibnizian textbook, incidents of
> absence mainly responsible for the creation of meaning.
> Interruptions are at the heart of poetic processes, they
> consume time instead of being consumed through it, they are
> the result of the fertile but equally aggressive acts of
> propagation of meaning. The word, each word, as a big bang.
> That btw, is also why our misery will always be one of an
> erotic nature. We'll always be running into things we make ourselves:
>
>
> GROSSE GLUHENDE WOLBUNG
> Mit dem sich
> Hinaus- und hinweg-
> Wuhlenden Scharzgestirn- Schwarm:
>
> DER VERKIESELTEN Stirn eines Widders
> Brenn ich dies Bild ein, zwischen
> Die Horner, darin
>
> In Gesang der Windungen, das
> Mark der geronnenen
> Herzmeere schwillt.
>
> Wo-
> Gegen
> Rennt er nicht an?
>
> Die Welt ist fort, ich muss dich tragen.
>
> (Paul Celan, Atemwende, 1967)
>
> dv
>
> > > Equally, mathematics, for those seriously into it, is an entirly
> > > different matter than what we think of based on school
> > experience, as
> > > you have previously attested to...
> > >
> >
> > yep-. and thats not only the mathematicians fault. I
> remember when my
> > sister (she is two years younger than me) suddenly had some
> basic set
> > theory in school. i was envying her for haveing such a nice
> math stuff
> > on the plate. but the kids parents and some politicians
> (that was in
> > bavaria, munich, seventies, franz-josef-strauss....) where
> completely
> > against it...so they abolished it again.
> > how stupid.
> >
> > ..and i remember my calculus students (umass, amherst usa) who
> > demanded to get "recipes" for solving some standard
> problems in order
> > to get through their exams....this is not mathematical
> thinking...this
> > is even not engineering, but a lot of calculus textbooks are built
> > like this.
> >
> > to be more precise lets say: the try and error method (try a recipe
> > and see wether it works) works well for a lot of standard
> things, but
> > well yes ---it works usually for the STANDARD things.
> >
> > nad
> > +
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at
> > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
Sorry.
Dirk Vekemans, poet - freelance webprogrammer,
Central Authoring Process of the
Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee
dv@vilt.net
http://www.vilt.net
http://www.viltdigitalvision.com
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Dirk Vekemans [mailto:dv@vilt.net]
> Verzonden: woensdag 18 januari 2006 12:54
> Aan: 'Nad'; 'list@rhizome.org'
> Onderwerp: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the random
>
>
> > there is no great divide. there is even sometimes an overlap.
> > like look at generative arts: its pure math in the hand of an
> > math-untrained artist who combines it with aesthetic/whatever
> > considerations.
> > the goal is to get nice/conceptionally important/beautyful/whatever
> > output.
> > mathematical visualization is the same: its pure math and this time
> > the aesthetic/whatever considerations are in the hand of an
> > art-untrained mathematician.
> > the goal is (usually) to get important mathematical outcome
> (which is
> > "conceptionally important" to mathematicians). I know a lot of
> > mathematicians who spend much more time in choosing the colors for
> > their math viz piece than they should...
> > ...and there are a lot of generative artists around who love to dig
> > out weird math....
>
> Yes, we can't keep our hands off anything. Like the Java
> Tools for Experimental Mathematics i found through one of
> your links at http://www.jtem.de/ . Njamies.
>
> > the important thing is to keep mutual respect for the different
> > disciplines. get me right-its good to ask and to think and
> use things,
> > also if you are not an expert.
> > so with being respectful i mean: you have to be really willing to
> > learn....and you may be erranous.
>
> Being wrong is excellent, it means you can learn, improve,
> expand, communicate.
> Mostly, artistically, when you're right (feel you're right)
> it means you're in a dead end somewhere.
> You need to _want_ to be right all the time, though and not
> have the prospect of you looking ridiculous hold you back.
> Art is meant to be aggressive in that way.
> Besides, we shouldn't be afraid of making stupid mistakes.
> Most of the time in programming is spent on making stupid
> mistakes, debugging your foolishness.
> Learning to live with that is the first thing you need to do.
> And sure, anything you do is bound to look completely
> ridiculous from some 'expert'
> point of view. That just means you can expand your concepts
> some more, that there's more field to cover, more debugging to do...
>
> Of course you need to resist the temptation of mapping
> anything you dream of to some superficial impressions you get
> from a field of knowledge by skipping through a few web
> pages. You don't need to do much, but do it thoroughly.
> Deleuze, the philosopher, has been known to make some serious
> mistakes when venturing outside his own field of clarity,
> into the realm of hard-boiled science. Mistakes like that are
> inavoidable. But his willingness to go there, and be serious
> about it, has been enormously rewarding for everyone.
>
> One of the things scientist need to realise, perhaps, is
> that their wordings, the mental states underlying their hard
> work are equally tainted with fiction, human oddities and the
> restraints of the one tool we share: our brain. When you
> start using visualisation as a scientific method for
> instance, picking the colours can become a matter of bending
> the virtual reality your way. Its a matter of second level
> recursive processing: you're using code to construct models
> to visualise models of constructs of code in order to enhance
> your coding capabilities. In nature, when such processes are
> active, a tree can only become a tree, a desert is bound to
> look like a desert. But surely, a tree is not a tree : it
> cannot be reduced (by what Whitehead calls the fallacy of
> misplaced concreteness) to the object tree, or for that
> matter, the word tree. That would be arresting the recursive
> process in favour of manageability in another process,
> reducing the external determination of the process to random
> inputs. That's fine for modelling purposes, but when you're
> modelling you are partaking in a similar process of
> recursiveness. As much as we'd like to sometimes, we cannot
> eliminate time from our thinking itself.
>
> One can, however, engineer interruptions into these second
> level recursive behaviours. Interruptions are, in my
> Derridian-Heraclitian-Leibnizian textbook, incidents of
> absence mainly responsible for the creation of meaning.
> Interruptions are at the heart of poetic processes, they
> consume time instead of being consumed through it, they are
> the result of the fertile but equally aggressive acts of
> propagation of meaning. The word, each word, as a big bang.
> That btw, is also why our misery will always be one of an
> erotic nature. We'll always be running into things we make ourselves:
>
>
> GROSSE GLUHENDE WOLBUNG
> Mit dem sich
> Hinaus- und hinweg-
> Wuhlenden Scharzgestirn- Schwarm:
>
> DER VERKIESELTEN Stirn eines Widders
> Brenn ich dies Bild ein, zwischen
> Die Horner, darin
>
> In Gesang der Windungen, das
> Mark der geronnenen
> Herzmeere schwillt.
>
> Wo-
> Gegen
> Rennt er nicht an?
>
> Die Welt ist fort, ich muss dich tragen.
>
> (Paul Celan, Atemwende, 1967)
>
> dv
>
> > > Equally, mathematics, for those seriously into it, is an entirly
> > > different matter than what we think of based on school
> > experience, as
> > > you have previously attested to...
> > >
> >
> > yep-. and thats not only the mathematicians fault. I
> remember when my
> > sister (she is two years younger than me) suddenly had some
> basic set
> > theory in school. i was envying her for haveing such a nice
> math stuff
> > on the plate. but the kids parents and some politicians
> (that was in
> > bavaria, munich, seventies, franz-josef-strauss....) where
> completely
> > against it...so they abolished it again.
> > how stupid.
> >
> > ..and i remember my calculus students (umass, amherst usa) who
> > demanded to get "recipes" for solving some standard
> problems in order
> > to get through their exams....this is not mathematical
> thinking...this
> > is even not engineering, but a lot of calculus textbooks are built
> > like this.
> >
> > to be more precise lets say: the try and error method (try a recipe
> > and see wether it works) works well for a lot of standard
> things, but
> > well yes ---it works usually for the STANDARD things.
> >
> > nad
> > +
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at
> > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the random
> there is no great divide. there is even sometimes an overlap.
> like look at generative arts: its pure math in the hand of an
> math-untrained artist who combines it with aesthetic/whatever
> considerations.
> the goal is to get nice/conceptionally
> important/beautyful/whatever output.
> mathematical visualization is the same: its pure math and
> this time the aesthetic/whatever considerations are in the
> hand of an art-untrained mathematician.
> the goal is (usually) to get important mathematical outcome
> (which is "conceptionally important" to mathematicians). I
> know a lot of mathematicians who spend much more time in
> choosing the colors for their math viz piece than they should...
> ...and there are a lot of generative artists around who love
> to dig out weird math....
Yes, we can't keep our hands off anything. Like the Java Tools for
Experimental
Mathematics i found through one of your links at http://www.jtem.de/ .
Njamies.
> the important thing is to keep mutual respect for the
> different disciplines. get me right-its good to ask and to
> think and use things, also if you are not an expert.
> so with being respectful i mean: you have to be really
> willing to learn....and you may be erranous.
Being wrong is excellent, it means you can learn, improve, expand,
communicate.
Mostly, artistically, when you're right (feel you're right) it means you're
in a dead end somewhere.
You need to _want_ to be right all the time, though and not have the
prospect of you looking ridiculous
hold you back. Art is meant to be aggressive in that way.
Besides, we shouldn't be afraid of making stupid mistakes.
Most of the time in programming is spent on making stupid mistakes,
debugging your foolishness.
Learning to live with that is the first thing you need to do.
And sure, anything you do is bound to look completely ridiculous from some
'expert'
point of view. That just means you can expand your concepts some more, that
there's more field to cover, more debugging to do...
Of course you need to resist the temptation of mapping anything you dream of
to some superficial impressions you get from a field of knowledge by
skipping through a few web pages. You don't need to do much, but do it
thoroughly. Deleuze, the philosopher, has been known to make some serious
mistakes when venturing outside his own field of clarity, into the realm of
hard-boiled science. Mistakes like that are inavoidable. But his willingness
to go there, and be serious about it, has been enormously rewarding for
everyone.
One of the things scientist need to realise, perhaps, is that their
wordings, the mental states underlying their hard work are equally tainted
with fiction, human oddities and the restraints of the one tool we share:
our brain. When you start using visualisation as a scientific method for
instance, picking the colours can become a matter of bending the virtual
reality your way. Its a matter of second level recursive processing: you're
using code to construct models to visualise models of constructs of code in
order to enhance your coding capabilities. In nature, when such processes
are active, a tree can only become a tree, a desert is bound to look like a
desert. But surely, a tree is not a tree : it cannot be reduced (by what
Whitehead calls the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) to the object tree,
or for that matter, the word tree. That would be arresting the recursive
process in favour of manageability in another process, reducing the external
determination of the process to random inputs. That's fine for modelling
purposes, but when you're modelling you are partaking in a similar process
of recursiveness. As much as we'd like to sometimes, we cannot eliminate
time from our thinking itself.
One can, however, engineer interruptions into these second level recursive
behaviours. Interruptions are, in my Derridian-Heraclitian-Leibnizian
textbook, incidents of absence mainly responsible for the creation of
meaning. Interruptions are at the heart of poetic processes, they consume
time instead of being consumed through it, they are the result of the
fertile but equally aggressive acts of propagation of meaning. The word,
each word, as a big bang. That btw, is also why our misery will always be
one of an erotic nature. We'll always be running into things we make
ourselves:
GROSSE GLUHENDE WOLBUNG
Mit dem sich
Hinaus- und hinweg-
Wuhlenden Scharzgestirn- Schwarm:
DER VERKIESELTEN Stirn eines Widders
Brenn ich dies Bild ein, zwischen
Die Horner, darin
In Gesang der Windungen, das
Mark der geronnenen
Herzmeere schwillt.
Wo-
Gegen
Rennt er nicht an?
Die Welt ist fort, ich muss dich tragen.
(Paul Celan, Atemwende, 1967)
dv
> > Equally, mathematics, for those seriously into it, is an entirly
> > different matter than what we think of based on school
> experience, as
> > you have previously attested to...
> >
>
> yep-. and thats not only the mathematicians fault. I remember
> when my sister (she is two years younger than me) suddenly
> had some basic set theory in school. i was envying her for
> haveing such a nice math stuff on the plate. but the kids
> parents and some politicians (that was in bavaria, munich,
> seventies, franz-josef-strauss....) where completely against
> it...so they abolished it again.
> how stupid.
>
> ..and i remember my calculus students (umass, amherst usa)
> who demanded to get "recipes" for solving some standard
> problems in order to get through their exams....this is not
> mathematical thinking...this is even not engineering, but a
> lot of calculus textbooks are built like this.
>
> to be more precise lets say: the try and error method (try a
> recipe and see wether it works) works well for a lot of
> standard things, but well yes ---it works usually for the
> STANDARD things.
>
> nad
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in
> the Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
> like look at generative arts: its pure math in the hand of an
> math-untrained artist who combines it with aesthetic/whatever
> considerations.
> the goal is to get nice/conceptionally
> important/beautyful/whatever output.
> mathematical visualization is the same: its pure math and
> this time the aesthetic/whatever considerations are in the
> hand of an art-untrained mathematician.
> the goal is (usually) to get important mathematical outcome
> (which is "conceptionally important" to mathematicians). I
> know a lot of mathematicians who spend much more time in
> choosing the colors for their math viz piece than they should...
> ...and there are a lot of generative artists around who love
> to dig out weird math....
Yes, we can't keep our hands off anything. Like the Java Tools for
Experimental
Mathematics i found through one of your links at http://www.jtem.de/ .
Njamies.
> the important thing is to keep mutual respect for the
> different disciplines. get me right-its good to ask and to
> think and use things, also if you are not an expert.
> so with being respectful i mean: you have to be really
> willing to learn....and you may be erranous.
Being wrong is excellent, it means you can learn, improve, expand,
communicate.
Mostly, artistically, when you're right (feel you're right) it means you're
in a dead end somewhere.
You need to _want_ to be right all the time, though and not have the
prospect of you looking ridiculous
hold you back. Art is meant to be aggressive in that way.
Besides, we shouldn't be afraid of making stupid mistakes.
Most of the time in programming is spent on making stupid mistakes,
debugging your foolishness.
Learning to live with that is the first thing you need to do.
And sure, anything you do is bound to look completely ridiculous from some
'expert'
point of view. That just means you can expand your concepts some more, that
there's more field to cover, more debugging to do...
Of course you need to resist the temptation of mapping anything you dream of
to some superficial impressions you get from a field of knowledge by
skipping through a few web pages. You don't need to do much, but do it
thoroughly. Deleuze, the philosopher, has been known to make some serious
mistakes when venturing outside his own field of clarity, into the realm of
hard-boiled science. Mistakes like that are inavoidable. But his willingness
to go there, and be serious about it, has been enormously rewarding for
everyone.
One of the things scientist need to realise, perhaps, is that their
wordings, the mental states underlying their hard work are equally tainted
with fiction, human oddities and the restraints of the one tool we share:
our brain. When you start using visualisation as a scientific method for
instance, picking the colours can become a matter of bending the virtual
reality your way. Its a matter of second level recursive processing: you're
using code to construct models to visualise models of constructs of code in
order to enhance your coding capabilities. In nature, when such processes
are active, a tree can only become a tree, a desert is bound to look like a
desert. But surely, a tree is not a tree : it cannot be reduced (by what
Whitehead calls the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) to the object tree,
or for that matter, the word tree. That would be arresting the recursive
process in favour of manageability in another process, reducing the external
determination of the process to random inputs. That's fine for modelling
purposes, but when you're modelling you are partaking in a similar process
of recursiveness. As much as we'd like to sometimes, we cannot eliminate
time from our thinking itself.
One can, however, engineer interruptions into these second level recursive
behaviours. Interruptions are, in my Derridian-Heraclitian-Leibnizian
textbook, incidents of absence mainly responsible for the creation of
meaning. Interruptions are at the heart of poetic processes, they consume
time instead of being consumed through it, they are the result of the
fertile but equally aggressive acts of propagation of meaning. The word,
each word, as a big bang. That btw, is also why our misery will always be
one of an erotic nature. We'll always be running into things we make
ourselves:
GROSSE GLUHENDE WOLBUNG
Mit dem sich
Hinaus- und hinweg-
Wuhlenden Scharzgestirn- Schwarm:
DER VERKIESELTEN Stirn eines Widders
Brenn ich dies Bild ein, zwischen
Die Horner, darin
In Gesang der Windungen, das
Mark der geronnenen
Herzmeere schwillt.
Wo-
Gegen
Rennt er nicht an?
Die Welt ist fort, ich muss dich tragen.
(Paul Celan, Atemwende, 1967)
dv
> > Equally, mathematics, for those seriously into it, is an entirly
> > different matter than what we think of based on school
> experience, as
> > you have previously attested to...
> >
>
> yep-. and thats not only the mathematicians fault. I remember
> when my sister (she is two years younger than me) suddenly
> had some basic set theory in school. i was envying her for
> haveing such a nice math stuff on the plate. but the kids
> parents and some politicians (that was in bavaria, munich,
> seventies, franz-josef-strauss....) where completely against
> it...so they abolished it again.
> how stupid.
>
> ..and i remember my calculus students (umass, amherst usa)
> who demanded to get "recipes" for solving some standard
> problems in order to get through their exams....this is not
> mathematical thinking...this is even not engineering, but a
> lot of calculus textbooks are built like this.
>
> to be more precise lets say: the try and error method (try a
> recipe and see wether it works) works well for a lot of
> standard things, but well yes ---it works usually for the
> STANDARD things.
>
> nad
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in
> the Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>