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: fractal geometry
Interesting. I'm doing sth similar at the east gate of my Cathedral,
generating animated wheel drawings from my site statistics, see
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/east/ What's your experience with the runme.org?
Getting any feedback there?
dv
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] Namens ARN
> Verzonden: zaterdag 11 februari 2006 14:52
> Aan: list@rhizome.org
> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: fractal geometry
>
> Dirk Vekemans wrote:
> > Everybody dripping differently,
> > mastery would then be something like being gifted with a talent for
> > beautiful motion (dancing) and developing it over the years
> through a
> > feedback process (the paintings-residual output of the
> intense moments).
>
> oups, sorry for self-promo, but you should also check this
> 'statistic dripping' experiment:
>
> http://www.datapainting.com/infoscape/01/index.html
>
> 'click to re-generate'
>
> "In Statistic Dripping, the canvas is a picture selected on
> the network by the painter. The painter is the user of the
> application. The movement is the trace of website visitors
> displacements, treated by the software."
>
> http://www.runme.org/project/+StatisticDripping/
>
> +
> ARN
> +
> -> 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
>
generating animated wheel drawings from my site statistics, see
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/east/ What's your experience with the runme.org?
Getting any feedback there?
dv
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] Namens ARN
> Verzonden: zaterdag 11 februari 2006 14:52
> Aan: list@rhizome.org
> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: fractal geometry
>
> Dirk Vekemans wrote:
> > Everybody dripping differently,
> > mastery would then be something like being gifted with a talent for
> > beautiful motion (dancing) and developing it over the years
> through a
> > feedback process (the paintings-residual output of the
> intense moments).
>
> oups, sorry for self-promo, but you should also check this
> 'statistic dripping' experiment:
>
> http://www.datapainting.com/infoscape/01/index.html
>
> 'click to re-generate'
>
> "In Statistic Dripping, the canvas is a picture selected on
> the network by the painter. The painter is the user of the
> application. The movement is the trace of website visitors
> displacements, treated by the software."
>
> http://www.runme.org/project/+StatisticDripping/
>
> +
> ARN
> +
> -> 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: fractal geometry
http://materialscience.uoregon.edu/taylor/art/splash.html
http://materialscience.uoregon.edu/taylor/art/info.html
http://materialscience.uoregon.edu/taylor/art/fractals.pdf
On first sight i'd say it's quite impossible to drip without leaving a
footprint of your unique body motion. Everybody dripping differently,
mastery would then be something like being gifted with a talent for
beautiful motion (dancing) and developing it over the years through a
feedback process (the paintings-residual output of the intense moments).
Sure, Pollock's a nAartist:
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/kristine/index.jsp#pollock
So what appears to be random is in fact an instance of composed motion. It
was that all the time, now we have perhaps a means to proof it. Pollock's
approach ofcourse is very similar to Cage's use of a 'liberating' random
function drawing the 'accidental' environment into the performance of his
music, riding the waves of the flux as it were.
dv
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] Namens Nad
> Verzonden: vrijdag 10 februari 2006 20:19
> Aan: list@rhizome.org
> Onderwerp: RHIZOME_RAW: fractal geometry
>
> something funny for the discussion about randomness:
> http://www.physorg.com/news10757.html
> +
> -> 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
>
http://materialscience.uoregon.edu/taylor/art/info.html
http://materialscience.uoregon.edu/taylor/art/fractals.pdf
On first sight i'd say it's quite impossible to drip without leaving a
footprint of your unique body motion. Everybody dripping differently,
mastery would then be something like being gifted with a talent for
beautiful motion (dancing) and developing it over the years through a
feedback process (the paintings-residual output of the intense moments).
Sure, Pollock's a nAartist:
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/kristine/index.jsp#pollock
So what appears to be random is in fact an instance of composed motion. It
was that all the time, now we have perhaps a means to proof it. Pollock's
approach ofcourse is very similar to Cage's use of a 'liberating' random
function drawing the 'accidental' environment into the performance of his
music, riding the waves of the flux as it were.
dv
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] Namens Nad
> Verzonden: vrijdag 10 februari 2006 20:19
> Aan: list@rhizome.org
> Onderwerp: RHIZOME_RAW: fractal geometry
>
> something funny for the discussion about randomness:
> http://www.physorg.com/news10757.html
> +
> -> 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: Re: Re: the random
> 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.
This is where i went wrong the other time ( i won't go into the Deleuze
thing again, i can't find the reference so i shouldn't have brought it up in
the first place, but i'm sure i'm 'right' about it and it only makes the
man's work more admirable in my eyes), comfortably squeezing math & other
sciences into a simplistic container for discussion's sake.
Now the reason for postponing my answer to you has nothing to do with
admitting this mistake, but everything with the matter we were discussing
and the fact that we cannot do so further unless we take into account some
seriously problematical things involving language, epistemology, logic and
even some downright metaphysics. Now i'm perfectly willing to go further
down that path, but it would require some willingness on your part to keep
me on it, because i know myself to wander straight into any garden i pass
just because it looks more attractive to my confused mind. You see i tried
to avoid that by jamming some quick statements on my private theories into a
pompuous finale with a Celan quote to finish it off, but that didn't really
do the trick, or so i gather.
Probably, certainly this is the case because i always see things as
speaking for themselves only to find afterwards that they only speak to me.
Mostly however, if i succeed in unfolding the steps that seem to be
implicated in my foolish artistic vision (i never quite succeeded doing that
up till now, not completely anyway), a universe of sensibility squeezed into
a ball as Andrew Marvell might have it, there appears to be some sense to
them after all. In fact, after such an explanation ( you can take that
literally as the hypothetical unwrapping of several faintly shimmering
things on a plane allowing the spectator to inspect the goods), i find it
hard to decide which of the two incidents would give me more pleasure: the
absurd flash of insight that is by its nature uncommunicable to others -
unless by obscurification in a poem for instance where some code is applied
in the hope a reader somewhere might experience something that is of an
equally satisfying effect ( that i did accomplish more than one time,well:
you can't keep calling yourself a poet when you're past forty and not be
sure about it)
or its more prosaic counterpart of following the breadcrumps of reason
through an essentially hostile wood of hasty opinion, thorough critical
assessment and ultimately random judgement. The latter option is equally one
of invention because i almost immediately forget everything i come up with
while writing, i guess it comes with the psycho-pathological condition of
being my kind of writer, a self-protective massive data-dumping mechanism of
sorts.
So really, things being what they are, it's up to you Nad, i really like
the conversation but if we are to continue on the same subject, i'll have
some explaining to do, you'll have to provide me with some background i
really know nothing off and correct me when i'm going back to my usual level
of error and foolishness or stupidly forget what it was i was saying
earlier. So here goes: a rather trivial introduction to correcting my
earlier mistake of not giving math what it's entitled to in the world of
science. Proceed at own risk or get out while you can, the latter option
being the more sensible one, by all means, we all have better things to do.
...
Certainly, one needs to make the distinction, even in my very private mess
of things, where math is the first order coding process, or better still:
the Code itself, the core of knowledge that, if anything, stands out as
Kant's a priori body of knowledge. For,as you put it, us humans just find
the code, when we think of things like a circle or a line, we indeed think
of things that have been before us and will 'survive us' in eternity. In
fact, let's be clear about it, no irony whatsoever, so there can be no
misunderstanding later on: we think of them as outside of time, circles
don't change, they're on some divine plane of consistency that for some
reason unintelligable for humans, just is there, waiting for us to unravel
more of its splendour as we make progress, not by invention but by
discovery.
A static system of truth. Unshakable. The only thing changing about it is
our perception of it, how much we have discovered, how many mistakes we
have made or are making, but those are irrelevant because they don't change
the things themselves. Not even Godel's theorem of incompleteness (
http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html) changes much with regard to the
untimely status of Mathematical Truth, it only proofs there's no end to it.
Equally, when we do math, we do not speak about math, we speak math. There's
no concept-to-code gap where anything human can come in between and spoil
the perfection, like there always is when we use language. The code is the
concept, the mathematical definition of a circle is a circle. Or: there is
no difference between a circle and a set of points in a plane that are
equidistant from a given point O. There may be a difference of position in
the words on your screen, or some time elapsing while you read them or
someone reads them to you, but that is only the case because we are bound by
our human condition and its contingent facts of interhuman communication.
The identity circle-circle's definition is an a priori truth, and therefore
untimely. Writing the code is only a matter of time, the written code equals
the unwritten code (give or take a few human imperfections on which we have
agreed they are irrelevant).
As what one would expect with pure code like this, there is no actual
meaning to it. Meaning can be generated afterwards, when you compile a
portion of the code and apply it in a real world situation, a habit common
to physiscists and, further on down the road to reality, to technical
engineers bringing the second order language handed to them by physics to
yet a higher-level language, the technological. Mathematical meaning is only
purely referentional meaning : the meaning of a proposition like 'A
transcendental number is a number that is not the root of any integer
polynomial' might be further referenced to 'it is not an algabraic number of
any degree' or you might further de-reference the definition by replacing
the word polynomial in the code by the definition of 'polynomial'. In fact,
using the quotes in my last statement is a bad literary habit because the
definition of polynomial, ergo the word polynomial is equal to the use of
polynomial. Any of my bad literary habits will find its much purer
counterpart in mathematical conventions, allowing a mathematician to replace
code-portions with more convenient ones as long as she explicitely states
her deviations from what is commonly accepted in mathworld, even its
off-and-on commercial version where i got the definitions from. Another
convention is going to sleep at a reasonable hour. Really this is a bad
idea.
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
>
> 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.
This is where i went wrong the other time ( i won't go into the Deleuze
thing again, i can't find the reference so i shouldn't have brought it up in
the first place, but i'm sure i'm 'right' about it and it only makes the
man's work more admirable in my eyes), comfortably squeezing math & other
sciences into a simplistic container for discussion's sake.
Now the reason for postponing my answer to you has nothing to do with
admitting this mistake, but everything with the matter we were discussing
and the fact that we cannot do so further unless we take into account some
seriously problematical things involving language, epistemology, logic and
even some downright metaphysics. Now i'm perfectly willing to go further
down that path, but it would require some willingness on your part to keep
me on it, because i know myself to wander straight into any garden i pass
just because it looks more attractive to my confused mind. You see i tried
to avoid that by jamming some quick statements on my private theories into a
pompuous finale with a Celan quote to finish it off, but that didn't really
do the trick, or so i gather.
Probably, certainly this is the case because i always see things as
speaking for themselves only to find afterwards that they only speak to me.
Mostly however, if i succeed in unfolding the steps that seem to be
implicated in my foolish artistic vision (i never quite succeeded doing that
up till now, not completely anyway), a universe of sensibility squeezed into
a ball as Andrew Marvell might have it, there appears to be some sense to
them after all. In fact, after such an explanation ( you can take that
literally as the hypothetical unwrapping of several faintly shimmering
things on a plane allowing the spectator to inspect the goods), i find it
hard to decide which of the two incidents would give me more pleasure: the
absurd flash of insight that is by its nature uncommunicable to others -
unless by obscurification in a poem for instance where some code is applied
in the hope a reader somewhere might experience something that is of an
equally satisfying effect ( that i did accomplish more than one time,well:
you can't keep calling yourself a poet when you're past forty and not be
sure about it)
or its more prosaic counterpart of following the breadcrumps of reason
through an essentially hostile wood of hasty opinion, thorough critical
assessment and ultimately random judgement. The latter option is equally one
of invention because i almost immediately forget everything i come up with
while writing, i guess it comes with the psycho-pathological condition of
being my kind of writer, a self-protective massive data-dumping mechanism of
sorts.
So really, things being what they are, it's up to you Nad, i really like
the conversation but if we are to continue on the same subject, i'll have
some explaining to do, you'll have to provide me with some background i
really know nothing off and correct me when i'm going back to my usual level
of error and foolishness or stupidly forget what it was i was saying
earlier. So here goes: a rather trivial introduction to correcting my
earlier mistake of not giving math what it's entitled to in the world of
science. Proceed at own risk or get out while you can, the latter option
being the more sensible one, by all means, we all have better things to do.
...
Certainly, one needs to make the distinction, even in my very private mess
of things, where math is the first order coding process, or better still:
the Code itself, the core of knowledge that, if anything, stands out as
Kant's a priori body of knowledge. For,as you put it, us humans just find
the code, when we think of things like a circle or a line, we indeed think
of things that have been before us and will 'survive us' in eternity. In
fact, let's be clear about it, no irony whatsoever, so there can be no
misunderstanding later on: we think of them as outside of time, circles
don't change, they're on some divine plane of consistency that for some
reason unintelligable for humans, just is there, waiting for us to unravel
more of its splendour as we make progress, not by invention but by
discovery.
A static system of truth. Unshakable. The only thing changing about it is
our perception of it, how much we have discovered, how many mistakes we
have made or are making, but those are irrelevant because they don't change
the things themselves. Not even Godel's theorem of incompleteness (
http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html) changes much with regard to the
untimely status of Mathematical Truth, it only proofs there's no end to it.
Equally, when we do math, we do not speak about math, we speak math. There's
no concept-to-code gap where anything human can come in between and spoil
the perfection, like there always is when we use language. The code is the
concept, the mathematical definition of a circle is a circle. Or: there is
no difference between a circle and a set of points in a plane that are
equidistant from a given point O. There may be a difference of position in
the words on your screen, or some time elapsing while you read them or
someone reads them to you, but that is only the case because we are bound by
our human condition and its contingent facts of interhuman communication.
The identity circle-circle's definition is an a priori truth, and therefore
untimely. Writing the code is only a matter of time, the written code equals
the unwritten code (give or take a few human imperfections on which we have
agreed they are irrelevant).
As what one would expect with pure code like this, there is no actual
meaning to it. Meaning can be generated afterwards, when you compile a
portion of the code and apply it in a real world situation, a habit common
to physiscists and, further on down the road to reality, to technical
engineers bringing the second order language handed to them by physics to
yet a higher-level language, the technological. Mathematical meaning is only
purely referentional meaning : the meaning of a proposition like 'A
transcendental number is a number that is not the root of any integer
polynomial' might be further referenced to 'it is not an algabraic number of
any degree' or you might further de-reference the definition by replacing
the word polynomial in the code by the definition of 'polynomial'. In fact,
using the quotes in my last statement is a bad literary habit because the
definition of polynomial, ergo the word polynomial is equal to the use of
polynomial. Any of my bad literary habits will find its much purer
counterpart in mathematical conventions, allowing a mathematician to replace
code-portions with more convenient ones as long as she explicitely states
her deviations from what is commonly accepted in mathworld, even its
off-and-on commercial version where i got the definitions from. Another
convention is going to sleep at a reasonable hour. Really this is a bad
idea.
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
>
Sic()
a particularly colourful recursive function
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/sic.jsp
greetings,
dv @ Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/sic.jsp
greetings,
dv @ Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee
An expanding scroll of writing
the first entry is a(t)tribute(d) to Lanny Quarles
Cathedral screens screwing up some scores of exquisite online en/nl writing
(up/hup):
<http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/scrwtng.jsp>
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/scrwtng.jsp
greetings,
dv @ Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
<http://www.vilt.net/nkdee> http://www.vilt.net/nkdee
Cathedral screens screwing up some scores of exquisite online en/nl writing
(up/hup):
<http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/scrwtng.jsp>
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/scrwtng.jsp
greetings,
dv @ Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
<http://www.vilt.net/nkdee> http://www.vilt.net/nkdee