It's in Limassol, Cyprus, and trompe l'oeil (sp??) paintings on houses in a small back area. It's wonderful! Limassol is wonderful!
Best, Alan On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 6:52 AM Edward Picot via NetBehaviour < [email protected]> wrote: > That photograph is fantastic! Where is it, and who's the artist? > > On 17/05/2021 01:37, Alan Sondheim wrote: > > > > > > Theory > > > > http://www.alansondheim.org/P1050632.JPG > > > > "Theories don't give meaning, but they limit the kinds of > > meanings we can give." > > > > - from Judith Roitman, Introduction to Modern Set Theory, 3rd > > edition, 2013, p. 29 > > > > I've been having a really difficult time with this book; at this > > point I don't have the background to read it, but I'm trying in > > any case. But this sentence seems remarkable to me, and what it > > might imply in general. Theory becomes, not explanatory, but > > descriptive of the limits of meaning. Bear with me. Think of a > > theory has describing the underlying, scaffolding of a domain or > > domains which are always both leaky and circumscribed. (For > > example, particle theory, cosmology, quantum theory, and so > > forth.) The theory elucidates the scaffolding within limits. What > > is the phenomenology of meaning in this regard - for example > > Einstein's "The Meaning of Relativity"? I'm talking I fear, on > > the level of high-school philosophy here. If one construes > > meaning within a particular domain - energy for example - one > > might say "The meaning of energy is E = Mc^2." It's a translation > > from one language, perhaps to another. It explains. The meaning > > lies in the explanation. But suppose theory does the opposite - > > limits explanation, not by offering a (provable?) equivalence, > > but by indicating the limits of the meaningful. This idea (and > > I'm sure I'm misreading all over the place) might indicate that > > theory is a form of paring-away at one ontological domain, by > > re-producing something more or less true within the epistemo- > > logical. To continue on my high-school (or earlier) level, for > > example, if God is ontology, and gravity epistemology, then one > > way of looking at this might be to consider that God and "God" > > are weakened by the structural "leaking" of gravitational theory. > > In terms of my own thinking re: somatic ghosting, the "leaking" > > from analog to digital apparently empties the body of its > > gristle, at least on a popular level; the resulting dubious > > ontology of the body slides into, and is subsumed by, the fabric > > of over-arching digital epistemologies, which appear as the > > horizon of fundamental praxis itself. I'm aware that nothing can > > be said sensibly within such a paragraph as this; on the other > > hand, there is something in the quote which resonate, as if some > > other and perhaps more skeletal appearance were present, > > disturbances in the current and past order of things. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NetBehaviour mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > -- *=====================================================* *directory http://www.alansondheim.org <http://www.alansondheim.org> tel 718-813-3285**email sondheim ut panix.com <http://panix.com>, sondheim ut gmail.com <http://gmail.com>* *=====================================================*
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
