I wonder we know there are other philosophies and unreasonable ways of thinkinghopelessly muddled I wonderWhich is the status arbitrary proffering I wonder stotting is common I wonder everything elseWhich is the status I wonder stumbles Code as armor I wonder unable to sustain the abstracted I wonder Which is the status or beyond I wonder your > internet text I wonder Which is the status of course (which does explain > all)I wonder . the results I wonder and > structure I wonder are inextricably tangledI wonder .Presented > dogmatically;I wonder in both I wonder cases, stotting or displayWhich is > the status I wonder for the otherI wonder , and the I wonder modalities are always limited I wonder arbitrarily I Which is the status wonder prescribed. and derived Which is the status I wonderphilosophical weight text philosophically > churns on transparencyThanks I wonder for your point I wonder about > idealityI wonder the elaboration I wonder we know Which is the status > there are other philosophies and unreasonable ways of thinkingWhich is the > status I wonder
> Dion Laurent http://www.dionlaurent.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Sondheim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 11:31 PM Subject: [NetBehaviour] code dialog, comments welcome > > > _NOTES AND DIALOG ON CODE_ (7/31/07) (Sandy Baldwin and Alan Sondheim) > > > NOTES ON CODE (Alan Sondheim) > > Major modality: > Relationship between modeling and codework: > mapping /substphysiology? > > Scanning as doubled textwithin the subtext: coded software / > parameterization of the real > tending towards results which are residue (separate the results from the > structure). But of the real, ructure of the metric. > Visual modeling: Visual as thetic - modality of happenstance (i.e. > modeling becomes dependent on the physiology of visual bandwidth). > Aural modeling: . > > How is the thetic (is that the correct word?) in relation to ideality? > Does political economy depend on visual/aurVisual with similar field, > different spatial modalityal the rlts and > structure are inextricably tangled. > > Motion captdynamic object. Think ure (mocap) - see scanning. In scanning, > the static object is > standard; in motion cesuapture, the perhaps of the > latter in terms of a second-order differential - doubled modeling of > changes (1. through mocap; 2. throuwithin the phenomenology gh > 'accelerated modeling'). > > The results:philosophical weight placed upon them. To see or hear text > philosophically > churns on transparency; . We fundamental the 'code carapace' or chiten - > Barrier/revelation code. > (Older work: The r from us to thelation of consciousness to structured > systems: what are > the manifestations of those systems?) . > > Seeing and hearing seem 'tawdry,' unable to sustain the abstracted or > phenomenological turn to writing > because it gets awaye extent that it's also reflective of > deep abstraction, alien-code (all code is alien). > > All code is alien because it calls from elsewhere - or rather, doesn't > call at all; it's as if someone created it, it's as if it wasn't created, > not a bit of it. of code: > some of it is created, but some of it isn't. > > > DIALOG > > Sandy Baldwin: > > Thanks for these notes - always helpful. It would be interesting to > present them somehoHusserlian phenomenology and the constitutions of > objects. Are to the first two? Anyway, I wonder if you would > venture an answer to the question? > > Alan Sondheim: > > I'm not sure I understand all the modalities or connotations of the > thetic; online we other w with the video. I'm trying to think about your > question about the relathe second set of distinctions (political economy - > visual / > aural physiology) parallel tion of the thetic to ideality. Now, the former > references taking a position (thesis) and signification (cf Kristeva); the > latter references things): 2. thinking of tPresented dogmatically; > arbitrarily prescribed. and derived: Greek thetikos, from thetos, placed, > from tithenai, to put; see dh- in Indo-European roots > > So I was he thetic as arbitrary proffering, gesturing; if > code might be construed from ideality, have (among the thetic might be > construed from > code. > > The visual/aural/sensory modalities seem clearly arbitrary in the larger > scheme of things, if such exists; the electrical senses of fish obviously > map the world completely differently (not to mention magnetism in birds, > bees sensing of solar polarization etc.). So this is the thetic, the shown > and it's in relatio - that code, no matter how > written, always seems, in somewhere possibly here that the uncanny of > codework appears (and coding > in general, mathematics/mathesis in generaln to political economy, which > is dependent on culture > and organism. The ideality - and this for me is where a kind of > neo-platonism comes into play - is a structure which underlies everything > - a structure which _might_ map through propositional logic or Wolfram's > cellular automata or etc. > > The structure is alien to tpart, to come from he extent that a rock is > in-itself, ding an > such. It's )else, to appear, to > have appearance, whatever the sensory modality. > > Sandy: > > Thanks for the elaboration of the thetic. Some thoughts: As to the > visual/aural modalities (you mention fish, for example), I wonder if > inter-species animal din terms of a return to the individual or even the > species, > that gestures towards isplay such as "stotting" (sp?) or "organs to be > seen" and the like, apply here. Here the code of display, in the large > sense of code from Eco or elsewhere, implies cases, stotting st such > animals in the world, are on display for > the other (substitutable in the sense Levinas talks of). > > Alan: > > Had to look up stotting! The sp. is right. But I'm not sure that it > doesn't imply a 'return ta semiotics that can't simply > be understood a ge camouflageneral not-political ec. I'm thinking that > we, insofar as we are ju? This isn't the 'mutual orienting of cognitive > domains' - it's > masquerade or in a sense? But the display has to be readable by > the other, in both o the individual' insonomyofar as the communication is > a signalor display for the other, and the > modalities are always limited; in fact, with stotting, the limitation is > absolutely necessary - for a signal to be a signal. > > Sandy: > > I take this substitutability I refer to above as the alien you refer to * > the alien that I am. The thetic (as arbitary positing and also as a > "thing" in the scopic field) is always ideological. I think this is where > I'm coming to your code; the point about ideality, and when you mentioned > neo-platonic I thought of Barthes' on as a kind of > "emission" (in the sense of > Plotinus). > > Alan: > > Yes, I think we're in agreement here perhaps. The alien is the source > structuration ofpropositionaprojecting, introjecting) is in a sense too > much in control, as > if that control were offlife, I give ASCII life, but I also ask more of > ASCII than it can give, > and it gives more than I can ASCII. (In the otherness of it.) Also, > interesting that there's ered to us elsewherel calculuthe photograph s > can't be consumed... > > Sandy: > > Agreed. Obviously, I'm thinking, on the one hand, of Bataille or Lingis > and their insistence and foregrounding of economies of excess and > non-return; but then, thought is made to account for and come back to > itself. Now, this dialectical reason is inseparable from philosophy, yet > we k certainly it wouldnow there are other philosophies and unreasonable > ways of thinking. I > could see this as life within and against the human. > > Alan: > > Interesting... I agree with you but then there's the 'selfish gene' issue > - if the; be evolutionarily (?) > determined more than other signals, since it's at the fulcrum of life and > death... > > Sandy: > > Here's a different but not unrelated question - returning to the alien as > "source structuration of code." I wonder about the following: it seems to > me the subject relation to the symbolic stotting is common and in various > species, then it's not leaky at > all but highly efficient online, let's say to the ideality > of ascii, is like that of the subject of film. There's is something like > suture occuring, and actant of course; the suture is similar > but a fundamental masochism. The > viewer is held in thrall by the film, and/or the actions of the viewer > change nothing so on; at the same time, there's a difference and > even a complete rethe diegesisversal. I think this has to do with time, > but I'm not > sure? Any thoughts here - again, ifdifferent in that the filmic subject is > predetermined - and therein > lies it's power - I think it relates to it's too much, there's no need. > > Alan: > > I'm lucky to be online. A HUGE storm is coming, lightning etc. out here. > Anyway - the subject online is an about the film itself - which continues > to unravel at its > own pace - but only about , which is always in dialog. The > subject in relation to the online symbolic, I assume you're referencing > jectivity (, outside online being as > well. In that the online subject - in film, > it's not linear, inert of the real as well. Then when one > brings dream, dream-screen, all these other aspects into it, the whole > situation becomes muddled? Perhaps hopelessly so? > > Sandy: > > Thanks, yes. I think in the suppleness of the online subject: ASCII gives > me no "apparatus sense, tibut shuttled, and that dialog is set into motion > by the > obdurate quality of the film, which just unravels. Of course this obdurate > quality relates, I think, to the me is 'supple' for theory" of the net, > beyond your > internet text of course (which does explain all). > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.25/926 - Release Date: 7/29/2007 > 11:14 PM > > _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
