I'm glad to see MOOs brought up here. I think their potential as an art form has been ignored for too long and that they're due for a re-consideration.
A few years ago, I was working on a client programme that provided some sonification, in essence a jingle each player could assign to themselves, so that if one left oneself logged in in the background or wandered away, you would hear when people came and went and learn to recognise the sounds of friends. On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:00 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > 5. Two Texts: On Number, and Confusion on the new MOO (Alan Sondheim) > Message: 5 > Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 11:24:07 -0400 (EDT) > From: Alan Sondheim <[email protected]> > Subject: [NetBehaviour] Two Texts: On Number, and Confusion on the new > MOO > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > > > Two Texts: On Number, and Confusion on the new MOO > > > On Number > > Mathesis boils down to 0 and 1 , presence or absence, + | - , and so > forth. The structure/function of the world swirls around beliefs connected > to and contained within the polarity. Does anything exist beyond it? Does > anything exist between the symbols? .0001 for example is mathematically > between 0 and 1, but it doesn't 'fit' with the symbols, just as + and - > natural numbers, have no blurred distinctions, for example that .0001 of a > negative. Is there a container, then, as far as you're concerned? such > that one might have [ 0 1 ] or some such? Is there lookup, so that 0 might > be assigned X and 1 Y? Is there a form of genidentity such that 0 and 1 > retain their forms, or, through pure ideality, is such a thing even > necessary? How are 0 and 1 contained / represented in the physical world? > What are their tie-ins? Do they provide a primitive indexicality of being? > Is such an indexicality arbitrary? How do we position ourselves with > regard to the primacy of 0 and 1? For example, are these primordial, > absolute? Are they relativized to particular domains? What role does the > flesh-and-blood man or woman play in relation to them? Is gender involved? > Abjection? Is it necessary to consider the grapheme involved in particular > instances? The referents? Are referents necessary? Sheets of assertion in > any consideration? If we consider for example the calculating subject, > does that subject possess a generalized genidentity? Does the particular > of that subject - beyond gender, individuated history for example, play > any role? Any primordial role? Is it necessary to go farther in mathesis > to arrive at an understanding of mathematical ideality in relation to > concrete physicality? Would a singular 1 do, or is the step necessary? I > believe the step, differentiation of any sort, is necessary. Then is the > distinction between one and the other, 1 and 2 necessary? Might one > consider instead 1 and 0 as two stages in a process? Then why the "two" in > two stages? Is 0 then determinative only of absence? Might one begin with > 1 and 2, then, considering 0 as fictional, as-if? Something in fact and > fancy derived as a backward calculation from 1 and 2? If differentiation > is necessary, might one find the concrete, flesh-and-blood, ontology to > lie in the step itself? Considering 0 and 1, or 1 and 2 as the boundaries > of the step and nothing more. In any case, I have no problem with > induction, with extensions, fractions, irrationals, transcendentals, > infinitesimals, surreal numbers, infinities, transfinites, etc. etc. Once > an existence appears, so does its absence, at least historically? Are > these things discovered or invented? Does concrete physical historicity > play a role here? Is there a conceivable conflation between abstract > ontology and historiography, parallel perhaps to the conflation between > the ontology of fundamental particle physics and the economics necessary > to generate increasingly high energies, as Brillouin had it? Let us return > to the Brown's drawing of a distinction, perhaps, or at least to any such > demarcation of + and - ; one might then ask if action is prerequisite, and > if so, does this involve temporality, and if so a priori? So that action > might appear, and then genidentity or some form of keeping-track - of > calculations, of individuations, tokens, symbols, mathesis, even the 1 and > 2. But if 1 and 2 exist independently of all of this, as ideal, then does > a subject appear at all? Is the subject that-which-ties foregrounding and > backgrounding, substance and structure, subject and object? Does this > result in position masquerading as solipsism? Is it in fact solipsism? > Would an utterly emptied universe, think of no-universe, still harbor, > without place, mathesis? Is mathesis prior to no-universe? Is 0 and 1 and > 1 and 2? Might one consider 0 and 1 as primordial ontology _in any case,_ > and 1 and 2 primordial epistemology _in any case_? Why do mathematicians - > why does mathematical philosophy - generally tend towards an absolute? > Towards Truth? Towards the Absolute Subject as characterless and > fundamental? Towards a basic primary of relation as in Pythagoreanism? Why > is this _tending_ when tending itself implies temporality? Does this > involve flesh-and-blood subjects in the final position? I think not. I > think in any universe, 0 1 2 are already already present and accounted > for. That they are present and accounted for in no-universe. Are they gods > then? They are what passes for gods, in that they are constitutive. They > are not what passes for gods, in that they are nubs, mute. They are > whatever description might be applied, to the extent that the application > is characterized by the negative, neti neti. But that characterization is > for us, and has nothing to do with them. And has nothing to do with the > gods either. > > > > Confusion on the new MOO > > NIKUKO: > > "We're off and running! You say, "We're off and running!" Wizard says, > "Yay!" Wizard says, "The First Room" Wizard says, "We're off and > running!" "I don't understand that. I don't understand that. I don't > understand that. I don't understand that. You say, "We're off and > running!" I don't understand that. I don't understand that. You say, "I > don't understand that." I don't understand that. Try this instead: I I > don't understand that. Try this instead: I I don't understand that. Try > this instead: I I don't understand that. I don't understand that. Try > this instead: I I don't understand that. Try this instead: I Wizard > says, ""We're off and running!" Wizard says, "I don't understand that." > You hear a quiet popping sound; Wizard has disconnected. @quit *** > Disconnected *** Connection closed by foreign host. > > WIZARD: > > "We're off and running! You say, "We're off and running!" Wizard says, > "Yay!" You say, "The First Room" I don't understand that. I don't > understand that. I don't understand that. I don't understand that. You > say, "We're off and running!" I don't understand that. I don't > understand that. Nikuko says, "I don't understand that." ""We're off and > running! You say, "We're off and running!" Wizard says, "Yay!" Wizard > says, "The First Room" Wizard says, "We're off and running!" "I don't > understand that. I don't understand that. I don't understand that. I > don't understand that. You say, "We're off and running!" I don't > understand that. I don't understand that. You say, "I don't understand > that." I don't understand that. Try this instead: I I don't understand > that. Try this instead: I I don't understand that. Try this instead: I I > don't understand that. I don't understand that. Try this instead: I I > don't understand that. Try this instead: I > > You say, ""We're off and running!" I don't understand that. I don't > understand that. I don't understand that. I don't understand that. You > say, "I don't understand that." I don't understand that. Try this > instead: I I don't understand that. Try this instead: I I don't > understand that. Try this instead: I I don't understand that. I don't > understand that. Try this instead: I I don't understand that. Try this > instead: I I don't understand that. I don't understand that. Try this > instead: I I don't understand that. I don't understand that. Try this > instead: I I don't understand that. I don't understand that. Try this > instead: I I don't understand that. I don't understand that. Try this > instead: I I don't understand that. Try this instead: I I don't > understand that. I don't understand that. Try this instead: I I don't > understand that. @quit *** Disconnected *** Connection closed by foreign > host. > > MOO: > > May 22 01:55:30: LISTEN: #0 now listening on port 7777 > May 22 01:56:02: ACCEPT: #-2 on port 7777 from localhost, port 44430 > May 22 01:56:09: CONNECTED: Wizard (#2) on port 7777 from localhost, > port 44430 > May 22 01:57:34: ACCEPT: #-3 on port 7777 from localhost, port 50356 > May 22 01:57:44: CONNECTED: Nikuko (#95) on port 7777 from localhost, > port 50356 > May 22 02:03:41: DISCONNECTED: Wizard (#2) on port 7777 from localhost, > port 44430 > May 22 02:05:10: DISCONNECTED: Nikuko (#95) on port 7777 from localhost, > port 50356 > > May 22 02:08:07: SHUTDOWN: shutdown signal received > May 22 02:08:07: DUMPING on Checkpoint.db.#1# ... > May 22 02:08:07: DUMPING: Writing 96 objects... > May 22 02:08:07: DUMPING: Done writing 96 objects... > May 22 02:08:07: DUMPING: Writing 1698 MOO verb programs... > May 22 02:08:07: DUMPING: Done writing 1698 verb programs... > May 22 02:08:07: DUMPING: Writing forked and suspended tasks... > May 22 02:08:07: DUMPING: Writing list of formerly active connections... > May 22 02:08:07: DUMPING on Checkpoint.db.#1# finished > cheers, Les -- Charles Céleste Hutchins http://www.berkeleynoise.com/celesteh/podcast/ 2430 5th St Ste N Berkeley, CA 94710 USA 9 Matilda House St Katharine's Way London E1W 1LQ United Kingdom _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
