Nead help on text and texture
Hemda
Can the later precede the former?
maybe someone can elaborate on these, both philosophically
(Derrida-wise) and in a semiological context?
Hemda
G*rd*n
Well, infants babble before they talk.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
Mounard le Fougueux
stimulation so that they can adapt their syntactic learning abilities to the
specific syntactic patterns of their parents as well as learning the
specific semantic vocabulary.
Like little cellular automata, each word has particular rules with which it
connects to other words to form sentences and ideas. Words are able to
identigy each other and determine if they "fit" . Words strings which
"follow the rules" but don't make sense evolutionarily fail and don't
persist. Thus there is a texture - i.e. a weave - to sentences.
http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/
Particular ideas also exibit celluar automata-like features, in that they
seek out other sentences/ideas and combine in certain patterns to follow
certain rules.
The substate of these texual automata is shaped and warped by the
text/ideas, Both the current text busy assemblying themselves, as well as
previous text stored in memory.
Each textual element and assembly has an emotional shape and direction as
well as linguistic.
Textual assembly occurs sequentially, but not linearly - that it multiple
conncurrent assemblies occur simultaneously in a N (finite but very
large)dimentional linguistic space.
There are many parrallel texual assemblers/dissassembler (i.e. automata).
None is priviledged over the others. Only the memory matrix, concurrently
accessible to all text asemblers consitutes the subjective "First Person"
(I, Ich , Ja(Slavic), Javeh,...) - that is, the First Person exisits only in
the past, never the present.
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bgb0bs$bb0$1...@panix1.panix.com...
G*rd*n
One of the salient characteristics of cellular automata is
that they are composed of simple entities (the automata) which
are all alike in a nearly featureless matrix. The interesting
thing about them is that very complex structures can be built
out of them even though the structures do not seem to be
detectable in the rules which set them up. In most languages,
however, there are many thousands of different words, so the
comparison seems somewhat remote.
Mounard le Fougueux
'Simple' shouldn't be confused with either 'trivial' or 'toy'. Conways game
of life is both trivial and toy - but then its function is strictly
introductory and pedagogical. The origins of CA are Johnny von Neuman (sorry
for the historical surge - its a relex) and Stan Ulam, both of whom were
working with sufficiently complex automata which were recreating real-world
situations.
Each node can be in a number of states, and the "Rule" or "law" governing
(old brit steam engine term ) the state change of a cell depends on its
state and the states of the surrounding cells. The "neighborhood" of a cell
can be that which you would intuit from a 2-d checkerboard (in the trivial
case) , or it could be defined more abstractly.
In the game of language, each cell can be in state: 'a', 'b', ....,'z', '.',
',', etc (any printing ASCII character, including space). Language has
inherent rules. Letters group together to form words. Words group to form
group sentences/ideas. Ideas group to form...?..narratives (?). Narratives
combine to form...?... conversations? etc, etc.
The rules themself can begin from a initial "Ur-rule set" and then change
evolutionarily over time - this requires the rules to partially depend on
state of the "game" i.e. the state of all the cells of the "universe".
This model of language is much superior to, and dispenses with, the
traditional model of a language "Creator" which linearly and sequentially
produces text much like a meat grinder produces language "sausages" under
the direction of "higher power". After all, there is no priveleged neuron in
the brain, and all neurons operate concurrently and in parallel with each
other. The phenomenological entity known as the "self" or the "author" or
"Reader", so fundamental to postmodernism, doesn't exisit - but is only a
memory. This is empirically shown by many pshychphysical experiments -
perhaps best described to the general public by Dennetts books. Your "self"
doesn't produce the language but is the return address placed on the
language results after the fact. "You" are a colonial animal, not a single
celled flaguant (assuming you don't shave you head every morning as
"Nuttmegger" recommends.
This CA model of language is similar in many ways to how physics sees the
world - as a set of rules (mathematical) with no interest in "mechanism".
The law of gravity (reguarless which form you prefer) has no mechanism, only
a discription of state changes (motion). (Chemistry and biology rely on a
notionof mechanism, but not physics of mathematics).
And, of course with no "Prime Mover" or "God" - to the horror of course to
those whose incomes and sanity depend on the "god market".
Although the system is "closed", it is "unbounded".
>. In most languages,
> however, there are many thousands of different words, so the
> comparison seems somewhat remote.
You should realize that you are implying that the brain cann't possible be
capable of generating language because "there are many thousands of
different words".
Are you still running an ALTAIR computer with CPM and memory chips made in
New Jersey with a memory capacity of a whopping 256 bytes? or something? (my
contribution to age'ist humor)
James Whitehead
"Mounard le Fougueux" <fauxb...@cambrai.org> wrote in message
news:wFQWa.2219$jg.13...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
[...]
>
> This model of language is much superior to, and dispenses with, the
> traditional model of a language "Creator" which linearly and sequentially
> produces text much like a meat grinder produces language "sausages" under
> the direction of "higher power".
But a model it is - like those of cities with little toy cars and styrene
trees....
After all, there is no priveleged neuron in
> the brain, and all neurons operate concurrently and in parallel with each
> other. The phenomenological entity known as the "self" or the "author" or
> "Reader", so fundamental to postmodernism, doesn't exisit - but is only a
> memory.
You really ought to find out more about post-modernity - it bangs on about
the death of the author and in some parts of the idea of a 'self' - even the
idea of their being something fundamental to it! is QUESTIONABLE as is the
idea of PRIVILEGE.
This is empirically shown by many pshychphysical experiments -
> perhaps best described to the general public by Dennetts books. Your
"self"
> doesn't produce the language but is the return address placed on the
> language results after the fact. "You" are a colonial animal, not a single
> celled flaguant (assuming you don't shave you head every morning as
> "Nuttmegger" recommends.
>
> This CA model of language is similar in many ways to how physics sees the
> world - as a set of rules (mathematical) with no interest in "mechanism".
Well lets be clear there are quite a few physicists who believe in God - and
some in Allah or Krishna for that matter.
> The law of gravity (reguarless which form you prefer) has no mechanism,
only
> a discription of state changes (motion). (Chemistry and biology rely on a
> notionof mechanism, but not physics of mathematics).
>
> And, of course with no "Prime Mover" or "God" - to the horror of course to
> those whose incomes and sanity depend on the "god market".
How does this follow - Newton had a belief in God - and i think Einstein
might have?
>
> Although the system is "closed", it is "unbounded".
>
> >. In most languages,
> > however, there are many thousands of different words, so the
> > comparison seems somewhat remote.
>
> You should realize that you are implying that the brain cann't possible be
> capable of generating language because "there are many thousands of
> different words".
>
> Are you still running an ALTAIR computer with CPM and memory chips made in
> New Jersey with a memory capacity of a whopping 256 bytes? or something?
(my
> contribution to age'ist humor)
From Larson - Thorg and son are looking at some Flints - Thorg to son "Whoa!
i remember- dad had one of those..."
How is the modern computer different to the ALTAIR-
Its cheaper and crashes more often - isn't so cool! when you had an ALTAIR
you knew you were special.
Mounard le Fougueux
"James Whitehead" <Abx4...@jjh76g7856gh.com> wrote in message
news:bggmv1$nrj$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Mounard le Fougueux" <fauxb...@cambrai.org> wrote in message
> news:wFQWa.2219$jg.13...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > This model of language is much superior to, and dispenses with, the
> > traditional model of a language "Creator" which linearly and
sequentially
> > produces text much like a meat grinder produces language "sausages"
under
> > the direction of "higher power".
>
> But a model it is - like those of cities with little toy cars and styrene
> trees....
My 2 favorite smells from childhood: -- oily ozone from sparks from electric
trains sets, --- and sausages.(Two long inhales followed by lengthy sighs).
Perhaps "hemda" should have inquired about the smell as well as texture of
text.
>
> After all, there is no privileged neuron in
> > the brain, and all neurons operate concurrently and in parallel with
each
> > other. The phenomenological entity known as the "self" or the "author"
or
> > "Reader", so fundamental to postmodernism, doesn't exisit - but is only
a
> > memory.
>
> You really ought to find out more about post-modernity - it bangs on about
> the death of the author and in some parts of the idea of a 'self' - even
the
> idea of their being something fundamental to it! is QUESTIONABLE as is the
> idea of PRIVILEGE.
If you mean that I should READ more, you should know that I've given up
reading and taken to writing instead. One night I woke up in a cold sweat
and realized that reading is a vice similar to smoking , being poor, or
other addictions. I vowed from then on to maximize writing and minimize
reading as a life-plan leading to a healthier and more nature lifestyle.
Besides, should I lack in any manner as to the post-modern cannon, I'm
counting on you and others on this newsgroup to set me straighyt (hopefully
by kindly providing references for me to check (author/title)
(pretty-please)).
For example, I find (from reading Rorty (Grrrrr, bark!Bark!)) that a lot of
postmodernism has this notion of "Self" v.s. "the rest of the universe".
(You should see the little venn diagrams that some philosophers draw to make
this point). They priviledge the self over the "outside" because of our
immediate access to our own phenomenology (the old cogito-ergo-sum 'stuff).
Thus, there is no objective knowledge about the "outside" only languistic
metaphors which have meaning only within the self: the author/reader.
In my mind this view seems to be fed from a literary criticism perspective,
where the ideas of "authors" and "readers" are assumed (the axioms).
I presonally struggle against this view and am trying to work on a crazy
cockamaymie scheme where our brains and thought/text processors are part of
nature and the "outside universe" rather then somehow isolated from "the
world". Not because I don't have an love of literature or in interest in
lit crticism, but that as a theory of epistemology and cognition it -
1. assumes too much - the "reader" or "author" is assumed as a starting
point - and therefore also is phenomenology. One is stuck in the first
person. But the "first person" empirically DOESN'T EXIST (in the sense of
Dennett )- phenomenology is a bad teacher because it assumes (incorrectly)
that our psychophysical illusions are reliable data as to what the cognitive
or epistemological process is doing. Our assumptions must give way to good
and clear empirical evidence (see Dennett - Consciousness Explained ).
However empirical studies have the tremendous dissadvantage of being hard
work and difficult to do - its much easier to just write prodigiously taking
a phenomenological approach - don't need lots of meticulously measured and
verifiable tests using a logically and methodologically ingenious
experimental strategy.
2. Results in an unusable/unfriendly program. Let me explain using
architecture as an example.Up to the modernist period in architecture,
building had a functional, artistic, political, etc. purpose that most
people, outside of just architects, found usefull as well as could relate
to. With modernism, architecture developed a theory/fashion that although
was in many ways internally coherent within the bounds of the modernist
architectural movement (the architects themselves as a closed competive
Kuhnian society), became completely divorced from the functional and
aesthetic needs of the rest of the population - including the ultimate
users. In fact the vast majority of lay people found modernist architecture
to be ugly, anti-functional , depersonalizing, and without any cultural
continuity or context. Making worker housing look like a machine had its
meaning within the confinds of the modernist architectural community but not
with the inhabitants of the buildings. Objections such as the impracticality
of flat roofs in regions with a lot of snow was dismissed as "ignorance".
The more the modernist architectural movement actually manifested itself
physically to the general population (rather then just in theory and models)
the more the population started to rebel and protest against the
grotesqueness and impracticalty of modernist architecture. Thus came
postmodernism in architecture.
I find that what is labelled "postmdernist" in philosophy and cultural
theory actually very closely resembles the "modernist" period of
architecture - emphasis on theory over practicality and usefullness. For
example; how useful do you think that the average well educated joe citizen
finds the notion that "there is no object knowledge - only metaphor"? This
contradicts all practical experience. Let me put my neck out here and say
that they will find it as usefull as modernist architecture. Postmodernist
theory is extremely (actually impossible) to digest by a a typical educated
person and not usuable by them in any way to live their lives. Its not that
I don't find Brazilia a fascinating place to visit and look at, I just won't
want to live there! (I'm not trying to condemn pomo in any way, just
highlight a practical issue - just poking the campfire's smoldering embers
with a stick, so to speak).
>
>
> This is empirically shown by many pshychphysical experiments -
> > perhaps best described to the general public by Dennetts books. Your
> "self"
> > doesn't produce the language but is the return address placed on the
> > language results after the fact. "You" are a colonial animal, not a
single
> > celled flaguant (assuming you don't shave you head every morning as
> > "Nuttmegger" recommends.
> >
> > This CA model of language is similar in many ways to how physics sees
the
> > world - as a set of rules (mathematical) with no interest in
"mechanism".
>
> Well lets be clear there are quite a few physicists who believe in God -
and
> some in Allah or Krishna for that matter.
I think I know a sample of all the above and some other religious beliefs
you haven't mentioned. I found that they (as well as myself) operate in two
mental spheres. When doing math/physics/tech they operate mentally using the
rules of game and don't introduce religious dogmas and beliefs into physics.
Then they are engaged in religious activity, they set aside all thinking
about physics/math/etc. They try to separate the two as much as possible.
Actually doing physics/math/tech is exactly like dealing with the physical
world on a day to day practical level, just more concentrated. All religious
people know that on a practical daily level, the world operates naturally
and obeys the laws of physics, etc. They would say that religion deals with
God, ethics and how to relate to other people. They will have a partition
between practical and religious - a great wall. Those ideas on the religious
side of the wall will be priviledged from being subject to reason and
empirical analysis - religious ideas and principles (orthodoxy) will only be
subject to correct hermeneutics and orthodox exegesis. The fact that there
are many competing and conflicting religious orthodoxies WILL cause come
discomfort especially in the scientifically trained or the naturally
rational/empirical. Especially as various deviant /heretical groups are
deemed evil/sinful/ignorant or religious orthodoxy comes into conflict with
empirical evidence. The religious scientist will then have to make a
conscious - willfull - personal act of assent/acceptence to the belief
structure in spite of the reasons against. The religious scientist thus
"puts on" the identity and frame of the religious group, reguardless how the
orthodoxy itself changes or mutates. Similarly at some point, the religious
physicist may find a preponderance of evidence conflicting with their
religious view - then they may decide to "take off" the religious identity
and belief system and "put on" another - like say rational humanism, or
something. There's a philosopher of religion whose name i forget (Husserl
?) that goes into this at length.
All my embedded processors that I've every done were all Hare Krishnas -
being multitasking they all needed a backround task that ran when no other
tasks were running. Due to lack of imagination I made them cycle through the
hare krishna chant as the backround task, and I always had a orange LED
blink in time with the finger-symbols. I did this to give the processor an
opportunity to liberate itself.
http://www.harekrishna.org.au/guest_main.htm then press listen
>
> > The law of gravity (reguarless which form you prefer) has no mechanism,
> only
> > a discription of state changes (motion). (Chemistry and biology rely on
a
> > notionof mechanism, but not physics or mathematics).
> >
> > And, of course with no "Prime Mover" or "God" - to the horror of course
to
> > those whose incomes and sanity depend on the "god market".
>
> How does this follow - Newton had a belief in God - and i think Einstein
> might have?
for Newton, see
http://www.messiah.edu/hpages/facstaff/tdavis/newton.htm
http://web.media.mit.edu/~picard/Newton.html
for Einstein, see
http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/E2.html
http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/
>
> >
> > Although the system is "closed", it is "unbounded".
> >
> > >. In most languages,
> > > however, there are many thousands of different words, so the
> > > comparison seems somewhat remote.
> >
> > You should realize that you are implying that the brain cann't possible
be
> > capable of generating language because "there are many thousands of
> > different words".
> >
> > Are you still running an ALTAIR computer with CPM and memory chips made
in
> > New Jersey with a memory capacity of a whopping 256 bytes? or something?
> (my
> > contribution to age'ist humor)
>
> From Larson - Thorg and son are looking at some Flints - Thorg to son
"Whoa!
> i remember- dad had one of those..."
>
> How is the modern computer different to the ALTAIR-
> Its cheaper and crashes more often - isn't so cool! when you had an
ALTAIR
> you knew you were special.
>
I bought the very first Amiga ever sold in Buffalo, NY (USA). It ran
AmigaDOS v1.0. I also have an Amiga 2000. There are all in my garage.
Someday I'll put the lot on sale on e-bay and get $100. That was the last
time I ever rebelled against Microsoft - to this day I'm afraid of trying
Linux in case THEY erase my idenity.
James Whitehead
>
> "James Whitehead" <Abx4...@jjh76g7856gh.com> wrote in message
> news:bggmv1$nrj$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "Mounard le Fougueux" <fauxb...@cambrai.org> wrote in message
> > news:wFQWa.2219$jg.13...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >
> > > This model of language is much superior to, and dispenses with, the
> > > traditional model of a language "Creator" which linearly and
> sequentially
> > > produces text much like a meat grinder produces language "sausages"
> under
> > > the direction of "higher power".
> >
> > But a model it is - like those of cities with little toy cars and
styrene
> > trees....
>
> My 2 favorite smells from childhood: -- oily ozone from sparks from
electric
> trains sets, --- and sausages.(Two long inhales followed by lengthy
sighs).
> Perhaps "hemda" should have inquired about the smell as well as texture of
> text.
WELL thats one of mine- the train set smell - another the smell of dusty
streets in summer after a light shower.
> >
> > After all, there is no privileged neuron in
> > > the brain, and all neurons operate concurrently and in parallel with
> each
> > > other. The phenomenological entity known as the "self" or the "author"
> or
> > > "Reader", so fundamental to postmodernism, doesn't exisit - but is
only
> a
> > > memory.
> >
> > You really ought to find out more about post-modernity - it bangs on
about
> > the death of the author and in some parts of the idea of a 'self' - even
> the
> > idea of their being something fundamental to it! is QUESTIONABLE as is
the
> > idea of PRIVILEGE.
>
> If you mean that I should READ more, you should know that I've given up
> reading and taken to writing instead. One night I woke up in a cold sweat
> and realized that reading is a vice similar to smoking , being poor, or
> other addictions. I vowed from then on to maximize writing and minimize
> reading as a life-plan leading to a healthier and more nature lifestyle.
No i deliberately avoided saying you should read more - i'm not one of the
cultural studies guys. Reading is problematic anyway - i think you need to
bring to post modernism or approach it in terms which you are familiar.
Post Modernity is a title of an historical period which can be identified in
a number of ways. Life is short after all. Theres plenty to criticise in po
mo - but i was just pointing out that some key ideas was death of author.
End of the book etc. And of course your (!) wanting to write and not read is
part of the po-mo condition. No longer is there a clear cut demarcation
between high and low culture and artist/audience. Audiences have become
artists - reality TV , and experts are now questioned, intellectuals are
regarded with suspicion and the title not welcome. So its essentially a very
confused state - deliberately so. Intellectuals dis-empower local knowledge
held by "ordinary" people, and the 'truth' of modernity is so esoteric
anyway few can understand it or even want to. So you cant have something as
fundamental in the way you seem to in post-modernism. If you do your (*)
throwing rocks at the wrong target. In short if what you say breaks
hierarchies - question structures and authorities then you are part of the
po-mo program. If you are still reading this - it isn't surprising then
that's academics associated with po-mo are in the main against its
nihilistic -- subjective trajectory- they need to keep their jobs - defend
literature's tradition, at the same time appear to be critical.
>
> Besides, should I lack in any manner as to the post-modern cannon, I'm
> counting on you and others on this newsgroup to set me straighyt
(hopefully
> by kindly providing references for me to check (author/title)
> (pretty-please)).
The BEST book is 'Derrida in 90 minutes' ISBN 1-56663-329-X Postmodernism
for Beginners is also OK ISBN 1-874166-21-8
>
> For example, I find (from reading Rorty (Grrrrr, bark!Bark!)) that a lot
of
> postmodernism has this notion of "Self" v.s. "the rest of the universe".
> (You should see the little venn diagrams that some philosophers draw to
make
> this point). They priviledge the self over the "outside" because of our
> immediate access to our own phenomenology (the old cogito-ergo-sum
'stuff).
> Thus, there is no objective knowledge about the "outside" only languistic
> metaphors which have meaning only within the self: the author/reader.
Yes but thats the world according to Rorty. Remember philosophy ended awhile
ago. Be pragmatic about reading Rorty - its only what he would want - or is
it? - so if you dont like it stop reading it. You are (!) not going to find
the TRUTH T.M. there. My fav is Derrida - and its funny to read a so called
expert on him - Chris Norris - wanting to "defend a version of Derrida...
that would go against the postmodernist appropriation (unintelligible) that
they are intensely concerned with issues of truth' etc. Now whats
interesting is he cant come straight out and say what Derrida means! Yet he
meets with the guy! So derrida's motives for being "difficult" is a concern.
>
> In my mind this view seems to be fed from a literary criticism
perspective,
> where the ideas of "authors" and "readers" are assumed (the axioms).
>
> I presonally struggle against this view and am trying to work on a crazy
> cockamaymie scheme where our brains and thought/text processors are part
of
> nature and the "outside universe" rather then somehow isolated from "the
> world". Not because I don't have an love of literature or in interest in
> lit crticism, but that as a theory of epistemology and cognition it -
Fine - but your project is one of finding a definition - which makes it
*essentialy* modernist. And doomed.
>
> 1. assumes too much - the "reader" or "author" is assumed as a starting
> point - and therefore also is phenomenology. One is stuck in the first
> person. But the "first person" empirically DOESN'T EXIST (in the sense of
> Dennett )- phenomenology is a bad teacher because it assumes (incorrectly)
> that our psychophysical illusions are reliable data as to what the
cognitive
> or epistemological process is doing. Our assumptions must give way to good
> and clear empirical evidence (see Dennett - Consciousness Explained ).
> However empirical studies have the tremendous dissadvantage of being hard
> work and difficult to do - its much easier to just write prodigiously
taking
> a phenomenological approach - don't need lots of meticulously measured and
> verifiable tests using a logically and methodologically ingenious
> experimental strategy.
I think you are mistaken here - a key feature in po-mo it not an alternative
to science and philosophy - but seeing in science and philosphy other
persepectives at play. As Dennett says "One of the very trends that makes
science proceed so rapidly these days is a trend that leads science away
from human understanding" Now this is a remarkable idea. Doubly so as it
begs the question -"then why fund such science?"
>
> 2. Results in an unusable/unfriendly program. Let me explain using
> architecture as an example.Up to the modernist period in architecture,
> building had a functional, artistic, political, etc. purpose that most
> people, outside of just architects, found usefull as well as could relate
> to. With modernism, architecture developed a theory/fashion that although
> was in many ways internally coherent within the bounds of the modernist
> architectural movement (the architects themselves as a closed competive
> Kuhnian society), became completely divorced from the functional and
> aesthetic needs of the rest of the population - including the ultimate
> users. In fact the vast majority of lay people found modernist
architecture
> to be ugly, anti-functional , depersonalizing, and without any cultural
> continuity or context. Making worker housing look like a machine had its
> meaning within the confinds of the modernist architectural community but
not
> with the inhabitants of the buildings. Objections such as the
impracticality
> of flat roofs in regions with a lot of snow was dismissed as "ignorance".
> The more the modernist architectural movement actually manifested itself
> physically to the general population (rather then just in theory and
models)
> the more the population started to rebel and protest against the
> grotesqueness and impracticalty of modernist architecture. Thus came
> postmodernism in architecture.
You certainly are writing allot! But you seem to be saying that post
modernist ideas were responsible for the above- they were not. You seem to
be blaming the sins of modernity on post-modernism! They were not. Post
modern housing has pointed rooves and chimneys - with log burning stoves.
>
> I find that what is labelled "postmdernist" in philosophy and cultural
> theory actually very closely resembles the "modernist" period of
> architecture - emphasis on theory over practicality and usefullness. For
> example; how useful do you think that the average well educated joe
citizen
> finds the notion that "there is no object knowledge - only metaphor"? This
> contradicts all practical experience. Let me put my neck out here and say
> that they will find it as usefull as modernist architecture. Postmodernist
> theory is extremely (actually impossible) to digest by a a typical
educated
> person and not usuable by them in any way to live their lives. Its not
that
> I don't find Brazilia a fascinating place to visit and look at, I just
won't
> want to live there! (I'm not trying to condemn pomo in any way, just
> highlight a practical issue - just poking the campfire's smoldering embers
> with a stick, so to speak).
But you've confused and conflated the two. And i suspect its because you
want to see a simple objective truth. What matches modernist architecture is
modernist thought - belief in science and logic. Look at Wittgenstein's
architecture. Brazilia is not po-mo its equivalent to a single unifying
theory or GUT. Searle attacks Derrida because D refuses to limit language.
Serale is Mo, and sees poetry entering philosophy as a bad thing. (and say
feminist issues in maths etc! are wrong - Keep it pure they (and you) say)
It's why po-mo likes Nietzsche - and Mo hates him. Post Modernist theory is
done in departments of literary criticism- which yes are not like the old
workshops in the science block. " Postmodernist
> theory is extremely (actually impossible) to digest by a typical educated
person and not usable by them in any way to live their lives."* SURE - its
not digestible by Christopher Norris! Its not meant to be. To digest life
would mean swallowing yourself. Modernism cuts up life into pieces -
arbitary ones - and calls them ART PHYSICS LOGIC - and pretends that when
you do art or physics the state of your bowels or the music playing next
door is of no consequence.
*people dont even know the basics about maths science history or much else-
and why should they? Extreme modernism demands they are wrong. (of the sort
you speak)
>
> >
> >
> > This is empirically shown by many pshychphysical experiments -
> > > perhaps best described to the general public by Dennetts books. Your
> > "self"
> > > doesn't produce the language but is the return address placed on the
> > > language results after the fact. "You" are a colonial animal, not a
> single
> > > celled flaguant (assuming you don't shave you head every morning as
> > > "Nuttmegger" recommends.
> > >
> > > This CA model of language is similar in many ways to how physics sees
> the
> > > world - as a set of rules (mathematical) with no interest in
> "mechanism".
> >
> > Well lets be clear there are quite a few physicists who believe in God -
> and
> > some in Allah or Krishna for that matter.
>
> I think I know a sample of all the above and some other religious beliefs
> you haven't mentioned. I found that they (as well as myself) operate in
two
> mental spheres. When doing math/physics/tech they operate mentally using
the
> rules of game and don't introduce religious dogmas and beliefs into
physics.
> Then they are engaged in religious activity, they set aside all thinking
> about physics/math/etc. They try to separate the two as much as possible.
Some may - but they cant in fact do this, and in the main they dont i
suspect - i cant imagine a scientists who believed in a god not asking for
help - not seeing the universe as intelligible because it was made by an
intelligence.
I think your problem is thus - modernism was very much bound up in ideas in
math/physics/tech (which you conflate). Modernist society did not achieve
anything like utopia - despite the promises from sci/tech. And sci/tech
failed to produce the goods it offered, and its costs and by products began
to seem too expensive. The stealth bomber - an ion of modern sci/tech
looks - does and is evil. It might be very cleaver - but it delivers death
in the night - unseen - its and angel of death. When the USA portays war -
and even some of the anti Vietnam films - the enemy is like the Indians of
old, faceless personless clones - with no hopes or fears - no human emotion-
and so can be slaughtered. If you keep your emotions out of your sci/tech -
then you end up with cities without emotion - which plunder the world for
its resources.
>
> Actually doing physics/math/tech is exactly like dealing with the physical
> world on a day to day practical level, just more concentrated.
Actually doing Physics/math/tech is like black magic.
Too dense! So a physicist working on the Iraq bomb had such a wall? You
cannot serve two masters.
>
> All my embedded processors that I've every done were all Hare Krishnas -
> being multitasking they all needed a backround task that ran when no other
> tasks were running. Due to lack of imagination I made them cycle through
the
> hare krishna chant as the backround task, and I always had a orange LED
> blink in time with the finger-symbols. I did this to give the processor an
> opportunity to liberate itself.
>
I read this and wonder is it worth bothering to try to reply?
The Altair was the first i used - then the Commodore PET 4K ram !
Hemda
A bit perlexed. Finding it hard to combine together all the
automata-like features of your text (probably got that wrong too). My
neurons are faulty no doubt. Or maybe by not understanding I can
preseve a notion of "Self". My self.
Myself I am more into automatons, and i only take in as much "pomo" as
is neaded for art-critisism.
It's good you stopped reading books.
James Whitehead
"Hemda" <numa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5a9e45c0.03080...@posting.google.com...
But he is a un-reconstituted modernist of the
work-bench-approach-to-everything school. As for your original question i
don't see how it relates to art criticism - unless you want to adopt some
modernist critique of art? The art critic first needs a public - to perform
to. I think the best approach is to make light of the art - then one has the
feeling of both irony and truth - remember the art world is dominated by
intellectual giants of the like of Sir Elton John and Madonna.
An answer given in the form you asked to your original question would be
open to whatever interpretation you could give it.
Mounard le Fougueux
Definition of texture:
tex·ture
1.. A structure of interwoven fibers or other elements.
2.. The distinctive physical composition or structure of something,
especially with respect to the size, shape, and arrangment of its parts: the
texture of sandy soil; the texture of cooked fish.
3..
1.. The appearance and feel of a surface: the smooth texture of soap.
2.. A rough or grainy surface quality: Brick walls give a room texture.
4.. Distinctive or identifying quality or character: "an intensely
meditative poet [who] conveys the religious and cultural texture of time
spent in a Benedictine monastery" (New York Times).
5.. The quality given to a piece of art, literature, or music by the
interrelationship of its elements: "The baroque influence in his music is
clear here, with the harmonic complexity and texture" (Rachelle Roe).
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin textra, from textus, past
participle of texere, to weave. See text.]
Definition: of text:
text (tkst)
n.
1..
1.. The original words of something written or printed, as opposed to a
paraphrase, translation, revision, or condensation.
2.. The words of a speech appearing in print.
3.. Words, as of a libretto, that are set to music in a composition.
4.. Words treated as data by a computer.
2.. The body of a printed work as distinct from headings and illustrative
matter on a page or from front and back matter in a book.
3.. One of the editions or forms of a written work: After examining all
three manuscripts, he published a new text of the poem.
4.. Something, such as a literary work or other cultural product, regarded
as an object of critical analysis.
5.. A passage from the Scriptures or another authoritative source chosen
for the subject of a discourse or cited for support in argument.
6.. A passage from a written work used as the starting point of a
discussion.
7.. A subject; a topic.
8.. A textbook.
[Middle English texte, from Old French, from Late Latin textus, written
account, from Latin, structure, context, body of a passage, from past
participle of texere, to weave, fabricate. See teks- in Indo-European
Roots.]
So therefore ways in which texture preceeds text:
1. texture requires a "weaving device" - i.e. "the Loom". The loom is the
machine used to create woven thread patterns. The modern computer had its
origins in holerith punch cards originally used to "program" looms. The loom
is much like a printing press, in that it needs to be programmed (typeset)
and its output is text. That is text is naturally a manufactured product and
needs a manufacturing device. Its texture is due to the process of
manufacture - paper, velumn, computer, etc. These machines (including the
brain) give the text "physical presence"
2. texture also refers to physical composition. Beside the actual
physical/chemial makup of the text, the text is also composed of ideas,
rules of thought and metanarrative - or frame of reference. These frames or
metanarratives preceed the text and give it meaning or "mental presence"
3. texture also refers to how something feels to the sense. Feeling is
associated with emotion. The (some would say) dominant "feel" of
postmodernism is "paranoia" or "panic" steming from dislocation of
disorientation. The author Thomas Pynchon (who studied engineering, by the
way, and so "knows") is a canonical example of paranoia and panic in
postmodern literature. Why don't you plagarize from the following web sites:
http://www.freedonia.com/panic/panic_contents.html
4. "Texture" comes form the latin/old french past participle of the same
word as "text" and thus preceeds it gramatically.
"Too-too-tweet"
"Hemda" <numa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5a9e45c0.03080...@posting.google.com...
Hemda
to do with what I'm writing, as much as I'd like to bend it to fit.
My essay is about photography. As is shown by Roland Barthe, a photo
can be refered to as text, but of a unique kind: it is a message
without a code. Moreover, it is related to written text, somehow, on
another level (a photo usually has some kind of title or description
atached to it).
Texture is a feature of images; texture can also be synonymous to
visibilty, which is a feature of the real.
Some contemporary photographers, to my view, stretch the non-coded
charcteristic of this medium by receding to texture. Theire aim is to
anialate text.
Could this be?
G*rd*n
You know, to some extend ol' Roland is a wise-ass, fond of
making excessively absolute and apodictic remarks. It is by
no means an established truth that a given photograph, or
any other picture, lacks a code, or that it is necessarily
linked with another text, such as a description of title. A
famous instance of a picture which is clearly coded is
Weegee's photograph of two men in the back of a paddy wagon
holding their hats between their faces and the camera.
The word _texture_ is broadly applied, generally to denote
common superficial characteristics over an area or a set of
phenomena, as in "the texture of suburban life". One could
say that most of Weegee's work has a distinct texture which
supports the coding of the items -- for example, in the
instance I mentioned, Weegee's news-camera mid-20th-century
life-of-the-streets urban texture helps us understand that
the two men are supposed to be arrested, probably professional
criminals (they're wearing suits) taken in some Mafia-targeted
raid. No doubt it's about two in the morning.... The
arrestees are cool but prudent; they know how to close
themselves off from the public. (In fact, I believe the
pictures was posed.)
As for photographers (and others working in the plastic
arts) attempting to avoid the textual, apparently human
beings are text-discovering, code-supposing animals who, if
deprived of texts and codes, will create them _ad_hoc_, as
witness the great weight of verbiage generated around abstract
expressionism. If objects are omitted from a texture, then
the texture itself becomes an object, often a rather tedious
one.
Mounard le Fougueux
Very true - must be why a tv set tuned to pure static is so beautiful.
You know, I've always suspected photography as being a type of performance
art, who transform their view of the world into "events" just simply by
showing up with cameras. I've got this acquaintence who shows up to supposed
important events with a whole neckfull of camera apperatus - huge lenses,
light meters, etc. He ususlly makes a big scene by forcing everyone from
acting naturally and "posing" for his camera. He seems, by virtue as holding
a camera, to make people bend to his will in a way they ordinarily wouldn't
if he didn't have a camera - his camera becomes his badge and empowerment.
Actually he's purely both an amateur and his results are amateurish, but
that doesn't matter.
Most other artists seem to do their "staging" and thinking in private - in
their studios, at their computer, etc. But photographers are sort of like
public performers or provacateurs (i suppose) whose performance art seems
crucial to their photographic art.
The same "shock and awe" that early photographers inspired in their Fiji
island native "subjects" by being able to show then actually still "real"
images of their deceased relatives and neighbors is still inspired presently
by photographers in modern society - we just have a better adjusted
technical and cultural language to deal with it - but the shock and awe
remains.
Modern warfare is dominated by real-time image capture and display - be it
radar, Infrared , visible spectrum, cartographic or traffic control - the
C-cubed - command, control and communications.
The modern war in iraq therefore reminds me that modern warfare is just a
hyper-version of the photographers trade - not capturing images to bring the
dead back to life, but capturing images to make the living become dead -
visualize the jet fighter acquiring his target into view - pressing the
"fire" button and witnessing the subsequent dectruction of a scene and all
its inhabitants. All while being broadcast in real-time to his miltary
commanders and CNN and subsequently the entire world population (the
military always gets the most advanced and coolest technology first!).
I always thought that public executions were the real origins and
predecessor of photography and not painting. Public executions had a public
and realtime scene, staging and "message".
Hemda
Watch out!
Art needs talking about. Art without blah blah is dead. But when
talking, or rather wrting about art, a measure of metaphor is needed.
In taht case, both text and texture are aplied in order to talk about
something else. I have no idea What.