play–our play–was invented by nature. to strengthen and train the body. to
learn survival skills. to learn the social order. to learn or play by the
rules of the game not always the hard way.
cheating is an advanced form of play.
a sense of justice is yet more advanced. it does not arise simply from play,
in the way cheating does, but from awareness of the larger contexts of the
play, the drama, and a multi-perspectival approach to fairness, or fair
play.
many animals play, for the above sorts of reasons. play works. play is
reinforced. play survives.
ja
http://vispo.com
our play was invented by nature
-
Type: discussion
Comments
—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Jim Andrews
Sent: zondag 30 september 2007 12:31
To: [email protected]
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: our play was invented by nature
play–our play–was invented by nature. to strengthen and train the body. to
learn survival skills. to learn the social order. to learn or play by the
rules of the game not always the hard way.
cheating is an advanced form of play.
a sense of justice is yet more advanced. it does not arise simply from play,
in the way cheating does, but from awareness of the larger contexts of the
play, the drama, and a multi-perspectival approach to fairness, or fair
play.
many animals play, for the above sorts of reasons. play works. play is
reinforced. play survives.
ja
http://vispo.com
[dv:—]
Invented would assume intelligence within nature which has a few nasty rings
to my ear but otherwise I do like the sound of this Jim, having it uncut I
mean instead of wrapped in a rather pointless opposition of humanly crafted
against the supposedly uncorrupt nature, a pastoral illusion for all I know
Besides the cheating part resonates fairly well with a text I just wrote,
here at
http://nkdee.blogspot.com/2007/09/mock-up-and-cheating-at-writing.html
Intended more for a strictly literary oriented audience perhaps, this is a
test-run for a kind of rhetoric that would be more suitable to our present
condition than the waving of terms like modernism or avant-garde or even
cult, alternative what-have-you, things that surprisingly enough are still
widely used, even and especially among the literary gifted who should know
better by now, one would think.
It still surprises me everyday how little the established world of
literature cares about the radically changes aspects of writing, and if they
do start to care they revert to these silly ideas about avant-gardism,
battle and victory of Truth over Darkness, which _finally_ debases every
reader into a thickheaded swallower or follower of the one and only Big
Guide to Salvation. On the other hand the tradition of well crafted
literature isn't something you'd want to altogether throw away, or even
tamper with more than was required, I mean who needs any normative rhetorics
anyway.
Still I believe some kind of adapted rhetorical play ought to be inited at
this point replacing the old answers to the need for clarity in the minds of
readers, common or uncommon. Without the need for progress to some Glorious
End we still need to _progress_, proceed I mean in an inspiring and joyous
manner, or we might just all end up in smelly muddy waters yelling I'm the
man to each other.
But then, to end on a more pessimistic note, perhaps it is still way too
difficult to read onscreen what is altogether much too easy to write away,
safe for further linking to a any nearly non-existent reader, or to the
uncaring Reader of All.
So that we're just running our head off into a future that is comfortably
writing itself. Anyway if our play was in any way invented for us (we could
also fool ourselves into believing just that as a required suspension of
disbelief), I'd say it's our turn to make a move just about …
now. But then, isn't it always?
Dirk Vekemans
Belgium
www.vilt.net/nkdee
www.viltdigitalvision.com
> Invented would assume intelligence within nature which has a few
> nasty rings
> to my ear
yes. i agree. do we say, then, that our play has no inventor? no
'intelligent designer', not 'intelligent' in any conventional sense other
than perhaps some taoist notion where the tao is the way of water that
follows the path of gravity. not so much 'intelligent' as 'processual'?
am reading 'the blind watchmaker' at the mo by richard dawkins. written in
the eighties. very well done. it purports to explain how some biological
wonders –that are so seeminly 'well-designed' (such as eyes and bat
sonar)–can have evolved with no 'intelligent designer'. he's doing an
admirable job of it, so far.
> but otherwise I do like the sound of this Jim, having it uncut I
> mean instead of wrapped in a rather pointless opposition of
> humanly crafted
> against the supposedly uncorrupt nature, a pastoral illusion for
> all I know
>
> Besides the cheating part resonates fairly well with a text I just wrote,
> here at
>
> http://nkdee.blogspot.com/2007/09/mock-up-and-cheating-at-writing.html
>
>
> Intended more for a strictly literary oriented audience perhaps,
> this is a
> test-run for a kind of rhetoric that would be more suitable to our present
> condition than the waving of terms like modernism or avant-garde or even
> cult, alternative what-have-you, things that surprisingly enough are still
> widely used, even and especially among the literary gifted who should know
> better by now, one would think.
interesting. i've read several people saying that there is no avant garde
now. in the sense that the term 'avant garde' typically describes art that
is primarily reactive against a status quo of art. the idea being that there
is no status quo of art now.
it's an interesting argument, but i'm not so sure it holds. first, i don't
think of the avant garde as existing primarily as reactive against the
status quo. it can have a more positive primary direction/motivation, which
may or may not be in conflict with the general trends of society at the
moment. and that is to experiment with the content and materials at hand
towards art with relevance and strength. sometimes such art makes it to a
wider audience, sometimes it doesn't.
> It still surprises me everyday how little the established world of
> literature cares about the radically changes aspects of writing,
> and if they
> do start to care they revert to these silly ideas about avant-gardism,
> battle and victory of Truth over Darkness, which _finally_ debases every
> reader into a thickheaded swallower or follower of the one and only Big
> Guide to Salvation. On the other hand the tradition of well crafted
> literature isn't something you'd want to altogether throw away, or even
> tamper with more than was required, I mean who needs any
> normative rhetorics
> anyway.
>
> Still I believe some kind of adapted rhetorical play ought to be
> inited at
> this point replacing the old answers to the need for clarity in
> the minds of
> readers, common or uncommon. Without the need for progress to
> some Glorious
> End we still need to _progress_, proceed I mean in an inspiring and joyous
> manner, or we might just all end up in smelly muddy waters
> yelling I'm the
> man to each other.
>
> But then, to end on a more pessimistic note, perhaps it is still way too
> difficult to read onscreen what is altogether much too easy to write away,
> safe for further linking to a any nearly non-existent reader, or to the
> uncaring Reader of All.
> So that we're just running our head off into a future that is comfortably
> writing itself. Anyway if our play was in any way invented for us
> (we could
> also fool ourselves into believing just that as a required suspension of
> disbelief), I'd say it's our turn to make a move just about …
>
>
> now. But then, isn't it always?
>
> Dirk Vekemans
> Belgium
Ha. Yes.
The notion that eyes and bat sonar and the countless other truly uplifting,
amazing 'designs' of nature are created without an intelligent designer, or
even a designer at all, are important not only to science and evolutionary
biology, but to art in the sense that we are at a point where we need to
understand how this can be. Not just intellectually understand it, but
understand it intuitively and through art. Generative art. Algorithmic art.
Where the beauty is mainly in the emergent behavior.
ja
http://vispo.com
play–our play–was invented by nature. to strengthen and train the body. to
learn survival skills. to learn the social order. to learn or play by the
rules of the game not always the hard way.
cheating is an advanced form of play.
a sense of justice is yet more advanced. it does not arise simply from play,
in the way cheating does, but from awareness of the larger contexts of the
play, the drama, and a multi-perspectival approach to fairness, or fair
play.
many animals play, for the above sorts of reasons. play works. play is
reinforced. play survives.
——————–
no. it wasn't invented by nature. it was invented by anyone or anything. it
evolved.
when you exercise, you find what feels good. what has the feel your body
needs. like when you stretch, when you're tired. your body needs that. your
body wants that. the body needs movement in those ways. play evolves like
that, as though out of the needs of growth and maintenance of the body, of
what you were made to do. but even that suggests a designer.
put on to do list: understand the emergent. understand the emergent without
designer.
ja
http://vispo.com
Likewise play within the growth has no levels.
Code running within running code levels out to code (running).
Valorizing any plane of consistency within there (assuming it has
established itself as an 'in') as 'art' or any other economic category
takes energy.
A whole lot of energy. The model is exemplified by SL.
The ratio is the amount of money (the people, the play, the horror) spent to
generate one dollar for Mr. Lynden. In information science this can be
calculated (Shannon).
Within growth there is time for play, but time is part of growth.
The dichotomy human-machine is a human one.
The dichotomy machine-nature is a human one.
The dichotomy human-nature is a human one.
Within growth there is time for play (excess of the Real). There is no need
to focus on the lack (a fiction applied within the Real).
But (any) growth is fragile.
And time is running out.
-dv
—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Jim Andrews
Sent: maandag 1 oktober 2007 7:45
To: [email protected]
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: re: our play was invented by nature
play–our play–was invented by nature. to strengthen and train the body. to
learn survival skills. to learn the social order. to learn or play by the
rules of the game not always the hard way.
cheating is an advanced form of play.
a sense of justice is yet more advanced. it does not arise simply from play,
in the way cheating does, but from awareness of the larger contexts of the
play, the drama, and a multi-perspectival approach to fairness, or fair
play.
many animals play, for the above sorts of reasons. play works. play is
reinforced. play survives.
——————–
no. it wasn't invented by nature. it was invented by anyone or anything. it
evolved.
when you exercise, you find what feels good. what has the feel your body
needs. like when you stretch, when you're tired. your body needs that. your
body wants that. the body needs movement in those ways. play evolves like
that, as though out of the needs of growth and maintenance of the body, of
what you were made to do. but even that suggests a designer.
put on to do list: understand the emergent. understand the emergent without
designer.
ja
http://vispo.com
+
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> 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
even impliccations about theories with numbers…yes b is impossible
35 years,35 million for books yes every body loves 35 those what a fuck is it?i know 35 bonus appears 3 million then it is which is impossible.Bonus is affective theory
three nfor affective theot is impossible
Dirk Vekemans <[email protected]> wrote:
Likewise play within the growth has no levels.
Code running within running code levels out to code (running).
Valorizing any plane of consistency within there (assuming it has
established itself as an 'in') as 'art' or any other economic category
takes energy.
A whole lot of energy. The model is exemplified by SL.
The ratio is the amount of money (the people, the play, the horror) spent to
generate one dollar for Mr. Lynden. In information science this can be
calculated (Shannon).
Within growth there is time for play, but time is part of growth.
The dichotomy human-machine is a human one.
The dichotomy machine-nature is a human one.
The dichotomy human-nature is a human one.
Within growth there is time for play (excess of the Real). There is no need
to focus on the lack (a fiction applied within the Real).
But (any) growth is fragile.
And time is running out.
-dv
—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Jim Andrews
Sent: maandag 1 oktober 2007 7:45
To: [email protected]
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: re: our play was invented by nature
play–our play–was invented by nature. to strengthen and train the body. to
learn survival skills. to learn the social order. to learn or play by the
rules of the game not always the hard way.
cheating is an advanced form of play.
a sense of justice is yet more advanced. it does not arise simply from play,
in the way cheating does, but from awareness of the larger contexts of the
play, the drama, and a multi-perspectival approach to fairness, or fair
play.
many animals play, for the above sorts of reasons. play works. play is
reinforced. play survives.
——————–
no. it wasn't invented by nature. it was invented by anyone or anything. it
evolved.
when you exercise, you find what feels good. what has the feel your body
needs. like when you stretch, when you're tired. your body needs that. your
body wants that. the body needs movement in those ways. play evolves like
that, as though out of the needs of growth and maintenance of the body, of
what you were made to do. but even that suggests a designer.
put on to do list: understand the emergent. understand the emergent without
designer.
ja
http://vispo.com
+
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> 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
+
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> 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
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
even impliccations about theories with numbers…yes b is impossible
35 years,35 million for books yes every body loves 35 those what a fuck is it?i know 35 bonus appears 3 million then it is which is impossible.Bonus is affective theory
three nfor affective theot is impossible
Dirk Vekemans <[email protected]> wrote:
Likewise play within the growth has no levels.
Code running within running code levels out to code (running).
Valorizing any plane of consistency within there (assuming it has
established itself as an 'in') as 'art' or any other economic category
takes energy.
A whole lot of energy. The model is exemplified by SL.
The ratio is the amount of money (the people, the play, the horror) spent to
generate one dollar for Mr. Lynden. In information science this can be
calculated (Shannon).
Within growth there is time for play, but time is part of growth.
The dichotomy human-machine is a human one.
The dichotomy machine-nature is a human one.
The dichotomy human-nature is a human one.
Within growth there is time for play (excess of the Real). There is no need
to focus on the lack (a fiction applied within the Real).
But (any) growth is fragile.
And time is running out.
-dv
—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Jim Andrews
Sent: maandag 1 oktober 2007 7:45
To: [email protected]
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: re: our play was invented by nature
play–our play–was invented by nature. to strengthen and train the body. to
learn survival skills. to learn the social order. to learn or play by the
rules of the game not always the hard way.
cheating is an advanced form of play.
a sense of justice is yet more advanced. it does not arise simply from play,
in the way cheating does, but from awareness of the larger contexts of the
play, the drama, and a multi-perspectival approach to fairness, or fair
play.
many animals play, for the above sorts of reasons. play works. play is
reinforced. play survives.
——————–
no. it wasn't invented by nature. it was invented by anyone or anything. it
evolved.
when you exercise, you find what feels good. what has the feel your body
needs. like when you stretch, when you're tired. your body needs that. your
body wants that. the body needs movement in those ways. play evolves like
that, as though out of the needs of growth and maintenance of the body, of
what you were made to do. but even that suggests a designer.
put on to do list: understand the emergent. understand the emergent without
designer.
ja
http://vispo.com
+
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> 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
+
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> 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
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com