Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the random:errata

Schwarzgestirn-Schwarm, by all means.
Sorry.

Dirk Vekemans, poet - freelance webprogrammer,
Central Authoring Process of the
Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee

[email protected]

http://www.vilt.net
http://www.viltdigitalvision.com



> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
> Van: Dirk Vekemans [mailto:[email protected]]
> Verzonden: woensdag 18 januari 2006 12:54
> Aan: 'Nad'; '[email protected]'
> Onderwerp: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the random
>
>
> > there is no great divide. there is even sometimes an overlap.
> > like look at generative arts: its pure math in the hand of an
> > math-untrained artist who combines it with aesthetic/whatever
> > considerations.
> > the goal is to get nice/conceptionally important/beautyful/whatever
> > output.
> > mathematical visualization is the same: its pure math and this time
> > the aesthetic/whatever considerations are in the hand of an
> > art-untrained mathematician.
> > the goal is (usually) to get important mathematical outcome
> (which is
> > "conceptionally important" to mathematicians). I know a lot of
> > mathematicians who spend much more time in choosing the colors for
> > their math viz piece than they should…
> > …and there are a lot of generative artists around who love to dig
> > out weird math….
>
> Yes, we can't keep our hands off anything. Like the Java
> Tools for Experimental Mathematics i found through one of
> your links at http://www.jtem.de/ . Njamies.
>
> > the important thing is to keep mutual respect for the different
> > disciplines. get me right-its good to ask and to think and
> use things,
> > also if you are not an expert.
> > so with being respectful i mean: you have to be really willing to
> > learn….and you may be erranous.
>
> Being wrong is excellent, it means you can learn, improve,
> expand, communicate.
> Mostly, artistically, when you're right (feel you're right)
> it means you're in a dead end somewhere.
> You need to _want_ to be right all the time, though and not
> have the prospect of you looking ridiculous hold you back.
> Art is meant to be aggressive in that way.
> Besides, we shouldn't be afraid of making stupid mistakes.
> Most of the time in programming is spent on making stupid
> mistakes, debugging your foolishness.
> Learning to live with that is the first thing you need to do.
> And sure, anything you do is bound to look completely
> ridiculous from some 'expert'
> point of view. That just means you can expand your concepts
> some more, that there's more field to cover, more debugging to do…
>
> Of course you need to resist the temptation of mapping
> anything you dream of to some superficial impressions you get
> from a field of knowledge by skipping through a few web
> pages. You don't need to do much, but do it thoroughly.
> Deleuze, the philosopher, has been known to make some serious
> mistakes when venturing outside his own field of clarity,
> into the realm of hard-boiled science. Mistakes like that are
> inavoidable. But his willingness to go there, and be serious
> about it, has been enormously rewarding for everyone.
>
> One of the things scientist need to realise, perhaps, is
> that their wordings, the mental states underlying their hard
> work are equally tainted with fiction, human oddities and the
> restraints of the one tool we share: our brain. When you
> start using visualisation as a scientific method for
> instance, picking the colours can become a matter of bending
> the virtual reality your way. Its a matter of second level
> recursive processing: you're using code to construct models
> to visualise models of constructs of code in order to enhance
> your coding capabilities. In nature, when such processes are
> active, a tree can only become a tree, a desert is bound to
> look like a desert. But surely, a tree is not a tree : it
> cannot be reduced (by what Whitehead calls the fallacy of
> misplaced concreteness) to the object tree, or for that
> matter, the word tree. That would be arresting the recursive
> process in favour of manageability in another process,
> reducing the external determination of the process to random
> inputs. That's fine for modelling purposes, but when you're
> modelling you are partaking in a similar process of
> recursiveness. As much as we'd like to sometimes, we cannot
> eliminate time from our thinking itself.
>
> One can, however, engineer interruptions into these second
> level recursive behaviours. Interruptions are, in my
> Derridian-Heraclitian-Leibnizian textbook, incidents of
> absence mainly responsible for the creation of meaning.
> Interruptions are at the heart of poetic processes, they
> consume time instead of being consumed through it, they are
> the result of the fertile but equally aggressive acts of
> propagation of meaning. The word, each word, as a big bang.
> That btw, is also why our misery will always be one of an
> erotic nature. We'll always be running into things we make ourselves:
>
>
> GROSSE GLUHENDE WOLBUNG
> Mit dem sich
> Hinaus- und hinweg-
> Wuhlenden Scharzgestirn- Schwarm:
>
> DER VERKIESELTEN Stirn eines Widders
> Brenn ich dies Bild ein, zwischen
> Die Horner, darin
>
> In Gesang der Windungen, das
> Mark der geronnenen
> Herzmeere schwillt.
>
> Wo-
> Gegen
> Rennt er nicht an?
>
> Die Welt ist fort, ich muss dich tragen.
>
> (Paul Celan, Atemwende, 1967)
>
> dv
>
> > > Equally, mathematics, for those seriously into it, is an entirly
> > > different matter than what we think of based on school
> > experience, as
> > > you have previously attested to…
> > >
> >
> > yep-. and thats not only the mathematicians fault. I
> remember when my
> > sister (she is two years younger than me) suddenly had some
> basic set
> > theory in school. i was envying her for haveing such a nice
> math stuff
> > on the plate. but the kids parents and some politicians
> (that was in
> > bavaria, munich, seventies, franz-josef-strauss….) where
> completely
> > against it…so they abolished it again.
> > how stupid.
> >
> > ..and i remember my calculus students (umass, amherst usa) who
> > demanded to get "recipes" for solving some standard
> problems in order
> > to get through their exams….this is not mathematical
> thinking…this
> > is even not engineering, but a lot of calculus textbooks are built
> > like this.
> >
> > to be more precise lets say: the try and error method (try a recipe
> > and see wether it works) works well for a lot of standard
> things, but
> > well yes —it works usually for the STANDARD things.
> >
> > nad
> > +
> > -> 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
> >
>