[NetBehaviour] code dialog, comments welcome

Dion Laurent dion at dionlaurent.com
Wed Aug 1 07:16:39 CEST 2007


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" <sondheim at panix.com>
To: <netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
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
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> 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
>
> 





More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list