www.nettime.org
Nettime mailing list archives

<nettime> Re: Code and its Double [3x]
noemata on Sun, 15 Feb 2004 14:27:30 +0100 (CET)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> Re: Code and its Double [3x]


Table of Contents:

   Re: Code and its Double (in relation to brain asymmetry)                        
     noemata <noemata {AT} kunst.no>                                                      

   Re: Code and its Double (in relation to brain asymmetry)                        
     noemata <noemata {AT} kunst.no>                                                      

   Re: Code and its Double (in relation to brain asymmetry)                        
     noemata <noemata {AT} kunst.no>                                                      



------------------------------

Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:06:14 +0100
From: noemata <noemata {AT} kunst.no>
Subject: Re: Code and its Double (in relation to brain asymmetry)

14/02/2004 18:00:46, Alan Sondheim <sondheim {AT} PANIX.COM> wrote:

>One thing I'm not sure about - what is the 'Double' of code? Can you give
>an exact definition here?

Probably not, I'm using different notions both of 'double' and 'code' in 
the notes, working from intuition they're left-handed writings (ie also 
haphazardly).

The 'double' of code is the code's refraction, reflection, diffusion, 
contamination, connotation into the matter code run on - the two-fold 
input/output as recursive - more than being deconstructed components, the 
components would be coded themselves, and both feeding back and 
deconstructing further, being closer to its matter and having other 
characteristics thereof, like the right hemisphere, which is less focal but 
have more immersion, another speed and spectrum.

Another hinge was code as time and space components, which correlates to 
code as both instruction and data.

How all adds up in philosophy, semiotics, informatics, I'm not sure. The 
point is probably to get to a notion of 'code' and codework which is 
inclusive to a lot of phenomena being understood differently in different 
contexts. I'm thinking of 'code' as something inherently two-fold, that's 
the basic notion. The two-fold could be expressed in different ways, like 
brain asymmetry as a biological fundamental, or as jokes for that matter, 
punning codework, or other dialectic workings, phenomenology.

More specifically and in relation to a codework notion, the 'double' takes 
a more prominent place and makes up the more interesting stuff, which 
depend on the code and the matter - the performatives, executions into 
which contexts - which would not be interesting were it only for decoding, 
parsing, and straightforward interpretation, where the key is known and the 
matter/context also too well-defined, rigid, etc to produce an immersion or 
'doubling' contamination with the matter, which then is expanded into a 
'space' - the point of correlating code to running time and the double to 
expanding space. Those are general concepts and could have other names in 
other frameworks.

This is my understanding somewhat. Hope it is to some help, for lack of 
being exact, hopefully it could give some ideas to a notion of codework.


- --B.

>I'm thinking of Eco's Theory of Semiotics, in which 'code' is technically
>deconstructed into its components.
>
>For example language is double-coded, alphabetically, and syntactically,
>if I remember correctly. Morse is a one-to-one code, an equivalence
>mapping; Chinese characters, if they are considered code, are one-to-many,
>etc. There are mathematical issues. There are also ontological issues -
>the equivalence of Morse remains within the same plane, but syntax to
>semantic reading (characters) are problematic in this regard.
>
>One also has to distinguish between code, automated code parsers, and code
>interpreters.
>
>- Alan
>





------------------------------

Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 03:20:04 +0100
From: noemata <noemata {AT} kunst.no>
Subject: Re: Code and its Double (in relation to brain asymmetry)

15/02/2004 01:10:47, Alan Sondheim <sondheim {AT} PANIX.COM> wrote:

>Do you mean 'double' or 'aura' or connotation? I'm a bit lost although I
>like the idea. Usually the double in code is its equivalent or its
>decoding; Eco speaks of double-coding in relation to language.
>Take a sample of morse code or a codework, perhaps, and analyze it
>accordingly? I'm not trying to be difficult; I'm trying to understand what
>you're saying here, beyond a notion of duality, yin/yang, l/r, etc.

OK, but there is no equivalence or decoding - the impossibility of self-
reference and transparency - the 'double' expresses this and is 
incorporated into the notion of 'code' as its double-nature - it can't get 
rid of its shadow. 

That would be true about alot of things, so what's special about code and 
codework in regard to artwork or other cultural phenomena? Because of the 
closer interweaving, the intermingling of instruction and data on the same 
level, side by side, on the same tape, in the same work, close as to be the 
same thing - whereas in other arts you'd have a more clear distinction of 
what is surface and what is meaning, appearance and semantics. In codework 
this is collapsed into one because of the virtuality, performativity, of 
running - the inseparability of appearance and meaning, though it is still 
a double. The double code is both symbol and matter and you don't 
necessarily know what is what, both can be both - what is instruction-code 
and what is data-code is solely decided by interpretation - whereas in 
other arts you'd have more things to help you out, like the physicality of 
the medium. So by this close and virtual circuit it could be imagined at 
the heart of artwork, having the same characteristics and functionings, but 
by its collapse into a one double being both more transparent and more 
problematic - 'transparent' as in exposing its own shadow (again the 
impossiblility of self-reference), and 'problematic' as in not giving clear 
interpretations (the impossibility and the collapse of interpretation).

I'm using 'code' both as 'instruction' and as 'data', maybe that's 
confusing, but that's also my point - they are two sides of code that 
cannot be separated, on contrary, it's the characteristic of it, and of 
codework, which could be reflected in the idea of its double-nature.


Bjorn



------------------------------

Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 10:32:08 +0100
From: noemata <noemata {AT} kunst.no>
Subject: Re: Code and its Double (in relation to brain asymmetry)

15/02/2004 05:07:11, Alan Sondheim <sondheim {AT} PANIX.COM> wrote:

>Well, but they are separated - I think John Cayley talked about that.
>Performing code is running and invisible; what appears on the screen as
>residue or instruction or etc. etc. (I did that typology) isn't
>performative at all, but is part of the text. It may disrupt the
>traditional semantics of the text but it's definitely part of it.

OK, they're separated, but you wouldn't have the one without the other. 
A running, invisible code alone is meaningless, like text/residue alone is 
blind. As code it would not be interesting I guess, it's the doubling, 
interweaving, and/or collaps of the two that's essential to code (I'm using 
'code' and 'codework' interchangingly).

>It's the 'double' expression that troubles me - there need not even be a
>relationship among surface code and performative code -

But code always has the two sides of performance and surface, they're inherent 
and essential to code to a greater degree than other arts. The relationship is 
always there - if it's invisible or 'blind' it might only mean it's not 
interesting as code(work).

>Why impossibility of self-reference? I'm thinking of obvious counter-
>examples, the glider in life for example that can reproduce itself.

I'd say because it's mattered. Only the model, or pure code, could be strictly 
self-referenced. But by code(work)'s double-nature there's always matter, 
space, residue.

>What you call shadow and the material you call 'double' I'd call aura or
>residue or detritus.

Maybe refering to the same, but the words imply something passive, mere 
generated, and/or surplus matter. A point in bringing in the brain model is to 
view the residue as a processing in itself but of another kind than the code 
processing:

- - Brain asymmetry summary: From these basic ideas about distinct
functions of the two hemispheres has arisen the idea that the
hemispheres represent two distinct modes of cognitive processing (see
Springer and Deutch).The left hemisphere operates in a more
logical,analytical,computer-like fashion,analyzing stimuli input
sequentially and abstracting the relevant details to which it attaches
verbal labels.The right hemisphere is primarily a synthesizer,more
concerned with the overall stimulus configuration,and organizes and
processes information as gestalts,or wholes.*

Comment: Brain asymmetry correlations to codework, jot version:
    - Left hemisphere - time, analysis, language, symbol, code, text,
    instruction, execution, .....
    - Right hemisphere - space, synthesis, matter, text, data, ambience,
    context, surface, code, diffusion, .....

Regarding codework these are the two sides of what you call code and residue. 
And like the brain you better have both to make some meaning out of things - 
like the left alone is meaningless and the right alone is blind. These are 
just two sides of codework, so what is residue in one state could be code in 
another, and the code is obviously residue in another state. That's something 
special to codework in relation to other artworks, that the residue can be 
code in another state, while, for instance, the matter of a painting would 
have to stay matter.

>_Running_ code doesn't have a shadow - in a sense it's ideal or pure
>process riding in silicon valleys...

OK, but pure running code is meaningless, it's like tautology, A=A. On the 
other side - pure filth, residue, shadow is blind. Are they interesting as 
codeworks?


- --Bjorn

>On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, noemata wrote:
>
>> 15/02/2004 01:10:47, Alan Sondheim <sondheim {AT} PANIX.COM> wrote:
>>
>> >Do you mean 'double' or 'aura' or connotation? I'm a bit lost although I
>> >like the idea. Usually the double in code is its equivalent or its
>> >decoding; Eco speaks of double-coding in relation to language.
>> >Take a sample of morse code or a codework, perhaps, and analyze it
>> >accordingly? I'm not trying to be difficult; I'm trying to understand what
>> >you're saying here, beyond a notion of duality, yin/yang, l/r, etc.
>>
>> OK, but there is no equivalence or decoding - the impossibility of self-
>> reference and transparency - the 'double' expresses this and is
>> incorporated into the notion of 'code' as its double-nature - it can't get
>> rid of its shadow.
>>
>> That would be true about alot of things, so what's special about code and
>> codework in regard to artwork or other cultural phenomena? Because of the
>> closer interweaving, the intermingling of instruction and data on the same
>> level, side by side, on the same tape, in the same work, close as to be the
>> same thing - whereas in other arts you'd have a more clear distinction of
>> what is surface and what is meaning, appearance and semantics. In codework
>> this is collapsed into one because of the virtuality, performativity, of
>> running - the inseparability of appearance and meaning, though it is still
>> a double. The double code is both symbol and matter and you don't
>> necessarily know what is what, both can be both - what is instruction-code
>> and what is data-code is solely decided by interpretation - whereas in
>> other arts you'd have more things to help you out, like the physicality of
>> the medium. So by this close and virtual circuit it could be imagined at
>> the heart of artwork, having the same characteristics and functionings, but
>> by its collapse into a one double being both more transparent and more
>> problematic - 'transparent' as in exposing its own shadow (again the
>> impossiblility of self-reference), and 'problematic' as in not giving clear
>> interpretations (the impossibility and the collapse of interpretation).
>>
>> I'm using 'code' both as 'instruction' and as 'data', maybe that's
>> confusing, but that's also my point - they are two sides of code that
>> cannot be separated, on contrary, it's the characteristic of it, and of
>> codework, which could be reflected in the idea of its double-nature.
>>
>>
>> Bjorn
>>






------------------------------

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net