Alan Sondheim on Mon, 14 Mar 2005 02:22:06 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> Re: [_arc.hive_] Re: On Code and Codework |
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005, [windows-1252] Bj=F8rn Magnhild=F8en wrote: You're right about the entities; I should have stated at x, y, z, are independent, classical Aristotelian entities. > But isn't this where meaning is produced, contrary to eg. a tautology? > So it would be to go to the source of meaning, and making a problem > out of it, as long as it's not self-evident, which it isn't because > the source is lost or already coded. No, entanglement is different, inseparable. If I do a sieve and produce primes I'm saying something that's fairly clear within well-defined domains. > I'm linking it back to to the anecdotial of 'not having a real basis'. > It's a false link. And I don't understand the 'real' of 'real basis.' > It's kind of a paradox in the middle of propositional logic - > X | X :: -X (|=3DSheffer's stroke) > X operated onto itself gives its negation, x|x=3D-x. > Or equivalent, with the same truthtable - > X | -X :: -X > X and its negation gives its negation. Or like - > -X | -X :: X > Sheffer's stroke could be viewed as a binary negation operator, and since > it's expressional complete, the core of propositional logic, producing its > own negation. But it's not a negation operator, that's -. And it's precisely that the Shef. & dual _aren't_ paradoxes but functions, operators, that makes it worthwhile to consider further. There's also Nicod's theorem, but that's more difficult to unpack. > Btw, it's a bit like complex numbers, having a real and an imaginary > part, where the imaginary ,i, is defined as the square root of -1, so > i squared is -1. Could it be another approach to view code similary as > a complex entity with a real and an imaginary part? It's imaginary > because it's not real, and still the calculations make sense, via 'an > imaginary bridge' as Musil writes somewhere, paraphrased, you begin in > the real and you're doing all these things in the imaginary which in > the end, surprisingly, leaves you in the real. Ah well.. For me, this is again a metaphor with problematic metaphysics behind it. There's nothing imaginary one way or another about code; it's real, just a different ontology, like a prime number is ontologically different than a stone; on the macro-level they're within different domains. For me it's like seeing if you add four apples and three apples, you're jumping into the imaginary and out again. I think not, that all you're doing is mapping different ontological domains - which for me brings up, not meta- physics, but issues of threshold logic and the conceptual geometries I mentioned. You might want to order the Eco book, which talks about the different planes of code; it's an approach which I think is just about the only useful one, outside of formal, i.e. mathe- matical definitions. > - A subject is all input - what is subject-object is already lost in > transmission - Perhaps I'm subject, and perhaps I'm object - or I'm > certainly both, coded and coding - I lose you here. I don't think it has anything to do with subject/object or all input. I'm talking about praxis. Encoding produces something that doesn't look back. You translate out of Morse, you have a message. The source or coding methodology are irrelevant. On the other hand, if you're coding, you're concerned with articulation on a different plane. > Not sure, encoding - the passive/tacit, that code has the effect of > pacifying us by being the active/visible/promulgated, while encoding - > disapperance of code - would support more interaction - correlate our > functioning? I was thinking, suppose A writes a program x; then B uses the program with input y -> x -> y' or some such. So B's concerned obviously with y' - or rather, y' goes out to C - as happens when you do something with code and send out the result. C has y', doesn't have x or y, they may be of interest, but y' stands by itself. On the other hand, A is concerned with x, with the ongoing articulation; A produces a structure which is somewhat 'in-itself', perhaps almost a parasitic process on y. For B, encoding is passive, just happening; someone knows a software program really well, but doesn't know how it's made, etc. Like driving a car. For A, on the other hand, it's the interiority that's critical, the aesthetics of the code, etc. - Alan # 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@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net