Re: [-empyre-] multi-perspectival / cultural hegemony of space
indeed we can flog this particular horse endlessly, and you and i have
had discussions similar to this one in the past. just a few minor
clarifications and i'm willing to call it a day. firstly, i don't
believe in absolutes eithers. like the sophists, i believe in
probability, or the likelihood that something "is." does the fox in the
forest hear the tree fall or is it just a human that can? is it mammals
only or are insects included? in other words, does it require the
presence of the other for the one to exist? that is what i find highly
ps the answer to the pin question is obviously infinity, that is, if
angels knew how to dance in the first place. perhaps a better question
is what they would be dancing to. eminem?
Simon Biggs wrote:
> On 08.06.03 17:19, "John Klima" <email@example.com> wrote:
> > i often look to the transitional figures as they tend to explain alot
> > about both sides of thing they are transitioning (cezzane is another
> > favorite of mine). i always felt bosch to be more on the medieval side,
> > particularly the garden and its blatant, practically porno content.
> > perhaps it was easier to get over on the medieval censors because, after
> > all, it is a religious painting. to my knowledge, no other renaissance
> > artists were quite so "graphic" in their representations of heaven and
> > hell, what with all manner of things coming out of and going into all
> > manner of orifices.
> Botticelli's illustrations to Dante's "Inferno" aren't half bad, in this
> respect. Breughel also had his moments. A favourite of mine is "The Ship of
> Fools", which might indicate something as to how I see the world, although
> "The Allegory of the Blind Man Leading the Blind" is equally evocative.
> > if a tree falls in a forest it makes a sound whether i'm there or
> > not (and if a man says something and a woman is not there to hear it, he
> > *is* still wrong :).
> This is where we diverge philosophically. I am a big fan of the
> pre-Socratics mainly because they had no empirical methods to impede their
> imaginations. They explored what the world might be not via observation but
> through discovering which arguments sounded best...what we today call
> sophistry, which whilst derived from Sophocles' name actually refers to
> rhetorical methods pre-dating his dialectical approach. The advantage of the
> pre-Socratics though was that they never claimed to deal in absolutes. They
> never claimed to know the truth. They saw their roles as tragi-comic
> observers of the possible rather than the actual.
> I also have a lot of time for the Scholastic school of philosophy (Aquinas
> et el) for the same reasons. They really did argue about how many angels
> could dance on the head of a pin. Exploring their arguments can tell you
> more about human beings and what makes them tick than several books of
> empirically based psychology. This in turn illuminates what the world might
> be...note I do not say what the world is...I have no idea as to how one
> could arrive at a justification that would allow you to claim you know what
> the world is. That is why I am less ready to make the claim that the tree
> does make a sound when it falls.
> To take this issue into the realm where we make our lives, we could discuss
> the relationship between author and reader and the question of where the art
> comes into being. Is it made by the author or is it a function of
> reading...or is it a property of the author/reader interaction...or is it,
> in the Platonic sense, elsewhere, an absolute? Further to this, how does
> this relate to artworks that are generative, at least partially machine
> authored, often actively involve the reader in the production process (of at
> least an instance of a work) and in the case of 3D work literally exists
> depending upon your point of view?
> > well, we have got to get off this doomed rock sooner or later if the
> > species is to survive. whether or not this species deserves survival is
> > debatable.
> Highly debatable. My instinct is that the universe is better off if we do
> not find a way to the stars, just as the American Indians would have been
> better of if the Europeans had never invented the sail. That said, if the
> Moon is made of cheese at least we will not have to arrange long distance
> take out.
> > the times i've experienced a "plurality of perception" were when i was
> > on drugs. convincing though these experiences may be, they can't be
> > trusted.
> Why can't manipulated states of perception not be trusted? Why should a
> particular mode of perception be trusted above another? Is there any mode of
> perception that isn't manipulated or mediated in some manner? How can one
> argue that one mode should be dominant?
> > hmmm. hegemony, me thinks, is not an exclusively western phenomenon.
> Here we are in total agreement. Hegemony is hegemony, whether it is the
> Taliban, corporate Capitalism, Catholics, Zionists or, like your brother,
> Buddhists (although as a life-long atheist I have to admit that Buddhism is
> the only religion that even begins to make sense to me in that they have no
> deity, no absolutes and usually a good sense of humour). If Osama Bin Laden
> made all religions, ideologies and organising principles of collectivity his
> targets I would probably be his biggest fan. As it is he also sees the world
> through one eye, more or less as our own leaders do...
> ...which allows us to bring the discussion back to questions of 3D, as
> without stereo-vision important aspects of 3D perception are of course lost.
> Simon Biggs
> Research Professor
> Art and Design Research Centre
> Sheffield Hallam University, UK
> empyre forum
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and