RE: [-empyre-] the N-space

Hi Aliette & all,

Hm, this mail of mine reacting to GH's consice observations wasn't much more
than a real-time rendering of the slowness and sillyness of my thinking. The
absence of an undo button in mail conversations is a huge problem for petty
hackers like me. I'm sure mr Hovagimyan will have no trouble in locating the
delete button on it, i'd recommend that to anyone. You caught it on its way
to oblivion, Aliette, holding it out as an exhibit in an unmade case. You're
perfectly entitled to do so, but now i need to un-scribe its inscription
after the facts.

So to both emails, in  a dubious double self-perforation: 

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: 
> [] Namens Aliette 
> G. Certhoux
> Verzonden: zaterdag 11 maart 2006 4:53
> Aan: soft_skinned_space
> Onderwerp: Re: [-empyre-] the N-space
> To both emails
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dirk Vekemans" <>
> To: "'soft_skinned_space'" <>
> Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 1:58 AM
> Subject: RE: [-empyre-] the N-space
> > Correct me if i'm wrong, please, otherwise i'll be talking complete
> > nonsense
> > tomorrow:
> >
> > N-state, i think, refers to a time dimension.
> > N-space, i think, refers to a virtual mapping of this dimension,
> > containing
> > all mappings of previous states.
> > It's very topological,
> May be you are in a post-structural conception of the 
> relationship between
> time and space; because topology subject is not mapping nor 
> states but the
> question of continuum and of plasticity (as you quote of 
> haywire). That
> allows this field to approach the non euclidian surfaces and 
> spaces (for
> example the bottle of Klin) to tribute to actual Physics. 
> That suggests
> another conception of time and space time and precisely 
> working larger, as
> you tell but not exactly by the way you tell.

Oh but i didn't expect it to be exactly the way i tell it. I only wanted to
check if we were talking about the same things, because in my perception of
the discussion so far, the clarity of its fugal linearity much depends on
the non-linear basics of the N-State concept. Evidently you have a better
understanding allowing you to be more specific, i've only just begun to hack
my way into non-linear math starting a dummy trajectory at 
I'm doing that mainly because i think you can't draw any substantial
analogies without grasping some of the intricacies involved at close range.
Its the kind of sound advice someone like Munindar Sing gives to aspiring
architects of service-oriented computing (ISBN 0-470-09148-7, p xxvii),
wanting his students to make real world exercises while engaging them on a
very theoretical level. Playing around with non-linearity on the common
ground of programming is the kind of personal artistic research that works
for me, but i absolutely do not pretend the way that i go about things could
be useful for anybody else. I may hope that, secretly, but the point is the
Cathedral requires it.
The Cathedral requires it because i want to investigate the possibility of
extending Giordano Bruno's Geometry of Language as described by Arielle
Saiber's recent excellent publication (ISBN 07546 3321 7) to the spaces of
non-linearity. That, i sense, is a good trail towards approaching possible
'poetical algorhytms', the very object of the Cathedral as 'artistic
research'. My continuum, btw, has retained more of the Leibnizian continuum
in its Deleuzian rewrite as opposed to the discrete continuum prescribed by
producers of the ultimate fiction in a new science such as Wolfram. In spite
of the grandeur of these very 'modern' achievements, they are not valid
within the Cathedral.
So no, i plead innocence or ignorance to the charge of post-structuralism, i
think it 'd be more rewarding to view my private investigations as a
reflection of Schwitters' interest in  speculations on the fourth dimension,
i've been wanting to get hold of Linda Dalrymple Henderson's 'The Fourth
Dimension and Non-Euclidean Geometry in Modern Art' in this context, a
seminal study, but its reprint is still pending.

> Both time Lacan worked on the same post-dialectical complex 
> continuum as
> psychology/knowledge structures in terms of topology 
> precisely - that one in 
> opposition to the
> comportementalism of Palo Alto which drives to conditioning 
> informations -for a part.
> It is to say if states are not states but other. Numbers ans 
> signs in the
> code are such as you tell. But not the moving living things.
> > set theory gone haywire into the ontological.
> >
> > Utopia, as derived from Thomas Moore's book,
> And the same of Thomas More invented the word about the 
> critical governing
> on earth, but from Augustin the critical ideal... of course 
> it is pragmatic
> to begin utopia at Thomas More's work but could be too much 
> easy. Even he is
> far from Augustin regarding the North, yet is is a mixed culture.
> Nothing is pure. Nothing was never pure I guess.
> > refers to a timeless ideal
> > state, a platonic abstraction that because it doesn't 
> exist, because it
> > isn't taking place, has no place.
> >
> > Both capitalism and religion are pretty much accounted for 
> in an N-state
> > description of things.
> Can be appearing much more -of techic -for example
> > I an N-state description of things, the individual
> > and its personal history are reduced to subliminal 
> presences taken 'en
> > masse' by a pixel on the map of a visualisation process drawing its
> > gigantic
> > N-space.
> As we live here, so what?
> And whatever: what of chaos theory?
I was only trying to point out the very same irrelevance from a N_State
perspective of GH's factual account. I do insist that his account brings out
an ethical perspective to our discussion, something that might turn into a
New Orleans-like predicted flooding of the scene, a critical condition
repeating previous versions, where any acquired composure will quickly
dissolve into instances of Blowing in the wind.
> >
> > Futurism is by all means the most ugly phase of Modernism.
> Can be there is not beautiful and huggly in modernity but both of it
> > Reducing
> > Modernism to Futurism is,
> He does not make reductionism. He gives an exemple.

Nono, luigi, parbleu: a sentence starting with "The European idea of
Modernism can be summed up by a quote..." is about to reduce things. I'll
stick by that, including the claim that putting the emphasis on Futurism is
a misapprehension.

> very much the same as reducing an
> > individual and its personal history to a pixel on a map and 
> then giving it
> > the wrong colour. Nevertheless i find your view of things 
> as expressed
> > here
> > very valuable, because it enforces a moral
> he speaks of a relative convention, not of moral

Indeed: i am bringing up the ethics here. Even when dealing with corpses,
ethics is primordial because it's an a priori to the practice. I like art
for art stuff as much as anyone so, sure you can ignore them, but ethical
and political implications come with the trade. If you're plowing, its a
farm. It may not be Maggie's anymore, but in the end its always a farm (of

> > duty upon us to try and give
> > our
> > dealings with art some content that would ensure a 
> different perception of
> > it. You are ofcourse perfectly right in giving prevalence 
> to analysing our
> > condition more in terms of political-ideological power. Things like
> > N-space
> > don't offer hope in a practical way, because there's no 
> horizon beyond
> > N-space.
> >
> > Baudrilliard is in the business of producing prose. He's 
> very good at it.
> > It's nice to hear he's making pictures now to. It's always good to
> > diversify.
> You know of God, when his achieved work appears boring for him,
> that  he makes pics to see otherwise his world:) Baudrillard 
> is not God but
> he has made an inevitable work...

Obviously you meant to say B's work cannot be ignored. Curiously
'inevitable' is a more apt description of how i thinkg of him. But you are
right ofcourse: in the Cathedral i can ignore him in the most crude of
manners ( cfr. ), out here in the open i
should be showing some more respect, especially since i only read 4 or 5
pages of his work. But you see, in my after hours way of working, i have
very little time in all this that i want to do, so i need to pick my
readings very methodically. So ok, mea culpa, but there's some randomness
involved, meaning if i can't find anything of use within a certain time
accredited, anybody's work, divine or not, may find itself flying out the
> >
> > On a personal note, the Cathedral Mother wants me to ask 
> you who is the
> > mother of Modern Turkey.
> Exactly that one said the young Turkish both realizing the genocide of
> Armenians (horror)
> and modernizing (in the good way) Turkey. Albert Speer -remember..

Still, i maintain the apology: i shouldn't have passed on the Mother's
question. It makes my reading of GH's mail look ridiculously condescending,
which by all means wasn't my intent or the case. 

> Why do you accord value to the things. If they are intense 
> they exist. If
> they are the symbolic value they do not need that we give 
> them a value. 
> Modernity is a
> structural mode of space time that is not the eternal concept of
> change. I mean of modernity the same of God : too much 
> integrism in it would 
> signify that they would no exist with intensity - perhaps 
> they have still 
> disappeared.
> ??? May be yes, may be no:)
That's a bit of a rhetorical arpeggio. Always nice to get some ornamental
rhythm in the prrt prrt of things down here, we can do so 'a piacere', but
perhaps we're losing track of the higher windings of the fugue?


> >
> > greetings,
> > dv
> >
> >
> >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> >> Van:
> >> [] Namens G.H. 
> Hovagimyan
> >> Verzonden: donderdag 9 maart 2006 14:25
> >> Aan: soft_skinned_space
> >> Onderwerp: [-empyre-] the N-space
> >>
> >>
> >> Right now we're in a clash of civilizations. The modernist
> >> world, the capitalist consumer utopia vs. The religious.
> >> Neither world is very appealing.  An N-space then is anything
> >> that is not this. It may be that Hakim Bey is right in the
> >> idea of a TAZ.
> >>
> >> My father was born in Istanbul in 1927.  For people outside
> >> of Europe or on the fringe of Europe the idea of modern was
> >> anything but where they lived. It meant escape from religious
> >> oppression, racism, xenophobia and genocide.  After World War
> >> II, America exemplified that same idea of modern.  My father
> >> came to America. He studied engineering. He became an
> >> electrical engineer. He worked in computers and
> >> communications.  He was the epitome of an American modern
> >> technocrat but he spoke with a foreign accent.  The idea of
> >> modern is linked to the idea of Utopia which I am told
> >> translated means (no
> >> place.)  Now the Chinese are more modern than the Americans
> >> or am I mixing up contemporary with modern?
> >>
> >> The European idea of Modernism can be summed up by a quote from the
> >> Futurists , F.T. Marinetti, "...war is the universal 
> hygiene."   The
> >> notion of revolution is always a call for the death of an
> >> entire political class.  Baudrillard in his latest book the
> >> Conspiracy of Art  talks about how all art since the 1960's
> >> has been a simulation and rehashing of art historical styles.
> >> Now we are in a simulation of a simulation.
> >>
> >> I can't help but think that the West is being sold a
> >> reflection of itself by the East (Japan, Korea, China).  It's
> >> similar to British bands taking American Rock and Roll and
> >> doing it better than the Americans or Alfred Hitchcock
> >> creating the absolute image of American Modern in North by
> >> Northwest or Vertigo or Marnie. If I were totally
> >> crazy I'd say we are living in the Matrix. We just don't know it.
> >> And what about the rest of the world, specifically Africa,
> >> The tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, how do they
> >> define modern. Is it a (no place) dream?
> >>
> >> The 2006 Whitney Biennial follows this same course of
> >> Europeans defining America's dark night of the soul. It's odd
> >> because I feel that America is the place where everyone goes
> >> looking for their own personal (no place).  Baudrillard in
> >> his book is interviewed by the press about his exhibition of
> >> photographs.  They ask him if this is a contradiction to his
> >> idea of being an outsider critiquing the system.  He says
> >> that of course you can be inside the system while critiquing
> >> it at the same time.
> >>
> >> Kemel Attaturk is called, "The Father of Modern Turkey."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> empyre forum
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > empyre forum
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.