Re: [-empyre-] emit time

[Adrian Miles <adrian.miles@uib.no>]

At 9:55 +1200 16/8/02, Sean Cubitt wrote:
> I've been reading Hegel's logic. Yeah, I know. Anyway, there's a 
> line where he says'The divorce between thought and thing is mainly 
> the work of the Critical Philosophy [ie Kant], and runs counter to 
> the conviction of all previous ages, that their agreement was a 
> matter of course' (para 22, susatz)

sean, i'd also look to bergson here in the early part of matter and 
memory where he discusses how the relation of thought to thing gets 
more or less swept under the carpet by philosophy and psychology 
since neither accounts for how one gets to be the other, but he also 
remarks that such problems are commonsense to everyone except 
philosophers and psychologists. :-)

this isn't to diminish the problem, but in the theme you explore 
bergson (and deleuze) or at least my use of these, sees time as 
clearly qualitatively distinct from space and this confusion is a 
major one for lots of practice (arts and theory).

as an aside, this seems to be one of the things you're exploring in 
your essay in that new cinema/interactive cinema anthology, so as a 
left field question, where do you see bergson/deleuze in your schema?

cheers and sorry if i've gone off topic

adrian miles
--
   
+  lecturer in new media and cinema studies 
[http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vog/vlog]
+  interactive desktop video developer  [http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vog/]
+  hypertext rmit [http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au]
+ InterMedia:UiB. university of bergen [http://www.intermedia.uib.no]