[-empyre-] Re: empyre Digest, Vol 10, Issue 12

["Albert Lundquist" <AGLTUCS1@worldnet.att.net>]

Re: information copying, see Dawkins "The Selfish Gene" or Susan Blackmore's
"The Meme Machine". Mimetics has come a long way in the last 25 years.



----- Original Message -----
From: <empyre-request@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
To: <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 5:58 PM
Subject: empyre Digest, Vol 10, Issue 12


> Send empyre mailing list submissions to
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/empyre
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> empyre-request@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> empyre-owner@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of empyre digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Accidents (was for example) (eugenie)
>    2. Re: Accidents (was for example) (Joel Weishaus)
>    3. riddle and enigma (Jim Andrews)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:10:30 +0000
> From: eugenie <eugenies@onetel.net.uk>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Accidents (was for example)
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Message-ID: <BBD657D7.1D1E%eugenies@onetel.net.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> all,
>
> more than likely i'm having a little moment of panic over semantics here,
> but jim's suggestion that....
>
> > a gesture, for instance, if it is remembered, is
> > remembered via some inscription of it somewhere (or multiple places) in
the
> > body. Whether we want to call it writing or inscription or coding or
> > whatever, doesn't matter. Aspects of the gesture are coded in the body
as
> > information, in some way that makes them memorable, ie, recallable, ie,
> > decipherable later on as the gesture. Readable later on as the gesture.
> >
> > In other words, the information is coded in a language that is
inscribable
> > and, later, decipherable or readable, amenable to interpretation
according
> > to some rules regarding the language.
>
> .... seems to reduce gesture - and embodied perception more generally - to
a
> sort of call-and-response activity linked to a relatively limited
repertoire
> of codes - a definitional framework that aims not just to construct the
body
> but to prescribe 'every possible signifying and countersignifying move as
a
> selection from a repertoire of possible permutations on a limited set of
> predetermined terms'
>
> .... that last little bit is lifted from Brian Massumi's 'Parables for the
> Virtual', and i'm roping him in here because he argues much more
eloquently
> than i do against frameworks which propose a determinitive structure (i.e.
a
> code) first, and movement or gesture second. these sort of models leave no
> room for change - qualitative material transformation. in other words they
> suggest that embodiedness itself is historically static and the only
things
> that change are the codes/inscriptions that make it legible.
>
> > the human perceptual crevice is only a sliver of temporal and spatial
> > phenomenon
>
> i'd agree - and given this it seems a bit optimistic to suggest that
sensory
> information is coded and readable like any other language
>
> eu
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 08:55:26 -0800
> From: "Joel Weishaus" <weishaus@pdx.edu>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Accidents (was for example)
> To: "soft_skinned_space" <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Message-ID: <000a01c3a874$9bc41ee0$8ffdfc83@oemcomputer>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "eugenie" <eugenies@onetel.net.uk>
> To: "soft_skinned_space" <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 1:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Accidents (was for example)
>
>
> > all,
> >
> > more than likely i'm having a little moment of panic over semantics
here,
> > but jim's suggestion that....
> >
> > > a gesture, for instance, if it is remembered, is
> > > remembered via some inscription of it somewhere (or multiple places)
in
> the
> > > body. Whether we want to call it writing or inscription or coding or
> > > whatever, doesn't matter. Aspects of the gesture are coded in the body
> as
> > > information, in some way that makes them memorable, ie, recallable,
ie,
> > > decipherable later on as the gesture. Readable later on as the
gesture.
> > >
> > > In other words, the information is coded in a language that is
> inscribable
> > > and, later, decipherable or readable, amenable to interpretation
> according
> > > to some rules regarding the language.
> >
> > .... seems to reduce gesture - and embodied perception more generally -
to
> a
> > sort of call-and-response activity linked to a relatively limited
> repertoire
> > of codes - a definitional framework that aims not just to construct the
> body
> > but to prescribe 'every possible signifying and countersignifying move
as
> a
> > selection from a repertoire of possible permutations on a limited set of
> > predetermined terms'
> >
> > .... that last little bit is lifted from Brian Massumi's 'Parables for
the
> > Virtual', and i'm roping him in here because he argues much more
> eloquently
> > than i do against frameworks which propose a determinitive structure
(i.e.
> a
> > code) first, and movement or gesture second. these sort of models leave
no
> > room for change - qualitative material transformation. in other words
they
> > suggest that embodiedness itself is historically static and the only
> things
> > that change are the codes/inscriptions that make it legible.
> >
> > > the human perceptual crevice is only a sliver of temporal and spatial
> > > phenomenon
> >
> > i'd agree - and given this it seems a bit optimistic to suggest that
> sensory
> > information is coded and readable like any other language
>
> Well it isn't, it's a chemical language which we don't yet fully
understand.
> More interesting is the transformative mechanism as the code reformats
into
> natural languages. The creative gesture. Again, there are terms but yet
> little understanding. As for "embodiedness (look how "died" is embedded
> here!) itself is historically static," there is no stasis in nature, only
> continuous flux within a normative spectrum. At bottom, codes are only
> energetic beeps.
> I don't like Massumi's "determinative structure," however, as the
normative
> is beyond what we can determine.
>
> -Joel
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 15:26:01 -0800
> From: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>
> Subject: [-empyre-] riddle and enigma
> To: "Soft_Skinned_Space" <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Message-ID: <DCEIJDHNAAEEKPKFBEALIEEACKAA.jim@vispo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> hi joel, eugenie, alan, all,
>
> alan asked how i would model the semantics of a poem. meaning is
constructed
> and invented, isn't it. boring to read stuff that 'cannot be
misunderstood'.
> and impossible. we can show more than tell. telling presupposes an
> unequivocal meaning but meaning is constructed not so much like putting
> together a jig saw puzzle (unique construction) but a poem (multiply
> interpretable). should writing engage our own inventive faculties
intensely,
> we enjoy it. our spark jumps the gaps. we enjoy putting things together,
are
> intensely inferential. of necessity. perception is discrete/nerves must
> fire, but we infer continuity. writing is broken into pieces but we infer
> even voice.
>
> the processses by which we parse text and construct meaning are probably
not
> different in kind from the processes by which we interpret other
perceptions
> of the poemy universe.
>
> there's riddle and there's enigma. from moment to moment we interpret
> enigma. and riddle. enigmatically, apparently. i saw a book of poems
titled
> 'Interpreting Silence'. Great title. The book was OK. Hard to live up to
> such a title, I guess.
>
> language and the theory of computation. language and theories of
perception.
> language and theories of mind. i started out studying lit and math. some
> years later i went back to school to study computer science and math. much
> of the computing stuff was kinda dull, but there was one course, called
> 'language and the theory of computation' that tingled my nerves. to see
how
> central the study of language is to the study of computing was pretty
> inspiring, and to see how study of language has figured in some of the
> outstanding mathematics of the last century changed my outlook on the
> relations between math and language. enigma: 'in the beginning was the
> word'... youda thunk in the beginning was the thing itself...or
> whatever...in any case, the relations between language and creation are
deep
> and near the source of creation.
>
> wouldn't it be interesting if the mechanisms of our perception and
> meaning-construction use a type of language that is fundamentally richer
> than 'natural language'? if this is possible. intuition says it isn't but
> there's the countably infinite and the uncountably infinite, the
'rational'
> and the 'irrational' (and beyond both) and whoda thunk it? So that we
could
> aspire to 'speak the body electric'.
>
> tamara spoke of creating work that 'juggles' different media. our
processing
> of sensory data does this routinely. we 'read' it from moment to moment.
but
> we do not 'write' it routinely, except in reverie and dream, ie, to
> ourselves. yet we don't have to 'write' to the complete sensorium of
others
> in order to engage them in the construction of a world; they do it anyway;
> we have 'merely' to engage their imaginations. so less can be more, if the
> goal is invention, creation, and discovery. and communication, if meaning
is
> constructed rather than 'ready made', if communication is a kind of
> gift-giving where some assembly is required, the instructions are largely
> implicit, and the intent is not so much like a jig saw puzzle as a poem.
>
> still, however flexible and non-determinative the construction of meaning,
> that doesn't necessarily imply that it is non-algorithmic. Also, however
> mysterious and complex the ways in which the body and mind code the data
of
> the sensorium and the subsequent processed version of it, I don't see any
> way around the notion that they are indeed coded some way in the body,
> unless our memories are not stored in the body but are elsewhere. This is
i
> suppose possible but it doesn't seem likely to me.
>
> ja
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre mailing list
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
>
> End of empyre Digest, Vol 10, Issue 12
> **************************************