Recent Changes

Thursday, July 3

  1. file Derrida, Cohen, York - Unknown - JACQUES DERRIDA AND.pdf (deleted) uploaded Deleted File
    4:08 pm
  2. file Jacques Derrida Learning to Live Finally The Last Interview 2007 (1).pdf (deleted) uploaded Deleted File
    4:07 pm

Wednesday, December 11

  1. page LP Week 12 edited MATH. ... love math. And it It was probably because the perfect ignorance of concepts lik…
    MATH.
    ...
    love math. And itIt was probably becausethe perfect ignorance of concepts like this:messiness:
    The Golden Ratio (from Wikipedia) - also known as The Divine Proportion
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio
    ...
    {http://www.thetanooki.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/100424goldenratio.jpg}
    http://www.thetanooki.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/100424goldenratio.jpg
    ...
    sequence is):
    {https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTQVBZBG8GeuZxo5IXWQe0EXHrT-whHHZxaqTkBy9pG38vjVAdJ}
    https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTQVBZBG8GeuZxo5IXWQe0EXHrT-whHHZxaqTkBy9pG38vjVAdJ
    ...
    {http://wiki.ubc.ca/images/6/6e/Monalisa.jpg}
    http://wiki.ubc.ca/images/6/6e/Monalisa.jpg
    ...
    boundaries - a distinct demarcationand divine demarcations between space and content.
    Timothy Morton - Text as Ecology, Ecology as Text
    One thing that modernity has damaged, along with the environment, has been thinking. To bring thinking to a point at which the damage can be assessed will require us to use the broken tools to hand. One damaged concept is ‘Nature’ — I capitalise it to denature it — damaged and damaging, almost useless for developing ecological culture. Of far greater benefit would be concepts that ruthlessly denature and de-essentialise: they are called deconstruction. (1)
    (view changes)
    8:18 am
  2. page LP Week 12 edited [still in progress MATH. I used to really love math - will like really, really love math. And…
    [still in progressMATH.
    I used to really love math
    - willlike really, really love math. And it was probably because of concepts like this:
    The Golden Ratio (from Wikipedia) - also known as The Divine Proportion
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio
    Two quantities a and b are said to
    be done tomorrowin the golden ratio φ if:
    {http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/a/4/ba403caf830a27ef9ce5f7762e7ed4ea.png} frac{a+b}{a} = frac{a}{b} = varphi.
    One method for finding the value of φ is to start with the left fraction. Through simplifying the fraction and substituting in b/a = 1/φ,
    {http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/d/e/4/de4e44d5140cb767bfcec8cf888a4a90.png} frac{a+b}{a} = 1 + frac{b}{a} = 1 + frac{1}{varphi},
    By definition, it is shown that
    {http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/0/b/b0b7b7cf91f69a10a4982056c3ad0b50.png} 1 + frac{1}{varphi} = varphi.
    Multiplying
    by noon]φ gives
    {http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/1/7/61739d3badb5f558150359331d25cfe5.png} varphi + 1 = varphi^2
    which can be rearranged to
    {http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/f/5/c/f5c0669f6c36d9e408cbd5f64be57093.png} {varphi}^2 - varphi - 1 = 0.
    Using the quadratic formula, two solutions are obtained:
    {http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/4/2/b42e3962f50e9beb6fcf5c960fbcddec.png} varphi = frac{1 + sqrt{5}}{2} = 1.61803,39887dots
    and
    {http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/4/1/241e46169805c32a4cf06e12b0b653dd.png} varphi = frac{1 - sqrt{5}}{2} = -0.6180,339887dots
    Because φ is the ratio between positive quantities φ is necessarily positive:
    {http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/4/2/b42e3962f50e9beb6fcf5c960fbcddec.png} varphi = frac{1 + sqrt{5}}{2} = 1.61803,39887dots .
    {http://www.thetanooki.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/100424goldenratio.jpg}
    http://www.thetanooki.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/100424goldenratio.jpg
    The golden ratio is said to be seen throughout nature (in the same way that Fibonacci's sequence is):
    {https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTQVBZBG8GeuZxo5IXWQe0EXHrT-whHHZxaqTkBy9pG38vjVAdJ}
    https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTQVBZBG8GeuZxo5IXWQe0EXHrT-whHHZxaqTkBy9pG38vjVAdJ
    And even in the Mona Lisa:
    {http://wiki.ubc.ca/images/6/6e/Monalisa.jpg}
    http://wiki.ubc.ca/images/6/6e/Monalisa.jpg
    What's interesting though is when you consider them with fractals. When segmenting lines to produce a fractal, the golden ratio is the exact fraction of the line required to ensure that the fractal segments will fill up the maximum space without ever overlapping. It is the ratio that ensures perfect boundaries - a distinct demarcation between space and content.

    Timothy Morton - Text as Ecology, Ecology as Text
    One thing that modernity has damaged, along with the environment, has been thinking. To bring thinking to a point at which the damage can be assessed will require us to use the broken tools to hand. One damaged concept is ‘Nature’ — I capitalise it to denature it — damaged and damaging, almost useless for developing ecological culture. Of far greater benefit would be concepts that ruthlessly denature and de-essentialise: they are called deconstruction. (1)
    (view changes)
    8:14 am

Tuesday, December 10

  1. page LP Week 12 edited ... One thing that modernity has damaged, along with the environment, has been thinking. To bring …
    ...
    One thing that modernity has damaged, along with the environment, has been thinking. To bring thinking to a point at which the damage can be assessed will require us to use the broken tools to hand. One damaged concept is ‘Nature’ — I capitalise it to denature it — damaged and damaging, almost useless for developing ecological culture. Of far greater benefit would be concepts that ruthlessly denature and de-essentialise: they are called deconstruction. (1)
    The text- context distinction is only an interpretive convenience. It is not that texts refer to other texts, or coexist with them — rather, texts are other texts: texting is the differential process by which and as which texts exist as such, as strangers to themselves. (2)
    ...
    all exists. (2)
    The
    [...] The boundary is
    Texts have environments. These environments are made of signs, yet the matter-sign distinction breaks down at a certain point, because one of these environments is the environment. There is more than a neat chiasmic symmetry here, a strange entanglement in which we cannot distinguish between what counts as an entity ‘in’ an environment and an entity ‘in’ a text. For if we are to think text rigorously, we end up with Derrida’s famous formulation ‘Il n’ y a pas d’hors-texte,’ ‘There is no outside-text’.7 No textuality can rigorously distinguish between inside and outside, because that is precisely what textuality both broaches and breeches. (3)
    The fractals touched upon just now provide a different way of thinking materialism. [...] The trouble with fractals, the trouble that hippie kitsch obscures, is that they elegantly show how nature is not natural, not outside artifice. (4)
    (view changes)
    9:02 pm
  2. page LP Week 12 edited [still in progress - will be done tomorrow by noon] Timothy Morton - Text as Ecology, Ecology as …
    [still in progress - will be done tomorrow by noon]
    Timothy Morton - Text as Ecology, Ecology as Text
    One thing that modernity has damaged, along with the environment, has been thinking. To bring thinking to a point at which the damage can be assessed will require us to use the broken tools to hand. One damaged concept is ‘Nature’ — I capitalise it to denature it — damaged and damaging, almost useless for developing ecological culture. Of far greater benefit would be concepts that ruthlessly denature and de-essentialise: they are called deconstruction. (1)
    The text- context distinction is only an interpretive convenience. It is not that texts refer to other texts, or coexist with them — rather, texts are other texts: texting is the differential process by which and as which texts exist as such, as strangers to themselves. (2)
    (view changes)
    8:58 pm
  3. page LP Week 12 edited [still in progress - will be done tomorrow by noon] One thing that modernity has damaged, along w…
    [still in progress - will be done tomorrow by noon]
    One thing that modernity has damaged, along with the environment, has been thinking. To bring thinking to a point at which the damage can be assessed will require us to use the broken tools to hand. One damaged concept is ‘Nature’ — I capitalise it to denature it — damaged and damaging, almost useless for developing ecological culture. Of far greater benefit would be concepts that ruthlessly denature and de-essentialise: they are called deconstruction. (1)
    The text- context distinction is only an interpretive convenience. It is not that texts refer to other texts, or coexist with them — rather, texts are other texts: texting is the differential process by which and as which texts exist as such, as strangers to themselves. (2)
    Or, we find that the distinction is weirdly fractured and repeated at many levels, like looking at a fractal, say the coastline of Norway. The closer one looks, the more crinkly the boundary between Norway and the North Sea becomes. ‘Text’ is precisely the word for this fractal weaving of boundaries that open onto the unbounded: it is not the case that nothing at all exists. (2)
    The boundary is not nonexistent but not thin—it is thick, permeable, folded into itself, fragile, teeming with parasites. Like skin. (2)
    Texts have environments. These environments are made of signs, yet the matter-sign distinction breaks down at a certain point, because one of these environments is the environment. There is more than a neat chiasmic symmetry here, a strange entanglement in which we cannot distinguish between what counts as an entity ‘in’ an environment and an entity ‘in’ a text. For if we are to think text rigorously, we end up with Derrida’s famous formulation ‘Il n’ y a pas d’hors-texte,’ ‘There is no outside-text’.7 No textuality can rigorously distinguish between inside and outside, because that is precisely what textuality both broaches and breeches. (3)
    The fractals touched upon just now provide a different way of thinking materialism. [...] The trouble with fractals, the trouble that hippie kitsch obscures, is that they elegantly show how nature is not natural, not outside artifice. (4)
    Our prejudice about vegetables is that they’re beings that only do one thing — grow.9 The trouble with vegetable growth is that it consists of sets of algorithms—iterated functions, often producing fractal shapes.10 (4)
    Fractals are simply the cheapest way of producing structure, and evolution always takes the cheapest possible route. Thus blood vessels, leaves, branches, forests and cancer cells have a fractal dimensionality. Far from being a holistic New Age trip, fractals open up a traumatic dimension of what we cannot call Nature any more, a dimension that is not holistic, but open and strange. (4)
    An algorithm is a script — a text — that automates a function, or functions, and in this case the script is encoded directly into matter. The matter–information boundary is permeable. (4)
    The base of the flower where it meets the stem is a snapshot of the past of the algorithm, while the crinkly edges of the petals show what the algorithm was up to yesterday. Looking at life forms is never looking at the here and now, and never looking in one place; they are palimpsests of displacements and rewritings and iterations. ‘Nature’, that sign of the extra-textual, does not strictly exist, even in biological terms. Think of the rings of a tree. One’s face is a map of everything that happened to it. (5)
    Moreover, the globally warming Earth is similarly disturbing: there is no longer any background (‘environment’, ‘weather,’ Nature and so on) against which human activity may differentiate itself. Deconstruction that precisely articulates how distinctions along such lines are metaphysical will prove beneficial in navigating our way through the madness that is the recognition that there is no ‘Big Other’ — no world as such. (5)
    Life forms consist of all kinds of structures that are not very organic, just as there are strange textual forms that do not fit the Procrustean bed of organicism. [...] Darwinism and genomics are very bad news for this anxiety, since they show that not only is the distinction untenable, but life as such is a machinic, algorithmic functioning, and that what we call ‘life’ and ‘consciousness’ are emergent effects of more fundamental machine-like processes. (7)
    Just as textuality smears the text–context boundary into aporia, if not oblivion, so the genomics version of ecological interrelatedness requires us to drop the organism–environment duality. (8)
    The environment is just a name for a flickering, shimmering field of forces without independent existence and in constant flux. Yet life forms are also made from their environments, including sunshine and chemicals from exploding stars. (9)
    Just as writing, when it gets going, includes everything around it too, as if things were always already ‘written’ before people started doing things with pens: dispersed, displaced, never self-identical, infinite like a Menger Sponge or a Cantor Set, full of absence and space. Moreover, just as text is texting, space is spacing, absence is absence-ing — endless unfoldings, translations, distortions, misreadings, mutations. (9)
    The gratifying illusion of immersion in a lifeworld provides yet another way to hold out against the truth of global warming: it has been put to me on more than one occasion that only internally poor white Westerners, lacking a lifeworld, could think such a thing as global warming, whereas the Third World peasant, immersed in her lifeworld like a pair of Van Gogh shoes, has no need for such concepts. As the recent actions to mark the surpassing of a human-friendly limit of atmospheric CO2 have suggested, however, peasants are far from incapable of holding more than one idea and one place in mind at a time.25 In contrast, the view that starts from the fact of intimacy with coexisting strangers compels us to assume responsibility for global warming, a direct cause of the ongoing Sixth Mass Extinction Event. (10)
    All poems are environmental, because they include the spaces in which they are written and read — blank space around and between words, silence within the sound. (11)
    We are familiar with closure: loose ends being tied up, plot lines converging, a sense of simplicity and death. So what is aperture? Precisely. ‘What is it?’ is aperture. How can we know when we have begun? (11)
    Ecology makes us contemplate these profound issues: abandon the old idea of Nature; forget about worlds and surroundings—this language forces false distinctions between inside and outside; rethink ‘life’; question ‘intelligence’ and ‘consciousness’. All these demands emerge from Bernstein’s deceptively simple poem, which makes a slit in our complacency, so beautifully placed, so gentle, that everything comes pouring out of it. (12)
    Does ‘intentionally’ leaving something blank leave space as it is, or introduce blankness into it? Strangely, according to the second possibility, we can introduce blank space into blank space. The ‘blank’ itself — is it transparent or is it opaque? A blankness that lets things be, or something like whitewash? If it ever existed ‘before’ the poem pointed it out, the blank page is never totally blank. Space is already distorted. Significance is already taking place. (12)
    This ‘Hey!’ is what in Internet vocabulary is called a ping, a signal to a remote server to ascertain whether or not the server is functioning. The term is derived from echolocation (sonar). There is an infinite regress potential here, since a minimal mark that ‘pings’ to echo the functionality of a system depends upon an already functioning system of meaning, an already inscribed surface. This risk of infinite regress plagues systems-theoretical accounts of life and consciousness, accounts that bypass deconstruction. (13)
    The systems-theoretical approach, embraced too swiftly by posthumanism, cannot account for the infinite regress of writing and writable surface. Bedazzled by the possibility of autotelic systems, posthumanism forgets that what makes a system systematic is its irreducible inconsistency. (13)
    We cannot tell whether Bernstein’s is a poem until after we read ‘this...’. We are unable to tell whether there is a life form until after it has mutated. We cannot call it a species until it looks like one. To be aware of the trace as such is to coexist with the radically unknowable: Derrida’s arrivant, opening a realm of the infinitely other, an otherness that is intimately ‘here’, under our skin — it is our skin, teeming with symbionts — even as it evaporates ‘here’ into an infinite network of traces. (14-15)
    When life, when writing, has begun, we find ourselves unable to draw a thin, rigid line around it. Ecology thinks a limitless system with no center or edge, devoid of intrinsic essence (no ‘Nature’): calligraphy as biology. So does poetry. This is not here. (15)

    (view changes)
    8:58 pm
  4. page LP Week 11 edited ... {http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Old_City_Cemetery_time_capsule_Sacramento,…
    ...
    {http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Old_City_Cemetery_time_capsule_Sacramento,_CA.jpg}
    Intentional time capsules assume the existence of a distinct future date; they also assume the existence of individuals (or maybe robots?) capable of interpreting the contents at this distinct future date. They attempt to transcend time by removing their objects from presence between the burial date and the Un-Earthing date, saving them for a moment when they may become significant. They have the power of both signifying to individuals in the future what individuals in the past considered to be important, and providing a space for reinterpretation of the things considered to be significant in the past.
    ...
    are asking. My position is that it is a truly violent thought to discount the capacity to learn from what individuals in the past considered to be important enough to save for the future.
    There's some sort of fun thought process in linking up the 'Un-Earthing' or physical digging of artifacts to the anthropocene, but I haven't fully disentangled that one yet.
    Quotes from the Text
    (view changes)
    2:50 pm
  5. page LP Week 11 edited [in progress] When I first read this article, I thought of cryonics (mostly because I had seen an…
    [in progress]When I first read this article, I thought of cryonics (mostly because I had seen an interesting talk on cryonics at AAA), but I decided that I was finding that symbol a bit too morbid to pursue - arguably so - I know - but I just wasn't in the mood. Instead I started thinking about time capsules - what I understood to be collections of artifacts [often] buried beneath the Earth to be dug up and opened sometime in the future. Wikipedia defines them as follows:
    A time capsule is a historic cache of goods or information, usually intended as a method of communication with future people and to help future archaeologists, anthropologists or historians. Time capsules are sometimes created and buried during celebrations such as a World's Fair, a cornerstone laying for a building or at other events. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_capsule)
    {http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Old_City_Cemetery_time_capsule_Sacramento,_CA.jpg}
    Intentional time capsules assume the existence of a distinct future date; they also assume the existence of individuals (or maybe robots?) capable of interpreting the contents at this distinct future date. They attempt to transcend time by removing their objects from presence between the burial date and the Un-Earthing date, saving them for a moment when they may become significant. They have the power of both signifying to individuals in the future what individuals in the past considered to be important, and providing a space for reinterpretation of the things considered to be significant in the past.
    William Jarvis, author of Time Capsules: A Cultural History, has critiqued these capacities, positing that much of what people decide to put in time capsules is useless junk to the people that Un-Earth them, failing to capture answers to the questions that historians/anthropologists are asking.
    There's some sort of fun thought process in linking up the 'Un-Earthing' or physical digging of artifacts to the anthropocene, but I haven't fully disentangled that one yet.
    Quotes from the Text

    The term ‘anthropocene’ is curious, at once leaden and foppish. It carries a trace of the obscene. Arriving from an ejaculation at a geologist’s forum by Paul Crutzman, it seems the epitome of anthropomorphism itself—irradiating with a secret pride invoking comments on our god-like powers and ownership of ‘the planet.’ (240)
    Extinction: since the ‘anthropocene’ can only be named from without or after, as if by another looking back — hence Hollywood’s routine evocations of aliens’ arriving after the fact (as in Spielberg’s A.I.). Some eye, or some thing, must witness and confirm this arc, this mark in geomorphic and biomorphic time. It, the term, implies a species consciousness marking its disappearance. It does so with rampant metaphors of inscribing and marking (scarification, stratigraphics, ‘human imprint,’ carbon footprints, and so on). (241)
    But the term anthropocene is a placeholder, non-semantic, a non-word and non-name that does not adhere to any binarised sense and cannot be deconstructed. (241)
    That would be for ‘later on’—perhaps generations, after the current phase of remembered contact and consignation efforts are gone. Does this ‘later on’ not point inevitably to the anthropocene, sometimes referenced as a ‘mutation’ to come? (243)
    ...
    how the après- Derrida,après-Derrida, instead of
    It is to note that the anthropocene, a post-binarised horizon that dislocates by fiat the ‘anthropo-narcisst’ parenthesis (say, 5000 years of writing), overleaps these strategies, sifts them from within this ‘war’ with himself (and itself)—which it apparently seems to many taboo to inspect. One cannot but be struck that being ‘close’ to Derrida the individual seems today less a mark of initiation, of genealogical pedigree or translatorial identification, than a guarantee of a submissive limit which J.D. discounted in advance (really, ‘Derrideans’?). (244)
    Can the DNA of a ‘deconstruction’ early on claiming the most radical of auto-critiques — which one recalls with a certain melancholy — recur if it emerges at the price of various literalisations, memorialisations, pieties, and imaginaries of ‘Jacques,’ or need one wait, as he suggests, for another generation, assuming it has its chance? (245)
    ...
    Enter, the ‘anthropocene’. This term or non-name arrives in a tangle of forces without any appeal to sovereignty. It has turned the current geo- political and geo-economic climate into a paralysed network of zombie systems (in denial) angling for momentary advantage before the next reset hit: Euro-collapse? Methane bubbles from the tundra? Oceanic acidification? — the menu is suddenly endless. (251)
    Does it matter that the current non-present ‘present’ is not one of your run of the mill times out of joint, since it subsists beyond known tipping points in a posture of denial that alters life forms negatively going forward aeons? It accomplishes this unusual grammar — a future-past- unconditional—not by some deed but by altering nothing in the inertia of business as usual (no need to consider the nuclear and bio- weapons factors). It is the event. (252)
    That these appear absent today reflects the anaesthetised state of academic culture in the late anthropocene—call it a sort of pre-ptsd — when the untimely has become unexceptional and numbingly rote. (253)
    What is clear is that ‘deconstruction’ today deconstructs nothing, curls back on itself fetishistically, and relies on a certain misreading of the persona (‘Jacques’) for instructions that were missing. (254)
    It is also clear that if the ‘anthropocene’ implies ecocide, and the current global regimes accelerate or seal this process, and if these same do so through a totalisation of mediacratic trances, then there is—even for the most peace-seeking among us, like myself — an implicit war within the global disposition. Its stakes might be any ‘futures’ at all (a truly misused and misbegotten term) or ‘survival’ on a para-species level — but that, in itself, also should not be the metric. (254)
    (view changes)
    2:46 pm
  6. page LP Week 11 edited ... What is clear is that ‘deconstruction’ today deconstructs nothing, curls back on itself fetish…
    ...
    What is clear is that ‘deconstruction’ today deconstructs nothing, curls back on itself fetishistically, and relies on a certain misreading of the persona (‘Jacques’) for instructions that were missing. (254)
    It is also clear that if the ‘anthropocene’ implies ecocide, and the current global regimes accelerate or seal this process, and if these same do so through a totalisation of mediacratic trances, then there is—even for the most peace-seeking among us, like myself — an implicit war within the global disposition. Its stakes might be any ‘futures’ at all (a truly misused and misbegotten term) or ‘survival’ on a para-species level — but that, in itself, also should not be the metric. (254)
    ...
    an other ma- terialitymateriality than humanists
    (view changes)
    2:02 pm

More