Re: CHAT: Parallelism

>> express one thing at a time. Other things can be hinted at, through
>> metaphor, connotation, etc., but only one can be explicit. How would it be
>> possible to construct a language which could be used to explicitly speak
>> (write, gesture) about two (or more) things simultaneously?
>
>Well, I think that the problem is that our minds are a combination of serial
>or spacial thoughts, not parallel.

humanz = operat!ng 1 zekuenz!al os
on paralel zku!shware


> This way we represent the world in
>serial utterances: spoken or written languages, or in spacial ways: signed
>languages and drawings.  But we could design alien speacies with parallel
>thinking... and describe their language.

  Words have a linear discrete successive order.
         Beyond the very limited meanings of inflections which can indeed be
         incorporated in the words themselves we cannot talk in
simultaneous bunches
         of names. Visual forms - lines.colors.proportions.etc.
         are just as capable of articulation, of complex combinations as words,
         but the laws that govern this sort of articulation are altogether
different
         from the laws of syntax that govern language.
         The most radical difference is that visual forms are not
discursive. They do not
         present their constituents successively but simultaneously so the
relations
         determining one visual structure are grasped in one act of vision.
         One idea that contains too many minute yet closely related parts,
too many
         relations within relations cannot be projected into discursive form.

         reality = 2 complex for oral communication
[aLpha.60.jean.luc.godard.scene.23]

         | - |
         line of thought ----------| = |
         | + |___________ m0dule .dE. mEmo!rE


         Civilization's most recent burst of scientific progress - the one that
         started during the renaissance is fast approaching its denouement.
         Data amounts equivalent to one person's lifetime experiences may be
         downloaded in minutes.
         The planet as a whole disgorges 1 trillion pieces of data per day.



>> The ideas that I had seemed a little lame... For example one could have
>two
>> languages,

kinematek 0+2. wordz = kordz



antiorp uses a lovely, subtle technique to communicate what seems to be a
nice combination of, at least, some ideas of Marx, Darwin, sociobiology and
information theory

by making the texts hard to read, antiorp forces the reader to act, to
directly engage in the physical experience of reading the words.

This act is more fundamental than understanding and is the real source of
meaning, rather than the bland and banal superficialities of discourse.

In this way antiorp resists institutionalization, while of course being part
of a rigidly institutionalized electronic world.
This convoluted irony give the texts lots of tension.

To understand a tool you have to use it first.

Meaning gets in the way of understanding.

The tygers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction (William
Blake).

Therefore: Tribbles, wigglism, antiorp.

Brian Leigh Molyneaux
Vermillion, South Dakota


sol++ _ dze oceanz = adr!ft !n dze kont!nentz

        and - closing the synaptic gap [synapse - greek for juncture
                - hence the juncture gap - protoplasmic kisses which seem to
                                constitute the final ecstasy of an epic
love story
                                        - the ethereal kiss which involves
no contact]




                            _ -  - _ -]h m n s k !lx2[- _ -  _ -

                                        _ l ! f 3 _

                                  1.anti[.z!metr!..]eczper!enss