Re: Non-linear / full-2d writing systems?
|From:||Remi Villatel <maxilys@...>|
|Date:||Monday, May 16, 2005, 15:33|
Ray Brown wrote:
>>>.............. But the sort of 2d writing
>>>I have in mind is the exact opposite: it is to record thought! *Thought
>>>comes first & must determine the writing.*
>>I was just thinking about a 2dWS that gets closer from thought than our
>>linear one. For me two dimensions aren't enough to record my thought; I'd
>>rather need four dimensions with sub-spatial wormholes... or the kind of
>>fractal writing system I described in a previous post.
> I shall assume this is "Remi overstatement for amusement" :)
No, no, no! I'm very serious. We're living in a 4D universe (space and time)
and the concepts we handle with our mind are also 4D. So to be able to
record thought, you need a 4D medium. And the wormholes are a representation
of the shortcuts with take with reality, like for example when we "forget"
that a trip is necessary to go from a place to another, or when we gather in
a mental image different things that are physically distant while still
remembering that they aren't really at the same place. A fractal WS could be
a way to "flatten" our thought which allows use to keep and (almost)
infinite level of detail. That's what I'm working on. Well... I'm trying to,
at least. ;-)
Maybe it was an overstatement.
> In front of me I have a 2b non-linear representation. It consists of a
> matrix of 1024 x 768 pixels. I do NOT 'read' these pixels by rows or by
> columns. On my 'desktop' I see a picture of my three grandchildren sitting
> in 'sand-cars' built on a beach, with sand dunes in the background & few
> small figures, the sky above and some odd icons that my OS requires on the
> desktop etc. Yes, some lines are provided by a windbreak on the right edge
> of the picture and by a folding seat. But I do not 'read' these linearly!
We agree but you just don't realize it. This matrix of pixels contains rows
and columns but the whole is a 2d surface. So, it's possible to have a 2d
whole made of linear elements. That's what I meant. The same applies to a
2dWS. Linear elements do not matter as long as the result is non-linear.
That's what happens with the rows of pixels that you see a 2d picture.
> The subject line of this thread is *non-linear/ full-2d* writing systems.
> I did not make it up or start it. I began by being dubious about its
> possibility but through the discussions with Sai and H.S. Teoh - which I
> found very interesting and stimulating - my imagination got fired ;)
It's time to admit that it's impossible. Whenever you put 2 elements on a
piece of paper, you got a line. Even drawing the first 2d-glyph might be
impossible. Drawing a curve or staight line from a point to another is linear.
That's why I joked about "zealot" and "heresy". Even if you want to respect
the subject of this thread, you take it very (too?) literally, as if you
were trying to reach some kind of "2d-purity" that's impossible to achieve.
>>That's why I talked about drawing a square without lines. You can't.
> Duh! I've sort of noticed that over the past 66+ years. But who's talking
> about _squares_, for goodness sake! Since when has 2d meant square?
> A square is a 2d object, therefore all 2d objects are square. Nah - it
> makes no more sense than: "Socrates is a mortal, therefore all mortals are
No, no! Socrates is a cat! ;-)
And what mattered in my square wasn't its "squaritude" but the fact that
it's a 2d surface. It could have been a triangle, an hexagone, a dodecagone,
whatever 2d surface which can't be drawn without a single line.
Now, back to work! The deadline isn't linearly going closer and closer. ;-)