A public letter to Nick, cc: any that write here
Locked
A public letter to Nick, cc: any that write here
 
|
Nick,
Is there a technical word for an essay one writes in preparation for another essay? I have been struggling over the last several weeks to write two essays, one preparatory on Euclid's second proposition (choices and misdirections) and the other on Chris Marker's *Le Jetee*. The role of Euclid's second will be to aid in an explication of Marker's conception of time travel and causality. This connection is perhaps what got me so entranced by the discussion of Bayesian networks. Did you ever clarify for yourself what *screening-off* is? I continue to hope that my contributions to that discussion will inspire you to tell me more about the connection you see to *variation partitioning*, an idea I wish to understand better and that you seem to understand well. Some time ago, you mentioned the role of *seduction* in conversation. I am listening to a series of interviews with Giles Deleuze and he mentions the disdain he has for talking, and from what I can tell it is this quality, that of seduction that makes talking dirty in comparison to writing. Would you write more on seduction? Also along the trajectory of a Deleuzian dive, I am working through his text *Difference and Repetition*. He writes about an extensional-intensional distinction in the concept of repetition that I find fascinating, *repetition* is in relation to something unique or singular having no equal or equivalent. He writes: """ But in any case, generality expresses a point of view according to which one term may be exchanged or substituted for another. The exchange or substitution of particulars defines our conduct in relation to generality...By contrast, we can see that repetition is a necessary and justified conduct only in relation to that which cannot be replaced. """ He gives an example that I can relate with, poetry: """ It is not by chance that a poem must be learned by heart. The head is the organ of exchange, but the heart is the amorous organ of repetition. Pius Servien rightly distinguished two languages: the language of science, dominated by the symbol of equality, in which each term may be replaced by others; and lyrical language, in which every term is irreplaceable and can only be repeated. """ Of course, now I have to remember why I felt it important to share this with you. Maybe it was this... Seduction can only repeat. Recently, you mentioned a modality that I sympathize with, going to speak and finding yourself developing an argument. There is the desire to develop, clarify and share a concept. On philosophy, Deleuze mentions the posing of problems and the creation of concepts. He speaks about their relation, that with Leibniz, say, he presents the *monad* and this *concept* is found necessary or is somehow manifest, from an underlying *problem*. To read philosophy is to suss out those *unenunciated* (latent?) problems philosophers aim at with their concepts. Is it fair to say that concepts belong to the world of generality and exist to clarify and facilitate the exploration of problems, problems that belong to the world of repetition? You appear to have a certain fondness for philosophy, and even if only through Peirce, I invite your reflections. Jon -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
Re: A public letter to Nick, cc: any that write here
|
Jon, I like your idea of a public letter. It grows out of things Glen has said about the implicit hypocrisy of writing to a person while posting to a list. I think he is wrong about that, but in a right sort of way. I think one can have a discussion with one person as a performance before an interested audience without being a hypocrite. The aspiration is to draw the larger audience in and to see the larger scope of the discussion. So I will answer as "Nick" if not as Nick. Please see Larding, below. Nick Thompson https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- Nick, Is there a technical word for an essay one writes in preparation for another essay? I have been struggling over the last several weeks to write two essays, one preparatory on Euclid's second proposition (choices andm[NST===>I have written such preparatory essays. I call them “rants”. My parents use to talk about authors that had to write whole ranting BOOKS before they could get down to write the essay that anybody would red. Much of the critique that Glen was mounting on Friday is to the effect that one must not confuse one’s rants with the final product. <===nst] isdirections) and the other on Chris Marker's *Le Jetee*. The role of Euclid's second will be to aid in an explication of Marker's conception of time travel and causality. This connection is perhaps what got me so entranced by the discussion of Bayesian networks. Did you ever clarify for yourself what *screening-off* is? [NST===>The problem in teaching something to someone else is never that they don’t know what X is; it is that they already KNOW what x is and their knowledge is just plain wrong. I know that that violates the tradition definition of “knowledge”, but so be it. The philosophical definition of “knowledge” (justified true belief) is just insane. My breakthrough on screening off occurred when I realized that it meant the exact opposite of what I thought it meant. I have yet to work that insight through the whole paper, so cannot promise that I “have it”, even now, but will let you know. <===nst] I continue to hope that my contributions to that discussion will inspire you to tell me more about the connection you see to *variation partitioning*, an idea I wish to understand better and that you seem to understand well. [NST===>Oh. The idea of variance partitioning is so primitive and so PsychMethods 101 that I am sure I have rendered it so badly that you just don’t recognize it. It is just the idea that one can partition all the variations within any data set from the mean of that data set, into main effects, interactions between main effects, ….etc…… and residual variance or “error”. Under certain assumptions which statisticians take seriously but all psychologists ignore, these partitions are additive so that the error variance plus all the main effects, plus all the interactions, sums up to the variance of the whole data set from the set mean. It’s relation to screening off is probably either wrong or so obscure as to not be worthy of consideration. <===nst] Some time ago, you mentioned the role of *seduction* [NST===>I would be surprised if I was so blatant as to use that word; however, I do believe that it is the burden of the writer to meet the reader on his/her own territory and bring him or home. Now, nobody ever writes to every audiences, so it is an important role of introductions to declare one’s audience, so others can ignore one’s writing and get on with their lives. We violate that rule all the time in FRIAM which is why it is such a mess and such fun. <===nst] in conversation.I am listening to a series of interviews with Giles Deleuze [NST===>I just don’t know how you find the time. I am guessing you can do so because you can code and listen to podcasts at the same time. What a wonderful thing that must be. <===nst] and he mentions the disdain he has for talking, and from what I can tell it is this quality, that of seduction that makes talking dirty in comparison to writing. Would you write more on seduction? [NST===>Seduction implies dissembling, right? I don’t think there is any deception in good argumentative writing, any more than there is deception in a chess move. It’s all there to be seen. Your hope is to position the readers so they see – if only briefly – your world as you see it. If readers come to see their world as you see it, that’s a bonus. <===nst] Also along the trajectory of a Deleuzian dive, I am working through his text *Difference and Repetition*. He writes about an extensional-intensional distinction in the concept of repetition that I find fascinating,[NST===>I haven’t given up on writing something on the i/e distinction in relation to the “epiphenomenator” so this interest me<===nst] *repetition* is in relation to something unique or singular having no equal or equivalent. He writes: """ But in any case, generality expresses a point of view according to which one term may be exchanged or substituted for another. The exchange or substitution of particulars defines our conduct in relation to generality...By contrast, we can see that repetition is a necessary and justified conduct only in relation to that which cannot be replaced. """ He gives an example that I can relate with, poetry: """ It is not by chance that a poem must be learned by heart. The head is the organ of exchange, but the heart is the amorous organ of repetition. Pius Servien rightly distinguished two languages: the language of science, dominated by the symbol of equality, in which each term may be replaced by others; and lyrical language, in which every term is irreplaceable and can only be repeated. """ Of course, now I have to remember why I felt it important to share this with you. Maybe it was this... Seduction can only repeat. Recently, you mentioned a modality that I sympathize with, going to speak and finding yourself developing an argument. There is the desire to develop, clarify and share a concept. On philosophy, Deleuze mentions the posing of problems and the creation of concepts. He speaks about their relation, that with Leibniz, say, he presents the *monad* and this *concept* is found necessary or is somehow manifest, from an underlying *problem*. To read philosophy is to suss out those *unenunciated* (latent?) problems philosophers aim at with their concepts. Is it fair to say that concepts belong to the world of generality and exist to clarify and facilitate the exploration of problems, problems that belong to the world of repetition? You appear to have a certain fondness for philosophy, and even if only through Peirce, I invite your reflections. [NST===>I think Peirce might say that there are no singular objects. If an object were genuinely singular, would would not be able to see it. <===nst] Jon [NST===>I have to quit, now; this is the best I can do. [sigh]<===nst] -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ Nick Thompson https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- Nick, Is there a technical word for an essay one writes in preparation for another essay? I have been struggling over the last several weeks to write two essays, one preparatory on Euclid's second proposition (choices and misdirections) and the other on Chris Marker's *Le Jetee*. The role of Euclid's second will be to aid in an explication of Marker's conception of time travel and causality. This connection is perhaps what got me so entranced by the discussion of Bayesian networks. Did you ever clarify for yourself what *screening-off* is? I continue to hope that my contributions to that discussion will inspire you to tell me more about the connection you see to *variation partitioning*, an idea I wish to understand better and that you seem to understand well. Some time ago, you mentioned the role of *seduction* in conversation. I am listening to a series of interviews with Giles Deleuze and he mentions the disdain he has for talking, and from what I can tell it is this quality, that of seduction that makes talking dirty in comparison to writing. Would you write more on seduction? Also along the trajectory of a Deleuzian dive, I am working through his text *Difference and Repetition*. He writes about an extensional-intensional distinction in the concept of repetition that I find fascinating, *repetition* is in relation to something unique or singular having no equal or equivalent. He writes: """ But in any case, generality expresses a point of view according to which one term may be exchanged or substituted for another. The exchange or substitution of particulars defines our conduct in relation to generality...By contrast, we can see that repetition is a necessary and justified conduct only in relation to that which cannot be replaced. """ He gives an example that I can relate with, poetry: """ It is not by chance that a poem must be learned by heart. The head is the organ of exchange, but the heart is the amorous organ of repetition. Pius Servien rightly distinguished two languages: the language of science, dominated by the symbol of equality, in which each term may be replaced by others; and lyrical language, in which every term is irreplaceable and can only be repeated. """ Of course, now I have to remember why I felt it important to share this with you. Maybe it was this... Seduction can only repeat. Recently, you mentioned a modality that I sympathize with, going to speak and finding yourself developing an argument. There is the desire to develop, clarify and share a concept. On philosophy, Deleuze mentions the posing of problems and the creation of concepts. He speaks about their relation, that with Leibniz, say, he presents the *monad* and this *concept* is found necessary or is somehow manifest, from an underlying *problem*. To read philosophy is to suss out those *unenunciated* (latent?) problems philosophers aim at with their concepts. Is it fair to say that concepts belong to the world of generality and exist to clarify and facilitate the exploration of problems, problems that belong to the world of repetition? You appear to have a certain fondness for philosophy, and even if only through Peirce, I invite your reflections. Jon -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
Re: A public letter to Nick, cc: any that write here
|
|
Nick, A minor clarification if I remember my analysis of variance course correctly. You can use either an additive model or a non- additive model. You just have to explain your choice and why you made it. But the total variance remains the same. Frank --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Sun, Feb 14, 2021, 9:14 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
Re: A public letter to Nick, cc: any that write here
|
|
Yes. And if I remember correctly, using an additive model increases the denominator of the F ratio. N Nick Thompson https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Nick, A minor clarification if I remember my analysis of variance course correctly. You can use either an additive model or a non- additive model. You just have to explain your choice and why you made it. But the total variance remains the same. Frank --- On Sun, Feb 14, 2021, 9:14 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
Re: A public letter to Nick, cc: any that write here
|
|
Correct, because there are more sources of variance--the interactions. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Sun, Feb 14, 2021, 10:42 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
In reply to this post by thompnickson2
Ha! This is why the internet is such an Exquisite Corpse. No Nick, that's not my point at all. It's not even slightly about hypocrisy. It's about *obsolete* conceptions of privacy. It is literally impossible to have a conversation with one other person on the internet, performative or not. Here's a nice way to put it:
https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=5310 "I simply accept that, in the age of instantaneous communication, there are no walled gardens: anything you say to a dozen or more people, you might as well broadcast to the planet." So, by continuing your salutations, you are not being hypocritical or (merely) performative. You're basing your post on (not even) *wrong* ideas, on a complete misunderstanding of the medium. On 2/14/21 8:13 PM, [hidden email] wrote: > It grows out of things Glen has said about the implicit hypocrisy of writing to a person while posting to a list. I think he is wrong about that, but in a right sort of way. I think one can have a discussion with one person as a performance before an interested audience without being a hypocrite. The aspiration is to draw the larger audience in and to see the larger scope of the discussion. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: A public letter to Nick, cc: any that write here
|
|
I object for a different reason: It suggests that the person ought to reply. It's calling a person out by name rather than by letting the content of a reply speak for itself. Since there are by design many eyes (potentially) on a list e-mail, inviting some to respond but not others is counterproductive.
-----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 9:58 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A public letter to Nick, cc: any that write here Ha! This is why the internet is such an Exquisite Corpse. No Nick, that's not my point at all. It's not even slightly about hypocrisy. It's about *obsolete* conceptions of privacy. It is literally impossible to have a conversation with one other person on the internet, performative or not. Here's a nice way to put it: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=5310 "I simply accept that, in the age of instantaneous communication, there are no walled gardens: anything you say to a dozen or more people, you might as well broadcast to the planet." So, by continuing your salutations, you are not being hypocritical or (merely) performative. You're basing your post on (not even) *wrong* ideas, on a complete misunderstanding of the medium. On 2/14/21 8:13 PM, [hidden email] wrote: > It grows out of things Glen has said about the implicit hypocrisy of > writing to a person while posting to a list. I think he is wrong about that, but in a right sort of way. I think one can have a discussion with one person as a performance before an interested audience without being a hypocrite. The aspiration is to draw the larger audience in and to see the larger scope of the discussion. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
|
While I suppose you're sticking more closely to Jon's topic by pointing out the power and semiotics, my point can be used to argue that even the concept of a "public letter" is nonsense these days. "Public letter" is unparsable in the current language. You have to change languages to make it parsable. And if we stick to the modern language (ha! no "post" necessary 'cause modern() is recursive), it renders such attempts at coercion absurd. So it literally can't be counterproductive (or productive).
Insistence on these interpersonal modes *is* a symptom of hyper-individualism ... the arrogance that some individual (Nick, Glen, whoever) is somehow important in any scheme whatsoever. Even those who reserve the accusation of "individualist" for right wingnuts are addicted to the obsolete language. The parser warning is simply the most glaring when a behaviorist does it. >8^D On 2/15/21 10:05 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I object for a different reason: It suggests that the person ought to reply. It's calling a person out by name rather than by letting the content of a reply speak for itself. Since there are by design many eyes (potentially) on a list e-mail, inviting some to respond but not others is counterproductive. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: A public letter to Nick, cc: any that write here
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
I appreciate and am interested in *stylistic exploration* of this medium.
This is in part what makes an Exquisite Corpse so exquisite. For example, I appreciate that public lectures need not be an individual yammering at a podium, that it may instead appear as a panel discussion, interview, or any manner of collaborative performance. I love the trialogue style of *Two New Sciences*. There may ultimately be something perverse to it, but I think it is a perversion that is more than called for. While we may *all* one day come to understand in our hearts such performances to be simply a fetishization of a by-gone era where letters and privacy had meaning, I believe there is still very much a need to work through the vast storehouse of modalities, to identify those seductive qualities (entertaining, engaging, inviting, irresistible) of communication that continue to serve. For me, the verdict is still out as to which modalities are (counter)productive. "Misunderstanding" may be too harsh an inference, and ceasing to act in light of such an inference may be too rash an outcome. There are temporal qualities afforded by variation in modality. I do not expect everyone to hold their tongues (e-pens) to the end, I expect to present a loose framework for the flow of a discussion and for it to become unfocused and poorly defined. Ultimately I expect all interactions to dissolve back into the nothingness from which they were born. In the meantime, these loose frameworks serve to vary the structure of a dialogue, even if only transiently, and to invite shifts in perspective. Writing can often benefit from a prompt or a prompted form, I think of the public letter as such a form. -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
Re: A public letter to Nick, cc: any that write here
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Nick Thompson [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 11:58 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A public letter to Nick, cc: any that write here Ha! This is why the internet is such an Exquisite Corpse. No Nick, that's not my point at all. It's not even slightly about hypocrisy. It's about *obsolete* conceptions of privacy. It is literally impossible to have a conversation with one other person on the internet, performative or not. Here's a nice way to put it: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=5310 "I simply accept that, in the age of instantaneous communication, there are no walled gardens: anything you say to a dozen or more people, you might as well broadcast to the planet." So, by continuing your salutations, you are not being hypocritical or (merely) performative. You're basing your post on (not even) *wrong* ideas, on a complete misunderstanding of the medium. On 2/14/21 8:13 PM, [hidden email] wrote: > It grows out of things Glen has said about the implicit hypocrisy of > writing to a person while posting to a list. I think he is wrong about that, but in a right sort of way. I think one can have a discussion with one person as a performance before an interested audience without being a hypocrite. The aspiration is to draw the larger audience in and to see the larger scope of the discussion. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
Re: A public letter to Nick, cc: any that write here
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
But aren't all "private" conversations just like that?
Isn't that why confessions are most likely to occur between strangers on trains? n Nick Thompson [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 11:58 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A public letter to Nick, cc: any that write here Ha! This is why the internet is such an Exquisite Corpse. No Nick, that's not my point at all. It's not even slightly about hypocrisy. It's about *obsolete* conceptions of privacy. It is literally impossible to have a conversation with one other person on the internet, performative or not. Here's a nice way to put it: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=5310 "I simply accept that, in the age of instantaneous communication, there are no walled gardens: anything you say to a dozen or more people, you might as well broadcast to the planet." So, by continuing your salutations, you are not being hypocritical or (merely) performative. You're basing your post on (not even) *wrong* ideas, on a complete misunderstanding of the medium. On 2/14/21 8:13 PM, [hidden email] wrote: > It grows out of things Glen has said about the implicit hypocrisy of > writing to a person while posting to a list. I think he is wrong about that, but in a right sort of way. I think one can have a discussion with one person as a performance before an interested audience without being a hypocrite. The aspiration is to draw the larger audience in and to see the larger scope of the discussion. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
|
I don't think so, no. A conversation in meat space is governed by the laws of meat space, like r^3 pressure waves and such. Our biology [has|is] a (very good) model of meat space. I doubt that our biology has a model of net space at all. Perhaps we're *growing* such anatomy as we speak. E.g. our conversation(s) about causal models and graphs. But my guess is net space is inherently non-intuitive for most animals.
On 2/15/21 11:49 AM, [hidden email] wrote: > But aren't all "private" conversations just like that? > > Isn't that why confessions are most likely to occur between strangers on trains? -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: A public letter to Nick, cc: any that write here
|
|
In reply to this post by jon zingale
When two tennis players slash it out for the cup they are playing against
one another. But they are playing for us. Why can't that be a kind of conversation? Nick Thompson [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of jon zingale Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 1:12 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A public letter to Nick, cc: any that write here I appreciate and am interested in *stylistic exploration* of this medium. This is in part what makes an Exquisite Corpse so exquisite. For example, I appreciate that public lectures need not be an individual yammering at a podium, that it may instead appear as a panel discussion, interview, or any manner of collaborative performance. I love the trialogue style of *Two New Sciences*. There may ultimately be something perverse to it, but I think it is a perversion that is more than called for. While we may *all* one day come to understand in our hearts such performances to be simply a fetishization of a by-gone era where letters and privacy had meaning, I believe there is still very much a need to work through the vast storehouse of modalities, to identify those seductive qualities (entertaining, engaging, inviting, irresistible) of communication that continue to serve. For me, the verdict is still out as to which modalities are (counter)productive. "Misunderstanding" may be too harsh an inference, and ceasing to act in light of such an inference may be too rash an outcome. There are temporal qualities afforded by variation in modality. I do not expect everyone to hold their tongues (e-pens) to the end, I expect to present a loose framework for the flow of a discussion and for it to become unfocused and poorly defined. Ultimately I expect all interactions to dissolve back into the nothingness from which they were born. In the meantime, these loose frameworks serve to vary the structure of a dialogue, even if only transiently, and to invite shifts in perspective. Writing can often benefit from a prompt or a prompted form, I think of the public letter as such a form. -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
|
As a kid, we had a version of soccer called "hackball". There were really no rules except "Don't purposefully hurt people." Each of us had multiple instances of hurting each other. Broken bones were not rare. There was a lot of blood. Scoring was pretty ill-defined. Etc.
To us, it was a lot of fun. But to an onlooker, it was nonsense. [⛧] Each new person brought their own baggage to the "game". But I'm using scare quotes because they're necessary. A tennis game performed for an audience is a game. Our ... collaboratively, dynamically, lazily defined "soccer" was nothing like a game. There really was no winner or any kind of concept of "success". If your posts to this list (or anywhere) are *intended* to be a game, you need a way to enforce the rules. You need a moderator/referee. Until/unless you get that, your performative game of tennis is *nothing* like these conversations. [⛧] To head off a false inference, we had a handful of girls who would play. So it wasn't the merely physical aggression of males. On 2/15/21 11:56 AM, [hidden email] wrote: > When two tennis players slash it out for the cup they are playing against > one another. But they are playing for us. Why can't that be a kind of > conversation? -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: A public letter to Nick, cc: any that write here
|
|
I mean... if we are digressing anyway.... The question is what the function would be of addressing someone at the start of a message posted to a list. Right? I think Glen is correct that most past functions such an address would serve, associated with a private and personal letter to an individual, are either rendered neutral in a context such as this, or are actively counterproductive (or, misleading to the point that they detract from the interaction more than they add). However, there could still be some good reasons for it. I (think I) use it for two distinct purposes:
On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 3:09 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote: As a kid, we had a version of soccer called "hackball". There were really no rules except "Don't purposefully hurt people." Each of us had multiple instances of hurting each other. Broken bones were not rare. There was a lot of blood. Scoring was pretty ill-defined. Etc. - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
Re: A public letter to Nick, cc: any that write here
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Glen, I love this analogy. As a kid, we had a version of "hack ball" in
almost anything we did. To some extent, it was exactly the loosely defined and chaotic character of the play that shouldered the work of seduction. Children intuitively know that *hack ball* between others can be *play* for them too, the medium is the invitation, the affordance of which is almost gifted to them by their own inability to be neurotically formal. Your comment takes me back to elementary school playground games, games where at times the entire playground was engaged and whose rules could only be locally defined. Is it that you are suggesting a trade-off? -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
Re: A public letter to Nick, cc: any that write here
|
|
Hey, Jon,
I realize that I missed an opportunity to ask YOU what YOU mean by seduction. N Nick Thompson [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of jon zingale Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 2:42 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A public letter to Nick, cc: any that write here Glen, I love this analogy. As a kid, we had a version of "hack ball" in almost anything we did. To some extent, it was exactly the loosely defined and chaotic character of the play that shouldered the work of seduction. Children intuitively know that *hack ball* between others can be *play* for them too, the medium is the invitation, the affordance of which is almost gifted to them by their own inability to be neurotically formal. Your comment takes me back to elementary school playground games, games where at times the entire playground was engaged and whose rules could only be locally defined. Is it that you are suggesting a trade-off? -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by jon zingale
Yes, except, *like a* broken record, what I'm saying is all about scoping. The trade-offs I'm talking about are (mostly) understood well when we switch from ℝ⁴ to (irregular) graphs. The games of the playground come with some implicit rules (light cones, at least). The games on the net *may* have implicit rules. But those rules are at least less intuitive, if not entirely obscure.
On 2/15/21 12:42 PM, jon zingale wrote: > Glen, I love this analogy. As a kid, we had a version of "hack ball" in > almost anything we did. To some extent, it was exactly the loosely defined > and chaotic character of the play that shouldered the work of seduction. > Children intuitively know that *hack ball* between others can be *play* for > them too, the medium is the invitation, the affordance of which is almost > gifted to them by their own inability to be neurotically formal. Your > comment takes me back to elementary school playground games, games where at > times the entire playground was engaged and whose rules could only be > locally defined. Is it that you are suggesting a trade-off? -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: A public letter to Nick, cc: any that write here
|
|
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by thompnickson2
Most people don’t know that Frank Sinatra has an arrest record and a mugshot to match.
This seemingly archaic charge was generally applied when a man convinced an unmarried Dear Nick, On Friday, you claimed that the role of the introduction is to establish readership, to ward off those that need not read the text. For me, the introduction serves to register the reader, to initiate the reader into a reader-text assemblage. Nowhere in the text is seduction more apparent than in the introduction. The introduction exists to seduce the reader, to draw the reader aside. The introduction not only orients the reader toward decoding the text but also initiates the reader into their relationship with the text. Sympathizing with Eco's "Role of the Reader", I interpret a text as a curried function, a kind of incomplete reaction, a thing that lies in wait for a reader before engaging in the process of becoming. As one article on seducing-machines puts it: The process of becoming is to occupy “molecular” states...in order to think of oneself not as a ready-made self, but as a type of proto-subject that allows for and insists upon constant metamorphosis and flux... Seduction exists only relative to desire, and taking a cue from Deleuze, desire is construction. The connection here, for me, is that construction is generative and thus fitness is not given apriori. A text must rely on the grace of seduction. The text does not have readers, only potential readers. That is, robust desire and robust seduction require grace. To quote a PBS special on pollination, "And since bees are messy..." I am only beginning to think about the idea. That biology appears to be the prototypical framework for seduction, I would love to hear your thoughts on it with regards to design or with regards to the goal directed-function relation. Jon |
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |