Version (d) C. 1995-7 by Luke
Harms
"Traveling text on the wing of time, synchronisity call coincidence
divine." (uw3.d)
Introductory premise and argument:
Mathematical systems are considered the least abstract of our
representations of truth. Yet even in math, our most precise arrangement of
symbols, lurks the likelihood of
distortion...
Letters are variable, numbers are constant. Yet a digital semantic exists. English homonyms and a floating context gives rise to ambiguity in discourse. The variability of text leaves verbal slack that can only be picked up by (subjective) interpretation. Likewise, math is subject to measures of estimation, which will never be absolute. This incommensurablity is expressed in one case as "the monster in the middle of the unit square".
A square with a side of one length unit, has an area of one squared.
A line bisecting this square from A to C forms a diagonal with length root two. The square root of two (and of any prime number) is classified as irrational. It is the existence of irrationality in discourse that provides the basis for contradiction. Indeed mathematicians have "eaten on the insane root which takes the reason prisoner." (Macbeth).
One primary topic upon which thinkers continue to stack contradiction is that of reality. If it could be proven we and our perceptions are the almost corporeal spew of intangibility, an ageless debate would come to an end. Fortunately for the extant doxographers the potential for future contradiction still exists. It is nearly impossible to absolutely prove anything except the continued appearance of exceptions to our rules.
Towards functionality-
To facilitate a polymorphic application of symbols, (particularly letters and numbers) certain objects and processes will hereafter be represented in abbreviated form. The concept of flexible meaning is here stressed. The author urges you to consider all possible paths to which a sign points (include all possible meanings in your interpretation of text). In addition, abbreviation and use of links- combined with parenthetical detail (ie. ({[!]})) are meant to foster an association.
The context of the discourse-
Through our physical link with @ (mind or existance), humans have an architectural capacity. This is the ability to design, or to construct. In irrelevant circumstance it becomes merely the tendency to project. Reality is subjective. Accepting this, perceptions (signs, image, language, and metaphor) may be used as tools for sculpting the present.
@ encapsulates all things. It is accessible to each of us and we each have a significant effect upon it. Our brains provide a link to @, that we all share. With justifiable associations @, and its' SR (subjective reality) are malleable.
SR is the private world each of us occupies. These worlds overlap with the frequency of shared experience. A thought inside an individuals head has the least impact upon reality. A recorded, or spoken thought has more effect on reality. An action has the most significant results in reality.
No two individuals experience the same reality. This is due to the categorizing quality of @, which seeks subjects. Presented with a fresh stimulus @ will most often associate with the most similar and most common stored stimulus.
Stimulus that manifest on the surface of @ send echoes into its' depths. These echoes descend until they are dissipated or stagnate. A dissipated stimulus strengthens associations along certain paths. A stagnant stimulus locks in a context in which thought or action may take place. Most of the stimuli @ encounters is, while stagnant- dissipating.
Our individual brains receive pointers to stimuli through our senses. Reaction is a physical response, orchestrated by the brain, towards the perceived action of non-self (stimuli).
Our brains form the visible nodes of the @. At each of these nodes is a corporeal extension of @ into clear, these are our bodies and our subjective realities. The clear is the calm surface of the @, undisturbed by the ripples of SR. Everything occupies the @, Still the @ contains things beyond everything, this is "clear" and includes nothing.
Writing, according to Foucault, is "arranged according to the nature of the signifier". (Within each of our skull encapsulated, organic circut boards occurs an isolated web of relationships.) The personal significance of text is determined by the strength of association between the presented signs (writing) and the individual's unique pattern of experience (nature) within the culture (language). Foucault has provided a competent description of the `author function'. He also, however rhetorically, pleas for discourse to abandon this function and exist solely of it's own merit. Towards this goal (that of work functioning independent of specified individuals, which developments in digital media will encourage) subsequent quotes are cited and linked where possible, but there is no bibliography.