Kode9 : portrait of the artist as a... writer

[rekordah]

this thread is made of awesome.

Most definitely! I'm getting my ass down the bookshop now!

[bribkin]

shit i would but i have a 'generic skills workshop' at college

that sounds awesome.. lol

well you can come if you want it's free i just have to put you down on the list

haha

seriously i'd miss it but its one of those things that teaches you vital practical stuff and if you miss it you lose out and fail and drop of the ladder forever like a nothing in a nobody trail

[ufo over easy]

come to the performance bit in the evening? that's a seperate thing, sorta, the tickets are seperate. unless you buy them together. but otherwise they're seperate.

[bribkin]

come to the performance bit in the evening? that's a seperate thing, sorta, the tickets are seperate. unless you buy them together. but otherwise they're seperate.

no the f-ing workshop is in the evening isn't it for all the zim zimmerframers who do part time study and have jobs to go to

wasters

[tusk]

[quote="Joe Muggs"][quote="Tusk"]I tend to think of the ccru stuff as intelligent, quasi sentient inspired sci fi. I will oscillate between a strongly focused decoding style of reading and moments of passive receptivity, just letting the text resonate and pass over me like waves. Like urban drift on the page / screen.[/quote]

Or like (the good bits of) NLP theory, it's reprogramming you as it goes... creative derangement etc.[/quote]


Absolutely. Profoundly psychedelic texts. Like an urban futurist Cthulhu Mythos but in reverse: the ancient chaos as protagonist vs. the oppressive rational patriarchy.

[epithet]

So is the language here used to make the reader reach harder with there mind so they have to make more of a personal invetsment in understanding? or is to create a true meaning so obscure that only an approximate understanding can be reached by intuition, reflecting the nature of the truth? Or is it a form of intellectual elitism?

I'm going for intellectual elitism. They could dumb it down for the masses real easy.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

"If you can't explain something simply, you don't know enough about it."

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Albert Einstein

[clarkycatdealer]

old boy albert is clearly up there with darwin,marx,copernicus,freud etc


however;


i can't think of a "simple" way of explaining the special theory of relativity ..... and i think its fair to say he knew a little bit about all that eh....


also he was a great scientist, not philosopher.....


d.

[epithet]

Albert's a cut above those other fellas. Simple way of explaining relativity ? Everything is relative to the observer and time slows down the faster you go.

Can you do the same for me about some philosophers. But really whats philosophy good for apart from make interesting conversation ?

[selector.dub.u]

Albert's a cut above those other fellas. Simple way of explaining relativity ? Everything is relative to the observer and time slows down the faster you go.

Can you do the same for me about some philosophers. But really whats philosophy good for apart from make interesting conversation ?

Here is an answer your last question.

The sciences began with philosophical inquiry.

Einstein's work was ultimately the product of philosophical questioning.

So, philosophy has practical value although the practical
value of any given philosophy may not be clear when questions and hypotheses are first formulated within any given philosophies framework.

[epithet]

cheers for that.

[selector.dub.u]

cheers for that.

My pleasure.

I do agree that every attempt should be made to explain philosophy and science in the most concise and meaningful language possible.

I think that is one of the great things about mathematics.

However, the justifications for precision and for reducing complexity to simplicity should not be used to discourage critical thinking.
Or to discourage the illustration of complexities in philosophical, mathematical, literary and scientific thought and research- via technical language.

[macphellimey]

Albert's a cut above those other fellas. Simple way of explaining relativity ? Everything is relative to the observer and time slows down the faster you go.

Can you do the same for me about some philosophers. But really whats philosophy good for apart from make interesting conversation ?

That's a great example of why one doesn't attempt to condense a theory into its simplest possible formulation, it looses its value and becomes nothing more than a trite, meaningless idiom. You misconstrue understanding a theory as being able to nod one's head along knowingly.

[epithet]

From what I've read there are examples of deliberately obfuscating philosophies in protection of academic tenure though. And that's not on either IMO.

That's a great example of why one doesn't attempt to condense a theory into its simplest possible formulation, it looses its value and becomes nothing more than a trite, meaningless idiom. You misconstrue understanding a theory as being able to nod one's head along knowingly.

I loves me the trite, meaningless idioms especially around the dinner table. Being able to nod my head accordingly can be sooooooooooo satisfying especially when i stroke my chin at the same time

[macphellimey]

Don't get me wrong, I love a good chin stroke as much as the next man and there are plenty of things I pretend to understand but don't. That said, what's important to recognise is that when you condense a theory like that you can never understand it's meaning properly because nothing so complex can be explained so simply. It's like pointing at a transistor and saying that it is a simple explaination of a computer. Sure, with a certain amount of interpretation and background knowledge of the subject that's true but when you're speaking to someone who's completely ignorant of the subject they're hardly going to be englightened, are they?

[joe muggs]

Don't get me wrong, I love a good chin stroke as much as the next man and there are plenty of things I pretend to understand but don't. That said, what's important to recognise is that when you condense a theory like that you can never understand it's meaning properly because nothing so complex can be explained so simply. It's like pointing at a transistor and saying that it is a simple explaination of a computer. Sure, with a certain amount of interpretation and background knowledge of the subject that's true but when you're speaking to someone who's completely ignorant of the subject they're hardly going to be englightened, are they?

Are they? Is enlightenment your sole aim? The way I always read Deleuze and Guattari suggests that they are doing anything BUT creating an integrated system; in fact they completely resist attempts to say that their work should be read as a whole, instead offering multiple starting points, parts that can be read alone, rearranged, refixed and used - most importantly - as TOOLS for MULTIPLE purposes on many different scales and planes. Open Source Philosophy, like.

[selector.dub.u]

Don't get me wrong, I love a good chin stroke as much as the next man and there are plenty of things I pretend to understand but don't. That said, what's important to recognise is that when you condense a theory like that you can never understand it's meaning properly because nothing so complex can be explained so simply. It's like pointing at a transistor and saying that it is a simple explaination of a computer. Sure, with a certain amount of interpretation and background knowledge of the subject that's true but when you're speaking to someone who's completely ignorant of the subject they're hardly going to be englightened, are they?

A transistor is a computer at a fundamental level so it could be used to illustrate a computer simply and I believe some basic computer science.

E = mc²
What could be more simple and elegant than that?

As far as acting like you understand something-- what is the point of that if
one is really seeking truth and knowledge?

IMO- The beauty of great science, math and philosophy, is that complex ideas can be illustrated via simple, concise language and or symbols. So, that the majority of humanity (or a large minority) can glean some understanding of complex ideas/theories/formulas/theorems concerning thought and the nature/structure/chronology of the multidimensional omniverse.

[macphellimey]

I realise that the transistor is a computer at the basic, fundemental level, that's why I used the example. Epithet's description of relativity is true of the theory, at a very basic level as well. The problem I was trying to highlight was that one cannot just point at one or the other and expect a layman to understand the principle one is trying to explain. Summing up a theory in a useful phrase is only helpful if one understands why that phrase is true of the theory. I could, for example, say that Van Inwagen's theory of determinism is that the conjunction of the sum total of facts about the past and sum total of the laws of nature necessarily entails some specific set of true propositions about the state of the world at a future point. That is, basically, the content of the theory but without understanding it properly the sentence is fairly meaningless. If one doesn't understand the theory anyway, the sentance is fairly ambigious and can mean a variety of things. The best a simplification of the type we're talking about can do is offer a hangnail for people who understand the theory anyway. E=mc2 (I don't know the macro for subscript, sorry) is definately simple and elegant but it requires a knowledge not only of what the formula means but, more importantly, its implications and intellectual ramifications to understand it properly. And besides, are we really so sure that even more complex and abstract theories, M theory for example, can be explained in simple language?

Unfortunately, it's not clear that science, maths and philosophy can be represented through symbolisation. The logicist's agenda was struck a great blow by Godel's (don't know how to do umlouts either) incompleteness theory. Besides, with the advent of logical pluralism people don't even agree on what logical systems are meaningful anymore.

The pretending to understand something was just designed to be an offhand quip refering to those times when someone tries to explain something to you in a social situation that you're either not too interested in or don't have the presence of mind to consider at the minute. I don't really pretend to understand theories I don't get (or at least not consciously).

Joe - I must admit, the problem we're having here is that my grasp of continental philosophy is very limited. Almost all of my reading and therefore the linguistic and philosophical tools and dogmas I have aquired are from analytic philosophic, which, in most cases, favours systemisation. We've just got different ways of going about things, I'm afraid.

[epithet]

Joe - I must admit, the problem we're having here is that my grasp of continental philosophy is very limited. Almost all of my reading and therefore the linguistic and philosophical tools and dogmas I have aquired are from analytic philosophic, which, in most cases, favours systemisation. We've just got different ways of going about things, I'm afraid.

Isnt that the thing though. Philosophy is culturally specific. Can you reasonably apply deleuze and guattari to a tribe of guineamen and expect it's tenets to hold true ? In which case, doesn't it serve them better to remain ignorant of western philosophy as a whole ? If the solution is to study for years and still battle for enlightenment i'd rather hear the trite idiom for the dumbed down masses that applies to broader cross section of society. It is after all merely a jump off point for further exploration. Entities need not be reproduced beyond neccessity. Too much philosophy and no play makes for dull playtime. Seems all there is is differnet ways of saying the same things.

[selector.dub.u]

I realise that the transistor is a computer at the basic, fundemental level, that's why I used the example.

I understood what you meant. However, the concept of a computer could still be explained simply using a transistor.

The problem I was trying to highlight was that one cannot just point at one or the other and expect a layman to understand the principle one is trying to explain. Summing up a theory in a useful phrase is only helpful if one understands why that phrase is true of the theory.

I understand what you were trying to explain. However, epithet's simple illustration did explain the theory of relativity (somewhat/ kind of) for a person not familiar with physics.

Nevertheless, critical theory is not physics. They are totally different domains so perhaps your point is applicable to critical theory

I do not know enough critical theory to comment on it or to formulate an educated opinion.



I could, for example, say that Van Inwagen's theory of determinism is that the conjunction of the sum total of facts about the past and sum total of the laws of nature necessarily entails some specific set of true propositions about the state of the world at a future point. That is, basically, the content of the theory but without understanding it properly the sentence is fairly meaningless.

But you did explain it concisely enough that most people could understand Van Inwagen's theory of determinism.
Although my conclusions about what you meant by reducing Van Inwagen's theory to a simple statement could be ambiguous. Some elaboration on the definition of terms and the basic concepts that the theory is composed of would clear that right up- I am pretty sure.

And you are right - the theory of relativity is extremely difficult to comprehend in terms of it's ramifications, etc... In a complete sense. However the basic idea is understood by many using simple everyday language and terms

M theory for example, can be explained in simple language?

I don't know.

Interesting theory though. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

Unfortunately, it's not clear that science, maths and philosophy can be represented through symbolisation. The logicist's agenda was struck a great blow by Godel's (don't know how to do umlouts either) incompleteness theory. Besides, with the advent of logical pluralism people don't even agree on what logical systems are meaningful anymore.


This is still an area of contention amongst mathematicians. However, I agree language, metalanguage and symbols for the most part inadequately explain and or map reality. For the purpose of communicating some knowledge they are adequate enough though. Even with a pluralism of logics there are certain structures, proofs and arguments that can be illustrated using logic. Otherwise- what use would logic have ? Are logical systems, for the most part- meaningless?


The pretending to understand something was just designed to be an offhand quip refering to those times when someone tries to explain something to you in a social situation that you're either not too interested in or don't have the presence of mind to consider at the minute. I don't really pretend to understand theories I don't get (or at least not consciously).

I knew what you meant there. I was arguing in bad faith. Please accept my apology for being a prik. I do the same thing of course(act like I understand theories that i don't understand in public situations)

I agree with both you and epithet to some degree .

FWIW- i really loved Kwodo Eshun's Book- More Brilliant Than the Sun
and I would love to explore Kode 9's philosophies as well.

Thanks for the conversation...

[futureproof]

http://www.museumgardenhistory.org/atmospheres2

Think we're plannin to reach this too