mediate !=== immediate
media !=== immedia
media != qualia
media extend qualia
<present, ineffable moment> = immediate qualities
media are an extension of that which is lost when the split between 'now' and 'not now' does not appear. this is not because of some esoteric math, it's because media (including conscious and subconscious languages, formal languages, and perhaps even anything anything this side of cognition) imply their negation. And from there it all explodes. Suddenly-- but not immediately-- we have them*n and them / n . The set makes room for the incredibly intricate, somewhat gooey (depending on your affect at the time) garden of bifurcating paths. Oops. also, this is not news. This has been happening and continues to happen, and regardless of the staggeringly large number of responses we (and everything else, including systems of this) somehow come up with, stuff in our particular band of nodes (or single node, depending on your affect at the time) to which we belong can see 'up' the tree. we see out and down (sometimes). many things see only down, and some seem to see not at all, and indeed some are invisible to us entirely as well. perhaps a substitution for 'see' could be 'to recompile the lexicon and the grammar and press "play"' (to 'axiomatize' in fewer words). i suspect this is why my friend Andy kept saying "no, it's prickles" to Jenny's constant "goo" onslaughts. until it would disappear from conversation. and what more is there to do but laugh at it and move on? or perhaps drift away into sleep. these are, of course, the polarity of the "robustness?" of the system we represent at a particular time, which is a collection of processes, similar in the sense they may inherit some things from us (or us from them, depending on the polarity of the "robustness?" of the system we represent at a particular time). in addition to this we have that which is mediate (d) .
every good language has an exit strategy.
actually, they all obviously have many. a staggeringly large number of them. but the best ones are both able to be really relevant but also to refresh very quickly. NLP people will call this "reframing", I think, although I wasn't paying very close attention when it was explained to me and actually know very little about NLP at all. but i like the word because i think its kind of poetic.
as human beings, much of what we currently call our "experience" is semiotic in nature. another way to say this is that when we construct our experience, beliefs tend to have the most effect on us. especially our own. however, a system is by its own definition self-referential. it always comes back to the root. we can't see up. well, to be somewhat pithy, we do; but from there everything starts to branch out again.
i have run into some excellent and terrifying times with my project. i am currently mortified that we are making something that is far too complex than it needs to be. i suppose the idea is that it must be very robust, so that it can accommodate a wider spread of applications. at the same time, the idea that an environment like supercollider can already make this happen pretty much all on its own is a somewhat frightening design "achilles heel". however, to generalize this process to the point where there is the possibility of running this off of a live-cd and have anyone using any OSC aware environment (or actually anything at all) make digital (or haptic, etc) art with it is what fuels my interest at this point. mad of it.
i am interested in building a simple osc-powered neural network with the capacity of real-time performativity. emphasis on "simple". it will probably be the dumbest neural net in existence, but it will be way sexier than a lot of them.
one last thing about that "art" thing. our beliefs about "art" are entirely semiotic just like the rest of us. also, just like everything else, "art" or "aesthetics" is entirely self-referential. so it's somewhat dubious when practitioners of some field, like "neuroscience", "NLP", "anthropology", etc, offer smug "answers" to the "questions" (ie explain away) some other field. there is a gap implied by the act of "speaking" (perhaps even in the sense that "my soul speaks to me") that we would have to superceed in order to resolve. since that isn't possible, we can't even say whether something out there already has "answered" the question of us. or what that means at all. These frameworks for understanding are best taken as dialogues, themselves being in dialogue with each other.