The Chinese Challenge :: 中国挑战

"The Chinese Challenge"-Teamblog is opening up a discussion about a possible new rationality hidden in the Chinese writing. The main question is: What can we learn from China that China is not teaching us? It is proposed that a study of polycontextural logic and morphogrammatics could be helpful to discover this new kind of rationality. Those topics of polycontexturality are presented at my website and at the complementary Blog Rudy's Diamond Strategies. Start with the "Pamphlet".

The Chinese Challenge :: 中国挑战-Video

PAMPHLET Chinese English

New Blog: Diamond Strategies

Thanks for Support! Click PayPal-Donation

 

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Short Studies: 2. Fishes and Birds

A Tale of Fishes, Birds and Diamonds in Second-Order Epistemology


Why it is useless to speak about the mono-contexturality of alphabetism and digitalism


The Endness of Events

The endness of events in a open/closed world are not simply ending in an unqualified way. Endness has to be connected with rhythms instead of linear or non-linear progressions.

The endness of events in a open/closed world are not simply ending in an unqualified way. Endness has to be connected with rhythms instead of linear or non-linear progressions. 

A rhythm has a beginning and an end; endlessly. An open/closed world is poly-rhythmic. Scientific linear time structures of whatever complexity are without rhythms. Western science beliefs in a 1-rhythm world: from the big bang to the wee crash.


In many papers I emphasized the importance of linearity for the Western way of thinking and its mathematically based technology.

In-between I have the feeling that I always experienced a strange lack of response to my argumentations. In a metaphor, I feel like a fish telling his female fish friend: "Honey, do you know, we are living in water?" And getting the harsh response: "Shut up you wancker, I don’t fancy you!".


OK, not everybody can be mesmerized like Monsieur Jourdain after he learned that he is speaking all his life prose. And not everybody thinks that this is trivial anyway.


For good reasons we can belief that there is no reason to think that the fish girl was stubbern or even stupid. She easily could have pointed to the un-denial fact that there is no such thing like water in the water to perceive.

What is in the water are all these different plants, stones, animals, and surely, other fishes. But no water at all. This is more than clear. There might be some areas where it is harder to swim or where other stuff is moving very fast or areas where nothing is moving at all. The stuff might also move in all direction, at once. And as far as she can swim there is no limit and no reason to stop her swimming. What can be perceived and sensed in her world as a fish are objects of all sorts but not water.

Another approach, which has not to struggle with the problems of the abstractness of the arguments for linearity of alphabetism with its atomicity, abstractness and ideality of signs, could be the more generally acknowledged fact of the endless repeatability of (sign) events.

This concept is independent of dimensionality, parallelisms, circularities, interactions and other seemingly non-linear complex and pictorial or sonic processes and structures.


As for the swimming moves of our fish girl, which are not restricted by any obstacle, to each move there is a next move, and so on. Swimming is producing swimming; only a swimmer is swimming, and no swimming is leaving the category of swimming. Outside of swimming there is no swimming. Swimming adds to swimming, and remains swimming; endlessly. No swimming transforms into flying; no swimming permutes into walking. And so on.



OK, in real-world conditions, the fish girl will stop to swim because of physical limitations of her life-span. The same happens, evidently, to the chalk and blackboards of the high priests of formal systems. The endless iterativity of their sign systems will have, in real-world conditions, unavoidably, some natural ends.

This is in sharp contradiction to the abstractness of the definition of signs and Obs in formal systems.


Nevertheless, repeatability is open and endless. The iterability of repeatibility is stable.

The other fact, we could agree to some degree, is given by the identity of the repeated objects. It may not be a too big challenge to see and perceive, clara et distincta, that this concept of identity is best realized, as Hegel pointed out, by the Western alpha-numeric sign systems.

A number or a letter is as a number or as a letter strictly identical with itself. Take the inscription on your bank note: 5 USDollar. There is nothing to interpret, 5 is 5 and USDollar is USDollar. And nothing else. 




Hence, endless repeatability is realized within the realm of identical entities. Or: identities are realized in the realm of iterability.

There is no identity without iterability and no iterability without identity.

This, again, happens in the ideal world of sign systems, i.e., in the mind of semioticians and mathematicians; and not at the blackboard, nor in citations or plagiarism.



Therefore, if we accept iterability, we have not to struggle with the strangeness of the challenge to be aware of swimming in strange waters. Identity, at least to some degree of fuzziness, and the endlessness of repeatability in all its mathematical forms, seems to be accessible to everyone and understood universally without getting involved with the paradox of the medium we are living in.

Things are getting less natural and universal if we stipulate a pluri-verse instead of a classic universe. But this is a story to come!



It seems that nobody wants to share my linearity thesis. It is said, all over again: The world is hyper-complex, fractal, undecidable and the World Wide Web decentralized and chaotic. Old alphabetism is loosing its dominance to images, pictures, pictograms, videos and sound.

More theoretical motivated guys are talking about cellular automata, parallelism, actor communities, grid computing, etc.
Therefore, there is no such thing as a dominance of linearity and identity in a post-modern world full of paradoxes, parallaxes, ruptures and abysses.



A.A. Markov’s linearity thesis is not only unknown by media scientists but put under the carpet by computer scientists as old foundational fundamentalism (FOL) and bad reductionism.

What to do against such a poverty of thinking?



Simply, change topic!

Give it up! Ask our fish!



Hence, forget linearity! 



Enjoy endless repeatability! The world is rich and complex, and you too. 



And there is also space enough to defend this situation of repeatability before we end up in the paradoxes of self-defence.

[...]


The consequences for the entire paradigm of composability, based, as we learned, again and again, on iterability, are enormous. Not only an absolute new kind of double-compositionability appears on stage, even more.

Primary to all composition, there is the difference between superpositional and antidromic combination. Instead of dealing with superpositionality, interactionality and reflectionality between superpositional and antidromical movements, iter-/alterabilities, are taking place, well positioned in the kenomic grid of Diamond Strategies.


This is really a great relief! 



Forget debates about the monocontexturality of combinatorial logics, their fixation on alphabetism and its linearity and atomicity, as sine qua non of all composability.

Forget the postmodern theater of disseminating colored contextures of repeatability.


Forget the phantasm of our hidden universal mockingbirds in whatever fibered forests.


Listen to the songs of free mating birds! Enjoy your Diamonds!


FULL TEXT: http://www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/media/Fishes+Birds/Fishes+Birds.html

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home