Thank you so much! I've been trying to write like this for a while, a dialog with dictation and dictation's errors and where they lead/live - as a way of 'doing' theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFxQ5uS92Rc was working with a similar approach (no bots here, just dictations) in real time and interlocked programs.
Best, Alan On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 7:00 AM Johannes Birringer via NetBehaviour < netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote: > dear Alan > > your "next theoretical installment" yesterday was a wonderful start into > the Klaus day; > probably the most humorous and scrupulous text & reflection on doing > things (such as writing) & > on not answering to yourself or others, you've shared with us in a while, > I enjoyed it much > regards > Johannes Birringer > > ________________________________________ > From: NetBehaviour <netbehaviour-boun...@lists.netbehaviour.org> on > behalf of Alan Sondheim <sondh...@panix.com> > Sent: 06 December 2020 06:06 > To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity > Subject: [NetBehaviour] 12:43 AM next theoretical installment: > > > > 12:43 AM next theoretical installment: > > http://www.alansondheim.org/ohtheory.jpg > > So I immediately came into the back room and decided that I would > dictate as usual we're not as usual what this piece is going to be > which was a kind of theoretical demonstration and reply to someone > who thought what I was usually doing is poetry. I never think of > my work or almost never think of my work as poetry. Unless it is > rhymed. It seems to me that it's a way of doing philosophy and > Theory without having to call on the minions of references that > appear in ordinary theoretical discourse. I am answering to no > one. I'm not even answering to myself. I am not questioning anyone > else or critiquing anyone else. I am critiquing or questioning > only my help. It is a way of proceeding with an inner dialogue > that obviously references in my own mind the reading or work that > I am doing in terms of more traditional Philosophy. For example > now I have been looking at Saint Anselm has logic. I've been > looking and thinking a little bit about Whitehead. I've been > thinking and looking at the talmud. These are just older antique > references but they form a kind of constellation that I can > proceed from. I'm also thinking about electrical circuits and the > way that circuits and their notes add up to in various ways in > various configurations various numbers of branches. There's always > an electrical connection. What we do is based on electrical > connections. From one end of a wire to another there are things > going on internally that are fairly well understood but the > information that might be carried by this things might not be that > well understood. There is also a grounding a cable that is dropped > from the circuit that can drain it almost immediately. All > information is lost. This is what's called the fragility of good > things. It's something that appeared as a phrase in catastrophe > Theory. Catastrophe theory. In particular a book by Arnold that > used it as a way of indicating that whatever goes on properly is > only a minuscule microscopic or less amount of what can > conceivably go on. Popularly more things can go wrong as I can go > right. To go right is a knife-edge no matter how right is defined. > So this was not the topic of what I came back here to think about > and to write to you about. Back here or means back into another > room where I have Solace and quietude and the ability to think > through these dialogues. Which are monologues. Although they may > not seem as monologues. When I came back here to dictate the > dialogue or the monologue however I found that what had happened > was as a result of fatigue and exhaustion and anxiety and > depression and a Wandering mind was I forgot the topic I had > initially intended to discuss. I still no longer remember the > topic. I don't remember a single bit of what I was going to talk > about. So that philosophy that philosophical direction is lost and > replated replaced that's that. That's single philosophical > direction is lost and replaced by this enormous influence of wrong > directions. Sorry immediately came into the back room and decided > that I would dictate as usual or not as usual what this piece is > going to be which was it kind of theoretical demonstration And > reply to someone who thought what I was usually doing is poetry. I > never think of my work or almost never think of my work as poetry. > Unless it is rhyme. It seems to me that it's a way of doing > philosophy and theory without having to call on the minions of > references that appear in ordinary theoretical discourse. I am > answering to no one. I am not even answering to myself. I am not > questioning anyone else or critique in anyone else. I am > critiquing or questioning only myself. It is a way of proceeding > with an inner dialogue that obviously references in my own mind > the reading or works that I am doing in terms of more traditional > philosophy. For example now I have been looking at Saint and Selms > logic. I've been looking and thinking a little bit about > Whitehead. I've been thinking and looking at the Talmud. These are > just older antique references but they form a kind of > constellation that I can proceed from. I'm also thinking about > electrical circuits and the way that circuits and their nodes add > up to in various ways in various configurations to it various > numbers of branchings. There's always an electrical connection. > What we do is based on electrical connections. From one end of a > wire to another there are things going on internally that are > fairly well understood but the information that might be carried > by this things might not be that will understood. There is also a > grounding a cable that is dropped from the circuit that can drain > it almost immediately. All information is lost. This is what's > called the fragility of good things. It's something that appeared > as a phrase in catastrophe theory. Catastrophe theory. In > particular book by Arnold that used it as a way of indicating that > whatever goes on properly is only a miniscule microscopic or less > amount of what kind conceivably go on. Popularly more things can > go wrong than can go right. To go right is a knife edge no matter > how right is defined. So this was not the topic of what I came > back here to think about and to write to you about. Back here > means back into another room where I have solace and quietude and > the ability to think through these dialogues. Which are > monologues. Although they may not seem as monologues. When I came > back here to dictate the dialog or the monologue however I found > that what had happened was as a result of fatigue and exhaustion > and anxiety and depression and a wandering mind was I forgot the > topic I had initially intended to discuss. I still no longer > remember the topic. I don't remember a single bit of what I was > going to talk about. So that philosophy that philosophical > direction is lost and replated replaced that's that. That single > philosophical direction is lost and replaced by this enormous > affluence of wrong directions. The world is constructed of bubbles > of wrong directions. Some of them work momentarily like the > viruses. Some of them don't work at all. If there were going to be > a > > It would begin now as such. And as you can see that has occurred. > And will come to an end. If you deconstruct all of this you'll see > the organization that underlies this and every aspect of a very > problematic world it might in fact just touch on to the edge of > our real one. Or at least the only one we know. > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org > https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org > https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > -- *=====================================================* *directory http://www.alansondheim.org <http://www.alansondheim.org> tel 718-813-3285**email sondheim ut panix.com <http://panix.com>, sondheim ut gmail.com <http://gmail.com>* *=====================================================*
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
