I've never seen that! from the description it reminds me of a section of the video Acker and I did, writing on the tv monitor screen which occluded our words and sense of communication - some of my early computer work (presented through printer or on a monitor screen in the 70s) involved editors that interfered with the text the user was writing, creating a situation that constantly needed and thwarted correction. The Serra/Holt piece sounds amazing; it didn't seem available on the MOMA site -
Best, Alan thank you! On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 11:13 AM Annie Abrahams <bram....@gmail.com> wrote: > inspiring video Alan!!!!!! > > I was just talking before with Daniel about "boomerang" by Serra and Holt > > thanks > Annie > > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 4:55 PM Alan Sondheim via NetBehaviour < > netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote: > >> 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 >> > -- *=====================================================* *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
