New From Karl Kempton
This is a new little diddy from Karl Kempton. I am not sure if he had a title for it but if I could title this piece, I would title it: "I don't trust language"
Monday, May 06, 2013
This is a new little diddy from Karl Kempton. I am not sure if he had a title for it but if I could title this piece, I would title it: "I don't trust language"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
magnificent thought!
magnificent equation!
love it!
really got me going!
but 1??????
no, i would have thought
2 to the power of 3 (more)!
love + anarchy
TT.O.
Glad to see you are still around TT.O.
Anything divided by itself is 1
:)
dear kaz
i always drop in every now and then
for a squiz, but back to business
with all due respect:
is nothing divided by nothing One?
is One divided by One, One???
How can that be when the Greeks maintained that One was not a number.
But what my thinking “into” took me to
was Biology
and the “division” of cells.
hence ÷ ÷ ÷ = 23
or to be more precise
i was thinking of it as an “utterance”
and trying to make sense of it that way
i understand the seductive urge
of the quintessential aesthetic
as layed down by Euler’s equation
ei +1 = 0
but if division is ambiguous as a number
then utterance may be the go
i still love the thought of 3 divisions tho!
love + anarchy
TT.O.
TT.O. - I appreciate your imagination and efforts to push the boundaries. But I always try to stay connected to mathematical rules at least when approaching the language. I think nothing divided by nothing would be considered in the category of “undefined” (if we asked a mathematician) - much like zero divided by zero. As artists we always enjoy pondering things that are mathematically undefined yet, when we do we always seem to leave the realm of mathematics and enter into the space of our undisciplined imagination - but as I see it, for things to be clear, we must have structure - I believe that metaphors can be irrational but the structure that holds them must make sense mathematically.
Again – thanks for dropping by – I always appreciate your views.
Cheers,
Kaz
Dear kaz
why you think that you are
dealing in anything other than metaphor is beyond me!
love + anarchy
TT.O.
Dear TT.O.
What would give you the idea that I thought we were dealing with something other than metaphor?
love + Clarity
Kaz
Dear Kaz
when you say “ I always try to stay connected to mathematical rules at least when approaching the language” it seems to me a negation of metaphor some how – as tho metaphor were somehow outside mathematics. Or when you say “As artists we always enjoy pondering things that are mathematically undefined yet, when we do we always seem to leave the realm of mathematics” it seems you are lamenting leaving “strict” mathematical protocol, assuming that its possible to be that “mathematical strict” in the realm of symbols and language, and further, that you have previously been able to stay “within” mathematics . Or when you say “for things to be clear, we must have structure - I believe that metaphors can be irrational but the structure that holds them must make sense mathematically” it seems to me that you think (a) metaphor does not have structure -- only it does Kaz, eg A = B but means C, which is a highly structured equation, and (b) that metaphor is “irrational”??????? Irrational??????? With all due respect Kaz “division division division = 1” is what is structurally “irrational”, at least in the realm of propositional mathematics; but not so if thought of as a “metaphorical” operation. All the above quotes are from your previous reply to me in a single-paragraph, which makes me think yes you aren’t thinking/talking metaphor. Looking for some kind of operational-linguistic-absolutism in mathematical-poetry seems a doomed enterprise -- either an equation sits comfortably within the rules of existing mathematic(s) or else it’s the impetus to spin out a vortex
love + anarchy
TT.O.
Post a Comment