Basho (Specific Condition)

After some more (noisy mind) thoughts about not thinking; I feel the poem from the last blog entry should be considered as a relationship stated in a general condition (without direct value or value in a positive or negative sense) furthermore, I think the poem would be easier read in the specific condition. So I have a new version in the specific condition. (see above)

The mathematical structure remains the same as the last poem and can be seen on the last blog entry.

The Poem is derived as such:

Starting with the ideas that the Splash is to the Waveless Old Pond as Frog is to No Self and as Noisey mind is to clear Mind. Which is set up mathematically as:

Splash/Waveless Old Pond = Frog/No Self = Noisy Mind/Clear Mind

and arbitrarily choosing to use flavor five from the expanded similar triangles poem examples we can see that the next line can be set up as g/h = a-d/b-e

Which translates as:
Splash / Waveless Old Pond = (Frog - Noisy Mind)/( No Self- Clear Mind)

The variables are as such:

Frog =a

No Self =b

Noisy Mind=d

Clear Mind= e

Splash=g

Waveless Old Pond=h

An aesthetic decision to solve for a and using the third example from flavor five yields: a= g(b-e)/h + d

Therefore:
Frog = (Splash(No Self – Clear Mind)/ Waveless Old Pond) + Noisy Mind

Basho

Everyone seems to have had their way with poor Basho’s poem. I am not going to be pretentious enough to call this ‘haiku’ however, this expanded similar triangles poem was inspired by the wisdom that I have gleaned from my experience with Basho's poem.

The Poem is derived as such:

Starting with the ideas that the Frog is to The Self as Noise is to The Mind and as Splash is to the Old Pond Which can be set up mathematically as:

Frog/The Self = Noise/The Mind = Splash/Old Pond


and choosing (aesthetic decision) to use flavor five from the expanded similar triangles poem examples we can see that the next line is set up as g/h = a-d/b-e

Or:

Splash / The Old Pond = (Frog - Noise)/( Self- The Mind)

The variables are as such:

Frog =a

The Self =b

Noise=d

The Mind= e

Splash=g

The Old Pond=h

Furthermore, to solve for a or choosing to use the third example from flavor five yields: a= g(b-e)/h + d

Therefore:
Frog = (Splash(The Self – The Mind)/ The Old Pond) + Noise

After some more (noisy mind) thoughts about not thinking; I feel that I should mention that the poem above is stated in a general condition furthermore, I think the poem may be seen easier in the specific condition. So I have a new version in the specific condition. Please see the next blog entry for the specific condition.

Man (for Timo Gilbert)

Here is a Similar Triangles Poem titled "Man"- inspired by my conversations with Timo Gilbert.

Minimalist Poetry

Here is a "Similar Triangles Poem" titled Minimalist Poetry.

Mock Paper Scissors

Quote from Mock Paper Scissors:
(Failed song-and-dance man turned cowboy icon, John Wayne X Beverly Hillbilly Jethro Bodine) Divided by top banana Bonzo and his presidential second billing, Ronald Reagan = Chimpy McStagger.
Quote from Mock Paper Scissors:
(Crazed psycho founder of the murderous Manson Clan, Charles Manson) + (Crazed founder of the follow-the-meteor Heaven’s Gate Death Cult, Marshall Applewhite) X (the Jonestown Cult’s favorite beverage) = Crazed founder of the 700 Club, and one-time GOP Presidential Candidate, Pat Robertson


The Australian Math poet Pioh has turned us on to some more wonderful stuff. Thank you Pioh!!

These are a perfect example of Math poetry in politics. Click here for the entire site http://www.mockpaperscissors.com – there are many more of these so please check it out. If you sit on the left you will find them extremely funny. If you sit on the right you may be disgusted. I am politically moderate however I am left of center so the two posted here are my favorites.

Enjoy

Bogus Science

Here is an Expanded Similar Triangle Poem in all six synonymous syntactical permutations from group six.

Marc-Anthony / Roland Barthes / Sherman Alexie

Marc-Anthony
( Aberration + BonhomieNebulosity)/ Nebulosity = Xenobiotic http://piptalk.com/pip/Forum7/HTML/000787.html


Roland Barthes
Writing Degree Zero
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6160074/Barthes-Poetic-Writing


Sherman Alexie
"Poetry = anger x imagination."
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/One-Stick-Song/Sherman-Alexie/e/9781882413768

Dusk by Karl Kempton

The following four images comprise a new minimalist visual poem by Karl Kempton. It could easily be said that each slide is a separate poem as well. I would like to draw our attention to the first slide which certainly can be viewed as mathematical poem in its own right. What is signature in this first slide (poem) is Karl’s use of text (there is no image as a rendering, there is just text, yet the images come through). It has a lot of the same simple and elegant features that remind me of Marton Koppany’s work.
The other three slides add an artistic breadth to the original idea in the first slide. It’s a very nice piece Karl! Thanks!

Science and Spirituality

Science does not dispel spirituality rather it points the direction of its next incarnation.

Ed Schenk

The purpose of this blog entry is to collect pieces by Ed Schenk.

i^4

Predestination / Karma / Reincarnation

Ed Schenk's World

Ignorance^4 by Ed Schenk

I would like to bring our attention to another very interesting piece (above) by the Dutch artist Ed Schenk. This one is titled “i to the fourth power” and it connotes an infinite loop of ignorance as well as asking a couple of questions. His question makes me think about asking more questions like the ones below. Can one answer be expressed as rational and the other irrational … can we express one type of ignorance being more rational and another type being more irrational?
Hmmmmm

Ed Schenk Predestination / Karma / Reincarnation

The following text are expressions by the Dutch Mathematical Poet, Ed Schenk

Predestination / karma / reincarnation

Some agnostics define death as:
death = life – life axiom 1)

In many religions the believe is there is something after or above death. This could be written as:
death ≠ 0 axiom 2)

Now if axiom 1 and axiom 2 are simultaneous valid, this leads to the postulate:
life ≠ life

This looks contradictory, however if we introduce the element time, axiom 1 could be written as:
death = life(n+1) – life(n),
where n is the current life. Moving variables yields: life(n+1) = life(n) + death. This could be written as:

next life = this life + death (predestination)

or

this life = next life – death This formula looks a bit strange, however this is due to semantics. If we take into account that time is not necessarily linear we could replace the word ‘next’ by the word ‘another’.

This leads to: this life = another life – death (karma)