Return-Path: Received: from mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.1.48] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.9.11) for paragram@localhost (single-drop); Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:14:46 +0100 (CET) Received: by Mail.ZEDAT.FU-Berlin.DE (Smail3.2.0.98) from n22.grp.scd.yahoo.com (66.218.66.78) with smtp id ; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 05:47:58 +0100 (MET) X-eGroups-Return: sentto-64825-19217-1036903675-cantsin=zedat.fu-berlin.de@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.197] by n22.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 10 Nov 2002 04:47:56 -0000 X-Sender: sondheim@panix.com X-Apparently-To: webartery@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 10 Nov 2002 04:47:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 76207 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2002 04:47:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Nov 2002 04:47:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail3.panix.com) (166.84.1.74) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Nov 2002 04:47:55 -0000 Received: from panix3.panix.com (panix3.panix.com [166.84.1.3]) by mail3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE2A898584 for ; Sat, 9 Nov 2002 23:47:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by panix3.panix.com (8.11.6/8.8.8/PanixN1.0) with ESMTP id gAA4lsD29913 for ; Sat, 9 Nov 2002 23:47:54 -0500 (EST) To: webartery@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: Message-ID: From: Alan Sondheim MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list webartery@yahoogroups.com; contact webartery-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list webartery@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 23:47:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [webartery] Fwd: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "digital p[h]e[ave]tting" vs Reply-To: webartery@yahoogroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UIDL: kS*!!hUX"!0!i"!NSf!! Content-Length: 13760 One's 'in the picture' in a different way when calculating - there's a constant movement in and out (maybe related to what David Finkelstein, the physicist, once said to a pure mathematician he was being interviewed by - "I'm fucking reality," "you're masturbating" - in other words, in doing code or physics, there are formal limitations and feedbacks - in doing a straightforward poem or painting I can lose myself in an entirely different way) - Alan - On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Lewis LaCook wrote: > well, that's part of the egolessness for me.... > you become completely absorbed in the work....with music there's an > immediacy that helps.....with hypermedia, there's the distance of > stepping back and looking at it//// > just losing identity in the work//// > which does not mean not calculating! > > bliss > l > > "i love the gesture which corrects emotion" > -braque > --- In webartery@y..., Alan Sondheim wrote: > > > > > > Is working in an egoless state the best way to work or be? I > > understand this in zen certainly, and it's something I think I > > occasionally achieve when playing instrumentally, but the very > > exigencies of digital work, however it's defined, requires one to do > > what Ruth Bunzel talked about (believe it or not) in relate to > > Pueblo potters - the most successful (from Ildefonso) were those who > > stepped back constantly to see what they were doing/had done. In the > > case of the potters, the coding was the hand- measurement around the > > pot, necessary to keep the patterning coherent. Do that, make the > > decoration, step back, go into it again. It seems to me that > > coding's like that, a constant immersion and stepping-back - > > tweaking the language or program that produces the language or > > javascript etc. etc. - > > > > Alan -