From: Sam Wells (email suppressed)
Date: Sat Jan 22 2011 - 11:14:31 PST
Wow Jeanne this is some _dense_ prose, where's my machete when I need it ?
There's enough to question/disagree I'd have to write six pages, but
from my reading
in cog/neuroscience I think the mirror neurons seem pretty vaild as theory....
don't know about this:
unavoidable fact that a *map*, in order to be useful, must be false,
at least insofar as it arrests, or
fixes, as a representation, complex, active and fluid systems. Whether
it resides in the representation
of the shifting contours of a shoreline, or the disingenuous placement
of a remote city as an incident
of propagandistic disinformation, a map necessarily falsifies its referent "
..when arguably the very perceptual representations _needed_ to even write this
paragraph rely on a kind of mapping - which is why I'd prefer to speak
- as you brought up in a previous thread - not just Heisenbergian, but
Denis Gabor's -
(the uncertainy relation betweeen spatial and temporal resolution)
and again following this, David Bohm, Karl Pribram holonomics - "all
our perception is through lenses"
The problem of any kind of representation (which Zummer seems to try &
"landscapes") at scales less that the wavelength of visible light is
addressed by James
Elkins in "Six Stories from the End of Representation" (Ch. 4
Microscopy) which I mentioned to you before....
FrameWorks mailing list