Art and the State
“A mark my mark,
My sweetheart the drunk…”
“At the limits of interpretation is trying and the memoriesof all who have.”
My work is likened to asemic writing most of the time, though I think that all attempts to leave a mark is semantic. So beyond a legible and illegible all attempts to mark, convey, and manipulate for an intention through a medium has meaning. So I believe we are on a way from Post-Literate to Uber-Literate…
There is no way to separate the mark from the writer, though the writer or the interpreter may try to do so. I see two directions with many possibilities here; art and the state (as in government).
Art is the quality of the mark determined by the intention, the quality of the intention and the mark itself.
The intention & the quality of the intention
The universal place of the unique time/space/emergenc(e/y) position of the intention within the accumulative totality of all past human intentions can give the particular intention a place among the glory halls of all who have tried (exhibition) as well as change the game (episteme) or literally burn the house down (war). The state rose out of the ashes of such a house.
The mark itself
This is always a current affair whereby the relative saturation of the current popular image library vs the inelementness of the unique mark with regards to pop creates an attention towards the mark itself. Like houses sinking under over paved roads and asphalt there is indeed a cut-off point from culture to pop. Unsustainable and soon to be irrelevant solutions for a demand/supply based economy creates the temporary fetishes for locally-mortal humans and where progress is economic growth the universal gaze is plundered for the machine with advertisements. So an art beyond art a search for a mark beyond a mark becomes a standard.
“State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies; and this lie slips from its mouth: “I, the state, am the people.”
It is a lie! It was creators who created peoples, and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life.”
The state is the artistic and the interpretive intention of separating the mark from the writer, hence removing them both. Not yet but soon to be all the resonating ends of a life support system, the state is the machine we live in. Today we live in our talismans; spanning, gentrifying cities. Tomorrow spaceships and a world government awaits us. How are you going the get the machine to do what you want when you can not (should not?) give it complete control? This is about giving the tool its own dimension, whereby it should be absolutely apt for what it is to do. This is not about giving it control over humans but about giving or making tools and machines that are absolutely sustainable
“Is anything absolutely sustainable though?”*
It depends on what you take to be sustainable and working towards that; what I take to be the basis of all interaction and limitation is life itself!
“It is ironic. There has to be a surrender to all offerings for such a state to occur. And in this unison both the creator and creation grow.” (*Thanks for the conversation Pia! 😉
Feb 24th, 2015
Evren bir hücredir!
Yaşamın moleküllerden RNA’ya ve daha sonra DNA’ya nasıl dönüştüğü ve amino asitlerin nasıl kabuklandığı hala bir muamma, dahası evrende bir İtalyan lokantası arar gibi yaşam arayan bizler için dünya dışında yaşam ve zeki varlıklar halen bir soru işaretinden başka bir şey değil.
Yaşamla beraber düşünmek varken onu öldürmeye programlanmış metalin ve çeliğin rüyalarını görüyor ve dünyadan öteye her adımımızda öncü uydularla kendimize kurşun sıkıyoruz. Bu iddialar bir kenara düşünelim biraz yaşamla ve ilk olarak verelim yaşama yaşama hakkı; şöyle bir tasavvurdur bu, evrende yaşam içinde var olan her bir atomun sayısı kadardır, daha doğrusu her bir atomun potansiyelidir yaşam. Teknoloji nasıl ortak çalışmayla fetih ise, evrenin kendini idrakıdır yaşam. Korkunç bir tekzamanı ve tekerrürü böyle anlamlandırır ve aşarken, biz insan evlatlarına kendimizi, birleştiren akıl ve ayıran zekayı, kendi zamanımızı hediye etmiştir yaşam.
Pekiyi bu hediyeyi, bu iğneli kaktüsü nasıl düşünecek ve kendi üzerine kapanacak (ve tekrar gelecek) bir evrende ona nasıl yetişeceğiz? İlk olarak bakterilere, virüslere, ışığın sevdalısı bitkilere ve karanlığın filozofları mantarlara mayası oldukları akıl ve zekanın hakkını vereceğiz; bir değil bin dünya ve her bin dendiğinde milyon dünya diyeceğiz. Yani yaşamla beraber düşünecek ve evrenin her köşesinde, her kafayı kaldırdığımız gökteki ışıkta onları da düşüneceğiz. Çünkü zamansallığı aşan bir ilişki var candan cana, burada bahsedilen bunun tasavvuru için ispatsız bir inanç değil, ya da her bir canlının inancından öte bir tek doğru değil. Milyarlarca, trilyonlarca, sonsuzca can ve her birinin ve ortaklıklarının zamanı bahis konusu ve bu ortaklıkların da zamansallığı gemiler, adalar, kıtalar ve gezegenler ve güneş sistemi ve galaksiler ve galaksiler arası sembiyoz (ortak yaşamlarla) belirlenmekte. Burada denmektedir ki bir ilişki var candan cana ve bu ilişki kendi zamanını kurar. İddia da şudur, bu zaman da bir iletişim kurar yaşamlar arasında. Aşkıdır bir dünyanın kendisine çarpacak meteora ve üzerinde barınan bir ekosistem kurabilecek bir maya olabilecek mantara ve daha da ötesi bekleyişidir.
Bilim adamlarımız can acıtarak çok kanıta ulaştılar; bir bitkiyi ya da hayvanı aynı ya da farklı bir türden başka bir bitki yada hayvan yanında öldürdüklerinde elektrik sinyallerinde korkunç tepkiler aldılar. Pekiyi nedir bu iletişimin alanı; araya koydukları duvar engelini aşarken bu deneylerde iletişim, korkunç uzayı aşamaz mı güneşten bu yana üçüncü taştan dördüncüsüne? Aşar aşamaz derken gene bir beklentide bir yarıştırmadayız, halbuki burada şu denmektedir, canlıların iletişimi evrenseldir ve bir kapsama alanı arayan zihniyet metalin rüyasını ki belki de masumdur, bize kabus olarak yaşatmaktadır.
Suyun ki burada kasıt tüm evrendeki sudur, saydamlığı ve rüyası hınzırdır aslında, bir sirendir su; hep inanılmaz güzelliklere ve derinliklere çeker, bu mesafesi ve meselesi sonsuzdur. Zeka ve aklın karıştırmadığı, ya da ötesine yok oluşuna uyandırmadığı bir milyon yaşın üzerindeki her orman büyük bir devlet ve büyük bir zamandır. Bu derinliklerden kendini bilerek ve korkarak mahrum bırakan günümüz insanı ise evrenin sonundaki lokantayı arayan insandır ve dünyayı tanımlara ile sıkıştırıp ve tanımlarını yeniden üretebildiği için küçük zamanlarda geçerlilik yakalamış ama aslında nükleer bombaların içinde yaşayan ve bu dünyayı çoktan terk etmiştir. İnsanın esas olduğundan bahsedebilmek için önce suya ve ormana şefkatini, sevgisini ve dolayısıyla anlayışını perçinlemek, şu devasa evrende ne kadar küçük olduğunun hiçbir öneminin olmadığını kafasına vura vura anlatmak gerekir.
31 Temmuz 2012
scream a scream, a scream it is from the heart, we won’t leave your songs, echoing through the valley green as the hero wonders why she is naked on a bedrock of great rivers and time,
she had to catch up with the control of her nature,
her place in society,
her control of the content and extent of technology she can surround herself with and the control of the penetration and availability of technology within society and nature.
And to catch up with a man who claims the classical the modern and the post-modern are evolutionary in nature.
The hero, she, sees not only that these eras are all simultaneously existent as time manifested as states and nations, setting the clock back on women taking the control of their lives
but the states are also strategically impoverished on a geographical level to make this so.
In classical society, theocracies and tribal justice systems and all closed courts of punishment we have a man vs man situation where by they are both against the woman.
With the newly rich of the nation state and also the middle class of the post nation state,
the woman is presented with both the men against her and they are also drunk and righteous.
And we don’t find any hero of a man in post nation states as in so good that he is not shot.
And as of faith, the wrath of god, the drunken atheist husband somehow finds her as well as intrusions to the control of her nature through technology, man & society.
30 Kasım 2015
We always had AI like we had cinema
Through treating the world as meaningful we made it so. The small times of thriving conditions for humans opened up small times of sanity where the word caught up with the world and we put one word after another & one stone on top of another. Architecture in return opened up order and brought better conditions and protection for humans to thrive. Then, power under men utilized knowledge for war and machine causing geographical divisions.
Industrialization of medicine was a snap…
Everybody to their own laboratory will take some time.
And then we had cinema. A peace of mind, a Kybele of a plateau.
It is interesting in a sense; how we found cinema before ai.
We always had AI like we had cinema; one is external and locates & imitates in a cloud, one is internal and mobilizes.
26 Eylül 2015
“hey!” he said within and smiled to himself on a windy plain of a grass only lit by the full moon. as the red light of the machine slowly rose in the distance in the sky, becoming invisible. this, the final contact, the last lesson, gave him the total balancing ability; control for risk number one…
he and her had been together long enough to listen to each other’s hearts and well-practiced in meditation and private language. when their stay in these neighbouring countries divided by a sea exceeded their promises, they decided to try astral sex. so the long night had been set, the weeks fasting done, candles lit, incense burned, they start to think of each other, having met time and time again, their set practices slides them almost simultaneously into each other’s sentiment, their day and feeling. until like a flower opening, their smells rise first as colours then and with a certain sense of skin and the final bloom, the proximity, the smell. and not the fall into the sleep and the sleeper’s one gives the other the nod of recognition. maybe a music is also heard in the distance who knows… and just as the dance is about to begin, he recognizes a glitter to attention on a checkpoint horizon of the self, his body in his room. concentrating there is this dark concentration on him of a non-hearer as he hears glass breaking in the proximity, his neighbour’s. he says “missisipi” gently for amongst the colourful stance like a halo around him he can feel her. and the before agreed word referring to a necessary break, and affirming safety and returns his concentration to immediately around him, recognizing an urgency he recognizes other watchers around the suicidal self-ramblings next door, and that this non hearer definitely has an inner voice that is almost detached from itself beating himself. and simultaneously arguing with another non hearer neighbour almost screaming to her who is a young mother who is not in recognition, and it quickly becomes apparent that she is about to hear it as a detached voice in her head. as her distress levels go up the astral boy recognizes that an inner hearer is dawning with curious attention in the young mother, one can see a motherly heart who is a watcher slowly seeing eye to eye with the heart felt attention of the outer watchers in the immediacy. and as the distress level of the suicidal neighbour reaches the point of a detached, uncontrolled and non-self-reflecting astral body externally recognizes as if with tentacles, the inner watcher, now in the outer bounds. he is about to curse her according to his assumed projection of her as another person from his deluded memory, she simply says “calm down” within the tone of this projection. a first hearing non-hearer has to travel from the recognition of a voice as a different voice in his head, to admitting to a different consciousness but with already a detached voice punishing himself the suicidal neighbour’s avoided fear turns into terror, his nervous eyes skim around the room. the non-self-reflecting astral bodies tentacle like external recognition hits like a wave to all watchers now in suspect of being somebody else, and as he replays the voice in his head, “calm down”, his mind digging into the other plain now with claws as tentacles, he tightens the hearer circle around him. the other neighbour, the young mother, takes a breath as her mind slowly relaxes and remembers her loving mother.
Sanki bir amfiye indirilmiş bir olay
Dilin indirgendiği işlevsellikte o dili konuşanların başarmak zorunda olduğu işler ve çözdükleri problemler, dilin yankılandığı ve duyulduğu alanları belirliyor. Sanki bir amfiye indirilmiş bir olay, uzaydan bir virüs gibi, dil korkunç bir devinim ve eşleşme, örtüşme arzusu. Gerçeğin gerçekliği ile eşleşmeye, örtüşmeye doğru olan yönü ve akışı, ve gerçeğin ve bedenin bunun oluşuna karşı direnci, ve mucizeler küçük küçük ve kocaman şiirler. Ama örtüşür ve zaten ve hep örtüşmektedir derken, ayağını yorganına göre uzatmış ve horul horul uyuyan bir taraf var ve bu sefer kayan insanlar değil tüm dünya.
Dawkins, Racism and Capitalism
Life Span and Entropy
“I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.” A statement made by Prof. Stephen Hawking in an exclusive interview with the Guardian on 15/05/2011. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/may/15/stephen-hawking-interview-there-is-no-heaven
I would like to consider the first part of this statement in two parts.
“I regard the brain as a computer”
Brain as a computer; an over simplification… regarding the brain as a computer would be like saying you have a resistor before the processor that would actually reduce information! (since the likening of the brain to a computer is a theoretical one I have other theories related to biology and psychology in mind, ref.1 ) reduction of data for focus is about the situation, consciousness and thinking of the individual, and it works within the variables presented by the atomic composition, chemical balance, the memory and the actual position in the universe of each individual and not about a self-aware brain that this statement suggests. And since biologically speaking “where thinking occurs/arises” cannot be located in the brain (ref.2) a computer as a brain would actually mean one which is aware of itself, and as of today there’s no such thing as a self-aware computer let alone a fully functional AI.
“as a computer which will stop working when its components fail”
And what are the components of the computer; the software, cd drive, the memory, the read only memory, the processor? Is the body and the world and the universe components or perhaps periphery drives of this computer? What is the difference between the stopping of working of a computer due to the failure components and the biological death of a human being?
Firstly, the stopping of working of a computer due to the failure components is about the life span of components and Entropy and secondly the biological death of a human being is primarily due to internal reasons (ref.3) and not an allotted life span that they are “produced for” or entropy. To consider what Life span and Entropy means for human beings one would need to look at what our current means of production are, how we recreate our standard of life and ourselves among with it as well as the toxic entropy engulfing us since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
As for the second part of the statement, I would like to refer you to the following as a believer in heaven on earth; http://episteme-spacecraft.blogspot.com/ (Please scroll down for English content)
(1.1) The Doors of Perception, Aldous Huxley
“Reflecting on my experience, I find myself agreeing with the eminent Cambridge philosopher, Dr. C. D. Broad, “that we should do well to consider much more seriously than we have hitherto been inclined to do the type of theory which Bergson put forward in connection with memory and sense perception. The suggestion is that the function of the brain and nervous system and sense organs is in the main eliminative and not productive. Each person is at each moment capable of remembering all that has ever happened to him and of perceiving everything that is happening everywhere in the universe. The function of the brain and nervous system is to protect us from being overwhelmed and confused by this mass of largely useless and irrelevant knowledge, by shutting out most of what we should otherwise perceive or remember at any moment, and leaving only that very small and special selection which is likely to be practically useful.”
(1.2) Beyond the Pleasure Principle, Sigmund Freud, 1922 ( pages 49-50)
“The dominating tendency of mental life and perhaps nervous life in general, is the effort to reduce, to keep constant or to remove internal tension due to stimuli…”
(2) the results for a google search for “where does thinking occur in the brain” included the following on 26/08/2012;
(2.1) “Brain Basics: Know Your Brain” The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
“Brain Basics: Know Your Brain
The Geography of Thought
Each cerebral hemisphere can be divided into sections, or lobes, each of which specializes in different functions. To understand each lobe and its specialty we will take a tour of the cerebral hemispheres, starting with the two frontal lobes (3), which lie directly behind the forehead. When you plan a schedule, imagine the future, or use reasoned arguments, these two lobes do much of the work. One of the ways the frontal lobes seem to do these things is by acting as short-term storage sites, allowing one idea to be kept in mind while other ideas are considered. In the rearmost portion of each frontal lobe is a motor area (4), which helps control voluntary movement. A nearby place on the left frontal lobe called Broca’s area (5) allows thoughts to be transformed into words.
When you enjoy a good meal—the taste, aroma, and texture of the food—two sections behind the frontal lobes called the parietal lobes (6) are at work. The forward parts of these lobes, just behind the motor areas, are the primary sensory areas (7). These areas receive information about temperature, taste, touch, and movement from the rest of the body. Reading and arithmetic are also functions in the repertoire of each parietal lobe.
As you look at the words and pictures on this page, two areas at the back of the brain are at work. These lobes, called the occipital lobes (8), process images from the eyes and link that information with images stored in memory. Damage to the occipital lobes can cause blindness.
The last lobes on our tour of the cerebral hemispheres are the temporal lobes (9), which lie in front of the visual areas and nest under the parietal and frontal lobes. Whether you appreciate symphonies or rock music, your brain responds through the activity of these lobes. At the top of each temporal lobe is an area responsible for receiving information from the ears. The underside of each temporal lobe plays a crucial role in forming and retrieving memories, including those associated with music. Other parts of this lobe seem to integrate memories and sensations of taste, sound, sight, and touch.”
The Inner Brain
Deep within the brain, hidden from view, lie structures that are the gatekeepers between the spinal cord and the cerebral hemispheres. These structures not only determine our emotional state, they also modify our perceptions and responses depending on that state, and allow us to initiate movements that you make without thinking about them. Like the lobes in the cerebral hemispheres, the structures described below come in pairs: each is duplicated in the opposite half of the brain.”
(Writers note; I would like to consider this link as a small example of a general scientific bias. The “Brain Basics: Know Your Brain” link that is present in The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke site, has a section that is called “The Geography of Thought” where there is no mention of the actual word “thinking”. Actually the only time that “thinking” is mentioned in the entire text is with the “The Inner Brain” section but only as “not thinking”; “initiate movements that you make without thinking about them”. Coming back to the “The Geography of Thought” when one considers the language used and the adjective attributes for the different parts of the brain, confusion is apparent. Mind you, I am only considering the language used here that result in a scientific bias and not the “validity” of the scientific facts or the research; for not only that I think that these scientific facts are valid, I also think that they are not taken to their full dimensions, and that when they are not related to more fundamental scientific facts such as the laws of Thermodynamics (defining the fundamentals at work at the uniqueness of each process and at the same time creating the possibility of the uniqueness through relating each element to the unique conditions around ) then we have a half-truth as well as un-scientific claims.
Cherry picking “The Geography of Thought”
· Each cerebral hemisphere can be divided into sections, or lobes, each of which specializes in different functions
· these two lobes do much of the work
· helps control voluntary movement
· allows thoughts to be transformed into words
· the parietal lobes (6) are at work
· Reading and arithmetic are also functions in the repertoire of each parietal lobe
· are at work
· process images from the eyes and link that information with images stored in memory
· are at work
· process images
· your brain responds through the activity of these lobes
· each temporal lobe is an area responsible for receiving information from the ears
· plays a crucial role in forming and retrieving memories
· seem to integrate memories and sensations of taste, sound, sight, and touch
It is one thing to talk about the functions, work, control, transformative function, processing area, the chain of responsibility, the position of the role in the hierarchy of the functions and the integrative functions of the parts of the brain; but how these attributes are observed is more definitive of the importance of the relation of these attributes have to the overall process and the location of “thinking”. So the phrase “your brain responds through the activity of these lobes” is very significant as all of the above attributes are observed as “responses of the brain through observable activity”. If these attributes are taken independent of this context, they become causa sui facts independent of the way that they are observed. The reason that the way that they are observed is important is that even if we could account for the entire chemical and electrical relations of the brain with the rest of the body, although we could say something about the system we would still not be able to say anything about the “thinking” as the atomic composition, chemical balance (free radicals or toxins anyone?), the memory and the actual position in the universe of each individual is unique that results in a unique interaction or rather a unique understanding/comprehension/comment of the “individual person” from the interaction of the brain with the body and the world at large. So you could have a better understanding of the responses of the brain by enlarging the area of observable activity through technical advances, but where thinking occurs, arises and expressed cannot be understood independent of the unique body and the world of the individual as well as the individually and scientifically observed world.)
(2.2) Does Thinking Happen In The Brain? by ALVA NOË (at NPR, formerly National Public Radio)
“Despite having learned so much about the anatomy and physiology of the human brain in the last century, we don’t actually have a better account of how consciousness and cognition arise in the brain than it arises out of immaterial soul-stuff.
A human being, like every living being, is a locus of densely interwoven coupling with the world around us. We make consciousness dynamically, in our exchange with the world around us. Ultimately, if we want to understand consciousness, we need to go out of our heads and look at the way we are embodied and also bound to and embedded in the world around us.”
(3) Freud, S. Beyond the Pleasure Principle. New York: Bantam Books, 1959. p. 70
“If we are to take it as truth that knows no exception that everything living dies for internal reasons – becomes inorganic once again – then we shall be compelled to say that ‘the aim of life is death’ and, looking backward, that ‘inanimate things existed before living ones.'”
The CERN Question
alphan vardarli @kucukpatates
@ProfBrianCox Are ALL the subparticles accounted for, after particle collisions at CERN? Do you clean up your mess?
The untwitter shortened question being;
Are all the subparticles accounted for and can they be accounted for after the particle collisions at CERN?
Why is this a question? Well there are obviously many particles and subparticles going at very high speeds all around the universe, how many of them are the result of collisions in the nature of the ones at CERN, are there head on collisions in the universe? Could the quality and nature of these dispersed particles be different from those at CERN? As in there might be sub particles reaching Earth and we may be subject to them, but are they a reference point for the nature of the particles produced by collisions at CERN? Secondly how many of them actually reach the Earth and are they affected by the magnetic fields of celestial objects; for example if we are to assume that these particles come from another galaxy or from open space, then they would need to go through the shields of the bounds of the outer galaxy, the solar system and then the magnetic shield of the earth. I really am asking the question not only whether we can account for all the subparticles after the collisions at CERN but also even if we can account for them, where do they go, do they stay in the collider? If they don’t stay in the collider how do they behave and could they affect life on Earth?
CERN is an experiment to find out about the sub particles, so of course they don’t know the nature of the ones created, and even if these particles are accounted for they would not be able to tell whether they would stay in the collider (since the laws of physics change at that level, which is why they are doing the experiment in the first place, to figure out those laws) and without knowing how they behave how can we tell how they can affect life?
do “we”? what do we stand for, the grandness of a struggle for the “simplest, most apparent thing” does not make it particularly important for the person. it is the principle of the struggle for it and the struggle itself that makes it important. calling all couch potato atheists, there is no cause for a non thing which I sometimes fell just turns into license to curse and label people. arguing about the effects of the power structure is one thing and arguing over a thousand year book is another. atheism by itself is devoid of any meaning, merely suggesting a non-religious life, and I do not even think that atheism is a fundamental to comprehending dialectical historical materialism, or comprehending the deductions of it about modern society. religions usually bare alternatives and political resistances within them and they have a culture of resistance, what is more they can generate or claim to generate substantial arguments and methods of internal collective action that appears just to the participants. so what is a feeling of justice for an atheist? what is a resistance against “religion” if not recognizing the irrelevance of idols and their stronghold on our lives. just as fascism begins between two people, the recognition and the dismantling and deconstructing the idols begins in the self, and taking one of the things that you are, that has no particular effect by itself for your life and using it to prove the non-factuality of something else that you already believe is rubbish seems like wasting your time when you could be arguing about the socialist and humanist dimensions of existence and finding ways for working together for immediate common needs such as food, health and education. all I am saying is that we need more space to agree to disagree not less, particularly for things concerning our more private relations and interactions with the world.
circular and self referring argument; what is a non-real life atheist anyway. what is the difference between a working class atheist and a capitalist/nationalist atheist, if not the struggle with ruling powers. atheism can tell us nothing about the structure of power and its effects and could merely point to one of the causes of it. this is like saying that if you could prove the non-scientificness or factuality of religion based on a thousand year doctrine you could dismantle capitalism. religion is primarily a claim to a belief system and can not be a prescription for a political economic system with it’s age old doctrine alone, and although religion can try to justify a a political economic system it has its own conflicts with it already, and fractions within it due to such conflicts. this is where one can find grounds for common political action. in trying to give you an insight into how a “working class” atheist translates to practicality in real life I would like to introduce you two of my tinfoil hatter friends http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky (for the possibilities of resistance within the struggle of the working class) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault (for the historical construction modern society and its underlying epistemology)