[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] "Rising to the concrete"
On 17 August 2012 19:03, Ivan Rosero <email@example.com> wrote:
> In the interest of understanding you Huw, these two lines in your most
> recent post jumped out at me
> To assert that something is not relevant is to prevent such creative
> Going back to the other contention, your assertion that analog and
> digital belong to a different frame is wrong. The only possible truth of
> the assertion is that they have nothing to do with your frame...
> The following lines also struck me
> To abstract is to measure. To measure is to compare. Comparison is
> These assertions create a pretty big universe of seemingly irrelevant
> things to thinking about abstraction and comparison. I wonder, for
> example, if abstraction can be about something other than measuring? And,
> would the following sentence count as comparison?
> "A dog is kind of like a sheep."
Yes, it can count as comparison.
> If yes, is this a "digital" comparison? If no, what is this sentence in
> your estimation?
Yes. For the dog to be conceived of as like a sheep, you are comparing a
model of a dog with a model of a sheep.
Likewise the only means of comparing the two living things is by various
measurements. To say that one is like another is to compare conceptions
made from aggregated abstractions.
But you could say "My dog is a sheep", which is not such a comparison.
I do not like writing that someone is wrong, but then I do not like
obfuscation even more. If you think it's out of place, please forgive the
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list