Jump to content
KTricksfordays

Oceans Ks

Recommended Posts

OK, can some DnG hack translate the card Snarkosaurus posted into English? Because being a trained engineer who knows what words like "vector" and "trajectory" ordinarily mean, that just sounds like gibberish to me. Or more accurately it seems to condense roughly to "we used to not be able to navigate reliably with any mathematical precision, now we can and that's bad because we have nuclear subs."

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, can some DnG hack translate the card Snarkosaurus posted into English? Because being a trained engineer who knows what words like "vector" and "trajectory" ordinarily mean, that just sounds like gibberish to me. Or more accurately it seems to condense roughly to "we used to not be able to navigate reliably with any mathematical precision, now we can and that's bad because we have nuclear subs."

I wouldn't describe myself as a DnG hack (yet) but I'll do the best I can and let someone like Maury fill in the blanks/correct my interpretation

 

First: it's a lot of jargon.

http://www.rhizomes.net/issue5/poke/glossary.html

Striated space is space that's basically been ordered (organized, controlled, etc.) by the state.

Smooth space is basically the opposite.

 

"In striated space, lines or trajectories tend to be subordinated to points: one goes from one point to another. In the smooth, it is the opposite: the points are subordinated to the trajectory."

In striated space people travel from point to point.

As for smooth space, to use a common phrase "It's more about the journey than the destination." 

 

"Striated space, on the contrary, is canopied by the sky as measure and by the measurable visual qualities deriving from it. This is where the very special problem of the sea enters in. For the sea is a smooth space par excellence, and yet was the first to encounter the demands of increasingly strict striation. The problem did not arise in proximity to land. On the contrary, the striation of the sea was a result of navigation on the open water. Maritime space was striated as a function of two astronomical and geographical gains: bearings, obtained by a set of calculations based on exact observation of the stars and the sun; and the map, which intertwines meridians and parallels, longitudes and latitudes, plotting regions known and unknown onto a grid (like a Mendeleyev table)."

So the sea/ocean/etc. used to be smooth space but it increasingly became territorialized (striated) as the state saw use for it. This was accomplished through navigation--the setting of destinations like ports. Keep in mind that traveling the sea became a means to an end, it was about the ports for shipping, or about the new lands to find. Ergo, it was point to point like described above. (don't freak out about open sea comment yet)

When they say that the problem did not arise in proximity to land, but the open sea, I think they mean that people used maps, charts, sextants, and etc. to chart routes and create things like latitude and longitude to travel the open sea, thus striating it (organizing it, "trapping it", not allowing for free movement--you follow the route, not go where you want to.) Something to keep in mind is that the shores would already have been striated by the state basically, established for fishing ports and early canoing or whatever up and down. They seem to be referring to European exploration primarily which would be like when people really began crossing the Atlantic and Portugal/Spain were traveling to the Far East, that's like the 1600's-1700's right? So by that point the shores and near sea were already taken care of, around the 8-12th century with localized movement of people along the water, and not full blown exploration.

 

Now, this is all fine and good, but how does it relate to the topic? Why, it was the state that allowed for the total striation of the sea:

"but only the States were capable of carrying it to completion, of raising it to the global level of a "politics of science.""

the division of the sea into realms of control and policing it (Coast Guard, Navy, etc., all serve these purposes.) The sea is now a realm of geopolitics (see the fighting over the space between Japan and China. Yes, people attribute that to the islands, but it's really about the oil and resources under the sea but I digress)

 

So the aff is state action that striates space even more (whether by exploration allowing for more zones to be striated like trenches, or developing it and putting it even more under the realm of the state). This has consequences because the state cannot tell the natural world from the unnatural (see the comment about locusts).

"The smooth always possesses a greater power of deterritorialization than the striated. When examining the new professions, or new classes even, how can one fail to mention the military technicians who stare into screens night and day and live for long stretches in strategic submarines (in the future it will be on satellites), and the apocalyptic eyes and ears they have fashioned for themselves, which can barely distinguish any more between a natural phenomenon, a swarm of locusts, and an "enemy" attack originating at any given point?"

 

Edit: fixed typo. 

#2-Added more detail, cleared up possibly confusing point

 

That should be the highlights of the card.

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.amazon.com/Marine-Friedrich-Nietzsche-European-Perspectives/dp/0231070837/ref=la_B000APIT44_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1397790860&sr=1-4

"Marine Lover of Nietzsche", by Luce Irigaray

I found this while looking at something unrelated- not a fem guy myself, but it looks interesting. Also, as indicated by the name, big A2 Nietzsche. Basically a feminist interrogation of Nietzsche from the point of view of water. Haven't found an online copy yet. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, can some DnG hack translate the card Snarkosaurus posted into English? Because being a trained engineer who knows what words like "vector" and "trajectory" ordinarily mean, that just sounds like gibberish to me. Or more accurately it seems to condense roughly to "we used to not be able to navigate reliably with any mathematical precision, now we can and that's bad because we have nuclear subs."

 

That card is in English. Thanks Massumi!

Edited by Needs More Consult Japan
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'm confused what does Deleuze's theories of striated/smooth space try to say? [/size]

Striated space is space controlled and ordered by the state.

 

Smooth space is the realm of the nomad.

 

I think the gloassary covers this and without easy access to first hand lit on my phone I don't want to go too in depth.

 

For our debate purposes, striated, state ordered space is bad and smooth free space is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'm confused what does Deleuze's theories of striated/smooth space try to say? [/size]

we should all act like hippies
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'm confused what does Deleuze's theories of striated/smooth space try to say? 

Massumi is pretty good on this:

"The space of nomad thought is qualitatively different from State space...State space is 'striated', or gridded. Movement in it is confined as by gravity to a horizontal plane, and limited by the order of that plane to preset paths between fixed and identifiable points. Nomad space is 'smooth', or open-ended. One can rise up at any point and move to any other. Its mode of distribution is the nomos: arraying oneself in an open space... as opposed to the logos of entrenching oneself in a closed space"

Hope this helps  :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Massumi is pretty good on this:

"The space of nomad thought is qualitatively different from State space...State space is 'striated', or gridded. Movement in it is confined as by gravity to a horizontal plane, and limited by the order of that plane to preset paths between fixed and identifiable points. Nomad space is 'smooth', or open-ended. One can rise up at any point and move to any other. Its mode of distribution is the nomos: arraying oneself in an open space... as opposed to the logos of entrenching oneself in a closed space"

Hope this helps :),

 

Deleuzians: Butchering definitions from topology since...well, since whenever they started writing about it! Whatever virtues nomads may have had, I'm fairly sure they couldn't teleport or fly.

 

(Aside--I'm a little disturbed that when I Googled for what Deleuze meant by nomos, the second link to pop up was from a neo-Nazi site, counter-currents.com, explaining how the "New Right" (by which they mean neo-fascists, not Tea Partiers) can use Deleuze's philosophy. Ugly stuff. Seriously, google "Deleuze nomos" and see what you get.)

Edited by Edgehopper
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can somebody explain to me how Virilio links into this topic? is it even a good K to run? T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deleuzians: Butchering definitions from topology since...well, since whenever they started writing about it! Whatever virtues nomads may have had, I'm fairly sure they couldn't teleport or fly.

 

(Aside--I'm a little disturbed that when I Googled for what Deleuze meant by nomos, the second link to pop up was from a neo-Nazi site, counter-currents.com, explaining how the "New Right" (by which they mean neo-fascists, not Tea Partiers) can use Deleuze's philosophy. Ugly stuff. Seriously, google "Deleuze nomos" and see what you get.)

The grid of striated space is an analogy for how the state orders life, not literal movement.

 

The counter currents piece is frightening.  seeing a discussion of deleuze alongside "the jewish strategy" and "the white nationalist's guide to the cinema" makes me reconsider where the far right is heading.  Some of the authors on this site are listed as "cultural critics" and even some have inverse studies, such as a book on right queer theory.

 

Can somebody explain to me how Virilio links into this topic? is it even a good K to run? T

Doesn't it link to anything that develops tech?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Doesn't it link to anything that develops tech?

That's what I thought, but I'm a novice so, still learning (: 

Edited by carlaramazan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can somebody explain to me how Virilio links into this topic? is it even a good K to run? T

Have been trying unsuccessfully to figure this out.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The grid of striated space is an analogy for how the state orders life, not literal movement.

 

DnG have a tendency to abuse scientific and mathematical terminology, and then defend it as metaphor.  From Fashionable Nonsense, by Alan Sokal:and Jean Bricmont (1998):

 

"The main characteristics of the texts quoted in this chapter is their lack of clarity.  Of course, defenders of Deleuze and Guattari could retort that these texts are profound and that we have failed to understand them properly.  However, on closer examination, one sees that there is a great concentration of scientific terms, employed out of context and without any apparent logic, at least if one attributes to these terms their usual scientific meanings.  To be sure, Deleuze and Guattari are free to use these terms in other senses; science has no monopoly on the use of words like 'chaos', 'limit' or 'energy'.  But, as we shall show, their writings are crammed also with highly technical terms that are not used outside of specialized scientific discourses, and for which they provide no alternative definition.

 

"These texts touch on a great variety of subjects:  Godel's theorem, the theory of transfinite cardinals, Riemannian geometry, quantum mechanics ...  But the allusions are so brief and superficial that a reader who is not already an expert in these subjects will be unable to learn anything concrete.  And a specialist reader will find their statements most often meaningless, or sometimes acceptable but banal and confused.

 

"We are well aware that Deleuze and Guattari's subjet is philosophy, not the popularization of science.  But what philosophical function can be fulfilled by this avalanche of ill-digested scientific (and pseudo-scientic) jargon?  In our opinion, the most plausible explanation is that these authors possess a vast but very superficial erudition, which they put on display in their writings."

 

The counter currents piece is frightening.  seeing a discussion of deleuze alongside "the jewish strategy" and "the white nationalist's guide to the cinema" makes me reconsider where the far right is heading.  Some of the authors on this site are listed as "cultural critics" and even some have inverse studies, such as a book on right queer theory.

 

Postmodernism is dangerous stuff.  When you reject reason and logic, your philosophy can be twisted in some very scary ways.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eco Fem definitely. Do you guys know where I can find an Antro K? 

There should be a lot of old k files from camps on the open evidence project, if you're looking for a place to start. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

DnG have a tendency to abuse scientific and mathematical terminology, and then defend it as metaphor.  From Fashionable Nonsense, by Alan Sokal:and Jean Bricmont (1998):

 

"The main characteristics of the texts quoted in this chapter is their lack of clarity.  Of course, defenders of Deleuze and Guattari could retort that these texts are profound and that we have failed to understand them properly.  However, on closer examination, one sees that there is a great concentration of scientific terms, employed out of context and without any apparent logic, at least if one attributes to these terms their usual scientific meanings.  To be sure, Deleuze and Guattari are free to use these terms in other senses; science has no monopoly on the use of words like 'chaos', 'limit' or 'energy'.  But, as we shall show, their writings are crammed also with highly technical terms that are not used outside of specialized scientific discourses, and for which they provide no alternative definition.

 

"These texts touch on a great variety of subjects:  Godel's theorem, the theory of transfinite cardinals, Riemannian geometry, quantum mechanics ...  But the allusions are so brief and superficial that a reader who is not already an expert in these subjects will be unable to learn anything concrete.  And a specialist reader will find their statements most often meaningless, or sometimes acceptable but banal and confused.

 

"We are well aware that Deleuze and Guattari's subjet is philosophy, not the popularization of science.  But what philosophical function can be fulfilled by this avalanche of ill-digested scientific (and pseudo-scientic) jargon?  In our opinion, the most plausible explanation is that these authors possess a vast but very superficial erudition, which they put on display in their writings."

 

 

Postmodernism is dangerous stuff.  When you reject reason and logic, your philosophy can be twisted in some very scary ways.

I'm confused as to how the words 'Grid' and 'striated' are scientific terminology.  the "abuse of topology" that squirreloid talks about stems from a section of ATP where they spent an entire chapter using geology as a metaphor for morals, not "brief and superficial" in any sense.

A friend of mine who introduced me to DnG summed up their use of buzzwords aptly: If they had to explain terms like "desiring-machine" or "rhizome" every time they used them, their books would be several thousand pages long.

 

And I wouldn't say postmodernism rejects reason or logic.  Are there some postmodern authors who take an intensely critical view of objectivity? yes.  But I wouldn't say that pomo is any more vulnerable to cooption than other fields of thought in philosophy/sociology.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can somebody explain to me how Virilio links into this topic? is it even a good K to run? T

From what I understand, Virilio critiques the advancement of technology, primarily military tech, because every advancement theoretically has an equal destructive capability (the first link that comes to my mind on this topic is drilling for oil, which then sustains U.S. Heg, fuels continuing hegemonic wars, but there are probably others), which then results in the Event (not sure if that's the exact name Virilio uses, but it's something similar) that kills us all.

 

I think that on a superficial level, Virilio could work as a K of tech advancement, particularly off the wall warming affs with crazy solvency mechanisms, but the underlying warrants for most of his claims narrow down the possible links significantly, mostly to heg affs or stuff of a similar vein. There may be some whacky reading of Virilio that could apply to racism/sexism/cap affs, but that's just what popped into my head as a possibility.

 

That said, this is just what I remember of Virilio from last year, I never really got into that lit base, it may be broader than I'm characterizing it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nomos is a particular socio-cultural construction of norms, rules, and ethics.

 

The whole "Deleuze appropriates science and math terms" thing is both laughable and a stupid argument, like no one gives a shit if he does or not and most of the time he doesn't, it's just that Sokal doesn't understand the postmodernism he tries to criticize and thinks he is a pop star because he managed to get a nonsense article published (which is still bad, granted). Those three excerpts are as vacuous as he claims Deleuze's writing is, but the reality is the style of AO and ATP is in such a way that these words are meant to be neologisms or appropriated and the definitions are meant to be contextual, which is like their entire thesis on the ontotheological nature of language and language as desiring-machines (Dialogues II).

 

Also while those reactionary right wing groups are frightening, I would hardly say that is a reason post-modernism is bad and an awful look at the historical trends within far right 'intelligentsia'. Because reactionary right wing/neo-fascist ideology/discrimination is steadily going out of fashion, those structures are constantly looking for ways to maintain their dominance, which in part involves appropriating methods and discourse of the left that has proven successful. Take anti-queer in the US, for example, who in the past year alone have move entirely away from the "Homosexuality is a sin and gays are going to hell" discourse because it proved to be massively unsuccessful to lobby for discrimination, and now instead they are filled with rhetoric on "religious freedom" and "discrimination against Christians" which we all know of full shit, but in order to adapt to changing socio-political landscapes, they have to appropriate the discourse that was once used for resistance. Now of course that's problematic (like the now infamous article on "Against Heterosexuality" which atrociously misinterpreted/misrepresented Foucault to make the argument that sexuality was a choice and homosexuality is evil), but that doesn't mean we should not abandon those notions of critique and resistance, like that's just nonsensical and also not how we approach any other practice (do people stop using reddit because white nationalists also have begun using it to organize?).

 

The article "Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam?" By Bruno Latour is great on addressing the misappropriation of post-modernism and how to deal with misusage (which is largely based off of a lack of understanding of the source text)

 

edit: that last sentence grammar'd awfully

Edited by Ganondorf901
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The article "Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam?" By Bruno Latour is great on addressing the misappropriation of post-modernism and how to reconcile that form of usage (which is largely based off miseducation and basic lacks of understandings of the source text)

sounds like you could use some Lacanian development... Too soon?

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nomos is a particular socio-cultural construction of norms, rules, and ethics.

 

The whole "Deleuze appropriates science and math terms" thing is both laughable and a stupid argument, like no one gives a shit if he does or not and most of the time he doesn't, it's just that Sokal doesn't understand the postmodernism he tries to criticize and thinks he is a pop star because he managed to get a nonsense article published (which is still bad, granted). Those three excerpts are as vacuous as he claims Deleuze's writing is, but the reality is the style of AO and ATP is in such a way that these words are meant to be neologisms or appropriated and the definitions are meant to be contextual, which is like their entire thesis on the ontotheological nature of language and language as desiring-machines (Dialogues II).

 

That still doesn't justify DnG's terrible misappropriation of words.

 

-Their use of 'striated and homogenous' vs. 'smooth and heterogenous' is either meaningless or contradictory ('smooth' has multiple possible meanings).  The meaning of 'smooth' suggested by 'striated' creates a pair of contradictions (because striation necessarily creates heterogeneity relative to smoothness's homogeneity), but their description of 'smoothness' frequently suggests a totally different definition of 'smooth' which creates a meaningless comparison.  Conflating multiple different definitions in this way makes these passages frustrating to read, and suggests a lack of clarity in thought that is troubling in people claiming to be doing philosophy.  And if they mean to appropriate new meanings for these words, its impossible to figure out what those are supposed to be.  

 

-Its frequently impossible to figure out what they mean in context.  They go to elaborate on what they mean just by introducing more terms they never bother to define.  It's an endless parade of jargon with uncertain and undefinable meaning.  This is not communication.  (I have a specific passage in mind that was truly offensive, which is where I gave up on reading DnG, but I'm never going to find it at this point).

 

-Their use of rhizome offends me as a biologist and as someone involved with an activity about communication.  It fundamentally misunderstands rhizomes, whose growth patterns are no more nor less structured than tree growth (nor no more nor less variable based on local environment).  So the analogy (relative to 'arborescence') is simply wrong as a matter of biology. Nor did misappropriating biology help them communicate (most of their audience won't know what rhizomes are, only biologists and dedicated gardeners are likely to be familiar with the term, neither of whom are terribly liable to read much DnG).  This is anti-communication.

 

-When they do manage to actually communicate, it's frequently something banal that could have been concisely said in a sentence of two with 5-cent words, but they needed to ramble about it for a couple pages with 10-dollar words.  The Go and Chess discussion in the War Machine chapter of ATP, for example.  I felt stupider after reading it, because I could have communicated the same thing in two sentences, and if I felt the need to elaborate, I would have included a description of an actual game (or at least a demonstrative sequence of moves) of each (with illustrations).  Nor did I feel their examination of Go and Chess was profound - it was obvious to anyone who has played both games or even heard descriptions of both games.  I shudder to imagine how many more pages I would have had to suffer through if by some ill-fortune of fate they had also heard of Shinto.

 

-Like the cave on Dagobah, people who use DnG bring everything they 'read' in with them.  The text is an almost contentless morass of word salad which is twisted to fit whatever necessary interpretation that is required of it.  To me that makes it useless, I have no need of a text to expropriate for my own thinking, and I really do feel dumber for having read much of ATP.

 

Edit: Also, their romanticization of 'nomads' and 'pirates' is ridiculous, and has nothing to do with actual nomads or pirates.

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds like you could use some Lacanian development... Too soon?

It's Real ly not a big deal

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-When they do manage to actually communicate, it's frequently something banal that could have been concisely said in a sentence of two with 5-cent words, but they needed to ramble about it for a couple pages with 10-dollar words. The Go and Chess discussion in the War Machine chapter of ATP, for example. I felt stupider after reading it, because I could have communicated the same thing in two sentences, and if I felt the need to elaborate, I would have included a description of an actual game (or at least a demonstrative sequence of moves) of each (with illustrations). Nor did I feel their examination of Go and Chess was profound - it was obvious to anyone who has played both games or even heard descriptions of both games. I shudder to imagine how many more pages I would have had to suffer through if by some ill-fortune of fate they had also heard of Shinto.

I hadn't realized that DnG wrote such a thing, so, as a pretty strong chess player (1878 USCF, 1913 provisional FIDE) and an amateur Go player, it's not just banal, it alternates between banal and simply wrong:

 

"Let us take a limited example and compare the war machine and the State apparatus in the context of the theory of games. Let us take chess and Go, from the standpoint of the game pieces, the relations between the pieces and the space involved. Chess is a game of State, or of the court: the emperor of China played it."

 

Leaving aside "which emperor?", I am almost certain that the various emperors of China were more likely to learn Go than chess--certainly Western chess, though many likely learned xiang-qi (sp?), the Chinese game similar to chess but very different in strategy.

 

"Chess pieces are coded; they have an internal nature and intrinsic properties from which their movements, situations, and confrontations derive. They have qualities; a knight remains a knight, a pawn a pawn, a bishop a bishop. Each is like a subject of the statement endowed with a relative power, and these relative powers combine in a sub- ject of enunciation, that is, the chess player or the game's form of interiority."

 

Unclear what he means by this, but yes, chess pieces have rules associated with them. Of course, these can change depending on circumstances, but the changes are also governed by rules (e.g., pawn promotion, en passant, and castling).

 

"Go pieces, in contrast, are pellets, disks, simple arithmetic units, and have only an anonymous, collective, or third-person function: "It" makes a move. "It" could be a man, a woman, a louse, an elephant."

 

But still governed by rules! And I doubt a louse or an elephant are playing Go anywhere.

 

"Go pieces are elements of a nonsubjectified machine assemblage with no intrinsic properties, only situational ones."

 

They don't have different properties, but they still have intrinsic properties--they do not move, they can only be captured if completely surrounded, and they can help to capture enemy pieces if the enemy is completely surrounded. Both chess pieces and Go pieces have both intrinsic and situational properties.

 

"Thus the relations are very dif- ferent in the two cases. Within their milieu of interiority, chess pieces entertain biunivocal relations with one another, and with the adversary's pieces: their functioning is structural. On the other hand, a Go piece has only a milieu of exteriority, or extrinsic relations with nebulas or constella- tions, according to which it fulfills functions of insertion or situation, such as bordering, encircling, shattering. All by itself, a Go piece can destroy an entire constellation synchronically; a chess piece cannot (or can do so diachronically only)."

 

In a single move, a chess piece can only capture one opposing piece. But chess pieces are still spatially related to all other pieces on the board, and can border, encircle, or shatter opposing formations. The difference is that in Go, a single move can capture many enemy pieces. What this has to do with anything is a mystery to me.

 

"Chess is indeed a war, but an institutionalized, regu- lated, coded war, with a front, a rear, battles. But what is proper to Go is war without battle lines, with neither confrontation nor retreat, without battles even: pure strategy, whereas chess is a semiology."

 

Absolutely not! Chess has a front and a rear, but the battle is fluid and can move in any direction. Go doesn't start with battle lines, but the players create battle lines over the course of the game. There's a reason Chinese philosophers have long considered Go a better training for war than their version of chess.

 

"Finally, the space is not at all the same: in chess, it is a question of arranging a closed space for oneself, thus of going from one point to another, of occupying the maximum num- ber of squares with the minimum number of pieces. In Go, it is a question of arraying oneself in an open space, of holding space, of maintaining the possibility of springing up at any point: the movement is not from one point to another, but becomes perpetual, without aim or destination, with- out departure or arrival."

 

In chess, the goal is to capture the enemy king, not to "arrange a closed space" or "occupy the maximum number of squares with the minimum number of pieces." Rather, occupying the maximum number of [points] with the minimum number of pieces is the exact objective of Go! Go only maintains the possibility of springing up at any point in its rules, not in strategy; players should not place stones into doomed spaces.

 

"The "smooth" space of Go, as against the "stri- ated" space of chess. The nomos of Go against the State of chess, nomos against polis. The difference is that chess codes and decodes space, whereas Go proceeds altogether differently, territorializing or deterritorializing it (make the outside a territory in space; consolidate that territory by the con- struction of a second, adjacent territory; deterritorialize the enemy by shattering his territory from within; deterritorialize oneself by renouncing, by going elsewhere . ..). Another justice, another movement, another space-time."

 

It's very difficult to determine what DnG mean by "codes and encodes space" versus "territorializing or deterritorializing space." Chess strategy involves capturing space as well, but in chess capturing space is a means to an end (more space means more maneuverability), versus Go where capturing space is an end in itself.

 

This whole passage, and the justification of these misused terms and analogies as DnG's personal definitions, brings to mind an old joke:

 

A student goes to a rabbi and asks, "Rabbi, what is life?" The rabbi thinks for a minute, and intones, in his most authoritative voice, "My student, life is like a herring."

 

The student believes the rabbi must be a great fount of wisdom, so he goes back, reads the Torah and Talmud for a week, and thinks deeply about the rabbi's answer. But at the end of the week, he's still confused, and goes back to the rabbi to ask "Rabbi, why is life like a herring?"

 

The rabbi thinks for a few more moments, then answers, "Nu, so maybe life's not like a herring."

Edited by Edgehopper
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was trying to be generous (and also relying on memory) xP

 

(And probably a victim of my own Dagobah analogy.  I filtered out the stupid in my memory, because it was one of the few almost cogent passages I read once I disassembled the ridiculous language use).

Edited by Squirrelloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...