2008/5/4 AlgoMantra <algomantra_at_gmail.com>:
>
> Now Master Kassen will say that "but categories are useful", and "they help
> us
> organise our thoughts in a constructive way". Of course he's right, but
> I persist...:)
>
Kassen is quite pleased right now that he at least -apparently- mastered
"the art of being there without being there", quite convenient, I think I'll
stay out more often.
I think (that to me) the way livecoding looks at "math as categories" is
different from the limitations you are talking about.
To me statements like "This is a table" (still fine for sitting on), "you
can't do that" (why not?), etc, sound like they could be limiting if you're
not carefull. Also see "Maria is a witch" and "Jack is a communist"(The
World et all, prehistory to now) This is different from "There is a
oscillator and it's name is beep and it's signal goes to the output", there
it's not our thought being structured but the "thought" of our computer.
Call me a wanna-be fashist if you like but I think categories for
structuring thought are a lot more fun if I'm the one doing the structuring
(as opposed to -say- a government or marketing agency).
I'm not sure this helps as it still implies you need to be carefull with the
exact meaning of the categories that you use there (as Julian said). This is
-interestingly- quite opposite from "limiting categories" in day to day life
where the trouble comes in the form of *inexact* meaning.
In this sense I find livecoding liberating.
Not sure that's non-trivial to point out or even helpfull but when one is
labeled as belonging to the "master" category one is basically forced into
at least make some attempt at saying something wise.
;¬)
Kas.
Received on Sun May 04 2008 - 12:51:16 BST