>So to get back to your comment you are assuming
>that code requires a machine to be "useful" - or
>put another way you are making a statement that
>only causal outcomes are a valid use of program
>code.
Well no, I wouldn't make that statement, because
obviously you /can/ write pseudo-code and it
still makes sense. But it is still a part of the
machinic process. It is an activity in relation
to machines and to execution stacks, so even if
pseudo-code needs no machine, it is still a
machinic diagram, i.e. part of a machinic
apparatus. Machinic thinking, if you will.
Which indeed, I agree with you, distinguishes it somewhat to mathematics.
>>Anyway, music without instruments and musicians
>>is just as absurd as music without music.
>>That's probably why Wittgenstein was the only
>>appropriate response.
>
>So you've never been on a long walk with an ABBA
>song running around your head?
Oh sure. Steigler has some interresting things to
say about that, by the way, if you're
interrested. But that would lead us a bit too
much off subject.
Still, the music in your head is instrumental.
And a melody that you hum along to yourself is
even all the more instrumental. It's your body
that actualizes the melody. As does your
consciousness, even if you don't actually make
any noise. This is pretty basic hermeneutics.
Husserl would be the starting point, and his
writings on temporal retention in relation to the
temporality of consciousness.
--
/*
// Douglas Edric Stanley
<douglas_at_abstractmachine.net>
// Artiste
http://www.abstractmachine.net
// Professeur d'Arts numeriques, L'école supérieure d'art d'Aix-en-provence
http://www.ecole-art-aix.fr/
// Chercheur, Laboratoire Esthétique de l'interactivité, Université de Paris 8
http://www.ciren.org
*/
Received on Tue Jan 08 2008 - 21:45:44 GMT