Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #10902
To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
From: "Thomas Pilgaard" ascii@hum.auc.dk
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 11:54:16 +0100
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: Eloquence
Timothy, you are a genious. This aesthetic dimension is so BEAM I can't
believe it.
> This sounds zen like, or the minimalist approach in art. Is this sort of,
> almost, kinda, might be what you are describing.
> R.M.
Yes actually it does. More specifically it can almost be traced to the
ancient Zen / Tao aesthetic of "Wabi-sabi" that amongst others state that
beauty lies in the details we normally tend to overlook and furthermore what
Timothy writes below is almost the exact words used in the book I've got :
"utter simplicity... least material to do the job... free... has a unique
beauty... pure in form and function... has no added non functioning
parts...". This is almost the definition of the acts performed in the
Japanese Tea ritual of Wabi-Sabi; to perform with the least possible
materials, with the least waste of energy in performance, etc.".
> I can't tell if a
> part was played
> > perfectly but I can definitely tell when it was not...
This part is very Christopher Alexander like. You should read "Notes on the
synthesis of form. It states as near as I can tell that expressions of
quality lies only in the absence of misfit. This is the only way in which we
can measure the quality of what we produce.
Cheers,
Thomas
>
> Timothy Flytch wrote:
>
> > I'd like to introduce a new term... An old friend and I developed it's
> > definition long ago so we could quantify ideas... The term is
> eloquent...
> > simply put there in NO true eloquent thing... but some approach
> it more than
> > others...
> > Eloquence is: utter simplicity... least material to do the
> job... free...
> > has a unique beauty... pure in form and function... has no added non
> > functioning parts...
> > I liken it to going to a piano recital... I can't tell if a
> part was played
> > perfectly but I can definitely tell when it was not...
> > some of Mark T. bots have it... but most don't...
> > webster says it's as...
> > Main Entry: el.o.quent
> > Pronunciation: -kw&nt
> > Function: adjective
> > Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin eloquent-,
> > eloquens, from present participle of eloqui to speak out, from
> e- + loqui to
> > speak
> > Date: 14th century
> > '&&
> > 1 : marked by forceful and fluent expression
> > 2 : vividly or movingly expressive or revealing
> > - el.o.quent.ly adverb
> >
> > ______________________________________________________
> >
10903 Sat, 26 Feb 2000 04:26:22 -0800 [alt-beam] Re: BEAM: Tendency toward miniaturization alt-beam@eGroups.com "Droidmakr" "phillip a. ryals" wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/alt-beam/?start=10859
> > >when would we cease to become a living conscious entity?
> >Would it be after the first one, 50%, 99%,!00% ?
> >And I guess here is my main point, how would we be able to tell the
> difference?
>
> Well... you're making an awfully big assumption there. When have
> scientists made an electronic equivilent to a biologic neuron? It may
> appear to be reacting the same way to a signal at times, but the
neurons in
> the brain react to many many signals from other neurons and transmit
many
> many other signals out. How many electronic circuits have the
ability to do
> this at biologic speeds?
Actually biological neurons are quite slow in comparason with
electronic circuits. Other than that, all very good points.
> And do we *really* know everything about neurons?
> This circuit could appear to react correctly, but we may be skipping
over
> many important details that we don't even know yet. (Insert
electro-neuron
> here, there goes a memory!)
>
Home