11-9-2016 18:29
Ordenes de magnitud y repetición:

I recently watched an episode of Nova called “Hunting the Hidden Dimension,” – an episode devoted to the history and uses of fractals – and took away two important points: 1) that even the most complicated and seemingly chaotic systems often have a simple pattern, and that in order to see said pattern we simply need to change the scale at which we observe the system; and 2) that this aforementioned pattern is often repeated – a form of repetition called iteration – so many times that not only do you get objects that look similar, but also many that look nothing alike. (…)
Well as I understand it, objects for OOO are split – between a present, quality-rich part (for Levi, an object’s local manifestations) and a withdrawing aspect (or virtual proper being) that is the object’s powers or capacities. What I would argue, then, is that this split is not so much a structure of being as it is a pattern of being. The difference between structure and pattern is akin to the difference Ian Bogost finds between process and procedure. Where structure offers us a sense of an object being composed, perhaps referring to an object’s relations to other objects (think building blocks, or frames), pattern refers more to an object’s hidden repetition – of its fractal-like irreduction of objects upon objects upon objects. This split-object pattern allows us to understand how it is objects come about or are actualized – and here is where the BwO comes into play.
For D&G the BwO should not be seen as an empty vessel set against organs but instead, “We come to the realization that the BwO is not at all the opposite of the organs. The organs are not its enemies. The enemy is the organism. The BwO is opposed not to the organs but to that organization of the organs called the organism” (158). The organism, then, is much like the OOO object in that it too is split between organs and the BwO. But to be actualized, the organism must be seen as a limit or stopping point.
(…)
So that if I see my house key as nothing more than an object that fits a specific lock, I’ve actualized my key as an organism – as an object proper – and limited its BwO. No wonder I’m surprised when I find out that it is quite sharp (and could possibly be used to open up packages). However, if I see my house key as a BwO, I become fascinated with the intensities and possible local manifestations it can produce. I begin to experiment by introducing it into new environments, each time drawing out different intensities and qualities.
It is OOR’s responsibility, then, to approach objects not as organisms – that is fully formed and limited structures – but as BwOs consisting of ever more potential local manifestations. Approached from this way, OOR’s experimentations focus themselves not on what the object is but on how the object acts.

Nathan Gale on http://un-cannyontology.blogspot.com.ar/2010/12/bwos-and-fractal-thinking.html

Anuncios

Responder

Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Conectando a %s