Anthropologically, sociologically, born and bred words.
When the aborigenae made, in grains of sand, we look at moments
in our lives as precious bits –
by then, computers so fast, they have already told us we are very slow.
We, the virtual ones, who think we know and live to talk and write about it.
So, in celebration of us, the ones who think we virtually know:
The 1/2 understood gestures
the day in between
the slight of light
when we can no longer chase the wind
like floats of paper origami trained in flight
then soaked in spilled milk,
collapsed castles
water thread of lifeline
trickle
weaved at the edge
of what we usually
call madness
point by point
almost to the other side
the 1/2 understood gestures
those are the ones with enough nose,
enough of an attitude
the ones who will,
contrary to some beliefs
word forbid
the ones who will inherit the earth
like in a song of improviso
the point by point
the stitches
the grains of sand
the impressions
the angles
the 1/2 understood words
I wrote these words in a fertile and inquisitive period and they were received then by my writing peers (and by me), as a bit of a weird disconnected piece. How much time does it take to ripen what is ready for the ear? Is the text the one who ripens or is the ear?(":)
And my words keep ringing to bring me right back to the fears of today that artificial intelligence1 will doom us, displace us in our ability to know what is real, to live, protect, earn more money than, and eventually that IT will kill us all. Maybe so, we may yet witness a true robotic/alien take over! ^--^
Interesting though that fear seems to be the main motivating factor in the stories feeding that fantasy, and I wonder…
So I switch and search for the origami in the text to find a lovely 5 minute video by French cinematographer Charlotte Arlene, where she unfolds the mysteries of math and reviews some basic rules for this intriguing ancient art technique that allows for the creative building of almost infinite combinations.
Copy and click on - https://aeon.co/videos/why-are-nasa-engineers-borrowing-techniques-from-origami-artists
I am not a math person and I quit high school partially, (I realize this only now), because of a lousy algebra teacher who turned me off to it and to much else. As a 24 year old teacher, she was (still) quite unable to transition from lower grade flat geometry drawings that I loved, the angles and triangles, to algebraic abstractions, to answer questions and explain math in terms of creativity…relationships to life, to society and to philosophies.
But I understand some of the principles now, if patiently and creatively stated. This origami video quiets me into singular moments, in a precious slowing down, when I finally learn to repeat basic rules, the beginnings and essence of rituals:
traditional origami starts with a perfectly square piece of paper and it does not allow for cuts or glue.
all folds are concave or convex, that is, they are either valleys or they are mountains.
the folds create two alternating color waves and the same colors must never touch, side by side, only touch at the points of sharp intersection. A rule that reminds me of friendships…and of love. Do not assume you know another, all you have is a point of entry to a difference in color…
the origami that starts flat as a square paper needs to fold flat again, (2-dimensionally). So, after becoming a multi dimensional creature… it goes back to the beginning…or the starting point, and that is a line!! a linear view…(!)
mountains and valley folds must differ by two. (?) I understand the video example, but it escapes me in reason, and I am still working with this one.
interior angles - even # of angles must add to 180 degrees and so do the odd numbered ones (again, we are back to a line.)
a layer fold cannot penetrate an existing field… Almost there, but not yet a clear rule for me. It reminds me somehow of European colonial rulings over the people in Africa, the artificial country boundaries drawn… And now, of course, by extension, of so many other boundaries, layers and fields drawn “artificially”, …
I have new appreciation for paying attention and practicing, making a perfectly creased square, first, then either a pirate’s hat, or a paper boat, my only two lifetime origami projects! Old family knowledge, learned around lunch tables, in childhood…
Right away I find that my parents broke the rules and gave me rectangular paper as a starting point - it creates safer boats…enabling higher boundaries against the climbing waterlines.
And I am back trying to find a rational connection to the artificial in intelligence:
In the early seventies, in my twenties, my advisor in grad school was Paul L. Garvin (1919-1994), an Austrian philosopher and linguist from structuralism, the Prague School of Linguistics that included Roman Jakobson, and before him, Ferdinand de Saussure, one of the papas of meanings.
Professor Garvin helped me immensely in my transition from what I would call a segment of Brazilian culture, immersed in worship of Europe, to the weird pragmatism of North American academic thoughts. I do know now, that in the sixties, he was already grappling with artificial intelligence, when it was just barely beginning, with IBM and Georgetown University. 2
A decade later we, the kids, were trying to find out about Noam Chomsky, transformational grammar and the ambitious emerging goals of Psycho-linguistics as a viable academic discipline.
If I recall it correctly, the tensions then were between the pragmatic needs to move on with commerce and so develop practical applications for linguistics and computer languages, with psychology attached, as opposed to the more abstract needs of those who looked at language as philosophy of life, like Chomsky?
Then there was a fringe group, a few resident teachers, very few students and some visiting professors from Latin America and places like the Basque lands, that felt the need to continue to act in society in practical ways, to help understand and promote social equality through language, in the discoveries of dialects, speech modalities, the context of exclusion and word built prejudices… the Socio-linguistics folks. The very similar premises that remain in the fringes today…
The first two groups believed that if only we could understand enough about the hidden deep rules of human language grammar, we could create artificial intelligence structures that, if coupled with computers, with current psychological thought (and image recognition) could control/ and could command for us, save money, save jobs, save paper, etc. Hidden inside this progressive idea was the notion that we could also survive well and be decent, while living the dream. And that we , as a “democracy” of the “chosen”, could save the world, we could even create a “global village”…or two. In a similar vein that was used earlier, by Christian missionaries, when translating the bible and seeking conversion of bodies into appropriate souls.
As if spoken/transcribed and written/translated language could be understood as scientific or as religious code and so be pliable to human commercial or spiritual usage and control.
As a simple, albeit very moral and narrow example, I would say that using a binary code or any code for war is not human language but human choice. We have, with language, an (almost) infinite capacity to generate new action-thought. Machine language can only generate known combinations…
I find it heart warming that Professor Noam Chomsky, now in his nineties, continues to be so loved and well known today, for his clear and radical views about our political delusions and notions of control. His thoughts about transformational grammars were radical then, and I am deeply interested in knowing more about what he and others have continued to say about it, between then and now.
Here is a quote from a recent New York Times opinion article where he talks about artificial intelligence:
“However useful these programs may be in some narrow domains (they can be helpful in computer programming, for example, or in suggesting rhymes for light verse), we know from the science of linguistics and the philosophy of knowledge that they differ profoundly from how humans reason and use language. These differences place significant limitations on what these programs can do, encoding them with ineradicable defects.”
Noam Chomsky pauses, considers and ponders about what he is saying. No A.I. in here. If you listen to his talks then and now, you can see him standing still and reflecting about language and the world. He shifts in depth, continuously, it is a mind alive, creating his own plausible way of being. 3
We live in fascinating multiverses, and we are all about the directions and intentions in the fold, are we not? As pointed out to me last week, in a session of acupressure, rather then intention, it is more about creative attention…
And then there are those magnificent tesselations to consider, my brand new word, the newly discovered complications!
Footnotes:
Right now the current definition of AI reads, for example: “Artificial intelligence is intelligence demonstrated by machines, as opposed to intelligence displayed by humans or by other animals. Intelligence encompasses the ability to learn and to reason, to generalize, and to infer meaning.” Wikipedia
It is a spatially and very loaded definition, placing, for example, machines, humans, other animals in hierarchical planes. Then pre-supposing definitions of ability to learn, reason, generalize, and the jewel of them all - to give “birth” to meaning!
One of my best memories of Paul Garvin is his kind and sharp sense of humor, balancing and spilling his tray with fresh hot water for tea, in the stark hallways of the new modern Buffalo State U. North campus, happily musing and muttering “hermeneutics”? I was delighted to find some photos of him on the internet and marveled at the pomp and circumstance surrounding his roots in Eastern Europe, and certainly, to a great extent, some of my own ancestry... He is receiving an honorary degree in Philology at Masarik University, in the Czech Republic.
Here another interview with Noam Chomsky where he gives an abbreviated version about AI, where he says that it is nothing more than ‘‘glorified auto-fill”, dangerous because people believe it is the only truth.
tes·sel·la·tion noun
the process or art of tessellating a surface, or the state of being tessellated.
an arrangement of shapes closely fitted together, especially of polygons in a repeated pattern without gaps or overlapping.
Not all of Escher is about tesselation, but there are some great examples here: The magic of Escher - a post imported from my old blog, from 2013. http://prosasemilinear.blogspot.com/search?q=escher
Always so much to consider. I love to be witness to how your thoughts unfold. Especially connected with this: "the notion that we could also survive well and be decent, while living the dream..." I still believe this possible, but the definitions of surviving well and being decent are wildly variable. As is, I suppose, how one interprets the dream.