The Alan Sondheim Mail Archive

Two Texts: On Number, and Confusion on the new MOO


On Number

Mathesis boils down to 0 and 1 , presence or absence, + | - , and so
forth. The structure/function of the world swirls around beliefs connected
to and contained within the polarity. Does anything exist beyond it? Does
anything exist between the symbols? .0001 for example is mathematically
between 0 and 1, but it doesn't 'fit' with the symbols, just as + and -
natural numbers, have no blurred distinctions, for example that .0001 of a
negative. Is there a container, then, as far as you're concerned? such
that one might have [ 0 1 ] or some such? Is there lookup, so that 0 might
be assigned X and 1 Y? Is there a form of genidentity such that 0 and 1
retain their forms, or, through pure ideality, is such a thing even
necessary? How are 0 and 1 contained / represented in the physical world?
What are their tie-ins? Do they provide a primitive indexicality of being?
Is such an indexicality arbitrary? How do we position ourselves with
regard to the primacy of 0 and 1? For example, are these primordial,
absolute? Are they relativized to particular domains? What role does the
flesh-and-blood man or woman play in relation to them? Is gender involved?
Abjection? Is it necessary to consider the grapheme involved in particular
instances? The referents? Are referents necessary? Sheets of assertion in
any consideration? If we consider for example the calculating subject,
does that subject possess a generalized genidentity? Does the particular
of that subject - beyond gender, individuated history for example, play
any role? Any primordial role? Is it necessary to go farther in mathesis
to arrive at an understanding of mathematical ideality in relation to
concrete physicality? Would a singular 1 do, or is the step necessary? I
believe the step, differentiation of any sort, is necessary. Then is the
distinction between one and the other, 1 and 2 necessary? Might one
consider instead 1 and 0 as two stages in a process? Then why the "two" in
two stages? Is 0 then determinative only of absence? Might one begin with
1 and 2, then, considering 0 as fictional, as-if? Something in fact and
fancy derived as a backward calculation from 1 and 2? If differentiation
is necessary, might one find the concrete, flesh-and-blood, ontology to
lie in the step itself? Considering 0 and 1, or 1 and 2 as the boundaries
of the step and nothing more. In any case, I have no problem with
induction, with extensions, fractions, irrationals, transcendentals,
infinitesimals, surreal numbers, infinities, transfinites, etc. etc. Once
an existence appears, so does its absence, at least historically? Are
these things discovered or invented? Does concrete physical historicity
play a role here? Is there a conceivable conflation between abstract
ontology and historiography, parallel perhaps to the conflation between
the ontology of fundamental particle physics and the economics necessary
to generate increasingly high energies, as Brillouin had it? Let us return
to the Brown's drawing of a distinction, perhaps, or at least to any such
demarcation of + and - ; one might then ask if action is prerequisite, and
if so, does this involve temporality, and if so a priori? So that action
might appear, and then genidentity or some form of keeping-track - of
calculations, of individuations, tokens, symbols, mathesis, even the 1 and
2. But if 1 and 2 exist independently of all of this, as ideal, then does
a subject appear at all? Is the subject that-which-ties foregrounding and
backgrounding, substance and structure, subject and object? Does this
result in position masquerading as solipsism? Is it in fact solipsism?
Would an utterly emptied universe, think of no-universe, still harbor,
without place, mathesis? Is mathesis prior to no-universe? Is 0 and 1 and
1 and 2? Might one consider 0 and 1 as primordial ontology _in any case,_
and 1 and 2 primordial epistemology _in any case_? Why do mathematicians -
why does mathematical philosophy - generally tend towards an absolute?
Towards Truth? Towards the Absolute Subject as characterless and
fundamental? Towards a basic primary of relation as in Pythagoreanism? Why
is this _tending_ when tending itself implies temporality? Does this
involve flesh-and-blood subjects in the final position? I think not. I
think in any universe, 0 1 2 are already already present and accounted
for. That they are present and accounted for in no-universe. Are they gods
then? They are what passes for gods, in that they are constitutive. They
are not what passes for gods, in that they are nubs, mute. They are
whatever description might be applied, to the extent that the application
is characterized by the negative, neti neti. But that characterization is
for us, and has nothing to do with them. And has nothing to do with the
gods either.



Confusion on the new MOO

NIKUKO:

"We're off and running! You say, "We're off and running!" Wizard says,
"Yay!" Wizard says, "The First Room" Wizard says, "We're off and
running!" "I don't understand that. I don't understand that. I don't
understand that. I don't understand that. You say, "We're off and
running!" I don't understand that. I don't understand that. You say, "I
don't understand that." I don't understand that. Try this instead: I I
don't understand that. Try this instead: I I don't understand that. Try
this instead: I I don't understand that. I don't understand that. Try
this instead: I I don't understand that. Try this instead: I Wizard
says, ""We're off and running!" Wizard says, "I don't understand that."
You hear a quiet popping sound; Wizard has disconnected. @quit ***
Disconnected *** Connection closed by foreign host.

WIZARD:

"We're off and running! You say, "We're off and running!" Wizard says,
"Yay!" You say, "The First Room" I don't understand that. I don't
understand that. I don't understand that. I don't understand that. You
say, "We're off and running!" I don't understand that. I don't
understand that. Nikuko says, "I don't understand that." ""We're off and
running! You say, "We're off and running!" Wizard says, "Yay!" Wizard
says, "The First Room" Wizard says, "We're off and running!" "I don't
understand that. I don't understand that. I don't understand that. I
don't understand that. You say, "We're off and running!" I don't
understand that. I don't understand that. You say, "I don't understand
that." I don't understand that. Try this instead: I I don't understand
that. Try this instead: I I don't understand that. Try this instead: I I
don't understand that. I don't understand that. Try this instead: I I
don't understand that. Try this instead: I

You say, ""We're off and running!" I don't understand that. I don't
understand that. I don't understand that. I don't understand that. You
say, "I don't understand that." I don't understand that. Try this
instead: I I don't understand that. Try this instead: I I don't
understand that. Try this instead: I I don't understand that. I don't
understand that. Try this instead: I I don't understand that. Try this
instead: I I don't understand that. I don't understand that. Try this
instead: I I don't understand that. I don't understand that. Try this
instead: I I don't understand that. I don't understand that. Try this
instead: I I don't understand that. I don't understand that. Try this
instead: I I don't understand that. Try this instead: I I don't
understand that. I don't understand that. Try this instead: I I don't
understand that. @quit *** Disconnected *** Connection closed by foreign
host.

MOO:

May 22 01:55:30: LISTEN: #0 now listening on port 7777
May 22 01:56:02: ACCEPT: #-2 on port 7777 from localhost, port 44430
May 22 01:56:09: CONNECTED: Wizard (#2) on port 7777 from localhost,
  port 44430
May 22 01:57:34: ACCEPT: #-3 on port 7777 from localhost, port 50356
May 22 01:57:44: CONNECTED: Nikuko (#95) on port 7777 from localhost,
  port 50356
May 22 02:03:41: DISCONNECTED: Wizard (#2) on port 7777 from localhost,
  port 44430
May 22 02:05:10: DISCONNECTED: Nikuko (#95) on port 7777 from localhost,
port 50356

May 22 02:08:07: SHUTDOWN: shutdown signal received
May 22 02:08:07: DUMPING on Checkpoint.db.#1# ...
May 22 02:08:07: DUMPING: Writing 96 objects...
May 22 02:08:07: DUMPING: Done writing 96 objects...
May 22 02:08:07: DUMPING: Writing 1698 MOO verb programs...
May 22 02:08:07: DUMPING: Done writing 1698 verb programs...
May 22 02:08:07: DUMPING: Writing forked and suspended tasks...
May 22 02:08:07: DUMPING: Writing list of formerly active connections...
May 22 02:08:07: DUMPING on Checkpoint.db.#1# finished

+++