a lost letter
Perhaps one day I will have a greater understanding of the external(ized) systems that infatuate you both. I wasn’t reared to build a real-ationship with the notation of mathematics; for [reasons], cultural language (the haphazard abstraction of internalized and unobservable systems) and I have gotten along better. So, my meditations these last several weeks have been a fun, self-guided education in collapsing ideas from your (pl.) world into my own. With some distance now from GDC, I’d like to share with you some [temporally located] conclusions I’ve made about my future.
It is, perhaps, too simplistic to summate my aversion to math as resultant of my public education. The poorly-reasoned divorce was more likely a consequence of conditioned self-perception [conditioned imprisonment?]; the institutionalization of math simply eased my abandonment of the form. As I saw (and still see) the world, the study of math was not my only means of understanding the universe.
Our languages trap the universe in the subject/object paradigm, a way of thinking that obfuscates and abstracts the complexity and wholeness of signals, noise, and systems. Academics being, perhaps, the greatest arbitrary arbitrators of all, the consequences of their [misuse? misguided? political?] objectification and formalization process is a persistent perpetuation of distancing the universe from the perceptual self. The game, if it ever was an innocent imagining of what “otherness” is or could be as imagined is Cosmicomics, has become a system from which we have no freedom, nor the liberty to escape without material self-inihilation.
In the evolution of my idea that life is an inherently play-based existence ….
Noise + signals should not be relegated to a privileged notation and constituted “other” [read: physical universe], but neither should the articulation of abstracted systems necessitate the dangerous transgression into formalism.
In understanding human existence, our perception of corporal being is the most arbitrary limit of all; evidence of replicate mathematic and programmatic systems that explain both the human condition and “other” universe is ubiquitous, albeit (un)surprisingly absent in the work of my scholarly peers and predecessors.
The irreconcilable distinction between what is “the inside”/immaterial/subject and the outside/material/object exacerbates the notion of a human as relationally distinct from the universe/constituted reality. In modern Western storytelling [alt. read: modernity] particularly, the domination and destruction of ecological environments is justified by an imperial tautology that explicitly positions the human subject as having embodied power and authority over objects (in this case, nature).
The perception and treatment of material and immaterial experiences as principally unequal both constitutes the “human” experience and guides the thinking of possibility. What I find interesting about math is the conceptual similarity between the 4th dimension (in which problems are (sometimes) more easily solved) and fiction storytelling. The difference between these imaginary spaces is not conceptual; this paradigm is contingent on the subject/object system that we are conditioned to utilize in our understanding of the world. Materially, this relationship endangers our corporal existence, and allows for present hegemonic subjects to condition “other” people as objects, as arbitrarily unequal.
Being a subject to many tautological (+ temporally contingent) systems of power, I say definitely that systems with indeterminate, cyclical ends are the most impenetrable and resistant to change. If code is a temporary relief from the oppression of power, I believe it is only because it offers a [real-atively] low barrier of entry in the redetermination of materially and immaterially possible existences. Beyond that, it is an escape from—not a key to—many forms of bodily imprisonment.