|
[12:30] |
PbN |
color
is subjective, tho - |
[12:30] |
Surd |
Beth
is here right now, Surd=Beth Garrison now |
[12:30] |
Mike |
or
discuss them |
[12:30] |
Jim_R |
Color
also means front-to-back. The eyes focus different colors at
slightly different distances. |
[12:30] |
Loss |
Inna
and PbN, how does color relate to the field project? |
[12:30] |
Surd |
hey
interesting conversation going on |
[12:30] |
PbN |
color
as distance = color in space |
[12:30] |
tombell |
is
red anger or love? |
[12:30] |
Loss |
But
M, they do basically stay in place once constructed, right?
|
[12:31] |
Surd |
This
is beth just stopped by to rattle jims cage...:o) |
[12:31] |
Loss |
Or M,
do you mean construct in the sense of what order they're viewed
in? |
[12:31] |
Mike |
yes
and no, L. Where are they? |
[12:31] |
Jim_R |
No,
Loss, they don't! They can "flash". |
[12:31] |
PbN |
field
- color is a word - field is a word |
[12:31] |
Mike |
They
stay the same, but are they in "place"? |
[12:31] |
tombell |
colors don't exist 'out there'? |
[12:31] |
PbN |
or
maybe they are concepts open to discussion, as here |
[12:31] |
|
***Inna has quit IRC (Connection reset by
peer.) |
[12:31] |
PbN |
color
is an idea, as field |
[12:32] |
Loss |
J,
what do you mean they can "flash"? |
[12:32] |
Jim_R |
Seem
to move back and forth. |
[12:32] |
Loss |
Using
which technology? |
[12:33] |
Loss |
Or,
in relation to which technology? |
[12:33] |
|
***Inna has joined #Defib |
[12:33] |
Surd |
our
minds? |
[12:33] |
Jim_R |
Just
with ordinary color displays, depending on the background.
|
[12:33] |
PbN |
a
mind field |
[12:33] |
Mike |
Color
is kind of a weird concept on the web considering they can't be
determined by the writer |
[12:34] |
Jim_R |
PbN,
just to be devil's advocate, what about making all the words the
same color so they *don't* "separate"? |
[12:34] |
Loss |
&
considering that different monitors display different hues
etc. |
[12:34] |
PbN |
Jim,
ok by me |
[12:34] |
Mike |
that,
loss |
[12:34] |
Surd |
nice
to read you all, headed to the airport, see ya...! Surd + Jim
again |
[12:34] |
Mike |
by
jim |
[12:34] |
Inna |
by
jim |
[12:34] |
tombell |
bye
jim |
[12:35] |
PbN |
buy
me something at the shop Jim |
[12:35] |
Jim_R |
No,
Jim's not leaving ... |
[12:35] |
Mike |
bye
beth |
[12:35] |
PbN |
what
about field as interface |
[12:35] |
PbN |
way
of access? |
[12:35] |
Mike |
say
more pbn |
[12:36] |
Surd |
Surd=Jim now |
[12:36] |
Jim_R |
What
do you all have to say about the idea of field as *scope*? E.g. the
scope of a link target. |
[12:36] |
Pluto |
bbbb |
[12:36] |
tombell |
pbn,
bten reader and writer? |
[12:36] |
PbN |
well,
as an idea, I mean, could be anything |
[12:37] |
Mike |
not
sure what you mean by scope, jim |
[12:37] |
Mike |
field
of vision? |
[12:37] |
Mike |
field
of possibility? |
[12:38] |
Inna |
field
of field? |
[12:38] |
Mike |
range? |
[12:38] |
Surd |
Yes,
Ted's background is as a visual artist, good that he would want to
open up the notion of field beyond the text and into the other
arts... |
[12:38] |
Jim_R |
What
is the extent of ___ -- fill in the blank with something like
attention |
[12:38] |
tombell |
is
this defib chat a field? |
[12:38] |
Inna |
I'm
sure it is |
[12:38] |
Jim_R |
Tom,
no, it's an intricate *collection* of fields. |
[12:38] |
Mike |
timefield |
[12:39] |
Surd |
mindfield, I like that... 8-) |
[12:39] |
tombell |
yeah,
i like collection of weaving? |
[12:39] |
Inna |
weaving what? |
[12:39] |
tombell |
weavings in time and space? |
[12:40] |
tombell |
threads |
[12:40] |
PbN |
no
t&s again !!! :) |
[12:40] |
PbN |
threads -- cool |
[12:40] |
Jim_R |
Of
course Inna's got a point. I'm no physics expert, but methinks in
physics 'field' is already a collective idea. |
[12:40] |
Jim_R |
Ooh,
thread is *awfully* linear ... |
[12:41] |
Inna |
threads may be interwoven |
[12:41] |
PbN |
true,
I'm shooting from the hip here, not so much by way of
defining |
[12:41] |
Surd |
If
the chat is a collection of fields, what is each field, Jim?
|
[12:41] |
[brick] |
or
cut |
[12:41] |
PbN |
anything as exploring possibility |
[12:41] |
PbN |
The
field idea is an interesting one |
[12:42] |
PbN |
Not
sure anyone has yet applied 'definition' |
[12:42] |
PbN |
but
it is good to look, ye? |
[12:42] |
Surd |
"Is
there depth or just more surfaces?" |
[12:42] |
Jim_R |
Cut
-- that's a great word. I've talked about bonding strength as the
*resistance* to making an artificial cut. |
[12:42] |
tombell |
can
weaving have layers? |
[12:42] |
Inna |
I'm
trying to remember something from physics... |
[12:43] |
Inna |
Different energies and big resistance create
field? |
[12:44] |
Mike |
field
as moment of contact |
[12:44] |
PbN |
energy |
[12:44] |
|
***Pluto has quit IRC (Connection reset by
peer.) |
[12:44] |
Jim_R |
I
think we've got to avoid getting too hung up on topology. One of the
neat things about this technology is that it lets you make the
relationships you want *regardless* of topology. |
[12:44] |
Surd |
Like
now. |
[12:44] |
|
***Pablito has joined #Defib |
[12:44] |
tombell |
do we
want to integrate some of this in the project? |
[12:44] |
Loss |
field
also implies some exchange of energy between its components
|
[12:45] |
Jim_R |
Inna,
that's interesting, I'd never thought of this as "differential
energy". I have to think about that *a lot*! |
[12:45] |
Mike |
yeah
like in olson -- "instanter on another" |
[12:45] |
Jim_R |
Loss,
yes yes yes! |
[12:45] |
PbN |
Loss,
this is happening here and previously in the project |
[12:45] |
tombell |
i
think the 'project' generates energy? |
[12:46] |
PbN |
or
maybe the project ( process ) IS energy |
[12:46] |
Inna |
And
it is created by energy? |
[12:46] |
Jim_R |
Resistance is an interesting concept. E.g. how
would you indicate "resistance to a link" in hypertext?
|
[12:46] |
tombell |
process |
[12:46] |
Mike |
Curious to hear what people think of keeping
the "field" of this project open, ongoing... |
[12:46] |
PbN |
Jim_R, break the link? |
[12:46] |
Inna |
who
is going to resist a link? |
[12:47] |
Jim_R |
You
don't always *have* to go somewhere, you can go nowhere.
|
[12:47] |
tombell |
mike,
it should be ongoing but also should have a cutoff? |
[12:48] |
Jim_R |
If
"lexia" means anything, shouldn't it mean a place that makes you
want to stay a while? |
[12:48] |
tombell |
the
project |
[12:48] |
Mike |
that's what I'm curious to hear, or have
phases? |
[12:48] |
Inna |
When
you go nowhere it means you go somewhere but by imagination
|
[12:48] |
Loss |
In
terms of ongoing, you mean bigger, more interwoven - or added
lexia. |
[12:48] |
Mike |
I
mean open-ended -- bringing in new elements say monthly or bi
monthly or whatever |
[12:48] |
tombell |
i
think both, loss |
[12:48] |
Loss |
How
would phases work? Like start with new sets of lexia from time to
time? |
[12:48] |
Jim_R |
Inna,
I think I like that if it means the reader is "in the same place"
but "add things to it"? |
[12:49] |
Pablito |
Como
se dice "lexia" en Ingles? |
[12:49] |
Loss |
Debemos decir "lexia" en cualquier
idioma. |
[12:49] |
Mike |
Or
add new essays, allow new participants, write new links
|
[12:49] |
Inna |
Jim_R
you mean add by imagination or what? |
[12:49] |
Loss |
That
would take some thinking ... |
[12:49] |
Loss |
how
to keep it open ... |
[12:49] |
Jim_R |
Yes. |
[12:50] |
Loss |
but
... what's the word |
[12:50] |
Loss |
compact, crisp, fresh? |
[12:50] |
Loss |
uncluttered? |
[12:50] |
Jim_R |
Olson
did say "instanter on", but what about things moving *inwards*,
toward a center? |
[12:50] |
Loss |
or
maybe those aren't the words. |
[12:50] |
Jim_R |
The
word is a nut. |
[12:50] |
tombell |
implode explode? |
[12:51] |
Mike |
Center of what? |
[12:51] |
Jim_R |
Ah,
the center of that which moves in toward it! |
[12:51] |
PbN |
:) |
[12:51] |
Mike |
Well,
phases may be interesting -- maybe call it field, but consider
adding aspects |
[12:52] |
|
***^Nick has joined #Defib |
[12:52] |
|
***Loss has quit IRC (Connection reset by
peer.) |
[12:52] |
Mike |
this
would be phase one, then move to two, call it time, or space, or
lexia |
[12:52] |
Inna |
In
open project some people can write pieces of poetry and some comment
them |
[12:53] |
Mike |
Inna,
I like this idea |
[12:53] |
^Nick |
Not
sure how that would work technically |
[12:53] |
Surd |
Perhaps the art of the Web will move toward a
field of objects that can involve words but also could be images or
other things... a field of multi-media objects with 'data' and
'methods'. |
[12:53] |
|
***^Nick is now known as Loss |
[12:53] |
Mike |
In
the Transcendental friend there is a section called mote where they
add layers of "gloss",,, |
[12:53] |
Jim_R |
Yes,
absolutely. word *objects*! |
[12:53] |
Mike |
or
commentary each issue to the same poem, all inked and
interconnected. |
[12:54] |
Mike |
"linked" not inked |
[12:54] |
Loss |
that's a nice model, mike |
[12:54] |
Inna |
we
can ask each other to link poetry and commentaries |
[12:54] |
Loss |
because if it's ongoing then it's really a
journal. |
[12:54] |
Mike |
eso!! |
[12:54] |
tombell |
we've
seen a number f organizing concepts and ideas in the field project
so future can be directions, not just one? |
[12:54] |
Jim_R |
Right
now, the Web is a pain because you can't insert link targets in
pages you don't control. |
[12:55] |
Inna |
What
we can do? |
[12:55] |
tombell |
how
does the visual fit with a 'poem' in this idea? |
[12:56] |
PbN |
Inna,
we are doing it ! |
[12:56] |
Inna |
visual maybe a poem. why not? |
[12:56] |
Inna |
poem
doesn't mean words only... |
[12:56] |
Jim_R |
tom,
the 'word' doesn't have to be text in the technical sense, it can be
graphics, in which case other visuals just enter naturally.
|
[12:57] |
Inna |
we
speak with signs |
[12:57] |
Loss |
right, both words and visuals are "objects" in
this field |
[12:57] |
tombell |
right |
[12:57] |
PbN |
we
think in symbols |
[12:57] |
Inna |
and
words are just kind of signs |
[12:57] |
Surd |
An
object can be a protean thing that now contains words, now images,
now a form, now links to a database... |
[12:57] |
tombell |
how
about time in animations and in this journal? |
[12:57] |
Inna |
symbol is a sign too |
[12:57] |
Jim_R |
The
word object *behaves* -- this is a real difference with
print. |
[12:57] |
Surd |
yes,
Jim |
[12:58] |
Surd |
Style, content, behavior. |
[12:58] |
Mike |
just
reading bergson.... |
[12:58] |
PbN |
Field
of behaviour |
[12:58] |
tombell |
the
word didn't behave for the futurists? |
[12:58] |
Surd |
baaaaaaaad behavior |
[12:58] |
Mike |
"There is, first of all, the aggregate of
images; and then, in the aggregate... |
[12:58] |
Jim_R |
Tom,
say more about the futurists |
[12:58] |
Inna |
the
word behave for futurists, exactly |
[12:59] |
Mike |
...there are "centers of action," from which
the interesting images appear to be reflected |
[12:59] |
Surd |
Tom,
it always did. Now we think of the behavior more explicitly and
somewhat differently, I think. |
[12:59] |
Loss |
Jim,
when you said "The word object *behaves* -- this is a real
difference with print" how are these different? |
[12:59] |
Surd |
For
instance, it causes riots or treaties. |
| |
|