notes on classification

I am building a complicated machine

I touch - not to feel,- but to put thrust into, the form

Afternoon snacks

I Shake (Handshake); simultaneously awkward and precise

Not taking more than you need, someone tells me, is not a human trait.

Here is something more desirable - than a trade-off in classification - than dissociating intellect from feeling: creature withdrawing from the world. When the hermit withdraws – as result of ticklish pain - there becomes two worlds. Multiple worlds are more real than evolution and brilliance alone.

notes on dialogue and certainty -might it exist-

If nothing can happen except through dialogue, and the dialogue lies or dies, then nothing happens.

certainty:

moments of high artifice in speech, a spoken prose, a recital - not always, can people -do people- produce speech spontaneously - practiced by shy people and not shy people alike, is the reliance on formulas - maybe use speech as a way to distance from situations - if, by impossible (!) error, speech is thrust off-piste maybe use a lie - a formal limitation if the composition, full content is dialogue - see Plato, Richardson

break on formal limitations and the possibility of a dead dialogue:

Erasmus - Pamphilus and Maria are unable to kiss because they need their mouths to keep the dialogue going

uncertainty and progress of decayed form:

speech - a "tool" that is inferior to writing - lying is corrosive, corrosion is art (?)))

‘Your property is valueless’

“everybody says” bears deep knowledge, because no one has to think about "it"

In D’Alembert’s Dream, when Mademoiselle de l’Espinasse says something so brilliant that it makes Dr. Bordeu want to kiss her, the kiss becomes a huge technical problem requiring at least three speakers. First Bordeu asks to kiss her, then de l’Espinasse says okay, and then d’Alembert narrates it while it’s happening, and the other speakers comment on it afterwards.

This - by Diderot - and Wilde's Decay of Lying

notes on vision

Fechner:

Inner psychophysics -mind body problem- relationship between percept and underlying brain processes

Outer psychophysics: relationship between percept and stimulus (distal/proximal) – more tractable

Modern study of perception > Fechner’s “Elements of Psychophysics” > percept (result of causal chain of events that start with a distal stimulus ie object and proceeds through a proximal stimulus ie object’s retinal image, transduction, brain processes, ends with percept of distal stimulus) is completely determined by sensory input > cannot explain the process that allow percepts to be veridical > post-Fechner (Helmholtzian, Structural, Gestalt, Gibsonian) has not been successful > computer vision community > perceptual vision = solution to an inverse problem, depending critically on a priori constraints > usefulness of the Bayesian > studying human perception as an inverse problem