Blue Eveninig Glow

"Genuine honesty, assuming that this is our virtue and we cannot get rid of it, we free spirits – well then, we will want to work on it with all the love and malice at our disposal, and not get tired of ‘perfecting’ ourselves in our virtue, the only one we have left: may its glory come to rest like a gilded, blue evening glow of mockery over this aging culture and its dull and dismal seriousness!"

(Nietzsche on virtue, Beyond Good and Evil, §227)

That Blue Light

I wonder if it has a name and if the name was just black light
then mornings, early nights, parking lot landings
shower curtain, piece of paper-by my trailer
were all but disappeared
were everywhere but there

paque-te-vela colored pastel

(wrapped in 10 times tissue
who told me the arch was the first bomb
it not only connected but protected
black with light
empolvados, principes y merengues pegados)

I couldn't scratch this surface beyond
asking what's dis called before it has

interference, splash.

Australooking so, so, good.

Chinese Scale: From Zero to long-lived debris

Zero by Effie Wu (thank you Richard The)







".... China deliberately destroyed a satellite in a healthy orbit for
the purpose of testing an active ASAT capability. It destroyed the
satellite at an altitude of over 800 kilometers, resulting in thousands
of pieces of long-lived orbital debris that could remain in orbit for
over a century. Furthermore, China conducted its ASAT test in secret,
without notifying other nations of the risk to other nations’ space
assets that would be generated by its actions..."

-2008 USA fragment from the "Brunt Frost Communications Plan" on China's January 2007
"engagement"

Sonnet 107

"Not mine own fears, nor the prophetic soul,
Of the wide world, dreaming on things to come,
Can yet the lease of my true love control,
Supposed as forfeit to a confined doom.
The mortal moon hath her eclipse endured,
And the sad augurs mock their own presage,
Incertainties now crown themselves assured,
And peace proclaims olives of endless age.
Now with the drops of this most balmy time,
My love looks fresh, and death to me subscribes,
Since spite of him I'll live in this poor rhyme,
While he insults o'er dull and speechless tribes.
And thou in this shalt find thy monument,
When tyrants' crests and tombs of brass are spent."


Shakespeare

I remembered

Actually, I just remembered. It was LaChapelle!!! -and who can argue with that- he really came up with the entire Unicorn family, the guy invented Hot Pink. He walks the line of posthuman like no-one. He is more than the icing in the cake... he is the Wedding cake of Washington DC' Capitol wall papered inside Washington DC's Capitol. Damn I could go on and on.
"good taste is the last ditch-stand of the artist" McLuhan aproximated that thought here, as he visualized just about every single thing we talk about today. Cool.
LaChapelle. Wait, why is he not the first thing in my head when I make the what's-the-point call. He is AmAzinG, just not quite my type? there is why I forgot...

"Good taste is the end of Art"...said someone

and I am not so sure I agree.



Assuming (Vito Acconci taught me to use this word) we all know Taste is Subjectivity’s BFF, assuming we are not talking about art as relational aesthetics and assuming we anyway are somewhat on the same page, Imma press some buttons-

Looking through works by my favorite visual and musical artists at the moment I stop and realize, the stuff is rather ugly, it is not what you want to have around, it has a different function- it is definitely in movement- it is more like stuff that is worth studying, that makes you curious because you are not acquainted with the experience you are having with it, difference is what feeds the imagination.
Good taste takes itself too seriously. Bad taste at least can be funny.

The End of Art. That means if we manage to surround ourselves with pleasantly arranged things, elegant and beautiful combinations, we have succeeded in stomping over the possibility for change, for communication, expression, movement- that means we have killed the only hope for hope, i.e. Art.
Rough edges are more like Art than clean ones. Clean-edge sounds like scientology, like they leave a trail of the inert and go by their alien ways unchecked.

When you start a painting the last thing is the sofa. If the sofa were in the mind, then that would be the subject matter.

Everyone is constantly elaborating on codes. But the most boring party is the one where everyone wears black.

Costumes are great because they are ridiculous. Bad taste is definitely Art.

The thing is good taste is well like drinking really icy cold champagne, it tastes good.

It tastes good to stand in front of a room filled with Joelle Tuerlinckx’ souvenirs. She has such an icy cold champagne way to converse with space and with the stuff, she establishes clear relationships, no matter how minute. She reminds me that life is like a drawing, just a thing with things on it. The relationships in her works are much like leaves on a tree seem to touch the sky.

The only thing with her, is the one time I heard her speak, she was way too apologetic. Whoops Tangent-
Art, just a major magnetic second.

That Shakespeare Queen from Hamlet, in rushing someone said ”more matter with less art!” That really made a strong impression on me. I guess that is why I liked the McLuhan quote. Art IS ornament, extravagance and moving circles around bushes. Art feels like prose style more than story… or eloquence over sofa, just the whole chinese town over Isabella Blow's head.

Big Boat

This one day I woke up to a new reality. It felt like "big boat", so I looked it up and found this.

Mona Lisa

Enrique Metinides photo.

oh wow...Mona Lisa from the other angle

(I was not supposed to find this picture so intriguing. It even has a light-post,,,,,from now on I am posting lightly mf)

I Love Bread Crums> Painting> Observing> Science

Taking Science on Faith
by Paul Davies

"SCIENCE, we are repeatedly told, is the most reliable form of knowledge about the world because it is based on testable hypotheses. Religion, by contrast, is based on faith. The term “doubting Thomas” well illustrates the difference. In science, a healthy skepticism is a professional necessity, whereas in religion, having belief without evidence is regarded as a virtue.

The problem with this neat separation into “non-overlapping magisteria,” as Stephen Jay Gould described science and religion, is that science has its own faith-based belief system. All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. When physicists probe to a deeper level of subatomic structure, or astronomers extend the reach of their instruments, they expect to encounter additional elegant mathematical order. And so far this faith has been justified.

The most refined expression of the rational intelligibility of the cosmos is found in the laws of physics, the fundamental rules on which nature runs. The laws of gravitation and electromagnetism, the laws that regulate the world within the atom, the laws of motion — all are expressed as tidy mathematical relationships. But where do these laws come from? And why do they have the form that they do?

When I was a student, the laws of physics were regarded as completely off limits. The job of the scientist, we were told, is to discover the laws and apply them, not inquire into their provenance. The laws were treated as “given” — imprinted on the universe like a maker’s mark at the moment of cosmic birth — and fixed forevermore. Therefore, to be a scientist, you had to have faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin. You’ve got to believe that these laws won’t fail, that we won’t wake up tomorrow to find heat flowing from cold to hot, or the speed of light changing by the hour.

Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from “that’s not a scientific question” to “nobody knows.” The favorite reply is, “There is no reason they are what they are — they just are.” The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality — the laws of physics — only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science.

Can the mighty edifice of physical order we perceive in the world about us ultimately be rooted in reasonless absurdity? If so, then nature is a fiendishly clever bit of trickery: meaninglessness and absurdity somehow masquerading as ingenious order and rationality.

Although scientists have long had an inclination to shrug aside such questions concerning the source of the laws of physics, the mood has now shifted considerably. Part of the reason is the growing acceptance that the emergence of life in the universe, and hence the existence of observers like ourselves, depends rather sensitively on the form of the laws. If the laws of physics were just any old ragbag of rules, life would almost certainly not exist.

A second reason that the laws of physics have now been brought within the scope of scientific inquiry is the realization that what we long regarded as absolute and universal laws might not be truly fundamental at all, but more like local bylaws. They could vary from place to place on a mega-cosmic scale. A God’s-eye view might reveal a vast patchwork quilt of universes, each with its own distinctive set of bylaws. In this “multiverse,” life will arise only in those patches with bio-friendly bylaws, so it is no surprise that we find ourselves in a Goldilocks universe — one that is just right for life. We have selected it by our very existence.

The multiverse theory is increasingly popular, but it doesn’t so much explain the laws of physics as dodge the whole issue. There has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and bestow bylaws on them. This process will require its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse.

Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too. For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence.

This shared failing is no surprise, because the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, while physicists think of their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships.

And just as Christians claim that the world depends utterly on God for its existence, while the converse is not the case, so physicists declare a similar asymmetry: the universe is governed by eternal laws (or meta-laws), but the laws are completely impervious to what happens in the universe.

It seems to me there is no hope of ever explaining why the physical universe is as it is so long as we are fixated on immutable laws or meta-laws that exist reasonlessly or are imposed by divine providence. The alternative is to regard the laws of physics and the universe they govern as part and parcel of a unitary system, and to be incorporated together within a common explanatory scheme.

In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus."

Paul Davies is the director of Beyond, a research center at Arizona State University, and the author of “Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life.”

chaparron

ese era el titulo que le queria poner a mi primer line en los w...por esos chaparrones venezolanos - pero estaba tomado!