Interpreting Space:
-Representational and Cognitive Spaces
-Iconcoclasm and the mathematical representation
(non-verbal
memory systems, veneration and idolatory, symbols of power (portraits
of the ruler still used in Embassies, etc.))
(Danger of
confusion between the moon and the finger that points to the moon)
(Iconoclasm seems to heave been resolved on a practical level by
valuing the "instructional" value of the image and by making a clear
distinction between "veneration" (or respect) and "worship" (adoration))
(There also
seems to be a deeper theological issue -which appears to be
specifically Christian -whic has to do with representing the
"spiritual" natuee of Christ through his "physical" incarnation -which
also complicates the issues because it introduces theological arguments
with regard to the precise nature of the relationship between the
spiritual and the physical natures of Christ. Unfortunately, these
arguments seemed to have operated entirely on a (somewhat obscure)
theological level and do not seem to have included a general
philosophical viewpoint on the relationship in general)
(The supporters
of Icons concidered that the old-testament taboo on the representation
of God had been abolished by the Incarnation of Christ)
(The Icon: Image
of the Invisible by Egon Sendler, Translated form the french by Steven
Bigham)
-Object and Process (static and dynamic)
-The Image and the Model
(The relationship
between an image and that which it represents remains problematic -even
today. In the book "The Icon: Image
of the Invisible" the author quotes St Theodore who defends the Icon
against the iconclasts by claiming: "The prototype is not essentially
in the image. If it were, the image would be called the prototype, as
conversely the prototype would be called image. This is not admissable,
because the nature of each has its own definition. Rather, the protyupe
is in the image by the similarity of hypostasis...". This appears to
reflect Plato's objection to art -that the artist paints a chair they
merely present us with a painted image of the physical image of the
(Platonic) prototype of a chair. In itself, the image can do little but
represent that which is already assumed about the object concerned. A
Model, on the other hand, does generally share some of the physical
characteristics of the prototype that it represents.
Indeed, these shared characteristics permit us to use the model to
actively explore aspects of the prototype that might otherwise be
impossible because of the nature of the prototype.
-Points, Lines and Planes (what's the point?)
-Threads, Parameters and Dimensions
-Topology
-Non-Euclidian Space
-Turing/Einstein
-Digital and Binary
Systems of organisation:
-Definitions and domains
-Static, Dynamic and Evolving
(Is "something" changed -or does "something" change itself?)
-Active and Passive
(where is the change initiated?)
-
Mappings and Interactions (Meta-Morphology)
-Systems of freedom and restraint
-Top-Down or Botton-Up?
-Multi-dimensional Time-Space and Political culture:
(Anton Eynsinc's book "Sense and Non-sence in Psychology)
(suggests that a single (left-right) dimension in politics was insufficient and confusing)
(He claimed at least two dimenstions:
Society/Individual and Freedom/Compulsion.)
-Energy, Ecology and Economics
(war as economy and economy as war)
(accounting and accountability)
(what to do with redundant skilla after "economy" has changed? (aesthetics of transition and change))
Trevor Batten
Manila, July 2006