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
      -Non-Euclidian Space
           -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