Confusion of the Split

[Alan Sondheim]

Confusion of the Split


I keep searching for the _split_ everywhere, the appearance of the
discrete which can, but must not, be rendered impotent / futile. There are
dyadic theories - Laing, some communications theory, but these specify
resonances among entities that need not be clearly defined. There is the
ontological theory of quantum mechanics, in which electrons _are_
particles, in which the real is relatively grounded. There are theories
beyond theories, theories I can't hope to understand, matrices of
theories. There is everyday behavior among the signs and sign-systems of
the world, and all of the sign-systems are far more culturally ideogram-
matic, non-system / culturally founded, than first appearance indicates.

The digital lies _either_ in fabrication or one-on-one codes, or deeper,
on the quantum level.

Let us at least momentarily call it the discrete. Perhaps a distinction
can be made - _digital_ technology, but _discrete_ as epistemological (and
perhaps ontological) split.

The discrete is characterized by its lack of continuity with the analog.
A spike, fold catastrophe, wave function collapse, are, perhaps discrete.

A digital recording, for example, a CD, is discrete only in relation to
the potential wells of conventionally-bound domains. A CD is analogic as
an object; the 0s and 1s _resolve._ However, given a decoding/playback,
the hills and valleys _register_ as 0s and 1s. The sound transforms back
into the analogic through the playback system (speaker, earphone, etc.).

The registration of the 0s and 1s are dependent upon an conventionally-
adopted _protocol._ We've been over this territory. The protocol appears
_real_ although it functions only in relation to specific technology.

The coding is discrete on an ideal level; the signals themselves have
onset and trailing. But within the given potential well of the technology,
they _read_ as discrete.

Your money or your life: discrete, yes, or no; it veers. -money = +life,
but (+money = -life) = -money. Life is an _entanglement._

All choices are braided, contingent, contiguous. The the discrete is
always a barrier.

A vast distinction must be made between discrete _codes_ which are
designed conventionally systemic, and what might be termed the _external
discrete,_ i.e. stochastic, an appearance, unplanned-for. The difference
between a digital CD and particle decay. This is the fundamental
difference; one we construct with what is given to us, the other is given
to us.

I would think that the digital/constructed barrier can always be circum-
vented; the discrete of the world, however, like the analogic, is _just
that._

==

(In relation to _ideality,_ the discrete is simpler; any given integer,
for example is E or -E, even or not-even. If the integer ends on {02468},
it's even. The sets E and -E are complementary, discrete; their inter-
section is the null set, and their union constitutes the set of all
integers. On the other hand, in non-ideal life, the life-forms of the
every-day world, there may be for example a number of plums which are
neither odd nor even - for example, pluots may or may not be included,
hybrids may veer off, partially-eaten plums, seeds, etc., all form fuzzy
cases.

(Now with the plums, let us open a distribution center: It is then
economically necessary to count plums. The raster/protocol is created, the
result is a digital screening.))

Discrete < on and off | 0 and 1 | other sign and other sign > Digital
implementation.

In this scheme, the protocol is scheme / noise within the system:

[Referent | operative field] < Implementation > Digital mapping
....^..............^..................^.................^..........
0-resonance|boundary delineation|protocol-parasite|machinic display
(idiotic)   (circumscription)   (cultural convention)   (economy)

(On and on and on... stumbling into science, realms of ignorance.)


_