The purest representation of a thing is the thing itself.

[wolven7]

Peter Gabriel - [Signal To Noise]--- The best map of any area is the area, and, at that point, the ascribed purpose is lost, but the essesnce is regained. The interconnections of mountain, stream, river, rock, tree cannot be fully apprectiated, in paper; they must be known, and, then, they are the inter-reation of You, mountain, stream, &c. (Rasputina - [Watch T.V.]). But that's another line of force, entirely. My point, here, is that spin graphs cannot fully represent the inter-relationship between nodes, planes, surfaces, fields of energy being, etc, because they can't fully capture the connections. They can only show them in Bits, and the width of identity, again, is the distance between fields and connection. They say as much, about the Nodes, themselves... but don't seem to acknowledge the fallibility of the spin graph, in representing that.

Poe - [Strange Wind]--- It is also possible that i'm not fully understaning something, or missing something. But i don't think so. I am, however, liking this theory more. They make room for the sweep. They try to incorporate it. I like that...

Damn it all, but the link only gets you the first two paragraphs... I recommend reading the article, either in the library, or just by buying the issue. Either way. It's pretty good.

Later

Comments

[unknownbinaries.livejournal.com]

The space between a representation, and the thing itself, is where your head, and perspective come in. Understanding lies between. And, you know, even looking at the thing itself isn't quite a full and pure representation, because you always have perspecive to think about, and angle, and countless other things to consider...

[wolven.livejournal.com]

This is definately true.

And if you allow the representation to become the thing, then one loses, while one gains, providing for some kind of balance, yes, but in this case, i'd rather not lose the flow, for the sake of the particulate nature.

Point to ponder.... Heh.