New video
I finished the new video and I re-designed the blog as well.
Perceival blog.
It's been an exhausting day.
My REAL website is here:
Monday, May 14, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
PAVE THE WORLD!
Ski Lynx
- 0 Farley Gwazda home - pix etc.
- 20jazzfunkgreats - mp3s
- atone for her hands with hammering
- chet = guild of birthdays
- Chet's myspace - 21 songs!!!
- Click Opera - momus
- dreammachine online
- EXTENDED PIZZA NETWORK
- flowers of disgust, the
- GWAZDOR on YouTube
- Henry's site - w/ video!
- hype - mp3 blog search
- individualfrog - John deBoer, curator
- New Jersey Transit
- out, out, du Sauerkraut, she said selfishly
- PERCEIVAL - what is it?
- showbeast
- Susan Blackmore home - memes etc.
- Susan Blackmore's blog
- synesthetic superscam sr. - old blog
- transhumanism
- UBU web!
- will talk to computer (FameIsMagic)
- Yuko Aramaki - vids
Fading into Timenoise
-
▼
07
(186)
-
▼
May
(26)
- New video!
- Can't sleep (magic spider)
- memories
- Memorial day
- Infinity Echo Chamber
- Composit... I mean, COMPOSING (er, compost?)
- New Perceival Post
- nature kick
- New Song for Perceival
- New video
- Dumn
- Improvements
- New Blog
- Singing
- Starry Nite 2007
- P- Final Draft
- P-
- Emotions (Booze?)
- Paths not taken
- FABBING and the future
- North Jersey
- Information War
- dead bee
- more tunes
- next animation
- Why are we blogging??? (April review)
-
▼
May
(26)
Parameters of the Virtual M.E.
- Eff Gwazdor
- DOWNLOAD GLYPIX THEME MP3 thinking caps on, psycho-scene ///////// algorithmic chaos-screen /////////////////// proletari' flashcore band /////////////////// synesthetic superscam ////////////////////// nonsense, content, data-voice //////////// australopithecus noise ////////////////////////////////// tell me lies, sweet pocket-ghost /////////////// parasitic hyperhost ////////////////////////////////////// ///////// open yr eyes, relax yr brain ////////////// ///////// 'til yr hypmotized again /////////////////// ///////// don't be afraid of what you say /////// ///////// it's just "magick" with a "k" //////////// wiki uzi, zip yr soul //////////////////////////// Anasazi smart-patrol /////////////////////////// memeplex heartbeat, bang yr dead //////// replaceable sprocket-head //////////////////// monster rebel, nerd-net fear ///////////////// a.d.h.d. spin-art seer ////////////////////////////// nimrod pimp-punk corpritt clones ///////////// gliphs & pictures, skulls & bones /////////////
found and lost
5 comments:
Pretty awesome about TSRX is how people seem to have to stretch so much to fit the explosion into their explanation of What It Is. I know I did! And everyone else seems to, also. Is that on purpose (are you trying to create videos that are particularly hard on the brain to explain consistently)? Or an accident (would you have preferred to make a video that invites a seamless interpretation)? Or is which way it ends up part of the experiment?
I am posting this comment here because I feel like it's too meta for Perceival (like, do you not want your Perceival commenters to be thinking about the purpose of Perceival?) but let me know if you want this kind of talk there instead.
That's very "perceptive."
I think it would be fine if there were "meta" talk on Perceival, but it's just I wouldn't take part in it because I want to stay entirely out of things there. It's interesting - there are levels of conversation - the first is just reporting perception - at it's most basic level, people sometimes just say something like - "I see a light" or "I hear something." The second level is interpretation, by which I mean interpreting sensory data as meaningful - like how when you look at something you can almost never avoid thinking of it's name, or appraising something's use-value.. The third level is analysis - what you called "meta" - which is something like exchanging ideas without reference to current sensory perception. Most art criticism is at this level, and I think a lot of the comments left there reach this level quickly, but I'm happy that they have stayed grounded in the second level - the "what is it" level.
Anyway, the hand exploding, I did that first and then I realized that it was too simple, so I expanded it to include the first part. I think that is the right level of complication. It'd be no fun if people all agreed, and I like to see people strain. After all, in our daily lives we deal mostly with known variables, trying to eliminate the uncertain. But I really think that when it comes to the big picture (or the tiny details) nobody really knows exactly what is going on. It's only at the frontier of the known that true learning is going on, and I only feel like I'm really living if I have one foot in the unknown.
That doesn't answer your question, does it? Anyway, thanks a million for the comments and the support. It really means a lot to me.
Yeah I also like it that the comments stay at the second level. I think it happens that way because of the very direct question "what is it?" That's a question we all are trained in answering from when we are little! So it leads very naturally to a certain way of thinking.
Oh, also, a difference between this one and the one with the um drawing the pictures that someone was describing to you (sorry I don't know the name of that one, the one that was like drawing telephone) was that in that earlier one, people seemed to go for level one at least some of the time when level two would have actually worked much better. Like, even though the first pair may have gotten a better result with level one observations ("It's a circle with five smaller circles attached to it and polka dots"), it would have made the *end* result closer to the original if everyone had just gone straight to level two ("it's a teddy bear with chicken pox.")
All of these are extremely right on.
Post a Comment