CustodiansOnline/MirrorUbu
10
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 1 Pull requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Add content/shard/infinite-use-of-finite-means.md

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Tomislav Medak 2024-05-19 12:43:46 -07:00
parent 1dce3ed7c4
commit 58406fdf56
1 changed files with 21 additions and 0 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

21
content/shard/infinite-use-of-finite-means.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+++
title = "Infinite Use of Finite Means"
glassblowers = ["cristobalsciutto.md"]
+++
Combinatorial complexity is to "makes infinite use of finite means", a description attributed to written language by Alexander von Humboldt. Indeed, with a finite set of elements, and some rules to combine them, we can produce quasi-infinite permutations. With four shirts and four pants, you have sixteen outfits, not four. When elements of a system compose, they multiply.
However, complexity simply as a product of composition does not entail additional information. After all, the most concise description of this system is still the set of elements and the rules, not an exhaustive list of all possible creations. Critically, there is a surplus that is produced in composition or, as elaborated in Gestalt psychology: the sum is greater than the sum of the parts.
It is from this essential fact that Georges Perec's combinatorial experiments gain such potency. His ![243 Postcards](bib:d24bfc4e-08af-4e43-9b3e-d13338ce29a2) are a product of a simple generative system. When read in order, the repetitions are perceived as a rhythm, gesturing towards an underlying system. Nonetheless, the effect surpasses the union of the parts, as language's referential capacity folds in layers of meaning outside of system. A similar effect is achieved in *Invisible Cities* by Italo Calvino, a friend of Perec. The mechanism behind this effect is precisely that natural language is not formal, as noted in Calvino's memo on ![Exactitude](bib:d094a34d-bb7c-4d99-918e-dd897a89df89):
> These are two different drives toward exactitude that will never attain
> complete fulfillment, one because "natural" languages always say something
> *more* than formalized languages can—natural languages always involve a
> certain amount of noise that impinges upon the essentiality of the
> information—and the other because, in representing the density and continuity
> of the world around us, language is revealed as defective and fragmentary,
> always saying something *less* with respect to the sum of what can be
> experienced.
As such, attempts at representation generate both a surplus within the structure, as well as surplus outside of the structure.