Automatic update, changed: incubation.hermes.md, las.future.md, las.missing.md

pages/incubation.hermes.md

@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+#hermes #map 
+>“Where are you?” “What place are you talking about?” I don’t know, since Hermes is continually moving on. Rather, ask him, “What roadmap are you in the process of drawing up, what networks are you weaving together?” No single word, neither substantive nor verb, no domain or specialty alone characterizes, at least for the moment, the nature of my work. I only describe relationships. For the moment, let’s be content with saying it’s “a general theory of relations.” Or “a philosophy of prepositions."[\[31\]](https://contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=812#FN31)
+> - Michel Serres Passe-Partout
+
+
 ## [[people.MichelSerres]]
 - https://issuu.com/randisi
 

pages/las.future.dokumentace.md

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+	
+_**“Everything is related to everything else, but near things are more related than distant things.”** — W. Tobler_
+
+## Footage / Motion_capture /  Archive
+
+### Interaction -->---> Animation

pages/las.future.md

@@ -3,33 +3,8 @@
 
 ## [[las.future.dokumentace]]
 
-_**“Everything is related to everything else, but near things are more related than distant things.”** — W. Tobler_
 
-## Footage / Motion_capture /  Archive
-### Interaction -->---> Animation
-
-## Technicalia / conceplallia
-- endframes links to opposite side of canvas
-	- how
-		- hyperlink? like hyperdrive-anti-anchor
-	- endless vs. not endless
-- more hyperlinks
-- more SVGs and/or zoom-svg-visuals overall
-- more videos
-- fix soundsauce for seemless situation
-	- content-vice, no coding [yet?]
-- space bar signs
-	- safety space bar signs to remind you to press spacebar in case of emergency 
-- more anchors
-- cleanup of 101
-
-### User Interface / interaction
-- joystick
-- ddr
-- bigscreen - with webcam control?
-- [[fulldocs.twitter.zoomable_ui]]]
-
-![[Pasted image 20211012234618.png]] #update 
+## [[las.future.technicalia]]
 
 ## Topicalia
 + [[las.missing]]

pages/las.future.technicalia.md

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+## Technicalia / conceplallia
+- endframes links to opposite side of canvas
+	- how
+		- hyperlink? like hyperdrive-anti-anchor
+	- endless vs. not endless
+- more hyperlinks
+- more SVGs and/or zoom-svg-visuals overall
+- more videos
+- fix soundsauce for seemless situation
+	- content-vice, no coding [yet?]
+- space bar signs
+	- safety space bar signs to remind you to press spacebar in case of emergency 
+- more anchors
+- cleanup of 101
+
+### User Interface / interaction
+- joystick
+- ddr
+- bigscreen - with webcam control?
+- [[fulldocs.twitter.zoomable_ui]]]
+
+![[Pasted image 20211012234618.png]] #update 

pages/las.missing.md

@@ -14,25 +14,6 @@
 
 
 -------------------------------------
-#hermes #map #fix
-
->“Where are you?” “What place are you talking about?” I don’t know, since Hermes is continually moving on. Rather, ask him, “What roadmap are you in the process of drawing up, what networks are you weaving together?” No single word, neither substantive nor verb, no domain or specialty alone characterizes, at least for the moment, the nature of my work. I only describe relationships. For the moment, let’s be content with saying it’s “a general theory of relations.” Or “a philosophy of prepositions."[\[31\]](https://contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=812#FN31)
 
 ---------------------------------------
 
->Let us, then, recapitulate our argument, in order to try to suggest what form the new civilization might take. We have two alternatives before us.
-First, there is the possibility that imaginal thinking will not succeed in incorporating conceptual thinking. This could lead to a generalized depolitization, deactivation, and alienation of humankind, to the victory of the consumer society, and to the totalitarianism of the mass media.
-Such a development would look very much like the present mass culture, but in more exaggerated or gross form. The culture of the elite would disappear for good, thus bringing history to an end in any meaningful sense of that term. The second possibility is that imaginal thinking will succeed in incorporating conceptual thinking. This would lead to new types of communication in which man consciously assumes the structural position. Science would then be no longer merely discursive and conceptual, but would have recourse to imaginal models. Art would no longer work at things (“oeuvres”), but would propose models. Politics would no longer fight for the realizations of values, but would elaborate manipulable hierarchies of models of behavior. All this would mean, in short, that a new sense of reality
- - Vilem Flusser - line and surface
-
-#fix 
-
-----
-
->Imaginal thought was a translation of fact into image, and conceptual thought was a translation of image into
-concept. (First there was the stone, then the image of the stone, then the explanation of that image.) In the future, the situation may become thus:
-Imaginal thought will be a translation from concept into image, and conceptual thought a translation from image to concept. In such a feedback situation, an adequate model can finally be elaborated. **First there will be an image of something, then there will be an explanation of that image, and then there will be an image of that explanation. This will result in a model of something (this something having been, originally, a concept).
-And this model may fit a stone (or some other fact, or nothing).** Thus a fact, or the absence of a fact, will have been disclosed. There would once more exist a criterion of distinction between fact and fiction (fit and
-unfit models), and a sense of reality would have been recovered. What has just been said is not an epistemological or ontological
- - las 
-

pages/las.quotes.2022.md

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+## Control
+>Let us, then, recapitulate our argument, in order to try to suggest what form the new civilization might take. We have two alternatives before us.
+First, there is the possibility that imaginal thinking will not succeed in incorporating conceptual thinking. This could lead to a generalized depolitization, deactivation, and alienation of humankind, to the victory of the consumer society, and to the totalitarianism of the mass media.
+Such a development would look very much like the present mass culture, but in more exaggerated or gross form. The culture of the elite would disappear for good, thus bringing history to an end in any meaningful sense of that term. The second possibility is that imaginal thinking will succeed in incorporating conceptual thinking. This would lead to new types of communication in which man consciously assumes the structural position. Science would then be no longer merely discursive and conceptual, but would have recourse to imaginal models. Art would no longer work at things (“oeuvres”), but would propose models. Politics would no longer fight for the realizations of values, but would elaborate manipulable hierarchies of models of behavior. All this would mean, in short, that a new sense of reality
+ - Vilem Flusser - line and surface
+
+#fix 
+
+----
+
+>Imaginal thought was a translation of fact into image, and conceptual thought was a translation of image into
+concept. (First there was the stone, then the image of the stone, then the explanation of that image.) In the future, the situation may become thus:
+Imaginal thought will be a translation from concept into image, and conceptual thought a translation from image to concept. In such a feedback situation, an adequate model can finally be elaborated. **First there will be an image of something, then there will be an explanation of that image, and then there will be an image of that explanation. This will result in a model of something (this something having been, originally, a concept).
+And this model may fit a stone (or some other fact, or nothing).** Thus a fact, or the absence of a fact, will have been disclosed. There would once more exist a criterion of distinction between fact and fiction (fit and
+unfit models), and a sense of reality would have been recovered. What has just been said is not an epistemological or ontological
+ - las 
+