Re: <documenta X><blast> space, empowerment

Alex Iordachescu (alex@artamis.org)
Fri, 20 Jun 1997 21:48:38 +0000

Object-oriented programming and object-oriented thinking are some of the
phantasms of cybernetics myths. Modelisations are pretty but not very
usefull in real-world.
(Neo-liberal economy shows us this very well)
But there are different ways to consider models.
One is to consider models as potential reality in preview. (let's say
occidental way)
The other one is more difficult to explain and my english very bad.
But it seems to me closer to the way that "primitive societies" were
refereing to their "cosmogonies" -- (world's creation tales).
These tales were supossed to explain the creation of our world. So
something from the past. However, depending to life's changings, these
tales were changing too.
Like a layer wich was added to a long number of layers, wich you can
read also in a "verical" way, it's depth.

***( I would like to say also something about assyro-caldeen relation to
astrology but I feel that it would be a disaster with my english -- if
however you really want to know what I wanted to say I can respond you
in french :-)

Now comparing these models/tales to our object oriented models we
realise that our models have a different kind of input. We call these
inputs scientific parameters.
If we would a model to be complete, we should integer all the parameters
from the past wich had influenced the object-oriented thinking itself
and let it exist, and so on, in a regressive way tracing each
"cause-effet"... By this way the model could contain a model of itself,
expect that the operation i'm describing below is allready infinite.

A.I.

> Now that I read this again, this sounds like object-oriented programming,
> object-oriented design, etc. The driving principle of OO design is that
> the universe is composed of "objects" with "interfaces" to one another.
> Engineers have been using OO design for a long time in their circuit
> boards, they just look up a cookbook of commonly used component layouts.
> More recently, these methodologies have been applied to software. In
> software, one also has the notions of inheritance and polymorphism, for
> instance that a "cat" is a kind of animal, a "lion" is a kind of cat, and
> that an object may be valent between lions, tigers, and bears (oh my!) The
> latter requiring multiple inheritance.
>
> OO metaphors always break down at some point, though. Much of the world is
> not so easily compartmentalized into discrete objects... you get caught up
> in representing the boundaries of the object, the relations to the other
> objects, and pretty soon you're not really working with a compartmentalized
> "object" anymore. By extension, I'd expect the methodology of "switches"
> as applied to urban architecture to break down at some point.