Friday, September 14, 2012

Thoughts on Modularity

I have been conceiving that some secret lies at the heart of modular thinking, this single theory that has been relegated often to a specialist's domain; hints of it are found in a variety of disciplines which require high degrees of problem solving, namely politics and social science, architecture, and mathematics; But let us suppose that the breadth of the subject includes also the areas which are nit-picky about the quality of thought as a phenomena separate from the solutions-mentality; What then occurs with the transgression of modularity as a concept that is merely scalar or a systemic designator for objects of construction or deliberation?; Perhaps Frege's qualities of connotation and denotation have a potential here, but the leap very often looks only like a variation on game theory, a sort of crass assumption that some tessellated substrate is useful for determinations about people, or multi-agent frameworks; To some degree such a thing may specify an economic theory, e.g. a 'hexagony' function would increase in iterations which increasingly overlap or paradoxically divide, providing a litmus for concepts of geometric systemization; Unless such a framework is useful, the inevitable conclusion is that it is un-interesting; One solution is to apply geometry as an iconic representation for an entire scene or deliberation, much in the way that hegemony seems to be a geometric representation of constituent parts, which may have some degree of economic, computational, or social function through degrees of equilibrium and any equivalent concept, however, it is not for us to assume that every system is so basic, nor indeed that hegemony itself consists of such a simplistic framework; One solution at this point is to return to basic functions and apply geometry with variability, for example, specifying that one function is equivalent to a complex polygon, and another is simple or axiometric; This has more potential for meaningful overlap, if only because a larger number of categories have been encompassed; It is as though geometry is not in this way as organizational as might be the case, suggesting either that the very limit of geometry has been reached, e.g. the typological nature of the second zero, the seeming contradiction between axiometry/ typology and planar variablism has produced a modality beyond the nature of conventional assumptions of the limitation of basic categorization; but another conclusion is that the sheer oppositeness of categories and the sheer limitation of dynamic relations with a few agent variables leaves the context with many limitations which do not compute on the level of a hegemony, or even a simple concept of economics; Maybe this is over-reaching, to say that the context is so limited, if the functions or categories have functional or categorical validity; Perhaps a nation could espouse some nature akin to an archetypal function represented by 'axis' or 'planarity' but this begins to look Cabbalistic at best; Do we always rely on obfuscations to convey a cogent and operative idea?; What if the very clever-most thing of a given project, operation, or corporation is always reducible to something very pithy and minute?; I would rather propose that in some unique cases the ultimate value---equatively---of a given project etc. is actually an integration with the background of complexity, and functional manifestation as its minimal representation. In this context, art---dimensionism---becomes figuratively useful when there is a valid system of interpretation; Simple art exists, and may be interpreted with ease by a complex system; The greatest potential, however, (at least as I see it, at this juncture, in human intellect, or what have you---computation) is the value of complex art to convey simple formulas which are conniving in their perfection; In this context meta-variables emerge represented by equivalences to valuating a field; Concepts like complexity and perfection serve as an ultimate substitute for what is, at the material level, consistently more complicated, yet distinctly specialized: systems-aesthetic, which in others' thoughts often remains an un-typologized mystery of arbitrary formulations and crude self-apparent references to mathematics, actually has a potential, in the context of exclusivity, to define a gamut between reductive function and singular valuation; This, what we have called beauty and effectiveness, is to some degree wholly graphical, a surface of a more sublime contingency only realized through the window of ersatz functionality;

The singular position that has been called a vortex is only a subtle contention with form::

--Nathan Coppedge

No comments: