ich bin keine nazi, otto

[Nicolai]

What is Dada?
An art? A philosophy? A politics?
Some sort of fire insurance?
Or: A state religion?
is Dada an actual force
Or is it doing nothing?
All?

[bforp]

As answered by senor daniil

Cisfinitum
Letter to Leonid Savelyevich Lipavsky,
The Fall of the Stem.
Dear Leonid Savelyevich:

I
We shall regard a branch of knowledge as creative if it does not rely on postulates of category E.
Any branch of knowledge relying on postulates of category E will be considered non-creative.
The science of logic ("formal logic", "laws of thinking") relies on postulates of category E, therefore it is non-creative.
Art cannot rely on postulates of category E, therefore it is a creative branch of knowledge.
I am considering a creative science that cannot rely on postulates of category E.
II
A stem stands on a postulate E. Create a postulate E as the primary stem. Then the stem E will stand on a new postulate P1. Create the postulate P1 as the most-primary stem. Then the stem E will rely on the postulate P2. Create the postulate P2 as the foremost-primary stem etc.

I must remark that the stem of formal logic (Bool, Peirce et al.) is famous precisely for not having to consider the origin of the postulate E.

Postulates E, E', E''... can at any time be replaced by P1, P2, P3... and the new postulates can be regarded as postulates of category E.

But only with an infinite shifting of P into the subsequent P1, P2, P3... the stem grows or, more exactly, falls into the uncut field of the postulation, and the postulation becomes

P1P2P3 ... Pw .

Depict a new stem Sw. Notice that to create a field (P1 ... Pw) one must explore each P in turn. We shall, by convention, mark an explored field by the letter a.

Then we write that the new stem Sw relies on an already explored postulation a (P1 ... Pw) or

Sw

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a (P1 ... Pw)

III
Define an exploration of a postulatory field. For this, we shall define a postulate as the limit of the fall of a stem relying on it. Also notice that if a stem is some continuum K, then the postulate will be expressed by the formula

K – H = 1 (for all H).

Taking (K – H) for some stem and exploring it, we find the postulate P1.

P1 = K – H – H1 = 1.

Following further, we obtain:

P2 = K – H – H1 – H2 = 1.

Opening the fall, we see that

Pw = K – H – H1 – H2 – ... – Hy – Hw = 1.

And finally, the exploration of the postulatory field will be expressed as*:

a (P1...Pw) = (K – H) ~~(K – H – H1)~~ ... (K – H – H1 – ... – Hy) ~~(K – H – H1 – ... – Hy – Hw) .

* The sign ~~ reads: "deals with..." (Author's remark).
IV
Let us look at what happens to the stem. First of all, we shall call this process a "fall of the stem".

Consequtive moments of the fall can be expressed as follows:

K postulated by E, or
K

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
E

K – H

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
P1

K – H – H1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
P2

K – H – H1 – ... – Hw
mw –1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pw

Following further, we obtain:

Sw K +(K – H) +( K – H – H1) +...( K – H – H1 – ... – Hy)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a (P1 ... Pw) (K – H) ~~ (K – H – H1) ~~ ... ~~ (K – H – H1 – ... – Hy) ~~(K – H – H1 – ... – Hy –Hw)

V
I am very interested in Your opinion about non-postulable science. The thing is that by postulating Sw by an infinitely decreasing field (P1 ... Pw) we cannot refer to this as our previous unit of reliance. The new unit of reliance will be O (null).

a (P1 ... Pw) = O.

This is the first and the only statement that can be a new postulate not of category E.

According to the first condition of §1, a stem relying on a (P1 ... Pw) shall be considered creative.

VI
If we assume that a creative science Sw can exist, then we can anticipate that by the 4th condition of §1 it will be similar to art.

If a creative science will have to deal with quantitative notions, then one can anticipate that the number system must be different from our solaric corpus. I modestly note that the new number system will be null and its domain of exploration will be Cisfinitum.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thus, my dear Leonid Savelyevich, allow me to finish the letter and wish you a good night.

Meanwhile I, thinking of the cisfinite void, am ready to stand and wait, while people hurry to sleep by counting to a hundred, whereas the insidious Moock with his dogs is going hunting.

October 16, 1930.[/url]

[Redeye]

To paraphrase/twist Bforp's reference and Arthur C. Clarke:

"A sufficiently advanced science will be indistinguishable from magic"

magic is also known as "the Art"

therefore:

"a sufficiently advanced science will be indistinguishable from art"

[bforp]

To paraphrase/twist Bforp's reference and Arthur C. Clarke:

"A sufficiently advanced science will be indistinguishable from magic"

magic is also known as "the Art"

therefore:

"a sufficiently advanced science will be indistinguishable from art"

And paraphrased/twisted you have, dear friend!

Another answer to Nico's query, yet again by Daniil:

On Equilibrium

Everyone now knows how dangerous swallowing stones is. A friend of mine even coined the expression 'Dan-in-ston', which means: 'It's dangerous to ingest stones.' And a good thing too. 'Dan-in-ston' can be easily remembered and, as required, instantly recalled.
He worked, this friend of mine, as a stoker on a steam engine. He travelled either the northern line or to Moscow. He was called Nikolay Ivanovich Serpukhov and he smoked Rocket cigarettes at thirty-five kopecks a packet, and always said that they made him cough less, while those costing five roubles, he says, 'always make me choke'.
And so Nikolay Ivanovich once chanced to get in to the restaurant in the Yevropeyskaya Hotel. Nikolay Ivanovich sat at a table and at the next table some foreigners were sitting munching apples.
At this point Nikolay Ivanovich said to himself: -- This is interesting -- said Nikolay Ivanovich -- A man's life this!
Barely had he said this to himself when from out of the blue a Fairy appeared in front of him, saying: -- My good man, what do you need?
Well, of course, in a restaurant you do get a commotion from which, it may be said, this unknown diminutive lady may have sprung. The foreigners even ceased munching their apples.
Nikolay Ivanovich himself rather had the wind up and spoke rather offhandedly, so as to give her the brush-off. -- I'm sorry -- he said -- but I don't really require anything in particular.
-- You don't understand -- said the unknown lady -- I -- she said -- am what is called a Fairy. In the merest jiffy I'll lay on whatever you fancy.
Nikolay Ivanovich happened to notice that a citizen in a grey two-piece was listening intently to their conversation. The maitre d'hotel was rushing through the open doors and behind him some other specimen with a cigarette in his mouth.
-- Bloody hell! -- thought Nikolay Ivanovich -- there's no telling what's going on.
And there was indeed no telling what was going on. The maitre d'hotel was leaping around the tables, the foreigners were rolling up the carpets and generally the devil only knew what! They were all doing whatever they felt like!
Nikolay Ivanovich ran out to the street and didn't even pick up his hat from the custody of the cloakroom; he ran out on to Lassalle Street and said to himself: -- Dan-in-ston! It's dangerous to ingest stones -- Nothing like this ever really happens, surely!
And arriving home, Nikolay Ivanovich told his wife: -- Don't be alarmed, Yekaterina Petrovna, and don't get worried. Only there's no equilibrium in the world. It's just an error of some kilogram and a half over the universe as a whole, but it's really a surprising thing, Yekaterina Petrovna, totally surprising!
And that's all.

Daniil Dandan, 18 September 1934[/b]

[Nicolai]

[Redeye]

"The political expression of Platonism is the republic, while the rival Aristotelean view is oligarchical. The republicans seek a form of society that cherishes the creative mental powers of the individual, and seeks to cultivate those powers as the key to economic and cultural progress. The oligarchs seek to suppress the mental powers of the individual, because they prefer a fixed, feudal form of society, and consider change to be disruptive and dangerous.

In LaRouche's opinion, the conflict between these two camps is the essence of politics, and all of the contemporary notions about "left vs. right" and "liberal vs. conservative" are nothing more than a red herring."

My version is more language/semantics oriented with a touch of anthropology, but he's got something there.

I like some of his technocratic stuff.

But he really is an exceptionally high-function crank.

[Manoil]

...I'm sorry?

[Nicolai]

[johnnygothisgun]

has the dada craze retaken dac

[PiP]