Some of the men at this party are more eccentric than those we received as matches. A programmer who donated “several hundred dollars” to the Crowdtilt likens the donation to “giving $2 to a homeless person.” In an affectless voice, he analyzes the relative Asian-ness of each of my facial features, then explains his frustration with online dating: “I prefer to use reality as my platform. There’s zero latency, no lag. Do you know what lag is? When you do something online, you don’t get a response right away. Meeting women in reality — boom! — fully responsive.” As he says this, he begins to touch me. I flee. Soon thereafter, Emma Tessler points out a different man she believes to be “obsessed with” me. She offers to run interference, and I do not see him again.
I meet an angel investor who admits he gave to the Crowdtilt to butter up CEO Lauren Kay so she’d accept his money. “With these Y Combinator companies, sometimes so many people want to invest that they end up turning down money,” he explained. He’d given money to the Dating Ring to secure the chance to give even more money to the Dating Ring. He wouldn’t tell me how much he invested, but did mention a desire to buy an airplane.
“Artist Daniel Temkin has been creating and discussing glitch art for over seven years. In that time, he’s exhibited in solo and group shows, and had his work featured in Rhizome and Fast Company, amongst other publications. For Temkin, glitch art is about the disruption of algorithms, though algorithmic art is a bit of a misnomer. He prefers “algo-glitch demented” in describing the methods, aesthetics, and philosophy of glitch.”—There’s Not Much ‘Glitch’ In Glitch Art | Motherboard (via notational)
The entire idea of rereading implies just such a likeable and progressive assumption about life, one that’s meant to keep us interested in living it: namely, that as you get further along, you find out more valuable stuff; familiarity doesn’t always give way to dreary staleness, but often in fact to celestial understandings; that life and literature both are layered affairs you can work down through.
Rereading a treasured and well-used book is a very different enterprise from reading a book the first time. It’s not that you don’t enter the same river twice. You actually do. It’s just not the same you who does the entering. By the time you get to the second go-round, you probably know—and know more about—what you don’t know, and are possibly more comfortable with that, at least in theory. And you come to a book the second or third time with a different hunger, a more settled sense about how far off the previously-mentioned great horizon really is for you, and what you do and don’t have time for, and what you might reasonably hope to gain from a later look.
Gradually, the creatives dressed like creatives are replaced by the rich people dressed as creatives, who express themselves by going to the right bars. The art form is pure, but it bears such a close resemblance to normal life that it’s sometimes difficult to tell someone who goes to the right…
Have this conversation constantly. It really is impossible to tell.
There’s a quiet revolution underway in theoretical physics. For as long as the discipline has existed, physicists have been reluctant to discuss consciousness, considering it a topic for quacks and charlatans. Indeed, the mere mention of the ‘c’ word could ruin careers. That’s finally beginning to change thanks to a fundamentally new way of thinking about consciousness that is spreading like wildfire through the theoretical physics community. And while the problem of consciousness is far from being solved, it is finally being formulated mathematically as a set of problems that researchers can understand, explore and discuss. Today, Max Tegmark, a theoretical physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, sets out the fundamental problems that this new way of thinking raises. He shows how these problems can be formulated in terms of quantum mechanics and information theory. And he explains how thinking about consciousness in this way leads to precise questions about the nature of reality that the scientific process of experiment might help to tease apart. Tegmark’s approach is to think of consciousness as a state of matter, like a solid, a liquid or a gas. “I conjecture that consciousness can be understood as yet another state of matter. Just as there are many types of liquids, there are many types of consciousness,” he says. He goes on to show how the particular properties of consciousness might arise from the physical laws that govern our universe. And he explains how these properties allow physicists to reason about the conditions under which consciousness arises and how we might exploit it to better understand why the world around us appears as it does.
“The assumption that work is a passport to dignity and security, that work is what makes life worth living, is so deeply embedded in our culture that it is almost heretical to think otherwise. But the problem isn’t just the lack of work. It’s also the lack of hope. Young people leaving school and university can no longer kid themselves that their future is likely to include a stable place to live, love and get on with growing up, even if they do manage to find paid work.
Here’s what is notably not being said to the young and desperate: you are more than your inability to find a job. Your value to a potential employer is not the sole measure of your worth as a person. If you can find only precarious, exhausting, depressing work, or if you can’t find work at all, that doesn’t mean you are useless, lazy, or a “waste of space”.”—
Personally, I will begin with what is articulated in the sigla
S(0) by being first of all a signifier….
And since the battery o f signifiers, as such, is by that very
fact complete, this signifier can only be a line [trait] that is
drawn from its circle without being able to be counted part o f
it. It can be symbolized by the inherence o f a (-1 ) in the whole
set o f signifiers.
As such it is inexpressible, but its operation is not inex
pressible, for it is that which is produced whenever a proper
noun is spoken. Its statement equals its signification.
Thus, by calculating that signification according to the al
gebraic method used here, namely:
——— ——- = s (the statement), with S = (-1 ), produces:
s (signified) .__
No doubt Claude Levi-Strauss, in his commentary on
Mauss, wished to recognize in it the effect o f a zero symbol.
But it seems to me that what we are dealing with here is rather
the signifier o f the lack o f this zero symbol. That is why, at the
risk o f incurring a certain amount o f opprobrium, I have indi
cated to what point I have pushed the distortion o f the math
ematical algorithm in my use o f it: the symbol ‘P I , which is
still written as ‘i ’ in the theory o f complex numbers, is obvi
ously justified only because it makes no claim to any au
tomatism in its later use.
Thus the erectile organ comes to symbolize the place of
jouissance, not in itself, or even in the form of an image, but
as a part lacking in the desired image: that is why it is equiv
alent to the -T of the signification produced above, of the
jouissance that it restores by the coefficient of its statement
to the function of lack of signifier (-1).
Lacan as quoted in Fashionable Nonsense by Alan Sokal
"Mr. Lacan, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."