Re: ~e; on learning basic electronics

From human being <>
Date Thu, 15 May 2003 11:52:28 -0500
In-reply-to <>

  Hi Louis, your criticism while biting is understandable yet I would  
  it is not bullshit, or trying to sound scientific, but is a  
thought-experiment that
  can be modeled that reflects suspended decision making as seen when  
  is ambiguity in a system of representation and decisions still need to  
be made.
  That it still cannot be discussed in this way, without an example, was  
one of the
  reasons for trying to write about it, as trying to learn more about  
electronics has
  brought with it the possibility of making a physical model of the same  
idea by
  using LED displays and automated (microcontrollers or sequential)  
  circuits to create this model. it is not 'randomness' nor  
false-complexity and is
  a very simple idea yet hard to write about in words, as is being  
  Maybe the words are not right, or the idea not clear, but it is more  
than a basic
  electronics knowledge that is being referenced, it includes a large  
swath of
  cultural knowledge, including the earliest organized systems of  
thought (Plato),
  significant artwork of the 20th century (Johns' investigation of  
symbols, language)
  and today's largely opaque ('blackbox') electronics knowledge industry  
where it
  may be cut-and-dried in terms of science and technology but is largely  
  to the layperson, or to its wider cultural context (relating Johns'  
artwork 0-9 to the
  7-segment LED display is completely within the available reasoning of  
the text).

0 through 9, Jasper Johns, 1970, embossed lead, Walker Art Center* 

  compared to:

7-segment display

  If you'd like to explain where all the bullshit lies, I'd appreciate  
that. What can be
  easily conceded is the naive exploration of electronics, but the text  
was about
  how one person is going about learning about electronics that is not  
the route
  of EE or vocational technical instruction, and there is little left  
but books then,
  and sharing ideas like these.

  Ignoring everything else, here's the other juxtapositions: 

12. Primary Education of the Guardians: Plato's Republic 12 (400c-403c)
  The Aim of Education in Poetry and Music

  Union Jack flag * **

	in comparison to (later) electronics technology:

  (*examples for classical architecture are undocumented so are
  hard to search for visual examples, although there are people
  who search for visual alphabets in architectural environments,
  and books exist on this subject, though not this symbol itself. If
  one looks at balconies or detailing of wood or stonework on a
  larger building, railings, this symbol can be seen in buildings.]

ALL of this to attempt to say:

	With the alphanumeric LED in an array of, say, 4 units, the
	symbol could be flipped and even driven by a processor to
  	flip and rotate on these displays, to demonstrate the 3D and
  	4D aspects of the alphabet that have been referenced else-
  	where, to demonstrate what has been previously posed and
  	"built" thousands and decades and years simultaneous to
	this one little (potentially already outdated) technology that
	could model the questions (as logic, for reasoning) that the
	models of today (in language) cannot yet achieve. That's it
	a nutshell, but I wrote this not to say 'believe me' but to show
	an example but obviously it is not close enough just yet.

In any case, thanks for the critique. If there is misinformation about
the basics of integrated circuits or microcontrollers or how LED
displays work, please correct the probable mistakes. If this does
not help clarify, I'd be glad to debate the basic nature of this idea
in much greater detail off-list and well beyond the limited scope
of electronics, or create a micro-list for those who are interested.
Otherwise, please let me know where the fault in reasoning lies.



[articles about origins and some how-to just located:

Liquid-crystal display: too impractical ]


Display Technology of TI Calculators 

On Thursday, May 15, 2003, at 01:25  AM, louis schultz wrote:

> Hi, I usually look forward to your updates regarding your internet  
> finds. I've been turned on to some very interesting stuff so far. This  
> time, I have to say that after trying a few times, I still cannot  
> figure out what you are trying to write  about. Some relevant links  
> might be very helpful. What it looks like is that someone has taken a  
> very simple idea and thrown some multi-dimensional bs on top of it to  
> make it sound more "scientific". I'm sorry if I seem to too harsh of a  
> critic, but this just doesn't make sense as written. If the idea is  
> worth discussing, then it is worth discussing coherently.
> Louis Schultz

  the electromagnetic internetwork-list
  electromagnetism / infrastructure / civilization