Truly though, I would honestly like to make sense, and so with many scratchings and contours and pencilings and imbibings and inscriptions that will eventually arise something that connotes recognition.

AFFINITY, then, begs recognition - hmmm - so even rarer to create communal aknowledgement - anyway , I am still trying to shake off and get grounded away from the divisiveness of the visuals arts hegemonistic cult of supra-normality - we are indeed the vile aborted offspring of existential paternity . . . yes, ugly and mutated, raw and warped, a visage of napalmed groaning vivisected maws howling over the lost rage of warm breasts - damage is a kind loving affectionate term, and yes, I am having a party with my irony in this paragraph so smear it out . . .

LINKS, and genetic glyphs and spurts - the key twang and loop that falls (rhythm) and links, high and low, mutant and mutated - where is it? does it degenerate downward? - (In parentheses what does degenerate mean?) - ( it has too much of a connotation of appellation - from upward to downward) - yet, i no longer see a chain link, a fence and web of forms and cultural continuities that make sense - who of us possess this internal time clock -

? -

Hey Roger, somehow a feeling is creeping into me that you decided to overturn the OLD.htm 'didactic' relation and in turn help me expand my knowledge of English languge to poetic heights. For this I am most grateful, especially because 'in the verbal' I often find myself on thin ice. Not so with colors and sounds - but somehow a completion of oneself can be regarded as a prime motive, or one of the two prime motives, since we are social beings looking for a role inside this mess of human society. May we find ourselves also adding to the completion of human structures? A little turn in perspective can help to get rid of the 'outcast' picture.
One imaginary picture can look like this: Balancing the society.
I find the human structure surrounding me as my referential point - defining my actions even more than any aesthetic criteria that I might have grown 'out of nowhere' (can it be that anything can grow without its counterpart?). This kind of perspective may seem to come out of a rational decision - but no, whatever: genetic or else, defined me in such role of a counterbalance for as long as I can remember. So: mutant - very probably - but mutations are natural, cloning is unnatural. And further on: unnatural maybe equals rational and natural maybe equals stupid?

But I'll try another approach to this: Entities (one of the new terms that I grew close to while reading some of your thoughts...)
More specifically: entities as innumerable structures (social or not) contained one into another (-> picture it as spheres within spheres within spheres...). I am an entity contained into a number of social/human structures (but also any other kind of structures/mechanisms). Even more: contained within my seemingly 'harmonious' entity is a number of opposing mechanisms that complicate its 'harmony'. The roles I perform inside any of these mechanisms is varying wildly. Again: it is not that I am in control of these various roles, but a certain freedom to affect the nature of roles is possible (it is usually enough to decide for yes or no). A glimpse at the complex combination of all roles defines me as an individual by the name of Borut.

How do I approach then the material I have at disposition than with this same mixture of intuition & rationale glimpse. What comes out is always a more or less straight line piercing as much of the entities as possible. The more entities are touched - the closer to the basic principle of my interest I get.

So a lot could really be said about indeterminacy...

Producing an aesthetic content stripped off the above principles is maybe possible, but it leaves you without the (oh, so!) many translations (-> shortcuts/ straight lines) which can be at 'the root of' this entity called Borut, who is nevertheless an entity preoccupied with building a certain rationale about himself in within this soup of very chaotic activities of billions of fellows co-humans. To build this 'rationale' (or at least a very unclear glimpse) all I have is a very uncertain tool called intelligence and a very short time-span called life. And (if we forget gods) - not really a good reason to do this at all!

I see all our non-material/imaginary activities as a by-product of nature's 'survival solution-solving kit'. Not really very practical but it comes as a 'bonus' - for free: so, dear humans, deal with it... be happy, sad, give birth to ratio - organise the chaos.

I don't want to organise the chaos - I prefer to locate the chaotic elements and get used to the dynamic, non-determined events/ activities and grow to like its 'aesthetics'.

Could this new aesthetics be used to establish a new conceptual hierarchy ( - yes, a mere question, although I realize that it is just this tactical concept that we are attempting to avoid - ) : if we did this, then couldn't everything be leveled to the hierarchy of mildew, the strength and expansineness of mold, or spores, or the world dominant terrain of fungus? A fungus of thought that breaks down its' environmental components and slowly, imperceptably, on a sub-dream time time-table refuses all of the New - Composite particles to expand our present vision(s) - refuses (?) - a deliberative Freudian slip - (?), ingrained protestive belligerence on my part (?) - how about re-fusing to take part - I take this part, you that that part, we will pull them to parts.
Overall it seems that if we make an assessment then we can indicate a demarcation point . . . , in fact all of the shrapnel chunks are withering into dust upon the ground -
New Dawn of The Anti-Age - a new idea - the past effectively ends where we draw the line - however, Borut, please help me gloss over the harshness of my presumed Radical edge - however, the secret, PAST-poned to any revelation in hindsight, is continuity - the unseen neural tapestry that allowed us to draw our present conclusions anyway - albeit, we were/are as mavericks unaware that we were being led to this swimming hole by our un/sub-consciousness.

The New-Age then is a fuzzy pink babys' comforter - except as a new birth it is a new frontier - and so this text seems to outline a draft by which we simultaneously indicate a set of precepts which are common tools which by the act of implimentation cause us to outgrow our overused selves - - - faintly, hazily, scantily I see this grey outline around you Borut - the very indication that the duties that led us to activate this meeting had grown from their original proportions - now perhaps by inverting their behemoth size into a sub-terrain you have flip-flopped your thoughts into the size of a shell fish and the oysters are dreaming and the waves are washing and mass subconsciouness is a new dear trophy, although Pride tarnishes - so maybe instead we will remain New-Age infants for a period - (?)(!)(?).
However this hardly addresses your new points - but that is why we are agreeably performing Frankenstein surgery upon a new corpse together, so that the parts are poetically, imagistically arranged, so that really there are not any free tangents, rather a series of perimeters cased out by a measuring tape, actions as subtle as a breeze but also just as effective nevertheless.
- Why can't we just announce " the beginning has come", and why
can we not expect to see that as more effective than saying " the end has come" ?

Hm, parts...
We carefully compose our personalities - mind structures from small particles - but are we empty when we are born? -> Again: genetic predispositions define us much more than it I ever thought. But when I had a child and I was in a position to see him grow - and I got this understanding that I could do no better than to try not to spoil his already defined individuality. So, what remained was to implement into that already existing structure particles that were no more than information about the (social) environment - history, basic rules of social behaviour - all in all: civilization (civilizing?) information (rules?). This, however is much less than what the educational system demands and performs (or it would: if poor teachers would all know what they are supposed to do). However, they manage to (re)produce a usefull part of the human society - in socialism 'producing' a man/woman of the future - and now - equally.

'Inertia' si not always a negative force and changes are not always for the positive... (am I growing old?)
Stubborn is sometimes stupid, beautiful is sometimes bad...
Mutants always manage to evade away from below the microscope (can they be grown in laboratories?).

But back to little particles which make us aware of the history of man and probably uniform us into ants or bees. If anybody was to remove a small but to me very dear (for others totally unimportant) particle - linked in my individual manner with other particles into this complex (not transparent) structure - I would probably collapse mentally. But as individual I have to survive - so a shell can be useful. But here we touched my soft spot - the shell... but I still try to transmit from this shell (but do I receive anything?) ;)

One of my not-so-recent, not-so-happy conclusions was that nobody can learn anything but basic data (numbers?) on anything that relates to some basic (self/ life) cognition. And when there are no personal experiences - imagination has to jump in. And imagination is a great tool for building mind structures - it can build Eiffel tower out of totally unbelievable or unrealistic ideas. It is our main interpolating tool with which we 'fill in the blanks'. And I do admit that I have large amounts of this dreamy stuff. It takes just 1ccm of adrenaline to block my entire rational system for two days (that's why I don't take that stuff anymore). I'm talking this blues nevertheless knowing that it is all the time the same thoughts that are behind sounds that I produce. The drawings from long ago (yes Roger - that too!) were much the same. With words and social behaviour I probably compensate all this. But to be able to put forward some logic that would make sense  but to very few people with experiences very much like mine - no. We humans with our genetically predispositioned specific culture implemented personal experiential imaginary built mind systems grow exceedingly 'different'.

I'll return to some of your points later on...

But we can announce - the beginning has come, because I can see (again this imagination!) ideas making steps - one after another, even two steps at a time (sometimes).

So: let it be NEW AGE!!!

Why this seemingly suicidal approach? Because I think paradigmatic changes are just now going on. But I doubt that it has anything to do with current mystical understanding of newage. How can I claim that?
OK, even simple fact that a lot of smart people talk about the end of history, end of civilisation... may have a lot to do with it. I can see a lot of principles which defy common 'linear' reasoning being implemented into practice. While the practical areas where they enter can be very dubious (war machine) it is nevertheless area where boys can play with the toys and 'anything goes'. Internet is the result of totally decentralized platform composed with as many sub-systems (or independent systems) as possible. The internal 'modular' organisation of modern professional army 'bodies' is similar - independant by its basic aim and still compatible & interdependent if needed. Somehow like giant LEGO blocks system. This is even more evident on the level when different national army bodies interconnect on various occassions. What was not long ago the basic element for the existence/sovereignity of national bodies (=states) is now acting just as one more 'profession' linking over the frontiers. The systems-spheres that I was talking about at the beginning are intersected, leaning against each other, contained one within the other - not just in this case - in all areas of human interests/activities. To be able to 'process' this multidimensional, multivariable system is just impossible. One reason may be that the perception of such a system 'from the outside' is impossible. We - individual systems - are contained within this bubbly soop and have very individual 'impressions' of the whole.

Of the chaotic systems that come to mind the Theory of thermodynamics is the most descriptive. Because it transcends the Newtonian mechanics and involves also the elements of indetermination of the quantum mechanics. But this model deals with energies which here (in post-Socialist) Slovenia links you straight to Newage. It is maybe an interesting thing that in physics we are able to deal with energies but when we come to human structures/systems - we are forced to deal with dialectic principles. May this be the reason for 'the end of history' trauma? But couldn't than this be just the end of dialectic history?

More about thermodynamics principles will follow. I hope I will not end up lost in some cosmos.

The future meets you backward, the past meets you today, if an individual has no ambitions . . . , then the phantom that glares over its shoulder at your gaze may appear to indicate a casket - however - I am positing an extreme case - more than anything bespeaking my fear of inaction.
My intention though is to say that the sum of components that influence us are in themselves so mercurial that the eventual effect has laid a path before we set foot - - - - no, not destiny, certainly not - but, following your own suggestion Borut, I see that a child your child is a blossom, (everything blossoms upward outward downward) a key to an invariable set of kernels . . . yes, yes, yes, . . . . . . until those of us who set forth continual precepts become multiple parents, fathers, mothers, generative out of so many nuances . . . don't we each birth in our own way? - don't our muscles teach our minds, doesn't our chemistry suggest new choices?
Great periods, history, etcetera, - isn't there a point where paradigms line up?
Because if crude mechanical outlines like biomechanics are sustained, then a useable paradigm appears; unfortunately in our commerce oriented world most vehicles are exploited for effect rather than for potential optimal use as transmogrative XYZ fillers in an equation.
If we are crassly reductionistic then we at least have the advantage of theorizing, although all of the components are reduced to hard dry parts.
However, ultimately, for a time, we do have need of operable paradigms.
- But let us try to develop the habit of giving them each the name of recognizable tools - pliers, forceps, miter,level, micrometer, plumb . . . . .
We are now this moment in "a" renaissance, a magical twist of substrata, an alignment of perforated metal discs layered upon a revolving shaft, a cosmogram of light filters shifts radically about and casts an illuminative spectrum of fantastic highlighted images amongst our collective tapestries, the fluids and humors condense throughout an array of impressionistically strewn hues refracted from an eternity of beakers, test-tubes, petri dishes and another horde of such job-lots, . . . , honestly the cockpit in which we "ride" is from an abandoned grounded craft, but the paradigm is there, we met the appointment and took our seat, for another few minutes we will be going somewhere . . . . . . . .  . . . . . .

I think maybe Borut data is a derivative of "Democracy": - quantitatively we are going to make a shift upward - right?: so denominatively a highly simplistic process is required: next, infinity - in the meantime optimism is in order - ha! - this is fun!, because in this current perspective (you and I) know that we can be caretakers of plots on the common 'grounds', undertakers, gravediggers, ghouls exhuming in the night, thieves of pessimism (get it!), flicker-light in the night, shadows running from fractals, shovel blades chucking in the densely entombed gravel of dialectics, we will chock up some corpses embalmed in paraffin and linen . . . or is this too much a rush of high gloss varnish on our dialogue?!
Yes, intelligence does lead to nihilism, because it leads to absolutism, because it narrows and selects, however we now realize that each spoke is intersecting a wheel, each vision is a radius, and the radii are picking up momentum and spinning and we are leaving . . . . .

I decided that it would be superfluous (?, = waste of time) to go any deeper into physics (eehh, one nice green blackboard less...) but to do away with it briefly. It is only a model, and even more (=less) - a very personal model, which should never grow to anything else, but should remain 'bodyless' - an abstraction only. May I add that I would wish that other abstractions would remain more bodyless - god, money...
The thermodynamics principle basicly defines 'isolated' system as the sum of all present energies (kinetic, potential and internal (-> of the molecules) to remain constant while at the same time a lot of energetic activities may be happening inside. Again: what we - the small particles (individual or small systems) perceive is exactly this local activities - energy changes from internal to potential to kinetic - back and forth and all around. What we cannot see is the system as a whole - the eye from outside (above?). But we made an abstraction of this EYE. Of course it is the omnipresent GOD! And may I add that I find that construct a very inteligent one - if it only wouldn't get this BODY applied to it. If it would remain an IDEA.

Time is also a very debatable principle. It grew a body which we call clock (a mechanic) but we also talk about it as absolute time. Time principle is a series principle and is needed to provide a simple transparent model (of course: abstraction) of events. This is then HISTORY (and evolution, dialectics... - they all have bodies the way we relate to them -> "the history will remember..."). But is it that events are really time-related, sequential, one leading to another? The answer here is not NO, I know. But to lessen a little bit this dictatorship of time principles, would be an achievement, wouldn't it?

You introduced also space principles (outside, inside, spinning&leaving...). Can we go anywhere - or do we remain inside the system - with a little optimism - integral/balancing parts of it...

One non-popular theory from not long ago seemed interesting enough. It was about Earth (eco)system being of the self-balancing kind. Of course I never heard of it again, because it was politically non-correct in these times of 'positive' eco-propaganda. May this latter be another of this abstractions which have grown bodies?

May I introduce John Grzinic (sound artist JGrzinich), with whom we plan to 'undertake'(?) a sound installation based on similar ideas.

The thermodynamics model is an approprate one.  The principle of this model that you may be looking for is the self-organizing 'habits' of systems(chemical, biological etc.)  In 1977 Dr Ilya Prigogine won the nobel prize in chemistry for showing that systems self-organize (show patterns of organization) before dissapating to a state of equilibrium.
This overturned newtons law of entropy.  The process by which a system organizes is through bi-fucations or branching, where an area of activity has a significant enough effect to cause a disturbance or change.  This is not too far from a decision.  In the social model- the Biotope project itself is organizing through a series of bi-furcations: me finding
xchange list and sending a message-you responding, me visiting Ljubljana-us talking and developing the project, now we send out proposals-and get responses from that, then we exhibit the Biotope-people respond and (hopefully) get inspired and the project spirals out from there.  And yes there is chaos because there is no way to tell where this may take us or how it precisely came together(there are big questions like how could you and I living far apart come up with similar ideas?
Most people turn to 'god' at this point, I tend to push further into the infinitude.....the existence of it all and respond creatively to what I see for this is approaching the eternal).  The medium here being communication.  I do see an irony to the current trend of 'global communications'; the myth I feel is that this is simply the progess of technology whereas I see it as a self-organizing system....toward what?
Im not sure, possibly the flipside or unseen which is seemingly the inability for people to communicate on a sincere human level without the infrastructure of technology, to lose touch with our'selves'.  OK Im getting side-tracked....can you tell I think about this alot?

Ilya Prigogine says, 'never underestimate the individual'.

How does this apply to the Biotope? I ask: is sound really the medium? Yes and no, it is definitely the outcome, the thing that we percieve and part of the instigating force; sound is physical energy.  But there is also the midi controller(computer) which has the ability to 'make decions'. Random or not these decisions affect the out come as much as the sound
itself.  I guess the program controling the midi signals has the ability to also turn a channel off and on possibly like a gate.  This may be important when using open air microphones and/or contact mics which tend to  easily overload the feedback process.  Im saying this because a program that can take many tiny 'snippets' of sound will 'behave' differently than one that has a continuously open path.

When the two of us participate in the system we could focus on different aspects of sound.  The one that comes to mind is electronic vs acoustic derived sound since we seem to agree on their contrasting nature.

Hello John, welcome aboard . . .
Much of this NEW phrasing and discourse still seems tangential to a dialogue concerning representation: . . . aren't we after all still artists, more particularly 'divisors'? - (device - ers) - after all Johns discussion is of a process of representation - how then does a discussion of fila ensue?

I guess what I mean is, in order to create we must further derive . . . derivation gives the illusion of synthicity, in an order of proceeding descendants purity is diminished while stimulating a cauldrens ephemera of alchemy and compounds. I am just suggesting that synthesism cannot be any more chimerical than organic organicism.

What exactly are we representing ? Other than a process of thought -
(re:Borut: 'but are we empty when we are born?') - Complexity is becoming in-bred into our hard-drives - also leveling and equanimity - culturally don't we take so much for granted now? Because of machines, wars, and other paradigms and projections of memories ( mass psychosis? ) such beautiful desert flowers as Surrealism and Dada had to bloom. And aren't great art movements a final ethereal manifestation of the elusive realm of humanities 'progress'?

If our art becomes too ethereal do we risk vanishing in a ripple in time/space continuum - pending on the theory that our paragigms keep us alive, not our principles or creations or values - isn't it interesting that John and Borut have shifted us back to the highly tangible simile of "Acoustic Space" - how is it that at this particular juncture in our creative lives the impressions that we receive from the physical tendrils of SOUND are what stimulate our subsconsciouses most intensely?

Anyway I feel that what I had once considered to be the bane of our cultural values, that is the 'entertainment industry' might actually turn out to be the very thing that closes traditional gaps . . . . even if it is just a blip, or if our new found accessability to minds all over the globe becomes a crushed momentary fluke - won't we all remember this dialogue permanently (i.e., ingrained in mass subconsciouness?).

However, we are discussing all of this particularly from the perspective of being practitioners of experimentation - with a huge dedication to the values by which we adhere to our chosen methods. So still I want to posit the questionability of creating a dichotomy between what we have thus far accepted as the polar separation of 'acoustic' / 'synthetic' - what I am posing instead is a concept of alchemical illusions and imbalances - external reality has learned to adjust itself to our degree of subjectivism - finally (culturally) we agree that reality is disputable - however the cost of truth has been a loss of grounding - does it make any difference? Instead technological has allowed us the realm of the ethereal - the ephemeral - do we use it to communicate or opiate?

Thanks for the intro Roger.  I do not think I received the whole message though, I do not yet have a eudora file to view my mail.  There was a lot too absorb here and I had a slightly difficult time discerning the focus of what you both have been talking about, mostly I guess because of my late entry.

However there were some good questions raised:

Roger, when you say 'we' do you mean specifically the participants of the discusion or refering to a larger context of 'artists' or even human beings?
"arent we after all still artists...?"
I think I know what you mean but I would consider this an unneccessary statement unless you have the intent of viewing artists in a reductive manner.  Im saying this because although one may have humbling intentions, statements such as this also potentially separate us(3) as artists from the greater whole of the cultural process.  The late physicist David Bohm refers to this as fragmentation or the separation of ones self(thoughts) and social standing(communication) apart from the whole.  This goes back to what I was telling Borut, how I feel communication is the medium of human growth.  This might also relate to your idea of representation, Representation being an aspect of communication.  Asking ourselves, how do we creatively represent ideas when attempting to communicate with others?  This is certainly a contemporary challenge in artistic creation.

"Arent great art movements a final etherial manifestation of the elusive realm of humanities, 'progress'?"
Yes and no, it depends on how you define 'great art movements' and 'progress'.  I agree that  art movements grow out of or respond to the realm of humanity but they are not always etherial.  The Viennese Actioninst movement was a very physical reaction to the older more traditional generation in post-war Europe.   I also dont consider movements final unless it comes from a historical definition.  Usually there is the movement itself, then the historical observation of the movement, then the referential culture surrounding the historical reflection and so on.  This is true when talking about the 'dadaists' or
'surrealists' from the earlier part of the century.  The material left behind in galleries and museums will have a different affect on us than it did on people at the time of its creation.  The original message has become etherial because it actually lives out there and inside of us in ways that may or may not be detectable.

Two more good questions:
"How is it at this particular juncture in our creative lives the impressions that we receive from the physical tendrils of sound are what stimulate our subconciouses most intensely?"
Who knows Roger. Im affraid that at this moment if I stopped to look for an answer I might lose much of my inspiration for creativity, because Im absorbed in creativity.  Experience feeds the subconcious (which has no clear boundary) and in my own experience asking "whys" of the subconcious is experience in itself that lays close to a feedback loop.  I have found
sound to be a good medium and metaphor for communicating certain ideas.
There is plenty territory to explore beyond the formal traditions of western music, particularly in abstraction.

"Do we use technology to communicate or opiate?"
Technology mitigates human experience.  >From the stone hammer to the internet these tools extend the human ability but do not replace it.  You could ask this same question about psychactive drugs, medicines, food or even other people.  I think on some level this question is behind many of the decisions I am confronted with.

I've been doing some surfing and have come across some helpful information.  I did a search for 'autopoietic system theory' and found a wealth of info.  Autopoietic is a term that specifies a system that is  self-refletive in nature, one of the aims of the BIOTOPE.

For definition and overview of autopoietic theory go to:
www.acm.org/siggroup/auto/ATReview.html

For an autopoietic online dictionary(well done) go to:
http://pespmcl.vub.ac.be/asc/Autopo_machi.html

For many good links on autopoietic theory go to:
www.gypsymoth.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/biosem/biosem.html

For autopoietic aesthetic of a Japanese visual artist(fantastic images - I would like to translate this into sound) go to:
www.city.fujisawa.kanagawa.jp/~himeno/itiran.html

For a guy in your neighborhood(Ljubljana) who wrote a paper on autopoietic theory go to:
http://ciiiweb.ijs.si/dialogues/r-kordes.htm

Maybe this Urban Kordes is a nice guy, he may be able to help us if we consult him.  Im thinking primarily with regards to software. I ran across several references to Autopoietic software.  I guess because Ive had some questions about the midi program, Im still not clear as to how the signal paths are 'chosen' and redirected.  I know it is random but maybe this could be replaced with a more sophisticated program that behave in an autopoietic manner.  Im quite curious about all of this.

There is even a website by another Japanese guy who integrates Autopoietic theory with music.  Unfortunately the english translation pages are under construction and I cant read japanese.  I may send him an email for him to tell me when it is ready.

Thank you immensely, John, for the host of information - I am bewildered at the extreme level of systematisation - and intimidated! Well, that's science... no newage! However, it is the right material to take home and do the homework correctly. Brainstorming nevertheless remains my aim - not the systematisation - but rather acknowledgement of simultaneity, diversity, non-coherence - be it called impression, chaos, noise, post-modernism, democracy - or Autopoietic theory.

Yesterday it snowed here heavily all day and it still does. While fighting in vain to add some more to NEW.htm, after midnight I had to take an hour's walk home through the virgin snow - masking my own path. Snowy problem presented itself today in totally different manner - because narrow footpaths were already inscribed in it - defining where to walk. A host of usually inexistent relationships came to life - meeting with the people going in the opposite direction or changing the speed while walking in line. Civilization demanded hierarchy = a system - who goes first, how fast must a first go, who gets priority - is it the small and feeble or is it the big and strong. By the very 'serial' nature of this snowy occasion (narrow footpaths) our current thoughts remain very academic. Luckily, I could have chosen the virgin snow - but 40 cm of virgin snow!?

So, the principles we are dealing with here have a name - autopoietic principles, and hopefully we can use it to make all kinds of (im)possible translations. This includes this text - which is really transported by a medium which alows for different than linear principles (hyperlinks - even inside the long role that it is becoming) - wild jumps accross it are possible - it can be implemented with images and sounds also. So editing it while we are doing it is in tune with the principles. Some rules of social behavior among US(3) or more (to come) would be a matter of our civilization - and again it would be an on-going process - an experiment totally equal to our approach to THIS .htm transporting material. The only rule so-far that I would introduce (for a debate) is about editing - every one of us can edit (cut, add, move, paste) his part of writing - even erase his previous statement - if he changed his points of view. The question would be  - can he also paste into another ones paragraph? There is a simple tool on the Edit screen of Netscape Communicator (=Composer) browser which is called TARGET and it allows jumping from some points to other points in .htm document. Is this interesting to you? Are you comfortable in such a kindergarten? The principle comes easy to US3 dealing with sounds as we do.

This thing is alive NOW and for those of us writing and reading and rereading it. The movement is when it is moving...
Any 'porting' of this principles to other more linear media - like printed book(let) would be a major translation - a complete rewriting of it.

Is this too 'engineer-like' approach? I admit that I prefer to see myself as an engineer or at most a producer, never as musician - I have problems with being an artist. This problems come from my local background where artist is a word describing a highly responsible profession dealing with 'nationally important' questions, with social aspects - almost a politician - a person expected to put aside his individuality or to be at most a very isolated lyricist - weaver of dreams into this&that form. An engineer? True: I fear more artists that have an engineer-like approach than I fear engineers that enter artistic area. (of course I wouldn't fear myself!).
At this moment I have no more problems to be in comfort with myself as a NEWage child - running away from too systematicly organised systems/bodies and being repulsed already by the extreme 'rationale' of precise definitions. This is of course my own problem - and I can change my mind in (my) time (any time). However, it is important that now we keep 'in time' as it is obvious that there exists a high degree of understanding. Probably the most intuitively achieved (and the most basic?) area that we share greately is exactly the most abstract one - the approach to music/ to material. Now we are digging boldly into our personalities - a very very intensive process - not so basic anymore and certainly not so egocentric - maybe even more introspective as we work hard to translate/transport impressions for (our) exchange. This said I invite you to JUMP to 'synchronous' statement to see if we meet. (I would prefer to be able to paste it in - but democracy...). The local (inside document) link is simply done with #1, although character # doesn't show.

One interesting point is also somewhere there and has to do with my different view in relation to fragmentation, differentiation inside the artists' breed. Again it has probably to do with a more strict European tradition of boundaries between the different contexts - it may be socially, politically, nationally hierarchisized(?) - a kind of very differentiated strata of very subtle differences which are not easily surmountable. Aesthetic common ground seems to come last. May I add that I was amazed with what easiness you John was cruising between these strata. Were you inaware or you didn't care?
Anyway: fragmentation of big bodies is good, we are not dealing with social processes (anymore? end of history?), I can see insurmountable differences between myself and people working in the same area (I can talk only about weather with others), I don't see artists as homogenous body at all, at most I can see it as a certain principle in life - but this leaves a lot of them out, and more and more. Differentiation really means (as I was tought in Socialism) not solely departing - but a cleansing of a smaller part - already a cohesive force at work. Much like historic artistic movements did.

Oh, John already sent in loads of new material...

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/asc/IndexASC.html
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/asc/Markov_chain.html
http://www.contingencyanalysis.com/glossarystochasticprocess.htm
http://kreutzer.postech.ac.kr/explain3.html
http://www.csc.ncsu.edu/faculty/WStewart/MARCA/marca.html

Ok, this might be going out on a limb or over our heads, but it does say that this software can be used with models (economic, social etc.).  It may not be able to control midi functions but if we keep searching we might find something that will.  I cant belive how stuck these ideas are in classical hard science.  Their own theories will destroy themselves some day (see "catastrophe theory" in the systems dictionary).  That is our goal to emphasise the role of creativity and spontinaety in the 'life' process.  Dissolve the rigid boundaries of science, economics etc....stochastic process can be an aesthetic value(it is for me anyway) since it encourages self-reflection.

OK, one more.  This one is out there, but there is a hint that this stuff is being persued in areas other than  economics (which will ultimately fail since greed fuels a deterministic outcome).  And watch out for those strange attractors....they get you every time (you even learn something in the process).  It still leaves the big question: Where is it all going?  Is there a strange attractor waiting for all of us?
http://www.mstat.univie.ac.at/latex/cyc/cyc.html

In the broadest sense, whatever our practice, we all meet on another, a neutral ground, something quite basic - more akin to trampling the virgin terrain of snow. However, nothing can be possessed absolutely, but we are in love with absolutist procedures, whatever discipline they may arise from.

We are, ultimately addicted to our own processes, lest we become wayward vagabonds, and even such a discipline as that gives rise to addictions of its own . . . who then would really want to socialize with an individual who had 'emptied' itself?

The attraction then is that of one more discipline . . . I remember distinctly and intently my own personal assessment of the assumption of an artistic identity, and yes, I had entirely embraced its image as one that was composed thoroughly of political content. It seems that periodically art may be interpreted as having aligned itself closely to these processes in our civilization - that is yet another lost residue that may perhaps be no longer immediately evident, unless we are actively engaged in that process ourselves.

But when other processes are starved of nutrients, a large vacuuity begins staring back . . .
And personally (maybe my mind is not subtle enough?) I do not see anyone engaged in activating the political "arm" of art in America . . . however, I realize that that is an extremely reductionist statement - perhaps everyday and everyword is political in a sense - but the broad blanket of indifference that lies over everything is so intimidating.

In a sense it almost takes humor to 'activate' 'catylize' a political action - subtlety - to bring about a slow ingestion - however in the meantime the machine eats you up. Couldn't we say specifically that through a wry and wily sense of humor artists such as Ice T and Ice Cube have left numerous statements everywhere that when properly interpreted gave no doubt as to the political action/direction in which an 'aesthetically' posited situation could be addressed? - However, the arm of the message becomes disabled as it comes within broader usuage, a sort of mephistophelean wager in which the artist eneacts its own suicide?

I have the bad habit of addressing everything aesthetically in terms of amplitude - however interpreting our ideals in terms of purity is an excellent tool for choosing a new direction, although care should be taken in implementing its applications . . . I guess the biggeset question which I find interesting and which I think we could derive extremely interesting results from if we posit it in turns between both of you John and Borut, and in fact anyone else who may be tuning in is:
Are we unlearning the mass public/historical seizures which have hitherto formed our human history?
I have been meaning to vaguely formulate this question for some time, and I have had the hope that perhaps Borut could provide some highly specific interpretations to this mode of thought . . .

I would like to know if both of you perhaps believe that "we" have advanced to this point? - the point where mass cataclysm no longer works its way out in the form of war, violence, etc.?

Quite recently (in the early Nineties) here in Slovenia there was a debate about what happened to the civic initiatives - in theory, public debates,... - which were active in the Eighties - a little bit of nostalgia of the people from the Eighties - but true enough: there seems to be none of the intelectual/artist influx into political area left. An answer to this was simple: the civil society was absorbed by the political society. While this may be so in Slovenia (new state) this cannot explain why this is so in the 'western world' throughout and probably the answer is not correct. But you westerners know already: it is the marketing ideology (praxis?) that defines every output as marketable product and every input as consumer (niche). We probably agree that this is basis of western democracy system - which is really a very succesfull, straightforward system with the obvious ability to incorporate (almost?) anything - as merchandise. While it may look that this is somehow 'unclean', not decent - even vulgarizing the recently 'sacred' ideologies - it is nevertheless 'the system of all systems' - including them all in this post-modern form.

Aesthetic versus anesthetic... acrobacy (brainstorming...).
This interesting linguistic combination leads me to interprete the anesthetic as non-aesthetic, therefore the aesthetic as in opposition to anesthetic -> active, dynamic... (now I'm trying hard to figure out some productive/effective, even if just aesthetic, direction...). I could look into direction of productive versus reproductive (which I did before elsewhere - so it's not very productive here). And its clear - reproductive is the basis of industrial, mass production - same holds on with information. Maybe it is so, that production of mass ideologies is a mass production - totally conforming to the industrial. I really don't feel any need to be a part of any mass histery - and I don't miss any of the revolutionary awakenings. Well, maybe a little bit of some of the aesthetic expressions they produced. (but that's called nostalgia).
It is an individual that has always been the interprete of events, it is individual who has always been the victim of same events. While events have been going on inside the system (mass) as a whole - it was always individual who was 'living' it and observing the incapacity of ideologic systems to 'make satisfactory use of him/her'. This now is leading me in the direction of rehabilitating the 'western democracy' soup - but ok. Modern states are known to be able to create (or allow) activity niches the very moment when these appear. I think that this principle has allowed many of the critical initiatives/individuals to be absorbed into society - inside academic/artistic life or some other forms of marginal areas -> niches. Isn't this like anesthetic? Is it an anesthetic on the system as a whole? Or part on of it? I read recently that this now is an aesthetic society and what could replace it is humanistic society. So some of my thoughts are left open.

But I would dare to say that any aesthetic action is also a political one - aesthetic denoting the form of action - a political action of an individual.

Yes, It is good to be a part of an ongoing dialogue. I dont mind the poetics, whatever it takes to effectively communicate what is stirring the sea of the cortex.

If you could make it to Ljubljana that would be great. When in Paris, check into Eurolines a Paris based bus company.  They have an extensive network of routes and its a cheap and decent ride.  I can send you some additional info if needed.

I am pleased with the developments of the Biotope, I only wish I could be in Ljubljana to help Borut.  I am aiming the beginning of my 3rd European oddessy for early May.  The biggest foctor now is money.  I am not sure if I will be getting any travel suppliments which means a lot of work for the next three months.

The ideas for this project seemed to unfold naturally when Borut and I met last September.

Over the past two years Ive been concentrating my efforts on translating some of the important recent developments in 'science'.  I put 'science' in quotes because from the evolution of what science used to be, cold and distant, there has emerged a more accessable view of scientific knowledge.  Primarily due to the fact that 'science' no matter how had it tried could not separate itself from the context in which it exists, the bio-social sphere of its fellow earthlings. In some way my optimism allows me to hope that 'science' can benefit from 'art' in much the same way that 'art' has from the 'science' this past century.  The two are undergoing a kind of ego check in the face of an identity crisis.  Many people are asking, where is this all going?  Why?
Im not sure.  I tend to think it has something to do with the creation and rapid development of communications technology and reproducable media, with computers being the organized unity of the two.  We are essentially building an expanding mirror for the product of our creations only now we are unable to continue to ignore what we see.  It is instigating mostly fear but some change.  Much of what we are having to face is what gave birth to the child of the modern age,which is now living at the cusp of its first conjunction, to use the alchemical term.  But the parents, those beings living that 'civilized' victorian fantasy whose destiny was manifest out of genocide, slavery and and exploitation of their fellow beings.
The pain and suffering felt by those who lived this and formed this country has been distibuted among subsequent generations.  In subtle ways this pain is manifesting itself in the blissful life of contemporary america.  The basic equation amounts to: what results from  the combination of sophisticated late 20th cent. technology with a 'mindframe' or outlook of an 18th and 19th cent. person.  For most people it seems to be a problem of meaning and direction.  So what if I can
communicate with millions of people around the world, envelop myself in a global conscioussness, I'd rather sit alone in a dark room and play nintendo or obsess obsessively over my obsessive personal pathologies.
The fold in the system is materialism does not equate to communication, growth and meaning.  This is why I do 'art' and involve myself in the creative process, to infuse life into this static and dying system.

An appropriate quote from Italo Calvino:
'A man very light in body'-"were I to choose an auspicious image for the new millenium, I would choose that one: the sudden agile leap of the poet-philosopher who raises himself above the weight of the world, showing that with all his gravity he has the secret of lightness and what many consider to be the vitality of the times-noisy, aggressive, revving and roaring- belongs to the realm of death, like a cemetary for old rusty cars."

And now Rupert Sheldrake on:
'The duality of matter and information'

"All attempts to force the organizing principals of life into material objects such as genes have failed: they keep bursting out again.  The concept of purposive organizing principals which are non-material in nature has been reinvented again and again.  In fact this duality of matter and non-material organizing principles has been implicit in the mechanistic theory of life all along.  It is an essential feature of the machine metaphor.  All machines involve a duality between the material
components of which they are made and the purposive designs that were concieved in the minds of their designers and makers.  In the modern context it is usually conceived of in terms of the duality of matter and information.  Information is what 'informs', it plays an 'informative' role."

to be continued...