Why i don’t put links in my poetry

WARNING: unbalanced footnote start tag short code found.

If this warning is irrelevant, please disable the syntax validation feature in the dashboard under General settings > Footnote start and end short codes > Check for balanced shortcodes.

Unbalanced start tag short code found before:

“computing) an instruction that connects one part of a program or an element on a list to another program or list) => instruction, command, statement, program line — ”

hyperlink — (a link from a hypertext file to another location or file; typically activated by clicking on a highlighted word or icon at a particular location on the screen)
=> link — 1computing) an instruction that connects one part of a program or an element on a list to another program or list)
=> instruction, command, statement, program line — ((computer science) a line of code written as part of a computer program)
=> code, computer code — ((computer science) the symbolic arrangement of data or instructions in a computer program or the set of such instructions)
=> coding system — (a system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages)
=> writing — (letters or symbols written or imprinted on a surface to represent the sounds or words of a language; “he turned the paper over so the writing wouldn’t show”; “the doctor’s writing was illegible”)
=> written communication, written language — (communication by means of written symbols)
=> communication — (something that is communicated by or to or between people or groups)
=> social relation — (a relation between living organisms (especially between people

=> relation — (an abstraction belonging to or characteristic of two entities or parts together)
=> abstraction — (a general concept formed by extracting common features from specific examples)

That’s what WordNet, my very fine instance of the graphical interface program to the WordNet online lexical database version 2.0, says that the coordinate terms for the noun hyperlink are. Now those guys over at the Princeton University Cognitive Science Lab are very smart guys, i guess they are about ten times smarter than me in a manner of speaking so you are not going to hear me questioning the correctness or relevance of these coordinate data. I guess they are just about to do some extremely clever things with these data, things that are going to knock us poor poets right off our feet.

Right. Let’s get stupid again, you should know by now i do excell in stupidity.

Now sure the information above is not what a ‘hyperlink’ is. This information, together with synonym indications, hypernyms and familiarity ratings together with some derivative info and some meronyms that perhaps aren’t yet included for this word, and some (grammatical?) processing instruction code, is all that we can possibly give a machine to deal with the word ‘hyperlink’. Possibly? Well, scientists don’t very much care what a word ‘is’, they’re too busy trying to teach machines what a word can do and how it does it, and vica versa, what it, the machine, could do with a word should it be able to use it ‘correctly’. ‘Correctly’ being equal to ‘human understandable’, i guess, anyway that’s how i read these smart guys’ intentions and how i read them while attending a Tutorial on Semantic Web in Antwerp the other day. Don’t laugh, i did understand about 85 percent of what was being said ( i had a good day and lot’s of toothache, that always helps me to concentrate on the subject and not to stare at the bare shoulders of a woman in front of me or be thrown into blissfull oblivion by other, minor distractions ).

Now for me all that information is about 10 percent of what a word, any word, ‘is’. It’s the ten percent I’m usually messing about with in a very stupid and disrespectful way, because i’m just no good at it or at being ‘correct’ in any way, for that matter. I do need computers for that, correcting me, i mean.
The other 90 percent of what a word ‘is’, has to do, i think, with it being a process. A process that changes over time. Each time you use a word, the process changes, it stops being the word you just used and it becomes another word. Now that’s what i mean with the words written on the flash animation embedded in the KRISTINE file on the site.
Difference>Absence>Difference. It’s the language process according to (well, not Garp but it’s close) dv. It’s a little magic trick we all are very capable of: you take a word (differentiated), you make it disappear into eternity (absence) and then you somehow return it, albeit different. Let’s call it the DAD process, shall we? That surely has a nice religious and Freudian ring to it. From now on we can start dadding DAD.

Now perhaps I wasn’t too clear about the absence bit. How is it that a word disappears when you use it? Well very simply because the very fact of using it at a given time-in-space-coordinate, changes it, so it becomes momentarily absent. It changes it like you change any process when you use it. It changes like your car process on its way to the car cemetery changes everytime you drive it. It changes like a river changes when you step in it. It changes like your lover changes whenever you make love to her/him. It changes like any process changes when it is met with or infused by another process.
Now all these minute changes are part of the differentiating process. The differentiating process is what makes life fun. Without it nothing would move. It is in a very literal sense the prime mover of things as we know them.
The differentiating process produces absence and therefore it produces another differentiating process. It’s the continuation of things through their absence. Pretty deep, isn’t it?

Now us poor poets are pretty good at dealing with differentiating processes because we make our living with it. Ok very poorly so, but we do. What we do is, through some very profane magic with the magic itself, create the reality of absence in our poems in such a way that the attentive reader, not being distracted by any bare shoulders in front of him, can reconstruct that very same reality in her reading process. It’s what TS Eliot used to call the ‘correlate’, i think, you should forgive me if i use the wrong term, i read Tradition and the Individual Talent way back in high school and i do remember being struck by it as by lightning but not the exact phrasing and i’m too darn lazy to look it up. It was that dark gray pocket book published by who else but Faber & Faber, that’s one of the reasons why I like that particular shade of gray i realize now, it symbolizes the very essence of something that is beautiful because it ‘fits’.

You see? Through stirring dull roots in your reading process, mixing memories and desires, i almost manage to create a reality for you. (i say almost because i believe there’s more to it than that to create).
In that reality i can spin the logic of poetry. i can do pretty much anything with it ( if i may presume for a moment) if i’m in a good day, having no toothache at all and lots of bare shoulders to look at.
I can do that because through practice and failure upon failure upon failure, i have somehow managed to learn the basics of creating reality from absence. The absence in turn being created by the words i use.
Now i put before you, the almighty non-existent audience, the bold assertion that all these ‘basics’ as i call them are pretty much profane magic. And that by analysing these forms of magic properly, you could somehow manage to ‘correlate’ them to machine programming instructions enabling machines to perform the same trick, or at least something similar, something so close to the ‘real’ thing that the process would also, like poetry, create divergence, escape routes, ‘lignes de fuites’, as Deleuze would call them. And that about adds up, according to Guattari’s Chaosmose book and according to stupid me, to exactly what our society would be very much in need of.

Now why don’t I put links in my poetry? Well the idea is tempting and like you I’ve witnessed experiments with the hyperlinking of poetry. You know those early cd-roms with very clever programs where you start reading a text and then oopedeefloop you click a word and you’re oopedeefloop in another text? Basically, I think it can’t be done. Because that would imply that the reality constructed in one poem process would be the same (exactly the same) as the reality in the other poem. That is quite impossible, as Morton Feldman rightly put when he was saying that there can be no repetion, that repetition doesn’t exist. So if you really want to know why I don’t put links in my poems, go and buy one of his records, Crippled Symmetry would be a good one to start with if you don’t know the guy’s work (shame on you). Put it on. Listen. No repetition. Can’t be done. Tragic, isn’t it? That’s beauty for ya.



Floating in a Zeppelin

“Le livre unique, l’oeuvre totale, toutes les combinaisons possibles à l’intérieur du livre, le livre-arbre, le livre-cosmos, tous ces ressassement chers aux avant-gardes, qui coupent le livre de ses relations avec le dehors, sont encore pires que le chant du signifiant”

Deleuze & Guattari, Mille plateaux,p.159

When Deleuze and Guattari wrote this, there was still an obvious need to speak out against all modernist utopian ideals. Now early 20th century European Modernism is perhaps rapidly being turned into a set of interesting algorhithms useful in the search for and production of machinic methods to arrest human(oid) escape art.

Again, i say perhaps, because i’m too stupid too have any real coherent ideas. I’m only useful as an auctorial process because i’m rather receptive, i have a natural(?) tendency to be struck by things-as-they-are-happening in the face, and those things stick with me till some time later, perhaps years after, they finally reveal why they once struck me. There’s nothing mystical about it, i’m sure i must have a describable brain disorder of some kind, well you know, all poets are utterly nuts in a way, that’s what makes us interesting, but it kinda puts you off balance from time to time, when you read about your ‘case’ or a similar one in a scientific magazine. There used to be a time when poets were at the heart of society and we were held in a higher esteem than priests or statesmen or hangmen, nowadays people start nodding to each other knowingly when they meet us on the subway.

There, i did it again. What i was babbling about was that Modernism is perhaps being chewed up into managable bits these days, and fed into our overall controlling process as learning material. The film the Matrix might be a good example: with all of its undoubtedly clever intentions, Baudrillard & simulation & simulacra stuff, the overall effect of the trilogy is that you are momentarily free to fantasize that if the book’s plot is clever enough, the utopian ideals might be recoverable. Like object oriented games, it encourages you to think in levels, behave like ‘well it might be all sh*t down here but i’m still only in level one and soon i’ll be out of here and climbing up to the next level where things are faster,the guns better and the (wo)men easier. That’s probably why everyone adored the first part and spits out the rest of it, because secretly everyone expected some more levels after that submarine-heroism crap they put us through after Neo’s awakening. Objectively speaking, if i’m still allowed to use that word, there’s no reason to dislike the two other parts: the action is faster, the effects more thrilling and even aesthetically more pleasing, and the plot does take some nice turns and introduces some great characters like the Keymaker, my personal favourite.
But then the need for levels wasn’t satisfied, accustomed as we have become to thinking in them. Nothing is absolute, there’s always a meta-level to things.
That, of course, is the result of our training in object-thinking. Objects are arranged hierarchically in systems in such a way that they are controllable and managable. Capitalism isn’t right, socialism isn’t true, but if you think of them on a meta-level, they can be usefull objects.

I distrust everything that starts with meta. Especially metaphores. They are part of encapsulating processes that effectively destroys everything that could be harmfull to the way things are going. Metaphores effectively destroyed pop music from the moment it emerged in the fifties. The sixties could escape off and on for some time, the punk movement still had it’s brief moment, but after that all vulnerable area’s were tightly shut and the doors were open wide for the carefully planned creation of metapop, a tedious and tragical form of bush-or-whomever-is-in-charge bashing.

But all of that is common knowledge, what i meant to say is that however hard our ruling machinery tries, it will never be able to capture the ultimate value of these Modernist supersystems, because that is exactly placed at the centre of their failure: it’s when they break down in exquisite gibberish (Joyce’s Finnegans Wake) or in paralysing silence (Beckett) that these works of art evoke what they were after in first place, the poetic realm of absence, it’s reality as a counterpart to the simulating realm of differences differentiating nothing.

Now, on one of my hunches, i introduced some pretty heavyweight words on this in the starter file on the site yesterday and, probably effectively scaring away the few visitors i have, even put them up front on the homepage yesterday. i state that machines could be fed with software enabling them to perform an action similar to the reading of poetry. That they could run programs that create the reality of absence. Now, in the end, i dont really know what that would actually mean ( if you do, do give us a mail or comment). But it just sounds like the best description of the things that i’m trying to do, so i’ll just stupidly leave it there. Embarrassing, isn’t it? It’s probably a contemporary charicatural version of the fashionable poetic sickness once known as ‘ennuy’.

Perhaps i’d better consult that scientific magazine again. Right now, i don’t feel like any heroic avant-garde at all. I rather feel like one of those poor chaps they sent up in a zeppelin to watch enemy troop movements and then completely forgot about. Cut loose, i’m drifting helplessly, high above Nomansland, for everyone to shoot at. Hi guys. Please be nice. Say cheese.


Pop out progress some real window

If the quality of net art is to be measured by the number of pop-up windows one produces, i will score very badly indeed.

Why do all these artists use a pop up window? To liberate their art from the burden of browsers. To make it ‘autonomous’ on the screen. Do they succeed by using a pop-up? Hardly: one ‘window’ is replaced by another ‘window’, and a worse one because it’s an aggressive one, purposely and quite efficiently blocked by most browsers these days. And it rips the work they present right out of the context it was put into. Makes you kinda wonder why it was put there in the first place, no?

Why do all these artists make art on the web? To manifest their artistic message in the realm of browsers, to get hold of the incredible potential audience out there. Because it’s the cool thing to do. Whenever they get hold of one individual from that audience they start beating her to kingdom come with pop-ups that almost literally state that you’re so stupid trying to use a browser. Not very logical, is it?

It has gotten so bad with pop-up nart, that i suspect real net art lovers will discard my site at first glance because i don’t start my program by putting a scream in your face. i’m too bleeding polite. Ok. so to promote myself i should say :i hate you all? you smell of commerce? you’re unclean and you’re ugly? Now go ’n have a look at my site will you, please?

Things that don’t work, because you don’t have your reasons thought through. I did it all the time, and do it still, making mistakes like that. These are interesting times, the Chinese way. But at least i try to learn and avoid.

I see two reasons to put my work on the web.

One is to make my texts available in the best readable way. Not very much for my own sake but because i respect my texts: they were and are living processes for me. They are better than me in most aspects. I’m just the guy who happened to write them (down) but in fact they are the outcome of several other processes involving more than i can even grasp.I put them on the web because some of them have convinced me, as a reader. I put the rest of them that might be utter junk out too because i don’t trust myself completely. Time and you in time or someone else in other time will tell.

I don’t want my texts to be in that one shelf in the old and sleezy bookstore where it says ‘poetry’, badly infected with plagues of late-late-late Romanticism or post-post-post graduatism. Let others put them there if they think it’s any good. But i certainly don’t want them to be seen flying around like circus attractions in no popped-up Quicktime-there’s-a-new-version-out-now-would-you-like-to-upgrade movie either. I want those texts to be read, to live, to fail, to be discarded, to die. To stand on their own (or fall flat on their face). Because i have lived the moment they came into existence, through failures and mishaps, through nonsense and mistakes. I have lived that moment when a line or two suddenly appeared and spoke to me: ‘well, hey there, i’ve been here like for ages, glad you found me, can i go now?’.

The greatest achievement for poetry on the internet should be awarded to the engineers and technicians who are making better screens. The only thing real texts need is readability. Comfortable readability. We’re getting there, very slowly. Going from those green courier typed text on a black screen in the eighties to what you’re reading this from, wasn’t really a giant step forward in that respect. Those horrid little green buggers were in fact better for your eyes than staring at this on an old CRT screen*. Now these new plasma screens, i’m told they are a big improvement. I don’t own one yet, ‘cause i’m a poet. And poets are poor. That part hasn’t changed a bit.

Why are artists mostly poor? Because there’s no economic need for art. Economic processes can do without art very well. Societies too, in the sense that they don’t really miss it when it’s not there. They tend to replace living art with empty frames or flashing screens or old stuff that doesn’t really work anymore. Like old ladies have dogs for children, nothing wrong with that, mind you, but healthy young societies have real art at the very core. That’s why my Song for Europe is a weeping song mostly, i guess.

The second reason i put my work on the web is because it’s the perfect place to experiment with what text as an interactive process can do to images or to moving images or to icons or to sounds or to programming algorithms or vica versa or mixtures of all of these. That kind of text has nothing to do with the other kind, well, almost nothing. It’s about as close to poetry as a news magazine article is. Text that is meant to be responsive to human computer interaction is another kind of text than poetry. The only thing you can really do to help in the readability of poetry on the web is give some extras, like immediate access to translation or notes when it’s needed. Or you could place poetry next to some images when it is written as an extension to that image. I don’t very much believe that it is helpfull to put music or other audio in the environment you want poetry to be read in. What can be useful and give the reader better access to the text, is reading it out loud, so the reader can capture intonations and such so she can link that information to the inner voice that poetry tends to create when you read it. Mostly letting it be read by someone else than the author or by the author in a bad mood is a bad idea too. Some performers are very good at reading poetry and those should be trusted and encouraged to do so, most people, however, make a mess of it.
Authors can also add some special effects to their readings of their own poetry in order to stress some element that might otherwise remain hidden by the context in which it is being read, or you could also use poetry being read as an icon, something saying : ‘this is TS Eliot reading TS Eliot’. I mean you can use and abuse poetry anyway you want but you don’t enlarge the effect of poetry on the web by making it fly or wobble or whatever. You can do all those things to text that is meant to be responsive to user actions, but if you do it to poetry it’s like joggling the projection screen when there’s a Tarkovsky showing. Now that could be your idea of stating something meaningful and valuable and you’re entitled to do so, but it sure is ruining the show.

* the only real reason that i don’t use green text on a black background is that i’m unfashionable enough as it is, i guess



At least let this be clear

no difference whatsoever.
No hay caminos, hay que caminar.


on hacking, Vaihinger, programming & fiction

Well, today for a while i made some rather ‘audacious’ links at the NKdeE website. i introduced some fictional characters including a hacker, my host and myself as the delusionary nerd that i am sometimes and linked some ‘serious’ parts, like the developing of publishing tools for authors through a rather weirdish file with some of the fiction at the South end.

The whole point being that science is just another fiction and that fiction is a quasi uncontrollable process at the very core of human understanding, an idea i got ages ago from german Kantian philosopher Hans Vaihinger and that i still find inspiring.

But i just put it all aside at the end of the day…

the overall effect would propably be just confusing to visitors, and i don’t like that kinda hoax nart at all, it smells like those ‘postmodern’ novels that come pouring in from america these days, bad rewrites of Pynchon&Barthelme&Heller&Vonnegut with the fluffy flavour of american writing schools in every paragraph…

…yesyes i ‘ll hold my critiscism till Anke Veld is finished although there’s no reason to, because that process is running and it can’t end…

… the ‘magic’ in writing is its succession of mistakes & failures, the actual process going somewhere, so putting my dirty laundry up there for a night doesn’t bother me at all (that would, by the way, be plain insulting to the millions of bloggers out there)…
…it’s all very simple: when i make a mistake, my screen tells me the next morning it didn’t compile…
…some authors live in utter fear of their audience like people who have never used a computer are frightened horribly each time they click something…
…when you choose to write or author a work, you’re being read because you fail to write it, how splendidly you fail, that is. Failing to write the Divine Comedy, like Dante did, now that’s something…
…now i’m not going to argue about the actual quality of my writing, you & time will tell & in the meantime i’m having the most refined form of torture imaginable to live by…
..thats some of the meaning of the Eliot quote in the starter.jsp file…


Daria: Digital Art(ist)

Daria: Digital Art(ist)

Now here’s some genuine process art. Brilliant stuff. i tried it with cathedral and here’s what it came up with:

The whole idea of course would be to have this kind of proces (author’s concept+user participation+distributed AI system with genetic algorithms) integrated in an authoring process (involving personal desire processes and art tradition as a process.

So please let’s not fall into the old metaphorical trap again or we’ll be falling in love with Daria or Dario before short like we’re leaning out of Windows now.

It will take me ages (sigh), to pinpoint what i’m after & actually show it, because i’m too d*** slow and too distracted even to explain it. i comfort myself with Deleuze’s wise comment that one can only write on the edge of what one knows, and in that sense the plans do come with and in the building, just like poems write themselves when they’re any good. Authors are truly prostitutes.



…Here’s some upcoming stuff in the NKdeE:

…NKdee SCHOOL aka Kristine Academy of Cathedral Building: a subprocess dealing with technical aspects of Cathedral building and distributing educational materials covering all those aspects. in its first stage it will contain mostly white space but hopefully more and more basic as well as advanced tutorials of how to go about making microprocesses like the bugs at the Plaza or a Flash panorama or a flash-xml-java blog or how to work with sound & so on…the school will be launched on 7/3/2005 for reasons obvious only to kv & it will also carry her name…
…the actual course material (authoring files, open source software and the like) of the school will only be available to registered users and very strictly subject to the Creative Commons License because maybe i don’t care much about my own two-voiced inventions but i don’t want other people’s copyrights to be infringed upon…
…the school will be completely bilingual Dutch/English because educational material is limited in Dutch, i mean, there’s not much use in making the nthieth Flash resource in English… if possible and possibly with the help of some enthousiasts i could add more languages…
… in general i’ll also be stressing the fact that contributions can be made to the Cathedral in the form of works of art, tutorials, translations…
…atm the Cathedral is about 98% dv, it needn’t be so, like any art dude i obviously love my ego but it does get kinda boring after a while…

…i recently discovered Ben Fry and Casey Reas’ PROCE55ING so things made with that app are bound to surface soon…


Ars Electronica entry

…Somebody (or some automated process – it’s hard to distiguish in mails these days) send me a mail to invite me to enter the NKdeE in the NET VISION category of the Prix ARS Electronica 2005, which i did of course because the i don’t mind getting prices at all and who knows i might get lucky. i mention it here because it forced me to explicitly formulate some descriptive statements about myself and the Cathedral. i repeat those statements here because they might be informative and they are ontologically part of the NKdeE process by their very nature:

Title of submitted project: Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
URL of the work:
Year the work was created: 2004 (started)
Hardware / Software: Marie’s Water Colours, Brico Boat Varnish, a pencil and a Windows XP workstation with Macromedia Flash MX 2004 Pro and Dreamweaver MX, Altova XMLSpy 2004,Adobe Photoshop CS, Electric Rain Swift 3D, Curious Labs Poser 5.0 and Maxon Cinema 4d 7.2. plus an Epson Scanner & a Sony Digital camera
Technical requirements for viewing: Browsers:MIE 6.0 or higher and
Mozilla Firefox 1.0 or higher are supported and checked (javascript should be enabled and later support for java as well)
Macromedia Flash Player 7.0 or higher required
Description of the work: The NKdeE is a process started in 2004 hoping to contribute to establish a usable cultural interface for efficient art production. It examinies the ways in which programming, media techniques and traditional art as processes can be interwoven with or opposed to the predominant processes in our world today.
Among other things, it takes the form of a website, a schema design for publishing multimedia, an application to publish multimedia and an online game. There’s more text about it in my biography and at the submitted url itself…

Further material entered: 6 A3 printouts of incorporated paintings and a cd/dvd rom with printable material. I would consider entering more material but i would need some garantuees as to their safe return, because some items like the NKdeE maquette as seen on the homepage are quite priceless

Artist biography:
Born and living in Belgium.
Studied Germanic Filology at the KUL (Louvain).

In 1979 i very much wanted to be a writer/ poet. I noticed i didn’t have much to write about that made any sense, so i quit. I had a great time working in bars and kitchens for about 10 years.

From 1989 onward i did have (or at least presumed to have) something to write about that made sense, so i started to learn how to write decently.

When i got to a stage that i thought my literary work had reached some maturity (let’s say 1996, the same year that i organised a small poetic manifestation in my hometown Louvain), i discovered that (trying to) publish(ing) it would render it meaningless in the fastest way possible. Instead i chose to make everything i wrote so far available on the internet, and started investing my spare time in researching ways to make text ‘work’ on screen. Gradually, partly because i thought the available techniques weren’t up to it yet but mostly out of economic necessity my interest in making IT work the artistic way faded and i endulged myself in the day to day practice of producing commercial websites and multimedia products.

Nowadays i’m still active as a professional web-designer/programmer, but i have to admit i’m basically and inevitably a (modest) poet/writer trying to find ways to contribute to (ok- hang on, here come the big words):
– establish a cultural interface that could bring writing/authoring/ making art back to life as a meaningfull process and not keep it ‘virtually’ (sic) alive as the consumable object it generally is today, a poor parody that struts and frets its hour (nanosecond) upon the media stage and then is heard no more
– what I would call a global body of reference ( functioning as a sub-individual authoring processor/ freely available software-to-make-art-with propably in a form much like the www as we know it now – what it lacks now is mostly global consciousness i.e. self awareness of what it’s doing as a process) for young artists to help them stop wasting time
– a process (urgently needed, like in ‘it should begin yesterday’) to rethink / critically evaluate the way we approach programming in a very practical and immediate way.


oop & pop (thinking out loud again)

Sprachgitter: Here’s part of another grid to put down on your visions. Or think of it as a fluid that you add to a digestive organ system to make the way it works visible on screen.

The time was now. We lived in a world of objects. Objects with properties and relations to each other and to ourselves as an object. that’s what we were taught, that’s how we programmed.
When representing sth we represented a collection of mutually interactive objects and produced a new object, the object of representation. That object could then become a part of other objects, so layer upon layer of objects a world was constructed.

The time is now. When we live our daily lives, the producing industry and its conglomerate of financed media tell us to choose our objects of preference and make them into desire objects. And we are continually…

Oh,oh wait: do come off it, what is this “producing industry with its blablabla”? Are you recreating some version of the 1960’s Military-Industrial complex here or what?
Well no, it’s simply us, all of us westerners and easterners, the way we live and force others to live (or die, cfr you know what)keeps it running and it keeps us running.

Is there something wrong with that, you selfindulgent pessimumbler? Well that depends. It’s a system. Systems can be adequate, efficient or superfluous and self-destructive. If you look at it from our point of view, it certainly isn’t superfluous. If you look at it from the point of view from your average Central African citizen, it’s painfully inefficient. If you look at it from the point of view of the planet it’s rather disastrously inadequate (it hasn’t killed us yet)and it has a bad smell of self destruction.
Systems can also be stable or unstable in relation to the scale with which you’re looking at it. The solar system is a pretty stable system in relation to our scale of viewing things. Ask a star and she’ll tell you a totally different story. Our system is definitely unstable, even if you look at it in terms of a human lifespan. It’s predecessors like say the roman empire or the chinese Ming Dynasty were much more stable, although history tends to smooth things out, depending on the outcome it wants to fabricate.

Systems like these are mostly thought of as processes. What are the characteristics of processes? Here are a few, for starters:

1.Processes can be described and analysed and then influenced in some way, by adding or subtracting any number of stimuli that have a deductible effect upon the process.
Mostly however, the final effect is not 100% predictable because
2. in general we do not know the outcome of a process if indeed any there is. We ussually think we know the final outcome but actually we haven’t the slightest clue. You would say that the inevitable outcome of human life as a process is death, but saying death is just putting a patch of meaninglessness on a clear case of ignorance. You would oppose that the process of eating and digesting food is that the body gains strength, but that simply boils down to limiting the actual process to a parameter of effectivenesss that is easily described.
3. In effect every process is by it’s nature of being a process linked to and influenced by and influencing other processes. Processes, in opposition to objects, are not self-contained. In general you can’t identify any central part in a process and say, rip it out and replace it with another, better core part in order to improve the process while it’s running. In general, doing such a thing would kill the process alltogether, or at least damage it to great extend. You almost certainly would have to shut down the process somehow or at least seriously slow down part of it, replace the part you think is due for replacement, and then somehow restart the process. That’s how we handle heart transplants for instance, and indeed medicine is one of the area’s of human knowledge where we have done exceedingly well in handling processes. But let’s get back to our beautiful world of objects, now.

…and in our contempary state we are now continually edged into personalising the objects of our choice: the car of model x will become your car if you add these and these properties of buyer customisation options. For every desirable object we are presented with a basic object, an empty box, that we should fill with the properties of our choosing. The object itself is on the brink of disappearing alltogether.

It is now reduced to a meticulously predesigned biforcation program leading to an economically optimised end-product. I would use the word process but in fact it’s not a process: the outcome may be non-existent or unpredictable at start but it can be calculated and compatibility is maintained throughout. Processes bring about change in itself and in other processes and any real change cannot be allowed because that would lead to impredictable profit figures.
a simple example:you can blog what you want, you can give your pages the look and content you want them to be, but you are not allowed to produce anything that could potentially endanger the system and/or its profit calculations.

Ofcourse we do not like to be driven to choices in this way all the time. So we react and try to escape.
‘Real’ change and how we look for it: the obsession with serial killers in late 20th century media deals with the fascination for people who make those ‘real’ choices, by maniacally refusing the precut templates and taking a different destructive hack at the system, making their victims into objects and assigning them non-survivable properties. I’ve always found this obsession rather pathetic, but that’s not the right attitude perhaps: it is a clear sign that we are running out of objects to choose from, we are only allowed access to properties and methods. We are running out of objects because their pre-existence to our desires is being banned. We are obliged to communicate our desires and then those desires will be translated in our dream-car, our dream-house, our favourite cup with our name and social security number branded into it.

Consider television. For anyone from my generation a television set was and is a very desirable object. Having a colour television at home was next to being part of paradise. In a few years time television sets will not exist anymore. They will be replaced by generic flatscreens designed to fit in whatever surroundings and capable of doing anything from reading out the contents of your fridge to watching a football game with a 30 second delay from across the globe from a dynamic point of view of your choosing. You cannot desire such a screen, you will not even be able to buy one, you will only have that number of modular screen objects that your bank balance can afford.

Or nature. Why do we like nature that much, why do pictures of people going out to places where human pollution is minimal sell so many tickets to another set of global options that we call our holiday destination? We definitly do not like ‘raw’ nature with all it’s nasty side effects like cold or extreme heat or musquito’s or those horrible people that don’t understand you when you ask them how much the cola costs. We like raw nature like we like pictures abourt serial killers: because nature is not conceived as customisable, because it is a potential (imagined in most cases, except when there’s a disaster like the Tsunami)threat to our system of picking properties from predifined biforking menu’s. Because we have learned from our interaction with computers that anything we compose does not really exist, existence itself is drained off from real objects. Exotic destinations become infected with this virus of desintegration and loose their fashionability, till the one place to go to on holiday if you really want to get out is an empty room in an empty house.

(That’s your basic Deleuzian machine at work there and you can analyse that in several ways, one of which is the Deleuzian schyzoanalysis.)
When we build screen contents from data we think of datastructuring first, cutting all data that we want to show into managable objects. Nobody ever did anything else nor felt the need to do so. The post-renaissance portraitist didn’t think of his portrait otherwise: he assembled his portrait from predifined sets of rules leading to a balanced collection of objects… (untsoweiter this is all very predictable so you can fill it in yourself, you’re propably x-times faster at it. i take a fresh start below)

The society we live in gets the kind of programming it deserves. We’re all stuck with object oriented designs (Object Oriented programming has been the de-facto standard of programming technique for years now and will continue to be for many years to come).
The hardest step for me to take when learning how to program was the very first one, a real conceptual leap for me (i told you before that i have a very slow mind, so it’s comedy time coming up): it was for me to understand that the objects i created were just that: object that i created. I thought of programming very childishly as building rules to manipulate existing objects. It took me ages to finally grasp that you can only manipulate things if you first make them into manipulated things, that if say here’s my object ‘circle’ with a property of 4 as a radius it wasn’t referring to anything else then just that: a circle object with radius of 4. My god, what a shock, i’m still very sympathetic to people who believe Bill Gates is an alien, because this sure was very alien to me. Saying something and oopedeefloop it’s real, where did i read that before?

So ok ; objects were hard on me, does this mean i think they’re bad or that oop is a bad technique. Surely not. Like any system you only need to make it selfreferential and instantaneously agree that the object oop is a very good object indeed. Just look at where you’re reading this from, it was only possible thanks to oop techniques and their ways of being managable, predictable and sellable.
Like any system, oop has its limitations and system limitations are mostly visible in a dramatic way in the shortcomings systems have for artistic expression at a given moment in history.
Perhaps if i suffer from another sl&yawn;eepless night i will tell you all about the artistic craving not being able to be satisfied oop-wise and hence the necessity of inevitability of a next generation way of programming with its hardly original but very deep and meaningful name of POP.

Honey, could you rescedule the kid-processes to have their waking-up subroutines a bit later tomorrow and Dear MetaTag Of Non-Existence could you please take care that the mother-in-law driving to our home process meets with a fatal uncaught process-interuption instance like running out of gas, no gas supplying conflux inside the visual reception floatgrid?
Thanx & goodnight,

you can’t dream it or it’s there: here’s some links to stuff emerging (found through googling ‘Process oriented’):

1/(Mertins K., Heisig P., Alwert K.) Process-oriented Knowledge Structuring

2/ Process-oriented Consistency-based Diagnosis

lots of related stuff emerging in AI as well, mostly having to do with disappointments with existing semantic web tech visavis diagostics çause ze time factor iz left out of ze picture, my dear zey only talk of dolphins that are mammals that can swim but heve ya ever seen 1 dolphin that is a mammal zat can swim?
we need Flippers, no swimming mammies!

DIE EWIGKEIT hält sich in Grenzen:
leicht, in ihren
gewaltigen Meß-Tentakeln,
rotiert die von Finger-
nägeln durchleuchtbare



now here’s some great photography that comes close to visualising some of my key structural concepts. Folds are of course body-related, how could they not be?
James McKenna @


to game or nottogame

not much of a question is it. i’ve started building the game mode of the NKdeE yesterday. there’s no way out of it, no matter how much you think things through: any cultural interface that has any meaning will somehow resemble Simms, tombraider and the like.

no use in waiting for the next step, either

because of my cultural background with it’s fixation on the ultimate value of high standard, elite art -yes, i’m still very much a working class hero i suppose- i always postponed this moment, searching for alternatives in every direction, but all roads do lead there. one of the reasons i put it off has always been that authoring soft wasn’t up to the job in the one-person-doing-it-all way, it still isn’t, but i feel it’s the time to start doing it anyway, because you cán get some results that are usable in a here’s my new revolutionary 100 mhz super pc way. Ok it’s gonna be food for history footnotes to footnotes in an automatically generated footnote file to a discarded page in the compendium to the history of early 21 century dev, so what?


Groeischeut oranje.

Groeischeut oranje.

[song for europe 2004]

Je zoekt in vliezen, op het lillen van een tong

(of waar je van de puntje puntje puntjes

uitschuift in een oordeelsvorm) een parallelle

noodbezweerder (nood, nood, nood),

die met de moed & wanhoop der waanzinnigen

in de ongekuiste hoekjes van de kamers

die je platwoont spiegelschilfers los wil weken, vuur

bouwen, zee stoken & goud brouwen.

Een wonderlijke wens, ik zie de bui al bloeden.

Nu ja, geschiedenis verzwijgt het heden & de eik

hierbuiten herfst nu ook al wel een maand

voor ik het zag & zie: in de bewogen stilstand

van ons aller ondergang is er volop iteratie

aan de gang, & waar je van de kruisen

stukjes lijk afpulkt, is zo weer plaats

voor waarheid, vrijheid, moord

& hoogbeknepen lijdenssdrang.

28/10/04 – 13/12/04


More pictures at:

ViLT – Nederlandstalige literatuur


click on the title to hear the poem read
There’s an english translation here

Ligbeeld met bloedlip

[haakzang in traandichterssteek]


Waarom niet op een zaterdag: een sjokkende speedboot
knikt & knipt het vijverwater door waarachter
de vaalzwart berubberde, de meerman in paradetenue
voor zijn beparelmoerde paradetje de plakjes grijs de lucht
inscheurt, zijn goudhuid meesterlijk ontplooit
& schreeuwt & hebbetrots zijn stralen laat
éénbenig langs de einder stromen.

Hoe grieks niet & glad, hoe niet azuurblauw doorspekt
het vlijmen, de gletscherschilfers, de mesbladen gespuwd
hoe heldhaftig ik likkende
aan mijn lippen lig, – net nog & nu al
op het vlies te dun rond een knelpunt
gespannen het gat in. Knak.
Wie kan er anders? Zelf
doe ik niets.


Haar oog in ben ik oog in oog in haar
& samen vult dat wel je monitor
maar is het al bij al wel beter?

De woorden paren al:
venusbuik – spierkransverrukking,
wimpertrilling – aanbouwvergunning,
halsvleugeltinten ach foutmelding:
welke paljas gaan in dit hoogst verfijnde
lijnenspel straks je glijbenen nog
in zinsverstrengelingen knechten?
wie wordt er dan tot roerloos op vingermassa’s
drijvend lijk geslagen bij je afdronk, tot
de huidige heer zwemmer van marmer? Ha!

wasemt ze treiterend inhaalbaar
het ingedrongene in kauwbrokjes
uit, integer & katterig de nieuwste
wondertwijgjes in diepten beroerende:

(de tijd moet je weten is bij stilstand een ware
boerenpsalm op de bühne, linkskop, rechtskop,
alles einfach, recht op de blos af
rond de slaande wonde die die neus is die
hevig om zich heen slaande die in die
vijver zwaant als zwaan
zwaan zwaan zwaan)

niemand treft blaam.


Tegen de vlakte
ja leg maar de korstlip,
de zweerdij, de krampvoet, het ijlhoofd &
hak steunbeen hak voor het nakende
laag na laag afknagende



NKdeEBlog (Schrijf- & plakfabriek)


Van goddelijke dementie oorzaak en gevolg

Dat ene oog van je is bij herhaling

voor het nachtmassief geschapen,

& vermoedelijk een eindeloze rij

is het heelal daarin,

van 1 op 1 geplakt dezelfde

onaflijnbaar duistere vormen,

met de kleinste uitsparing

weerspannig behouden

voor de schemerige pluimage

van de gierig zwijgende

merel op het natte gras

& de wolken met kerkplein


Ik hou je handje vast

tot er wordt geknikkebold

& onze afvallige hoofdjes

wegglibberen, smosjes groen

& grijs & donker bij het groen

in de groenbak.

Er komt niks meer in

verder, elke tel

is als een spiegel

ondoordringbaar & van dit kijken

een gevolg.


Deze entries zijn dubbels van dv’s ‘echte’ NKdeE blog op ViLTNET


Neue Kathedrale des Erotisches Elends


Een boom in dit huis, uit de vloer vorkt een stam, de daksponten kraken. Je wordt het salon uitgesleurd, men duwt je het bad in, een gezichtsloze vrouw haalt in een oogwenk met een glasscherf van je beide armen de slagaders open. Een gordijn van blauwgrijze lianen wordt over je hoofd getrokken. De scene verwildert. Handen slaan, duwen, hakken. Donker kloppende zuigpompen sleuren je benen omlaag. Dit is verdrinken : je stem die nog uithaalt met een mondvol water, je tong als een lamme prop in je keel, het barsten van de tijd in je hoofd. Op je laatste moment zie je de twee syllaben drijven in het midden van de inmiddels woest kolkende stroom. Twee schelpen van water, eivormige vliezen met hun scherpste ronding in elkaar gehaakt. Anna.