Speaking of photographs…

January 27, 2009 in history and current events, memory, Obama

This massive photo of the inauguration is incredibly cool. If you look carefully, you can see Cheney’s hooves. You can also find the image here. And here.

Via Seth, who was there.

20 comments

January 27, 2009 at 12:04 pm

JPool

That’s great. I could, and probably will before the afternoon is over, spend a lot of time zooming through different section of that shot.

January 27, 2009 at 12:25 pm

Henry

Yo Yo Ma is taking a picture of Obama with his camera phone.

January 27, 2009 at 1:57 pm

Vance

Here’s another one you all may have seen. I’m not sure enough of my postmodernism to say whether this is the simulacrum, or the panopticon.

January 27, 2009 at 3:43 pm

Sam

You can totally see me in that picture. I think. If you squint. And imagine that tree isn’t in the way.

January 27, 2009 at 4:37 pm

ben

I’m not sure enough of my postmodernism to say whether this is the simulacrum, or the panopticon.

The beauty of postmodernism, according to Larry Wall, is, why choose?

January 27, 2009 at 4:46 pm

essear

Rubbish, ben.

January 27, 2009 at 4:56 pm

essear

Where is Yo-Yo Ma in the picture? It’s like Where’s Waldo.

January 27, 2009 at 4:56 pm

ben

I quote: At least we can use Perl as an example. In Perl, AND has higher precedence than OR does. There you have it. That proves Perl is a postmodern language.

January 27, 2009 at 4:56 pm

ben

The Yo-Yo Ma that can be pictured is not the true Yo-Yo Ma.

January 27, 2009 at 5:05 pm

Vance

My understanding of PM is about on Wall’s level, but at least I know that’s embarrassing.

January 27, 2009 at 6:06 pm

Artemis

these synth pics are neat, too.

January 27, 2009 at 6:18 pm

Cosma

Gilles Deleuze, Dialogues (p. 57):

The whole of grammar, the whole of the syllogism, is a way of maintaining the subordination of conjunctions to the verb to be, of making them gravitate around the verb to be. One must go further: one must make the encounter with relations penetrate and corrupt everything, undermine being, make it topple over. Substitute the AND for IS. A and B. The AND is not even a specific relation or conjunction, it is that which subtends all relations, the path of all relations, which makes relations shoot outside their terms and outside the set of their terms, and outside everything which could be determined as Being, One, or Whole. The AND as extra-being, inter-being. Relations might still establish themselves between their terms, or between two sets, from one to the other, but the AND gives relations another direction and puts to flight terms and sets, the former and the latter on the line of flight which it actively creates. Thinking with AND, instead of thinking IS, instead of thinking for IS: empiricism has never had another secret. Try it, it is a quite extraordinary thought, and yet it is life. The empiricists think in this way, that is all there is to it. And it is not the thought of an aesthete, as when one says ‘one more’, ‘one more woman’. And it is not a dialectical thought, as when one says ‘one gives two, which will give three’. The multiple is no longer an adjective which is still subordinate to the One which divides or the Being which encompasses it. It has become noun [sic], a multiplicity which constantly inhabits each thing. A multiplicity is never in terms, however many there are, nor in their set or totality. A multiplicity is only in the AND, which does not have the same nature as the elements, the sets or even their relations. While it may come about between just two, it nevertheless sends dualism off course. The AND has a fundamental sobriety, a poverty, an ascesis.

But I am not sure whether Deleuze was a post-modernist.

(Incidentally, I think what he is saying is that a binary relation is a subset of the space of ordered pairs.)

January 27, 2009 at 6:31 pm

kid bitzer

don’t you mean: a binary relation *and* a subset of the space of ordered pairs?

otherwise, that “is” in your restatement looks pretty being-o-fascist.

whereas, with the “is” replaced by an “and”, it looks like the start of a decent joke about walking into a bar.

January 27, 2009 at 7:32 pm

essear

What determined where the “[sic]” went?

January 27, 2009 at 7:36 pm

Cosma