This is one of my favorite of D&G's many beautiful analogies, especially
because it shows how the difference between smooth and striated space is
not <in the space itself> but the mode of organizing/moving through it. I
explain: with their pieces removed, chess boards and Go boards are pretty
similar: a square board covered with a rectinlinear grid. From the outset,
Go looks very striated. But then an initial difference that arises with
the appearence of elements/pieces: fixed, pre-determined identities in the
terms of Chess pieces, and smooth round blobs on the other, without
direction (chess pieces always <point>), their only determination color.
Unlike chess, where each "side" already has some territory, and is
imagined to be winning the board from the other, the territories in Go are
not predetermined at all: they begin anywhere, growing "organically" as
the Go pieces form "walls" which create territory "within" the walls. But
territories have no essences--"inside" and "outside" are always
contextual. Breaks in the walls allow the flow of the enemy within, and
the entire terriotiral map can shift radically with a few stones.
One fascinating point: Computers can now play chess so well that they can
beat all but the masters. Computers suck at playing Go. The number of
options are dizzying; the possiblities do not "branch" (arborescence
again) with as much predictability/regularity as in chess. Average Go
players beat Go programs. Can we perhaps see in this an explanation for
D&G's general lack of interest in computers as figures of thought (compare
this with the recent citation post regarding D's priviliging of the brain
on a micro level of self-organization, self-emergent "chaotic"
organization). The problem with computers is that while they are certainly
becoming more chaotic, they have so far been both more suited to and more
directed towards simulating and reproducing the State
logic of striation. Top-down vs. bottom-up.
The computer: Top-down (AI) vs bottom-up (artificial life, massive
parallel processing).
The brain: Top-down (Chomskyan deep structures, rational structures of
cognition, etc.) vs. bottom-up (Varella, emergence, self-organizaion,
chaotic fluctuations).
It is not a matter of the computer OR the brain. The cyborg is here; we
can no longer think this way if we are to taste what "we" have become. It
comes back to what we do with this striated space before us, already
overcoded with points and grid lines. Do we reproduce a state-form, define
our new identities according to the top-down eye that sees the board from
above, like a kind over its subjects?
Or do we just Go?
[__]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \ / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[__]
[] Erik Davis (oo) Cernunnos sez (cribbing the Fall): The only []
[] erikd@xxxxxxxxx __ thing real is waking and rubbing your eyes. []
[__]==================== ww ==============================================[__]
------------------
because it shows how the difference between smooth and striated space is
not <in the space itself> but the mode of organizing/moving through it. I
explain: with their pieces removed, chess boards and Go boards are pretty
similar: a square board covered with a rectinlinear grid. From the outset,
Go looks very striated. But then an initial difference that arises with
the appearence of elements/pieces: fixed, pre-determined identities in the
terms of Chess pieces, and smooth round blobs on the other, without
direction (chess pieces always <point>), their only determination color.
Unlike chess, where each "side" already has some territory, and is
imagined to be winning the board from the other, the territories in Go are
not predetermined at all: they begin anywhere, growing "organically" as
the Go pieces form "walls" which create territory "within" the walls. But
territories have no essences--"inside" and "outside" are always
contextual. Breaks in the walls allow the flow of the enemy within, and
the entire terriotiral map can shift radically with a few stones.
One fascinating point: Computers can now play chess so well that they can
beat all but the masters. Computers suck at playing Go. The number of
options are dizzying; the possiblities do not "branch" (arborescence
again) with as much predictability/regularity as in chess. Average Go
players beat Go programs. Can we perhaps see in this an explanation for
D&G's general lack of interest in computers as figures of thought (compare
this with the recent citation post regarding D's priviliging of the brain
on a micro level of self-organization, self-emergent "chaotic"
organization). The problem with computers is that while they are certainly
becoming more chaotic, they have so far been both more suited to and more
directed towards simulating and reproducing the State
logic of striation. Top-down vs. bottom-up.
The computer: Top-down (AI) vs bottom-up (artificial life, massive
parallel processing).
The brain: Top-down (Chomskyan deep structures, rational structures of
cognition, etc.) vs. bottom-up (Varella, emergence, self-organizaion,
chaotic fluctuations).
It is not a matter of the computer OR the brain. The cyborg is here; we
can no longer think this way if we are to taste what "we" have become. It
comes back to what we do with this striated space before us, already
overcoded with points and grid lines. Do we reproduce a state-form, define
our new identities according to the top-down eye that sees the board from
above, like a kind over its subjects?
Or do we just Go?
[__]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \ / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[__]
[] Erik Davis (oo) Cernunnos sez (cribbing the Fall): The only []
[] erikd@xxxxxxxxx __ thing real is waking and rubbing your eyes. []
[__]==================== ww ==============================================[__]
------------------