I would love to see this conversation get going again - I just recently discovered Stephen Perrella and think he'd have a lot more to offer if he were still with us. (found on Architexturez)
message ## 22431…
+ From: "Bryan A. Alexander"This might return us to Spinoza; see Curley's SPINOZA'S GEOMETRICAL METHOD.
+ Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 18:57:10 -0500 (EST)
Department of English
University of Michigan
On Fri, 19 Jan 1996, Friedman, Howard J. wrote:
> > I would like to expand on this topic please. how geometry excludes the
> > subject and then we can talk about anexact geometry in deleuzeoguattari.
> > s.perrella
> > architect
> You'll have to excuse me here. I only studied Euclidean geometry, and that
> was in high school (some 20 years ago). I've since read a little of
> Mandlebrot(?) but not very much. And a book of Rene Thom on catastrophe
> So the reason i suggested that (Euclidean) geometry excludes the "subject"
> is simply because it relates to structures: lines, planes, triangles,
> squares, rhombi, etc. I don't see any room here for a "subject". (Points are
> also Euclidean, i think, but they don't seem to represent the main thrust of
> traditional geometry)
> Other mathematical notions do seem to apply, however. I'm not sure, at this
> point, if i'd like to class the subject as an "unreal number" (such as the
> square root of a negative number) or as a real number with an infinite
> I'm throwing this back to you because, as you can see, my ignorance is
> great. Please enlighten, if you can. Thanks.