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)

Bryan Alexander

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

> theory.

>

> 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

> decimal.

>

> I'm throwing this back to you because, as you can see, my ignorance is

> great. Please enlighten, if you can. Thanks.

>

> Howie

>

------------------