A Sumtyme Blog of Knowthing

Serene pity for a heart of darkness

without comments

misconverswayshune with my heart

How would Nick or Nora Charles stand up in todays detective shows?  Or how would any Hammett character stand up. My favorite is Ned Beaumont, from The Glass Key. Hammett’s lead characters, no matter what their situation seem to have a sense of right and wrong even when it costs them dearly. In today’s world, not that people have lost a sense of right and wrong but that right and wrong rather than being clearly defined has become a continuum where people find themselves on various places but rarely on either end and their position is defined by the influence of personal desires and goals. Sometimes its in the darkness of shado that I find my heart but quite by serendipity as I don’t know that I would think to look for it there.

Does  it matter where anyone finds it?

Written by Steve

October 30th, 2014 at 11:28 am

fine, ding ailing

without comments


A digital dream catcher, sometimes I wonder why these images just do not stay hidden, why do they follow me around as if they had nothing better to do than occupy my time. For those who are here for the first time, this began as a photograph of my shadow which I cut vertically in half, threw one half away, duplicated the other half, flopped it and joined it togehter to make a whole self, a unified self and not a divided self.

Written by Steve

October 26th, 2014 at 3:39 pm

Will the universe ever be one temperature and then stop expanding

without comments

When I get up in the morning and make a cup of  hot coffee  and then place the cup on the table  it does not stay same temperature  but moves to “room temperature.” Sometimes in very large rooms you can feel the temperature differences in different places. How long does it take to “temperature stabilize” a specific area. There are likely many studies done on this from different points of view, but my abstract thought is about how temperature affects the universe as a singular discrete phenomenon.

The whole universe , i.e. think of all of the things in it—we cannot really think of all the things in the universe, we do not know them but we understand the idea—and what temperature they are, a lot of them are different temperatures, and  the cold ones are affecting the warm ones while the the warm ones are affecting the cold ones.

If you think of the things  as making up different groups, but we do not know what the groups are (they could be galaxies or solar systems), but these groups have a hierarchy inside and outside as to how temperature affects things, i.e. the rules of thermodynamics—Oh remember  I cannot understand that, science class made it too hard! But its really fun and you really  do the scientific thinking all the time, its just that school took the fun out.

light misconverswayshuns

So now think about the coffee cup in the kitchen becoming  the same temperature was the room and then think about the temperature of the coffee to the temperature of of your town, and the temperature of the Earth to other parts of  the universe and what is happening about temperature exhanges and is the universe ever going to all be the same temperature? Will it then stop expanding? Heat and expansion occur together  so if the temperature of the universe is increasing is the universe expanding?

I hope that is simple to understand. they are just ideas, ways to think about this gigantic universe as one thing.

But what about  gravity? Well,they say in a closed system temperature affects volume but not mass, but in the universe what is a closed system? Is a gravitationally bound thing a closed system? Also while temperature does not affect mass it does affect movement.

In the end my question is: If the Universe, i.e. all of the things in the universe,  becomes the same temperature will it stop expanding?

Written by Steve

October 23rd, 2014 at 9:24 pm

Reel it, tea

without comments

light misconverswayshuns

Are photographs a momentary record of Reality? There was a discussion on a Linkein board started off by the  coment person mentioning that  at a photography booth at a outdoor arts festival  was a sign saying this these images were not “photoshopped.”  In popular culture “photoshopped” has come mean the image has been altered. The implication is not so much that the image was altered but rather that the original unaltered image has an intrinsic value,  and,one more step,  that the original image is Real.

This phenomenon has always been interesting to me. First people cannot really agree on what is Reality, not even science, so how can a camera record a Real moment?. Of course we as a species could not survive if we  acted on that basis but that is not topic. The Vedas suggested the Universe was a process and the human experience of a “thing” is a phenomenon of  human interaction with the process—they termed it Maya or  illusion. But even more the concept of “thing” is pretty incredible as we can effectively communicate with each other and act in a unified way even though we do not agree on what is Real or even if we know nothing about it, such as “dark matter.”

On any one discreet category there is a range. Words representing things like rock, house, person, etc are pretty easy to find commonality in everyday life and these we usually measure  in standards with commonly accepted standard intervals, There are either ten houses there or five houses on this block and we all know the difference.  Less discrete things are usually measured in ordinal units, more or less even though we share  much commonality. The head of a major corporation is successful? How about Pete Seeger is successful?  but both are not only very different  standards of success but in a sense contrary to each other. And how about the famous actor that commits suicide because they are unhappy.

If one has a photograph of the actor that took their life because of being unhappy but they appear happy  in the photograph is it a photograph of a happy person, an unhappy person or of the actor.

In the end the photograph has nothing to do with Real but we still use images, strictly defined with common definitions such as a security video of a burglar. No one would say that is not the person? Go to traffic  court and listen to people argue that is not their picture running the stop sign and you will be surprised how many drivers  away with it.

As far as photoshop is concerned, unless you shoot “raw” the  image has been manipulated by the camera when you shoot it. Just to print (offset) a photograph needs to be converted to CMYK color space, to do that is to manipulate the image  and usually lose/change some of the original visual information. If you are a portrait or wedding photographer you want your clients to be  treasure your image,s if they are  little dark and you lighten them up  that is manipulating the mage but to the clients its more real than the too dark images.

light misconverswayshuns

There is an old  painting I used to see in the Toledo Museum of Art of a young boy in Spanish court with a small dog in his arms, The dog is ugly and the boy’s face looks like the dog. It was a famous prince and later he had the painter killed for painting him to look like that. He was also known to be a cruel prince.

Who knows what is Real or what has been Manipulated, still when I take on a project at home which requires taking something apart, replacing a part and putting it back together again I always take some photographs and when putting it back together if I forget I look at the photographs and accept that image as more  Real than my memory.

Written by Steve

October 20th, 2014 at 11:15 am

Looking for a plug in

without comments

Before the “digital age” wealth was created by people using tools to make things and then sell them in the market. It was important to keep the tools in good shape, to have the skill to use them and keep the person in good shape—without the person to use the tool wealth is not created. As wealth is being created new things are being produced and, if you appreciate Marx’s theory of dialectical materialism in which it is the interplay (the dialectic) between the new things  creating new desires yet constrained by the existing culture that create new changes in the structure of  society. If new things are not being created that energy is also not being generated.

In the digital/electronic age, the most imortant thing is access to electricity. Without electricity nothing will happen. Next its important to have machines and code to make them do the things they are supposed to do. While machines, code and electricity are not creative, they can maintain—i.e. while not being able to develop new things, they can generate “replacement parts.”  In this way computer/machines will be very satisfied with just replacing the things that exist. The dialectical process between people and economic change will no longer generate changes in the society.

At that time people will not be needed. Still people will want to use electricity and machines may come to conclude that their own performance and even existence places them in competition with people for electricity, i.e. people who do not make a contribution will be a danger and threat to the computer/machines for the scarce resource of electricity. They may  conclude the existence of people will not be in the interest of maintaining the society.

In a sense then we will have a Marxist “utopian society,” i.e. a society in which the dialectic between production and distribution will no longer function and society will become static. And that is the vision of coders.


And still, when you see me you will probably run  away,  at least after you get to know me or more likely,  think you do.


Written by Steve

October 18th, 2014 at 9:12 pm

Posted in Entzauberung

Tagged with , ,