The Orrery as Self

A bit of fantastically apt symbolism in Game of Thrones!



(* editor's note: Full disclosure: this is the scene of a concept at risk of death-by-avalanche of words. Perhaps wordy carpets in mythical fashion, or rose petals if you like a roman motif.)

An orrery, if nothing else, is just the sort of symbol GRR Martin would put in a story.

This is because it can serve as an excellent symbol of narrative itself (and of a "self") - it has understandable boundaries and has internal cyclic elements that may, or may not, have correspondences, intentional, or not.

Long-term creative moves are crucial to establishing evidence of competence and foresight since adroit or fortuitous moves in-the-moment could merely be the result of honed reflexes or mere chance, rather than an accurate schema. The cycles of a working orrery can go on indefinitely so when there *is* a change there's a possibility it is significant rather than just another spin on reality's roulette wheel. A working narrative purports to accomplish the same thing (for at least as long a term as any attention is directed toward it).

Syncopation between elements can provide a baseline and a pattern that registers to that baseline. Together they can imply one or more other points. Voila! Suspense and mystery!

Yes. I realize that is perhaps a vague and nebulous assertion. Maybe a ted espresso-fueled. I'm working on it folks. B)

Synanthrope

What other sorts of "anthropes" are there?

Heard the term "Synanthrope" while listening to the 99% Invisible podcast as a term referring to things that live along with humans; dogs, cattle, sparrows, pigeons, rats, and such. It struck me as an intriguing term. These things are adapted "close-in", not like Demodex (eyelash mites), nor quite as close in as clothing, or glasses, or even non-vital things, like tools such as wrenches and vehicles, but close nevertheless.

As I tend to do I try to swap in and replace elements to see how a concept holds up.

In retrospect I'm surprised I haven't asked this question before. I have, in ways, but not with this sort of precision: what other sorts of "anthropes" are there? What else has co-evolved along with us?

I have some that come to mind, but I'll return to this in a while before I state them to see if there are any other observations volunteered.

Communist Thelma? Capitalist Louise?

In short: an allegory ripe for analysis.
 
Choice dramatic quote:

Capitalism and Communism which briefly resembled victor and vanquished, increasingly look more like Thelma and Louise; a tragic couple sent over the edge by forces beyond their control. What comes next is anyone’s guess and the world hangs in the balance.

Eric R. Weinstein -
Mathematician and Economist; Managing Director of Thiel Capital

Question that looms in my mind - cui bono?
 
Or, perhaps qui est, et cinis? (Who is so deluded?)

I suspect Thomas Pickety could inform a good guess.
 
(From a link on BoingBoing.net an article on Edge.org.)

Spherical Catan!

Just came across this: Spherical Settlers of Catan

I don't even know what rule adjustments are yet. Just...looook!

Found it here: http://technabob.com/blog/2014/02/03/settlers-of-catan-globe/

David Bowie; 1947 - 2016

Perhaps of interest: Bowie’s top 100 books

Velocity of a Cannon

So I happened to look over the last post about Star Wars and thought "Why does it concern me at all how they handle the Star Wars narrative?"

I'm still thinking about that, but, in the meantime, it seems clear that the *velocity* of changes to what serves as a unifying narrative is more compressed. I'd venture that back when it was fables and campfire tales the scope or rate at which any novelty could be replicated was, compared to current times, quite limited.

Given this, knowing or not knowing the forms or particulars of a narrative could be relied on to indicate many things - shared culture, where one has been geographically, demographically, etc. Apparently such understandings are less reliable indicators currently - spoofing deliberately or inadvertently, and rigorous analysis are much more practical now than in the past.

Star Wars is an interesting specimen because Star Wars represents a significant chunk of attention. Many, many "eyeballs" are focused on it, and brain lobes are dedicated (in a fractional and operative sense) to it's consideration. No small amount of money is associated with it's success or failure in commercial terms. If nothing else we'll all be personally firing synapses in an effort to parse the aphorisms cultivated by this narrative.

This hints at why "how a *franchise* is handled" is any concern of mine, or anyone else.

Comments encouraged.

Doesn't deal a death blow to the franchise.

How's that for faint praise?

Saw the latest Star Wars. To say the film avoided risks would be to put it mildly.

Reading this little bit from Scott McCloud illustrates the feeling I got while watching the movie:




That said, they avoided the worst moves (moves all too possible <koff>Hobbit<koff>) For that element of restraint I must express relief.

I really liked the Maz Kanata character whose story I could stand seeing more of. Sort of an orange Yoda-meets-tiger-mom - force-aware without all the Manichean over-determined destiny going on. Room left for a viewer to have some genuine curiosity.

John Boyega had a tough job, which he did well, with Finn. The script was, IMHO, stumbling in its haste to remedy the franchise's past history of racial and ethnic bias. Good intentions, but, if it weren't for Boyega's presence and some good laugh lines, a compounding disaster lying in wait.

I also like the scale and patina of ruin established by having Rey spelunk the derelict ship.

One suspects Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher didn't want to be there, but they didn't literally or figuratively take a crap in the middle the camera frame. Apparently Abrams was satisfied with that much. He should consider himself lucky.

A film that doesn't deal a death blow to the franchise.

What more could we expect?