Checkpoint, cont.

A second review was held earlier this week.  I received additional feedback.  For presentation material refer to Checkpoint post and DID postings. So this post is going to be low on images.

For this presentation I presented my material on dissociative identity disorder (DID).  My hope of this investigation was to develop a system or driver for my diagrams.  What I derived from my investigation was that DID develops due to an extreme stress on acting on a single entity.  This stress then causes an internal splitting.  Simply put:

STRESS - SPLIT - SHIFT

This result still doesn't help in the development of a system.  It only gives one option of how the system can be manipulated.  At points of extreme stress (what stress? structural? wind loads? sun control? circulation points?) the system will being to fracture.  Does this produce a both~and condition?  There seems to be a missing layer or element.  Split produces density and multiples but not necessarily a third condition, which is the goal of my thesis.  The moire that was my first diagram demonstrates the condition that my thesis is trying to achieve.  It is able to produce something other than itself, a third condition.

PRESENTATION FEEDBACK:

(my attempt to summarize)

I am over-complicating the problem (yes, I believe this may be true as I was able to achieve the spark of something very simply with my original diagram and I moved away from that approach/idea.)  The DID actually doesn't split into two entities; they exist within the same body.  Instead, they produce a new projection that allow for new access to new spaces within its internal world.  It is an "individual obtained agency" that has granted access to new things.  Within certain situations, something can adjust itself or change or be manipulated in order to gain greater access to some kind of intelligence outside of itself.  The example given was the movie "Chinatown"  with Jack Nicholson.  Through the movie, Nicholson's character is able to obtain different levels of intelligence which pushes him deeper into the system larger than the intelligence itself.  Different character aspects (costume, disguise, accent, etc) makes information move through with more ease.  With a more intelligence agency to populate the diagram, it will be more empowered to do things.  

It may help to take a departure and jump in scale.  

Another analogy drawn was the difference between a typical situation of people arriving at a train station in contrast to an atypical situation of a plane of tourette's syndrome patients arriving in Salt Lake City (the spontaneous into the conservative routine.)  It is not the traveling, arriving, train or plane that is the important entity.  It is what is being delivered.  

The connection between the original moire diagram and the DID diagrams is OVERLAP.  The overlap that exists in both has the result of PRODUCTION OF ANOTHER BODY.  The 2D moire diagram is able to produce an illusionary effect of 3D.  It would be similar to the arrangement of a grid of straws (the natural of our perspective vision would result in a similar distortion of the grid of circles.)  The edge condition eclipses.  In a 3D model, what if projections were not running parallel?  Would this obtain a degree of agency?  The moire shows multiple moments in time collapsed in a 2D vehicle.  The grid of straws would produce the same effect as long as we move or the grid moves forming a condition of collapse and reveal.  How do you break the field condition?  The grid of straws offers direction or orientation (what if they are not all parallel in relation to each other.)  The volume of the cube could have exterior points of influence in a way creating a gravity for the system.  Straws as vectors being effected by these points of influence.  The cube offers a depth and viewing corridor.  Layering (OVERLAPPING??) as effect.  Change of scale?  Change of material?  Black and white sequence?  

As for a reaction to the reactive diagram (hexagonal) Develop a procedure to understand the range of influence that the investigation.  Move through 1, 2, and 3 degree curves (start with straight.)  This will formulate a catalog of effects.  It will then be the deployment of the catalog as pieces of the larger diagram that will create new territory to scale up.  

This is really an analog problem.  As for boolean condition projects, check out Mark Burry's work with Gaudi.  

When approaching the cube diagram, it is important to choose a material.  Understand its manufacturing process.

MY REACTION:

I had been feeling as though the boolean explorations were not leaning toward the production or results I was aiming for.  I am excited to review my moire diagram and through a possible deconstruction understand more of what I am trying to produce.  I have investigated Mark Burry and will include a brief summary in my next posting.  Although it was interesting work, I am not sure of its exact place within my investigations.  

My next step is to investigate the moire in more depth.  I am going to reduce the diagram to two systems at first to understand how each type of manipulation changes the effects and balance of the system.  I can then start to embed more layers if necessary.  My original diagram consists of 5 grids/layers.  This quick study should help me develop a way to demonstrate similar phenomena (since I will know the range of possibilities with in the 2D realm) in 3D.  If 2D produces 3D, can 3D produce 4D?  (Are we back to Flatland?)