FRACTAL LOGIC:
the art of science, the science of art

Summary

'Mathematics has been over-emphasized in modern science. It does give certain precision and so on, but at the cost of becoming a rather limited conceptual structure.' (Art meets Science and Spirituality, p.30, 1990)

The mathematics of the Mandelbro set has underpinned this entire project. It serves as evidence that mathematics can be established within a textual sign system without negating the conceptual structure, allaying Bohm's fears. The integration of mathematical and conceptual frameworks has allowed 'a notion of participation' (p.31) on behalf of the non-scientist reader, not forthcoming in an 'atomistic analytic approach' (p.31).

On this premise my project is an act of deterritorialization itself: a fusion of science and philosophy; and this compound fused with aesthetic concepts. The formation of a more holistic theoretical discourse.

This project should not be interpretated as an act of determinism; an attempt to enforce a fractal response on all modes of cognition. It merely seeks to examine the potential of nonlinear thought processes, when corresponding them with dichotomous Western belief systems. This juxtaposition causes the deterritorializations illustrated in this project. Therefore, binaries or territorial couplings which compose dichotomies are as significant as any deterritorialization that is initiated by them. The thinker's persona then is equally fractal and dichotomous:

'[It shows] thoughts's territories, its absolute deterritorialization
and reterritorializations.'
(What is Philosophy?, p.69, 1994)

The nature of individuality demands that we cannot predict or control these conflicting processes as they interact through our cognition. In response, this project cannot proclaim any 19conclusions (hence this section's title: 'summary'). What it attempts to achieve is a heuristic framework for further interpretations. These interpretations are potentially infinite, and so should not function through logocentricism but as an ongoing process of epistemological complexification. I regard this project as a medium for epistemological complexification. This is because it highlights the limitations of systems based on dichotomous opposition, but does not discard them. It generates a fundamental gain in the individual: the ability to decenter (not negate).

Fractal logic then gives genuine legitimacy to social trends already displayed in the postmodern consciousness, but incorporates a greater awareness in maintaining equilibrium. A revealing example is the decentering of human superiority on earth - the function of the environmental movement. I believe, the ecological consciousness is exercised through a portfolio of humankind's previous ignorance, and thus contemporary guilt. Yet, we must understand that the 'ecological mind' maybe the ecosystem's evolutionary response to global pollution. There is no sense in negating a species for fulfilling its genetic potential: fulfilling it by simply being human. Nor is there worth in assessing humankind's moral responsibility to counteract global 'contamination'. To assert that it is 'all up to us now', again is placing the homo sapien in a position of omnipotence.

1 Only humankind can 'save' the earth

2 Humankind did not initiate the ecological consciousness. Evolution selected it for us, in order to sustain itself.

What we read here is another dichotomy; more interpretations arrested in the dichotomous confines of Western consciousness. A dialectic which depends on the negation of each opposing pole. Once again we see the inconsistency of a Western society which seeks global equilibrium through the dichotomous structures of its own discourse. The difficulty in coherently addressing an issue of this magnitude reveals the need to recognise fully the fractal consciousness.

To propound fractal logic is to maintain dialectical equilibrium in response to humankind's potentially infinite epistemological complexification. Ultimately, if human knowledge is never fixed, then belief systems exercised by rigid narratives must be decentered. If this means the decentering of the human, the male, the white, then I have nothing to fear.

|| Previous Page || INDEX || Email Steven Mason fracta1@hotmail.com ||

Whatrain Internet Philosophy Journal






Visit
What Rain Home port
This site designed and maintained by
WhatRain WWW Services

Contact Us

Copyright © 1998 Steven Mason

Valid HTML 4.0!