20231017

Renaissance Rising: Temple of the DOS








 

John Dee knew that the basic theory of proportion between reality and virtual reality came from Vitruvius and had directed his readers to 'looke in Vitruvius and find it there’.  Robert Fludd was certainly familiar with both Vitruvius and Dee's Preface and, moreover, as briefly indicated at the beginning of this chapter, his whole musical philosophy of Macrocosm and Microcosm, his whole History of these Two Worlds, is imbued with the Macrocosm-Microcosm analogy expressed in terms of musical proportion.  And this reminds us that we have left out one of the subjects of the technical history of the Macrocosm, both a Vitruvian subject and a Dee subject, and the most important of all subjects for Fludd: music.



Music comes second among the sections of the technical history of the Macrocosm, immediately after the first section on number. On the mnemonic wheel, immediately to the left of the numbers to which the Ape points, representing Section 1 of the book, we see the man playing the organ, representing Section 2, on music. This section is introduced by a large folding engraving containing one of the most striking illustrations in the whole book. It represents a fantastic building called ‘The Temple of Music'.





This building is fundamentally a memory system for memorizing all the parts of the exposition of his music theory which Fludd gives on the following pages. Fludd's music theory has been studied by P. J. Amman who finds that it is 'antiquated in comparison with other musical treatises of the period but original in its presentation of the subject’.


 The fact is that Fludd was still trying to be a universal man of the Renaissance; his music treatise is but one of his efforts in the volume and should be compared with his treatises on surveying, or painting, or machinery, though doubtless for him the section on music was the most significant and all-inclusive.





The symbolism of the Temple of Music is explained by Fludd in the description which follows the picture, from which the following is a translated quotation:


We imagine then this Temple of Music to be built on the summit of Mount Parnassus, the seat of the Muses, adorned in every part with eternally green and flowering groves and fields, sweetly watered by chrystal fountains whose murmur induces to gentle repose, frequented by birds pouring forth in song the sound of diverse symphonies. The nymphs around the temple, the satyrs in the groves taught by Sylvanus, the shepherds in the fields with Pan their leader, utter their choruses. Amidst these delights is the divine gift of Apollo who receives the adoration of all; whence arise on all sides peace and concord through the mysteries of harmony and symphony in which all the concords of the heavens and the elements are linked together. The whole universe must perish and be reduced to nothing in warring discord should these consonances fail or be corrupted.


Apollo with his lyre, whom we see sculptured on the Temple, thus represents music in a cosmic and philosophical, as well as a poetic, aspect. The presiding genius of the Temple, says Fludd, is Concordia. Its custodian or priestess is Thalia, one of the Muses, who is shown in an alcove on the upper level of the Temple pointing to a piece of music. On the ground level is an arched doorway through which a little scene is visible, smiths are wielding their hammers at a forge, and through a door on the far side of the building a figure enters mysteriously, holding a set-square. It is, as Fludd explains, “Pythagoras, represented in the moment of discovering the musical proportions and consonances through listening to the sound of hammers on an anvil.”





Music is here being presented both as a fundamental cosmic reality and as a mathematical art having its basis in proportion; and the Temple of Music is a striking example of the mnemonic-symbolic basis of Fludd's thought, which made the detailed illustration of his works, the presentation of his arguments in mnemonic-symbolic form, so important for him.


However singled out and emphasized because of its importance for his musical philosophy as a whole, Fludd's section on music conforms to the general plan of the technical history. It gives the theory of the subject as a mathematical art, basically connected with number like all the subjects, and it gives illustrated information about practical applications of the art.


The strong practical bent of Fludd is nowhere more apparent than in his chapters on musical instruments; these include stringed instruments, wind instruments, percussion instruments.


Particularly striking is his application of his mechanical bent to the invention of music-making machines. He claims to have invented new instruments and music-making devices, such as the remarkable looking object described as 'Our Great New Instrument'.






The musical instruments and inventions are fully illustrated and these illustrations must be seen in the context of the whole rich illustration of the book to realize that Fludd, the universal man, can turn his hand to surveying, perspective painting, mechanics, and machines, as well as to music-making.


It is possible that music may have been Fludd's strongest subject. He was interested in singing, and mentions a Friar Robert Brunham whose notation for singing he has used, and perhaps he could play the musical instruments which he illustrates. As an adviser on music, Fludd could have been in demand by theatrical producers and at courts. In another of his works he states that his musical inventions were received with sympathy by the musicians of the court of the King of England.





There is a point about the symbolism of the Temple of Music in relation to music theory which may be important. The most noticeable features of the Temple are those great spirals under the dome, with two doors below them. Their meaning is thus explained in Fludd's text accompanying the engraving:


Thou shouldst carefully examine the spiral revolution in the largest tower which denotes the movement of the air when struck by the sound or the voice. The two doors signify the ears or the organs of hearing, without which the poured-forth sound is not perceived, nor can there be entry into this temple save by them.


Surely (a point not noticed by Amman) this is a visual representation of Vitruvius on acoustics in the theatre, on those undulating circles of air on which the voice is carried, wherefore 'the ancient architects following in nature's footsteps traced the voice as it rose and carried out the ascent of the theatre seats.



Fludd is following Vitruvius, not only in treating of music as a Vitruvian subject but also in introducing his treatment of music in the context in which Vitruvius had treated it. For the exposition of musical theory in Vitruvius comes in connection with his discussion of the theatre and of the 'sounding vessels' which amplified voices in the theatre. 

The musical theory expounded by Vitruvius is based on that of Aristoxenus, an Aristotelian rationalist philosopher who was not in the Pythagoro-Platonic tradition. On the other hand Vitruvius's plan of the theatre, based on zodiacal configurations, introduces the idea of a cosmic music, or, as he says, a musica convenientia astrorum, and this accords with the traditional notions of musica mundana and musica humana descending from Boethius.  Renaissance theory developed this side of the musical tradition, involving connections between musical proportion and cosmological proportion such as Vitruvius implies in his theatre plan, based on the musica con-venientia astrorum. Fludd, like Francesco Giorgi, is of course fully in this tradition.


As we saw, Dee had repeated Vitruvius on the sounding vessels placed under the steps in theatres and ordered according to musical harmonies 'distributed in the circuits by Diatessaron, Diapente, and Diapason'.  This is the only allusion to an ancient building in Dee's Preface. The allusion in the Temple of Music to the voices rising on spirals of sound in the theatre is the only allusion in Fludd's technical history to an ancient building.


We asked why Fludd left out architecture in the technical history. The answer may perhaps be suggested that the Temple of Music represents architecture, represents music as architecture. 


All the Renaissance theorists emphasize the connection, indeed the identity, of musical proportion with architectural proportion.  The building shown by Fludd is of course not a theatre, nor are there any sounding vessels in it. Nor is it properly Neoclassical but a mixture in which the classical columns do not fit with the Gothic features. It does not represent any real building though it may reflect something of the architectural eccentricity of the Jacobean age. It is an architectural fantasia invented and, perhaps, drawn by Fludds as a symbolic expression of his musical philosophy and of the musical theory which he will expound on the following pages. But I am impressed by the fact that Fludd clothes music in this architectural form, suggesting that he is thinking of a connection between architectural and musical proportion. And though this is not a theatre, ancient or modern, some of its leading aspects were certainly suggested by passages in Vitruvius on the ancient theatre and its musical expressiveness. Tantalized and mystified we gaze and gaze, noting the dome and the lantern, the circle of the angelic choir beneath it, the airy spirals carrying the sound to the ears. 




And that large mask on the wall, does it refer to the figure of Thalia, the Muse of Comedy, and carry with it a suggestion of the theatre? And below, there is that room which extends right through the building to the back, where Pythagoras enters and hears the mysterious sounds.


Whatever one may think of Fludd's musical theory or of the peculiar architecture of the Temple of Music, this Temple is surely an impressive symbolic statement of the psychology of a

musical philosopher, of one whose outlook on Man and the Universe, on Macrocosm and Microcosm, finds its deepest expression in terms of music.


This chapter has attempted to bring out a side of Robert Fludd which has not been generally recognized. Though, as in the case of Dee, historians of science are becoming increasingly interested in Fludd who is no longer regarded solely as a wild and hazy figure, it has not been realized that in one aspect of his thought he belongs into the mathematical, technological, and Vitruvian tradition stimulated by John Dee. 


As I have suggested earlier, it is even possible that Fludd may have had access to Dee's papers. These are known to have been dispersed, and sought after by his son in the early seventeenth century.  Some of them came into the hands of Sir Robert Cotton, whom Fludd knew. Among the titles of unpublished works of his which Dee lists one finds, for example, Trochlica inventa mea, indicating some treatise on wheel-mechanisms (perhaps expanding his notes on this in the Preface), and De perspectiva illa, qua peritissimi utuntur Pictores, indicating a lost treatise by Dee on perspective for the use of artists.  Some of the titles of Dee's missing mystical works sound to me also extremely close to the categories of Fludd's thought. To explore this theme of possible dependence of Fludd on Dee in many ways would require a book in itself and I do no more here than raise it as a question.






What can however be said as a result of the preliminary researches in this chapter (preliminary in the sense that I hope that others will carry them much further) is that there is a continuous tradition of Vitruvian influence in England, operating in both John Dee and Robert Fludd, that this tradition connects with technological development, and in particular with the technologies needed in the developing art of the theatre. 
Frances Yates, Theatre of the World






20231005

Valis Regained: Palm Tree Gardens (01010101 01110010 00100000 01101100 01100001 01101110 01100111 01110101 01100001 01100111 01100101)











No STEM


1. The Romans used all CAP

2. The vowels I and U had consonantal versions (pronounced like our Y and W, respectively); most Latin textbooks these days let students try to distinguish vocalic I from consonantal I, but they usually convert the consonantal U to V. You'll find words like INSULA ("island") and IUPPITER ("Jupiter") along with VACUUS ("empty") and VIVUNT ("they live") in those textbooks. Nowadays, of course, we've turned most instances of that consonantal I into a J.

3. The Romans, however, would
have written these words as INSVLA, IVPPITER, VACVVS, and VIVVNT. Deciphering these Vs takes a little practice, but you get used to it.

4. Ironically, some scholarly editions have gone in the opposite direction with the U/V problem, converting all those Vs back to Us in an attempt to be more authentic to the ancient Roman practice of writing them the same way — which leaves us with INSULA, IUPPITER, UACUUS, and UIUUNT.


https://youtu.be/VLbZVS66p84?si=Q_zAU4-KoiAVoC_x








20230930

Isn’t It Now…




Amid the quantum qubit-quivered beatles

(all the clubs are broken in defeat)


Two thousand and one, dervishes they dance,
Digital whirls, in a pixel trance.
"History," or al-Hikmah, in beats it splits,
"Is but superposition," in rhythmic fits.
Amidst quasar's quirk, a collective note,
In the vegas vacuum, it's the song they wrote.




Between Zohar's zodiacs and golf's galaxies,
Their entanglements spiral in rhythm and ease.
“To transpose, to transmute,” Dedaloom croons,
Is it not alchemy, of soulbit's tunes?
Adjustments – the dervish dances in time,
To the wavefunctions, an oscillating rhyme.

The Al-Catholik, in quantum pose,
For the world awaits, as the rhythm flows.
A Tour, a Tree, of cosmic clubs it sings,
Sephiroth's song, on digital wings.
From Netzach's nine to the tee that's true,
Bloom murmurs, "The dance, the dance we do."



Fourteenfold tree, in Sephirotic song,
Each a qubit, a quantum, to which they belong.
A recurrence, again, in the VR's vast scape,
Twisting, twining, a digital shape.
In this tournament of Tif’eret,
A cosmic song, you won't forget.
"Qubits, quarks, in the quantum wind they say,"
Dedaloom’s tune, in a melodic display.



Then, a Singularity at Southwind, so profound,
BABABADALGHARAGHTAKAMMINARRONNKONNBRONNTONNERRONNTUONNTHUNNTROVARRHOUNAWNSKAWNTOLARGHAN  prisms, planks and paths of the Prophet, the fractals and fables of quantum dunes favor a golfer, a nuGnostic, a fuGhazi. Entanglement, enlightenment, an end to eternal sphere? 

Logos reshuffles the revelry of Rumi, a Rubik's cube of realities. Dedaloom whispers, "From Alif to Yaa, from Aleph to Tav, I quantumly quaver, and yes, 

Be and it is."



20230906

Time Code Instructions: I Can Hold My Breath Forever






A NEW generation of electronic editing is edging its way into movie-making. A combination of video recorders and computers, the new systems do not change what audiences see. But behind the screens, they are altering how a handful of movies and an armload of television shows are made.


Film makers are greeting the technology with a discordant chorus of praise, skepticism and caveats. Some hail it as the start of a technological revolution that will rival the impact of word processing on publishing. Others worriedly cite high price tags, technological ''bugs'' and the shaky financial status of some manufacturers. But almost all agree that the new systems can save hours of time and, in the case of television, thousands of dollars from post-production budgets.


''There is no question that the majority of films will one day be cut electronically.'' said Glorianna Davenport, lecturer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Media Laboratory.

“But until more people use them, the cost of these systems will stay high. And at this point, they are still hugely complicated.''






The most widely used systems are EditDroid, from the Droid Works in San Rafael, Calif., a unit of Lucasfilm Ltd., owned by filmmaker George Lucas; Ediflex, from Cinedco, in Burbank, Calif., and Montage, from The Montage Group, in Keene, N.H. They cost about $150,000 and rent for about $2,500 a week. Droid says it has sold 15 units; Montage, 32. Cinedco, which only rents Ediflex - currently, 25 of them - claims consistent profits. Droid and Montage say revenues have not kept up with costs.


This mini-industry is up against a 40-year editing tradition, the Moviola. Looking like a cross between a sewing machine and a home movie projector, the Moviola, made by the J&R; Film Company in Hollywood, sells for about $11,000, rents for about $65 a week and is the industry standard. It is a standard, say most in industry, that will be hard to displace.


''Sometimes new things that are so valuable are still slow to catch on because they are frightening,'' said actor Alan Alda, who used a Montage to edit ''Sweet Liberty,'' which he wrote and directed. ''I vacillate between being absolutely certain this is the future, and hoping so.''


Two other recent movies -''Power,'' directed by Sidney Lumet, and ''Patriot,'' directed by Frank Harris - were also edited electronically. And the systems are in use on ''Making Mr. Right,'' directed by Susan Seidelman, and ''Full Metal Jacket,'' directed by Stanley Kubrick.



The deepest inroads are being made in television, where skyrocketing costs and static network revenues have producers looking at the systems' cost-cutting potential. Electronic editors are used on 15 percent of this season's prime-time shows -most of which are shot on film for better resolution. The list includes ''Dallas'' and ''The Twilight Zone.''


''The '87-88 season will be the major breakthrough,'' predicted Emory Cohen, president of Pacific Video, a Hollywood editing facility. FILM editing is, to a large degree, a cumbersome trial-and-error process. Movies are not shot from beginning to end, but location by location, camera angle by camera angle, producing hours of short clips that average only 90 seconds.

A working film print, made up of the combined clips, is then repeatedly cut and spliced until an editor and director are satisfied. Making a splice takes about a minute. Finding the right footage can, and often does, take a half-hour, if the material is part of the tangle of film on the editing floor.

In the new electronic editing systems, the work print is made on either videotape or a laser disk and logged, frame by frame, on to a computer. The computer controls several videotape or laser-disk recorders, all loaded with versions of a scene. The Montage uses 17 videotape recorders.



Any movie moment can be found and altered almost instantly by typing in computer commands that activate the playback machines. The system can display different segments from different recorders to show a smooth rendition of a scene - enabling editors to try out many versions before making a decision. When a choice is made, it is stored in the computer. At the end of the process, the system produces a printout of frame numbers, a list of changes to be made.

For feature films, the final changes - along with finishing touches such as dissolves and opening credits -must still be made manually on the film negative. But in the case of television, where programs ultimately wind up on videotape, a floppy disk loaded with computer commands will copy the changes onto broadcast quality tape, allowing finishing touches to be made on tape, too.

This saves thousands of dollars -$15,000 per hour-long episode alone for putting in dissolves and opening titles. The hefty cost cut, as well as the saving of about one-third of an editor's time, is in large part responsible for the new technology's popularity among budget-strapped television producers. ''It's something all production companies are eventually going to have to try,'' said Chuck Silvers, vice president of post-production at Lorimar-Telepictures.

Some TV producers who depend on distribution profits - such as Joseph Dervin Jr., vice president of Aaron Spelling Productions, creator of ''Dynasty'' - are avoiding the systems because they cannot take advantage of the saving involved in putting finishing touches on tape. They finish their work on film to satisfy European buyers who demand film copies.

But other companies say their buyers will accept videotape. Lorimar uses the Ediflex on almost all of its programming, including ''Dallas.'' Paramount Pictures uses the Montage for ''MacGyver.'' Viacom uses the EditDroid on ''Matlock'' and the Ediflex on ''The Return of Perry Mason.'' CBS's ''Twilight Zone'' uses the EditDroid and an in-house system developed by CBS and Sony. COST-CUTTING is less important in movie-making circles that work with multimillion- dollar budgets. Directors and editors of feature films who use it are attracted by the new systems' potential for enhancing their finished products by allowing more time for editing.

Others are not as convinced.


 ''There is to a certain extent the attitude, 'I'm making this $5 million movie, I don't want to risk my film on a new technology,' '' said William F. Justus, an industry consultant who has worked for Droid Works.

''I knew I was a guinea pig,'' said Andrew Mondshein, who was the first to edit a movie (''Power'') with one of the new machines, a Montage.


Mr. Mondshein is now using the Montage to edit ''Making Mr. Right.'' In his editing room in midtown Manhattan, he held up one of the innovations spawned by his earlier experience with the Montage - a black wand with a red button on top. 


“They developed this for me,'' he said. The wand, linked directly to the system, is used to mark cuts precisely. ''Before this, the Montage wasn't frame-accurate; it took the computer a few milliseconds to register a command. That threw things 1 to 10 frames off.''


Most manufacturers agree that the perfect system does not yet exist. And like Montage, they use working editing rooms as their unofficial development labs. Because of its exposure in the editing rooms, ''the EditDroid doesn't really infuriate anybody anymore,'' said Kenneth M. Yas, product manager at Droid Works. ''On its best behavior, it leaves editors agog. But studios have to be comfortable in the knowledge that the device works all the time. We're not there yet.''


The EditDroid has a unique marketing problem. George Lucas has yet to use the system on one of his own films. 


A company spokesman says Mr. Lucas plans to. ''Everyone is saying, 'When George uses it, I'll know he has the tool he wanted.' '' said Deborah D. Harter, an industry consultant and former Droid Works employee. ''He should have launched it with one of his own movies.''


Ironically, it was the misconception that Mr. Lucas had used the Droid that led Rick Westover, a film editor, to use it on ''Patriot.''


''I saw a demonstration with footage from 'The Return of the Jedi' and assumed,'' he said.


“When I realized I was the pioneer, that's when paranoia set deep in my heart. I haven't been that paranoid since I was a hippie in the 60's.'' But his electronic work was ''frame perfect,'' he said, and cut his editing time by weeks.

Others in Hollywood seem to have been willing to jump into the new technology with both feet, aware that it was largely untested. When producer Martin Bregman read about the Montage, he immediately phoned Mr. Alda. Intrigued, they arranged for a demonstration. ''When I saw it, I rubbed my hands with glee,'' said Mr. Alda. ''You can look at a scene 10 different ways and play them back all in a row. It's amazing how fast you can pick out which is best.''

Mr. Alda and editor Michael Economou edited ''Sweet Liberty'' for 10 hours a day last fall in a small house in Water Mill, L.I. ''We would be fixed on the video screens and our hands would be flying on the dials and buttons. Sometimes they would have to pull me away because my pasta water was boiling out.''


According to Mr. Alda, ''We wouldn't have been able to experiment the way we did if we were working the old- fashioned way. If I made the same experiments, I would literally still be editing.'' He added: ''If I sing the Montage's praises, it is out of the selfish desire to have it available for my next movie - I don't want the company to go out of business.'' 


MONTAGE already went out of business once. Founded in 1984 with $4.5 million invested by the Prudential Insurance Corporation and $5 million from Interscope Investments, it was liquidated by Interscope last spring. But Harvey Ray, then a Montage executive, and Simon Haberman, an investor, purchased the assets at auction for $700,000. Mr. Ray and a few volunteers maintained skeletal operations and even managed to sell three systems. Now, pared to 9 employees from 45, Montage is ''actually in the black some months,'' said Mr. Ray.


The ultimate survival of all the manufacturers may depend on their ability to convince film makers that the systems are merely modern Moviolas. Some editors, apprehensive, have turned down work rather than edit electronically, according to the Motion Picture and Video Tape Editors Guild in Los Angeles.


''Some writers still write books by spreading out papers all over their living room floor; they believe the physical component is important to the process,'' said Andrew B. Lippman an associate professor at M.I.T.'s Media Lab.


''It just doesn't feel like editing,'' said Art Repola, post-production director at Amblin Entertainment, Steven Spielberg's company.


 ''You want to hold the film up to the light, look at the image, feel the perforations going through the sprocket. That's how we've always made films.''

Despite such resistance, even Moviola's marketer, J&R; Film, expects ''to end up sharing the market with the new electronic systems,'' according to Jim Reichow, executive vice president. And some TV producers who initially spurned the systems say they may soon reconsider.

''Next year the equipment may be marketed more cheaply,'' said Mr. Dervin of Aaron Spelling. ''With escalating costs, there is no doubt in my mind that this is all going to make sense pretty quickly.'' 


ADDING SOUND TO THE PICTURE

Today's electronic picture-editing systems are a second attempt at the technology. Now these new systems are sparking innovation in sound-editing.

The current picture-editors came out of a failed attempt by CMX, a company once owned by CBS and Memorex. The CMX 600 was patented in 1973 and worked much like the new generation of editors. But the system - which showed black and white images only - was far too imperfect to challenge Hollywood's resistance to change.

Its makers, however, went on to create the simpler computer-driven equipment used to edit television shows that are shot chronologically on tape. And the system's creator, Adrian B. Ettlinger, is now senior vice president at Cinedco, which makes Ediflex, one of the latest systems.

It is another of the manufacturers, Droid Works, that is developing a new sound editor, SoundDroid. New England Digital in White River Junction, Vt., has developed the Synclavier.

Sound editing is more complex than film editing - and so is creating equipment for it. Sound is not recorded when film is shot. Even up to 80 percent of dialogue is generated later on sound stages. And a scene in a feature film can contain a hundred elements - dialogue, music, footsteps, the far-off chirping of birds. With current methods, each of these is recorded on magnetic-coated film and loaded on separate playback machines -dubbers. With some elements mixed ahead of time, about 30 dubbers can run at once.

''If a door slam occurs at frame 57,002 in a movie, there is blank film on the dubber up to that point; then 'Clang' - then back to blank film,'' said William Justus, an industry consultant. ''If the door slams a second too late, the editor has to run up and down the bank of dubbers, find the slam and adjust the track by x-number of sprockets.'' 


Once synchronized, sound is added to film. The new devices - both SoundDroid, which is in the prototype stage, and Synclavier - use a computer-run system that records sound digitally. When a sound comes too soon or too late, it is synchronized at a keyboard. Ultimately, the systems should offer huge savings in labor, time and materials. Both devices can also generate sound and store libraries of sound effects.

But the systems need work. They cannot yet handle enough sound for a feature film. And the savings they offer may not be enough. Kenneth M. Yas, product manager at Droid Works says a model that could handle a big film would be somewhat cheaper than a room full of dubbers. But said Jeff E. Taylor, a Droid engineer, ''the major sound studios, which can afford the new technology, are already set up and have paid for the old.''

The record industry has adopted the Synclavier. So have a dozen television-editing houses, which use it to generate, not edit, sound. Mr. Justus predicts that newer generations of equipment will be better-suited for film. Already, a cheaper, faster audio chip with more memory capacity has been announced by Motorola.