I attended a lecture by Dr. Petrou (i'm definitely going to try to get in to one of his classes!) on Sherlock Holmes today (which was held in a recital hall...in the middle of tawes, the English building. i've always wondered why there's a recital hall in the middle of Tawes...)
It was quite amusing, I've never been to a lecture that had anything to do with an English literature topic, they've only been on computer science or biotechnology. This was a great change. He spoke of his book, in which he discuses the great friendship between the wise, witty, grandly overachieving Sherlock and his sort of fumbling bumbling idiot (in comparison) companion Watson. There was a QA session which made me feel so entirely inadequate from the literature community only because I realized how much some people indulge themselves in literature- it's their entire life. It's not just the classics/regulars that you and I know, like Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Shelly, Chopin, etc. They understand the text so well that they this information becomes a deeper understanding of the author, so many authors at that
However, even though I was greatly captivated for the most part, my mind started to wander off and I started thinking about dimensions. We're taught to and can only visually perceive up to 3 dimensions. And because of this fact that we adhere to, we automatically perceive the world as 3dimensional.
Say for example, you are sitting right in front of a speaker at the podium. Behind him, you know its behind him because it is not obstructing his body or face, is a wooden paneled wall. Beneath him is an entire surface of wooden flooring. But how do you know for sure it is 3 dimensional?
Without going in to the discussion of superstring theories, or contemplating the existence of his sixth dimension and comparing him to something like the calabi yau manifold, then studying the vibrations given off, we tend to just simply understand that it is in fact three dimensional and that there is an x, y, z coordinate system bounding his movement and structural make up. So if we relinquish this hold on our brains, and see with our abstract ability instead of manipulating what is seen through our visual sensory into something we are taught, perhaps we can break down exactly what it is that makes it seem three dimenstional- the characteristics of 3d.
I started looking at the lines, the angles at which they fell. When artists draw a box, the angles of the side always fall slanted downward, or upward depending on which direction you're looking at it. There's on indicator. The floor, however, was a bit harder. There were lines going every which way, that the only source I relied on was the light and the shadows cast upon it. But what of the backgronud? How are we aware of how far away it is?
Lines
we measure the diagonals, never the straight lines.
It's as if we're constricted by lines, they make up our boundaries not just in physical composition but where we can go. It's as if we are inclined to draw a line, to figure out constrictions based on lines...
*manifold= something that resembles a euclidean space... a single line would be an example in the 1st dimension
OK I dont know if I'll ever finish that thought, so here's a picture of my awesome yoda shirt my bro gave me some good years ago. He didn't exactly buy it, he found it and I was like you fit in this...? he said no and told dme i could have it

yeaaaaa
I'm noticed an intense shift in my desires, I used to want to write so much that it hurt (While i was in bioengineering). Now, I have a desire to go explore mathematics... and write, but more so explore.
It was a line drawn not by myself which constricted me to one study so now, without letting them know, i'm breaking it
And for those of you who haven't seen my last entry, check out Oye Glam's new site here, and check out my blog for more descriptions
Recent Comments