Numbers or Words?
Ironically, I've been learning the art of mathematical graphing in a class this semester, working with vertices and connections, and the theorems which govern what is essentially networking. Page and Brin's work uses precisely the techniques we've been studying, which for me raises a question: how much of this discussion of the future shape of rhetoric in general is being built upon a foundation of mathematics and numbers? After all, where rhetoric was once constructed of styli on papyrus or clay, pens drawn across paper, typeset on page, words are now coded in binary and xtml and governed by Euler circuits, return pathways, electron transmission. Unlike type in a printing press, which are simple molded pieces of metal, or pens, which are cylinders of dye or stain we call ink, binary, xtml, html, indeed all coding and digital tools contain a further layer of information. Ink can be used to create information, but it does not contain information within its make up. If we are to think of words as atoms, the fundamental building blocks of written communication, then we have just added a new layer of subatomia to our universe. Digital coding is the quark. But unlike this analogy where quarks and atoms are (oversimplified) more complex combinations of similar material, the interesting aspect to me is that the new foundational-layer-language of written (word) information is it's opposing counterpart, mathematics. Mathematics is now the construct of writing.
2 comments:
that's a fascinating observation. so, how is math rhetorical? how is is persuasive? is the use of binary coding to generate text evidence of mathematical rhetoricity, or is it similar to the use of ink to generate text?
My response to those questions is a simple one, which, in my opinion, raises new speculation...rhetoric implies singularity. No discussion. A rhetorical "object" exists in-and-of-itself with no comment or discussion. Mathematics is precisely, intrinsically rhetorical. Mathematical law is law. 2+2 always equals 4 in our universe. This is a rhetorical equation, which unlike written word, is truly and perfectly shielded against even the possibility of debate. So what does that mean, when the written word, which no matter what, always invites debate, is being built upon a construct of mathematics, which is an exact science, within which the known laws of its governance allows for no debate?
Post a Comment