मेघदूत: "नीचैर्गच्छत्युपरि दशा चक्रनेमिक्रमेण"

समर्थ शिष्या अक्का : "स्वामीच्या कृपाप्रसादे हे सर्व नश्वर आहे असे समजले. पण या नश्वरात तमाशा बहुत आहे."

G C Lichtenberg: “It is as if our languages were confounded: when we want a thought, they bring us a word; when we ask for a word, they give us a dash; and when we expect a dash, there comes a piece of bawdy.”

C. P. Cavafy: "I’d rather look at things than speak about them."

Martin Amis: “Gogol is funny, Tolstoy in his merciless clarity is funny, and Dostoyevsky, funnily enough, is very funny indeed; moreover, the final generation of Russian literature, before it was destroyed by Lenin and Stalin, remained emphatically comic — Bunin, Bely, Bulgakov, Zamyatin. The novel is comic because life is comic (until the inevitable tragedy of the fifth act);...”

सदानंद रेगे: "... पण तुकारामाची गाथा ज्या धुंदीनं आजपर्यंत वाचली जात होती ती धुंदी माझ्याकडे नाहीय. ती मला येऊच शकत नाही याचं कारण स्वभावतःच मी नास्तिक आहे."

".. त्यामुळं आपण त्या दारिद्र्याच्या अनुभवापलीकडे जाऊच शकत नाही. तुम्ही जर अलीकडची सगळी पुस्तके पाहिलीत...तर त्यांच्यामध्ये त्याच्याखेरीज दुसरं काही नाहीच आहे. म्हणजे माणसांच्या नात्यानात्यांतील जी सूक्ष्मता आहे ती क्वचित चितारलेली तुम्हाला दिसेल. कारण हा जो अनुभव आहे... आपले जे अनुभव आहेत ते ढोबळ प्रकारचे आहेत....."

Kenneth Goldsmith: "In 1969 the conceptual artist Douglas Huebler wrote, “The world is full of objects, more or less interesting; I do not wish to add any more.”1 I’ve come to embrace Huebler’s ideas, though it might be retooled as “The world is full of texts, more or less interesting; I do not wish to add any more.” It seems an appropriate response to a new condition in writing today: faced with an unprecedented amount of available text, the problem is not needing to write more of it; instead, we must learn to negotiate the vast quantity that exists. How I make my way through this thicket of information—how I manage it, how I parse it, how I organize and distribute it—is what distinguishes my writing from yours."

Tom Wolfe: "The first line of the doctors’ Hippocratic oath is ‘First, do no harm.’ And I think for the writers it would be: ‘First, entertain.’"

विलास सारंग: "… . . 1000 नंतर ज्या प्रकारची संस्कृती रुढ झाली , त्यामध्ये साधारणत्व विश्वात्मकता हे गुण प्राय: लुप्त झाले...आपली संस्कृती अकाली विश्वात्मक साधारणतेला मुकली आहे."

Saturday, December 04, 2021

In Fourth Dimension, Be a Monster or Solve Sudokus


John Gray, ‘The Immortalization Commission: Science and the Strange Quest to Cheat Death’, 2011:

“....Lenin's tomb was designed by AV Shchusev, an architect involved in the constructivist movement and influenced by Kazimir Malevich, the founder of suprematism. Malevich viewed abstract geometrical forms as the embodiment of a higher reality. Believing that Lenin's cube-shaped mausoleum represented a "fourth dimension" where death did not exist, he suggested that Lenin's followers keep a cube in their homes. The proposal was adopted by the party, and cubic shrines to the dead leader were set up in "Lenin corners" in offices and factories. Shchusev's design reflected Malevich's belief in the occult properties of the cube. At a meeting of the funeral commission in January 1924, Shchusev declared: "Vladimir Ilyich is eternal . . . In architecture the cube is eternal. Let the mausoleum derive from a cube." He then sketched a design made of three cubes, which the commission accepted....”

 Matt Parker, ‘Things to Make and Do in the Fourth Dimension: A Mathematician's Journey Through Narcissistic Numbers, Optimal Dating Algorithms, at Least Two Kinds of Infinity, and More’, 2014:
 “....As humans, we live in a three-dimensional world. We are 3D creatures, and as a 3D creature I find no concept as terrifying as the notion of encountering a 4D creature. Such an organism would be god-like to us and, were it the slightest bit malicious, it could torment and destroy us at will. Humans are not equipped physically or mentally to deal with a fourth dimension, so any higher-dimensional being would have the ultimate tactical advantage.

There’s a reasonably accurate description of an interdimensional fight in the comic 1963 – Tales of the Uncanny (published in 1993). The story ‘It Came from … Higher Space!’ features a 4D protagonist attacking a 3D victim. It was written by comic-book legend Alan Moore (author of Watchmen, V for Vendetta, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and many others) and the monster appears as a collection of hovering, disjointed body parts which move and morph around in the air. It starts as a series of wisps in mid-air which balloon out into 3D and are described as being almost like doughnuts made of meat. Not appealing.

We can explain the disjointed nature of the 4D monster by looking at what would happen if we, as 3D creatures, attacked a 2D creature. Being 3D means that the space we operate in extends in three different directions: side to side, backwards and forwards, and up and down. A 2D creature can move only in two directions: it’s constrained to a flat surface. Let’s imagine a hypothetical creature who is completely flat – a hypoflatical, say – living in a completely thin universe, so thin that it would appear as a piece of paper does to us. We could loom as close to it in an up or down direction as we want and, because the hypoflatical has no concept of a third dimension, it would have no idea we were there. The third dimension provides perfect cover. Time to mount our own terrifying attack on a lesser-dimensional being – and all it takes is a move in the third direction into its two-dimensional world....”


"Time passes more slowly in that dimension, so take these sudokus."  

Artist: Edward Steed, The New Yorker, June 2016