Performativizing Papyrocentricity #33

Papyrocentric Performativity Presents:

Wattir an WirdsThe Strange Adventures of Mr Andrew Hawthorn & Other Stories, John Buchan (Penguin Books 2009)

Caveat LectorWill This Do? The First Fifty Years of Auberon Waugh, Auberon Waugh (Century 1991)


Or Read a Review at Random: RaRaR

Fiat Flux

Q. How many Guardianistas does it take to change a light-bulb?

A. In terms of an initial / preliminary response around this obviously loaded question, I’d like to begin by problematicizing the notion that it is possible to erect an overt illuminational hierarchy whereby notions of “light” are privileged over notions of “darkness” through deployment of an “objective” and/or “value-free” modality of environmental interrogation via soi disant “sensory” channels. Next, it will (of course) be vital to undertake an in-depth consultation-exercise / impact-assessment with any and all vulnerable minority-communities of ethnicity, sexuality, gender-fluidity and/or other alternate ontology. We must ensure, on a keyly non-negotiable basis of absolute core non-negotiability, that their “fringe” inputs are prioritized on an on-going basis in terms of the decision-making process taking place around the problematicized notion of “changing” the allegedly “dead” so-called “bulb”. Issues around adequate resourcing of the consultation-exercise / impact-assessment must be addressed as a matter of urgency, with ring-fenced contingencies in place safeguarding provision of all necessary trauma counselling for vulnerable communities and/or individuals adversely impacted on a negative basis by the “bulb”-transitioning procedure and/or (indeed) the consultation-exercise / impact-assessment it/them/self/ves. Furthermore…

The Son Also Rises

Vatican Clarification on Filioque

[…] We grant that the Holy Spirit proceeds principally from the Father, in the technical sense. That means, the Father is his principal without principal. It is not that the Spirit proceeds “less” from the Son. But that the Son, his principal, is himself from a principal. In short, the teaching here shores up the monarchy of the Father.

But it is odd to say that the HS proceeds from the Father alone in a “proper” manner. Is this opposed to an “improper” manner? Does it mean the term “proceeds” should not be linked to the Son? Does it mean that “proceeds” means only coming from an ultimate principal? Why then should the document include the expression “proceeds (ekporeuetai) from the Father through the Son?” Wouldn’t that be oxymoronic? Or is “proper” simply a redundant synonym for “principal”? These are questions. […]

Vatican Clarification on Filioque, Thomistica.net, 7/xi/2014.

M.i.P. Trip

The Latin phrase multum in parvo means “much in little”. It’s a good way of describing the construction of fractals, where the application of very simple rules can produce great complexity and beauty. For example, what could be simpler than dividing a square into smaller squares and discarding some of the smaller squares?

Yet repeated applications of divide-and-discard can produce complexity out of even a 2×2 square. Divide a square into four squares, discard one of the squares, then repeat with the smaller squares, like this:

2x2square2


2x2square3


Increase the sides of the square by a little and you increase the number of fractals by a lot. A 3×3 square yields these fractals:

3x3square2


3x3square3


3x3square6


3x3square7


3x3square8


3x3square9


3x3square10


And the 4×4 and 5×5 fractals yield more:
4x4square1


4x4square2



4x4square4


4x4square5


4x4square6


4x4square7


4x4square8


5x5square1


5x5square2


5x5square3


5x5square4


5x5square5


5x5square6


5x5square7


5x5square8