Sunday, February 19, 2012

Same/different iterations

In my comments to a fractal video Balder posted I showed some correlations between deconstructive and fractal iteration. I found an article by Katherine Hayles called “Chaos as orderly disorder” wherein she says:

“Derrida's deconstructive methodology is strikingly similar to the mathematical techniques
of chaos theory.

"Recall that Feigenbaum attributed the universal element in chaotic systems to the fact that they were generated from iterative functions. He showed that for certain functions, individual differences in the equations are overwhelmed as iteration proceeds, so tha t even though the systems become chaotic, they do so in predictable or regulated ways. Derrida claims that his iterative methodology is similarly regulated, in the sense that its production of undecidables is not a capricious exercise but a rigorous exposition of the text's inherent indeterminacies. For both Derrida and Feigenbaum, iterative methodology is closely tied in with the concept of the fold. Feigenbaum showed that systems which make orderly transitions to chaos always have folds in their iterative paths. Within the complex regions created by these folds, orbits wander in unpredictable ways. Where does this unpredictability come from? Since the iterative formulae and computer programs that enact them are perfectly deterministic, it could only come from the initial conditions. Iteration produces chaos because it magnifies and brings into view these initial uncertainties. Similarly, Derrida attributes textual indeterminacy to the inherent inability of linguistic systems to create an origin. In Derrida, the fold marks the absence of an origin, just as the inability to specify initial conditions with infinite accuracy marks the onset of chaos for Feigenbaum. Thus nonlinear dynamics and deconstruction share not just a general attitude toward chaos, but specific methodologies and assumptions.”

In noting the differences between the above iterations she says:

“Where deconstructionists see an apocalyptic break with logocentrism, scientists are likely to think of their work as a continuation of what went before. To a deconstructionist, to say someone is a recuperator is a damning comment; for most scientists recuperation is not an issue, because they see their work as enhancing rather than discrediting traditional scientific paradigms.”

If one reads the "what 'is' the differance?" thread they will see this is not the case, particularly this post.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.