Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	zodiac 204.238.24.4	13-Mar-06/2:03 PM
The better math is at replicating (or whatever the word is) reality, the better it's considered, right? But I can make art about nothing that's ever happened, art that actually contradicts reality, and it can still be considered great art. Closeness to reality is not the main factor in art's greatness, like it is for math.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	ALChemy 24.74.100.11	13-Mar-06/2:00 PM
Divine as in beyond our ability to form a definition within our own logic. Anything we come up with mathematically will only explain a god that's bound by mathematics. Far short of divine by this definition.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	ecargo 167.219.88.140	13-Mar-06/1:58 PM
New "things"--such as? How is art any less interpretive of what already exists than math?
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	ecargo 167.219.88.140	13-Mar-06/1:52 PM
Oh, I give him credit all right. UVA/OoB has the problem with it. IMDB has three Fred Ott acting credits (he plays himself in two): The Kiss (1900) .... Himself Edison Kinetoscopic Record of a Sneeze (1894) .... Sneezing Man ... aka Fred Ott's Sneeze Fred Ott Holding a Bird (1894) .... Himself Full time?
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	zodiac 204.238.24.4	13-Mar-06/1:51 PM
Because math is hardly ever inspired or sublime. Before someone goes nuts about genius mathematicians making wild, sublime deductive leaps, let me explain: Math even at its best is only be a description of what already exists. Art actually brings new things into existence. If you disagree, you don't understand math or art.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	ALChemy 24.74.100.11	13-Mar-06/1:50 PM
-and yes, I googled my ass off on this one.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	ALChemy 24.74.100.11	13-Mar-06/1:48 PM
If you except Fred Ott as an actor then you have to except The Sneeze. With that part approved let's proceed. You must allow Edison in as a factor in the linkage as Ott appeared alone in the films he did. With that said, here's what I got: 1.Ott to Edison in The Sneeze 2.Edison to Bronco Billy Anderson in The Great Train Robbery 3.Anderson to Chaplin in The Champ 4.Chaplin to Sophia Loren in The Countess of Hong Kong 5.Sophia Loren to William Devane in La Mortadella 6.Devane to Bacon in Hollow Man
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	zodiac 204.238.24.4	13-Mar-06/1:44 PM
For one, "Edison Kinetoscopic Record of a Sneeze", in which Fred Ott sneezes, is one of Ott's two acting credits. The other one involves doing something on one of Edison's test recordings, too. If you can't count those, you can't rightly call Ott an actor. Ergo, the question's bunk. For two, the man friggin' sneezes on, like, the first film ever. Give him some credit. I'd like to run it by UVA and see what they think. When I actually did this full-time, OOB was my Bible. I bet they're looking for actor-actor connections, and not actor-director or actor-producer. Considering Ott's alone in the films he's in, that would make things kind of difficult.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	ecargo 167.219.88.140	13-Mar-06/1:41 PM
Ah, now, Mr. Provacateur, how is using math to interpret the divine (if that's what D was doing here--I took it as the reverse, in a sense) analogous to monkeys throwing poop at the Sistine Chapel? Is the medium not sufficient or insufficiently beautiful (as opposed to, say, paint or words)?
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	ecargo 167.219.88.140	13-Mar-06/1:39 PM
Wow--that's impressive. Maybe you should e-mail it to UVA's Oracle of Bacon, which says: "fred ott has a Kevin Bacon number of infinity. fred ott cannot be linked to Kevin Bacon using only feature films. About 12% of all actors cannot be linked to the rest of the movie universe, either because they have appeared only in TV features or straight-to-video releases that the Oracle doesn't count, or because they have not appeared in any features with actors from the Hollywood mainstream." On second thought, I doubt "Edison Kinetoscopic Record of a Sneeze" would fit their criteria.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	zodiac 204.238.24.4	13-Mar-06/1:32 PM
I had to cheat and google. Here's what I got: 1. Ott to Edison (director) in "Edison Kinetoscopic Record of a Sneeze" 2. Edison (producer) to Vivian Reed in The Patchwork Girl of Oz 3. Reed to Jimmy Stewart in Vivacious Lady 4. Stewart to Kathleen Quinlan in Airport '77 5. Quinlan (Tom Hanks' wife) to Kevin Bacon in Apollo 13.
Re: Call me Floyed by FreeFormFixation	Ranger 62.252.32.15	13-Mar-06/1:23 PM
I don't know the Bob and Tom show, but this was still good fun.
Re: -untitled- by MacFrantic	Ranger 62.252.32.15	13-Mar-06/1:22 PM
Except for stanza 2 this made me think of a news photographer, possibly a war reporter in a darkroom developing photographs (not that he'd be doing much else in a darkroom, I assume). Not sure what to make of stanza 2. I like the choice of language here, although it's fairly zany in places it nonetheless retains a semblance of sense. I struggle with 'Diphthong's ripe imbalance' though. Enjoyed. 8
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	ALChemy 24.74.100.11	13-Mar-06/12:54 PM
OK now for one of the one's considered unlinkable. Fred Ott. (hint)-Fred Ott was a lab technician for Thomas Edison.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	ALChemy 24.74.100.11	13-Mar-06/12:45 PM
Damn good. I had: 1.Bacon w/Gary Oldman in JFK 2. Oldman w/Monica Bellucci in Dracula 3. Bellucci w/Agent Smith guy in The Matrix trilogy 4. Agent Smith guy in Lord of the Rings Directed by Peter Jackson 5. Peter Jackson directed King Kong.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	ALChemy 24.74.100.11	13-Mar-06/12:39 PM
I believe trying to describe the devine with math is like trying to paint a perfect replica of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel using monkeys throwing poop at it. Actually I think monkeys throwing poop would be a lot more fun to watch. If she can make it beautiful then she's one hell of a poop slinger.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	ALChemy 24.74.100.11	13-Mar-06/12:23 PM
Besides if any Greek philosopher is going to make it into a Christain heaven it's Plato.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	zodiac 206.174.124.170	13-Mar-06/12:18 PM
Very easy. From the remake: 1. King Kong to Naomi Watts 2. Watts to Sean Penn in 21 Grams 3. Penn to Kevin Bacon in Mystic River. From the original: 1. King Kong to Bruce Cabot (the orig. Jack Driscoll) 2. Cabot to John Wayne in Chisum 3. John Wayne to Robert Duvall in True Grit 4. Duvall to Tom Cruise in Days of Thunder 5. Cruise to Kevin Bacon in Top Gun.
Re: Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	ecargo 167.219.88.140	13-Mar-06/11:04 AM
My ex is a mathematician, and though I didn't come away from our relationship with much real knowledge or understanding of mathematics, I did come away with some appreciation of mathematical aesthetics (in part from long hours spent struggling with _Godel, Escher, Bach_ and the like). He had a knack for making me understand, if only superficially and mostly by analogy (not being math brained), why he saw such beauty in numbers (even if, as Erdos said, ". . . you don't see why [numbers are beautiful], someone can't tell you. I know numbers are beautiful. If they aren't beautiful, nothing is.") Your treatments, frankly, don't make me see that beauty. I'm not saying that to be a jerk. Maybe it's that you don't give enough information or make the necessary connections. Or maybe it's that your observations seem, I don't know, somewhat contradictory or superficial. For example--what's the significance of 183? It's not a prime (though you go on to extol primes). It's odd, true, but so? Maybe the problem is that I just don't bring the necessary math chops to the table, but I don't think it's that alone. You tap into a long tradition of seeing numbers as divinely inspired (I think that's part of what you're saying), from Gallileo to Erdos (not a believer, but he liked the divine analogy well enough) and beyond. And the reference to the the Platonic--abstract, unchanging truths--gives this some context it might otherwise lack. But some of it doesn't seem to hang together or perhaps just isn't fleshed out enough. I do think your subject choices are often unusual and ambitious, which is commendable. And you do have a knack for inspiring reaction!
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	ALChemy 24.74.100.11	13-Mar-06/10:44 AM
I agree. At least for now.