on time

writing keeps ideas in space

speech lets them travel in time

we use paintings to decorate space

music to decorate time

and movies to capture spacetime

«algún día recordaremos, recordaremos», se decía con la seguridad de que el origen de la fiesta, como todos los gestos del hombre, existía intacto en el tiempo y que bastaba un esfuerzo, un querer ver, para leer en el tiempo la historia del tiempo.

on time

note mentions

  • this is a collection of notes that i've written over time, mostly for myself. in the spirit of working with garage doors open, i've published them and open sourced this website. works under writing are original, my notes a mix of thoughts with quotes from the artwork subject of the note.













    • ∴ (therefore)
    • → (if then)
    • ↔ (if and only if)
    • (consequence of)
    • ≔ (definition)
    • ⫫ (independent from)
    • ∵ (because)
    • ∃, ∄ (there exists/does not exist)
    • ∈, ∉ (belongs to/does not belong to)

    ⠀ ⠀

    ⠀ ⠀

    writing keeps ideas in space

    speech lets them travel in time

    we use paintings to decorate space

    and music to decorate time

    ⠀ ⠀

    ⠀ ⠀

    find the way by moonlight

    see the dawn before

    the rest of the world

    ⠀ ⠀

    ⠀ ⠀

    unconscious time, no peace of mind,

    falling in space but still alive.

    sketching the future in a single line,

    everything's spinning, cannot sit down.

    moments in space, places in time,

    thoughts penciled in, now come to life.

    ⠀ ⠀

    ⠀ ⠀

    As of today, no one knows how to translate paintings, flowers or music into language. Their beauty is implicit and exclusive to their form, which is why it's so hard to explain how a particular piece of art makes us feel.

    ⠀ ⠀

    ⠀ ⠀

    Eduardo Gonzalez





  • the beginning of infinity

    notes on david deutsch's (fascinating) the beginning of infinity (2011), about infinity & universality, memetics and philosophy of science.


    Sep 22, 2021 → Jan 16, 2022

    • "we do not know why the laws of physics seem fine-tuned, why various forms of universality exist, or why the world is explicable. but eventually we shall. And when we do, there will be infinitely more left to explain."
    • "if the question is interesting, the problem is soluble."

    ⠀ ⠀


    curiosity: thinking existing explanations don't fully capture the ideas behind them, being unsatisfied with current stories.

    • guessing is ∴ the single process thought which all knowledge originates: wonder → guessing → conjecture → speculation, which is vital for discovery.
    • when stories/explanations can't be changed anymore, we have understood objective truth, and, like magic, what we understand we then control.
    • the only path for knowledge creation is then error-correcting → finding good explanations (conjecture+criticism+experiment) = progress.
    • there can ∴ be no aspects of reality beyond our brain's capacity: if (brain capacity==computational speed + memory) we can use the computer, just like we have used pen and paper to understand the world for centuries.

    ⠀ ⠀

    creativity: ability to create and replicate ideas to increase the amount of usable knowledge.

    • parrots copy sounds, apes copy movements, but humans create: it's (conjecture+criticism+experiment) to form good explanations of other's behaviour and the world → this is creativity.
    • must be an evolutionary process within brains since it depends on conjecture (variation) and criticism (selection).
    • human brains are physical objects that evolved to replicate ideas (Blackmore). thoughts are computations permitted under the laws of nature.

    ⠀ ⠀

    ideas: information that can be stored in human brains and affects behaviour.

    • knowledge is created by human thought, preserved and transmitted by human culture (not genetically, which is why some humans are able to survive in jungle and others in the arctic)
    • abstract language, explanations, wealth above subsistence and long-range trade gave power to ideas. by the time history began to be recorded, it was the history of ideas.

    ⠀ ⠀

    culture: set of ideas that cause holders to behave alike.

    • ideas are rarely expressed with the same words and can vary in both written and spoken language. yet, they stay the same idea.
    • if a parrot repeats Aristotle, sound is there but knowledge (replicator) isn't → replicators of ideas are abstract, they're the knowledge itself.
    • reach of ideas in world of abstraction is a property of knowledge they contain. theory can have infinite reach even if person is unaware.
    • for centuries, people have tried to explain the mind in mechanical terms, using metaphors based on the most complex machines of the day (complicated set of gears, hydraulic pipes, steam engines, telephone exchanges, and now, the computer.)
    • but "brain=engine" ≠ "brain=computer": computers are universal simulators. expecting them to behave like neurones is not a metaphor, it's a known proven property of physics and computers

    ⠀ ⠀


    some aspects of nature (night sky, waterfalls, sunsets) seem to be beautiful to humans but show no signs of being designed with this intention. However, flowers do seem to have an apparent design for beauty.

    • flowers need insects to bring them pollen and insects need flowers to get. how these 2 wildly distinct species evolve to communicate this?
    • flower evolved genes to make their shape attractive to insects, which bring pollen. insects evolved genes that attract them to flowers with the best nectar (most beautiful ones)
    • nature seems to have used beauty to allow these 2 wildly distinct species to communicate.

    humans recognizing that flowers are beautiful even though they evolved this way for unrelated purposes is evidence that some beauty is objective: it can be found in all places from the flower's genome to human minds.

    • flowers have to create objective beauty and insects have to recognize objective beauty.
    • beauty then must exist in 2 kinds: subjective(local to species/culture/individuals, parochial) and objective(universal).
    • ⤷ local and subjective/parochial criteria of beauty evolved within a species to produce something that looks beautiful to us.

    • if beauty can be objective like the laws of nature and mathematical theorems, then new works of art must add new knowledge to the world just like scientific theories do.

    ⠀ ⠀


    optimism: all failures are due to insufficient knowledge.

    • optimism in civilizations has led to mini-enlightenments, traditions of criticisms that lead to patterns of human progress: art, philosophy, science, technology and open institutions.
    • Athen's Golden Age (V. bc): one of firsts democracies. home to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, the playwrights Aeschylus, Aristophanes, Euripides and Sophocles, and the historians Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophon.
    • democratic tradition dated back to Thales (6th C. BCE) and Xenophanes (570-480 BCE). Pericles argued (Funeral Oration, 431 BCE) it existed not because people should rule but because it promotes wise action (continual discussion, necessary condition for discovery and progress)
    • Florentine's believe of improving ancient knowledge. began in art, then philosophy, science and technology. led to humanism (knowledge > dogma, intellectual independence, curiosity, taste)
    • progress implies discoveries are inconceivable. dynamic societies are those that expect their knowledge to grow unpredictably.
    • Popper's criterion is met by societies that expect their knowledge to grow unpredictably ∴ he's an optimist, progress implies discoveries are inconceivable.

    enlightenment: 1688 (English Enlightenment), inconceivable a century earlier.

    • success at making scientific discoveries implies commitment to values of progress: truth, good explanations, open to ideas and change, tolerance, integrity, openness of debate.
    • necessary condition for progress: change meant new authorities replaced old ones, so tradition of criticism was needed to sustain rapid growth of knowledge.
    • Universal theories of justices, legitimacy and morality began to take place alongside universal theories of matter and motion as philosophers set out to free institutions from arbitrary rules. (Locke→political) universality was now a desirable feature.
    • emergence of methodical rule that scientific theories must be testable, rebellion against authority of knowledge. "problems as soluble and inevitable, progress is attainable and desirable."

    static societies: people could expect to die under the same values, lifestyles, technology and patterns of economic production.

    • universality needs appreciation of abstract knowledge for its own/to yield unforeseeable benefits. unnatural in static societies.
    • small populations + parochial knowledge → big ideas are set millennia apart.
    • if way of life leads to more efficient methods of living (farming, medicine...) it is not sustainable → population grows, fewer workers are needed ∴ live the solution and set about solving the new problems it creates. only progress is sustainable.

    humans alone are authors of explanatory knowledge, the human behaviour called history.

    • Knowledge alone converts landscapes into resources or prevents improvements (≠Marx, Engels). ideas and not biogeographical explanations account for events: can't explain the fall of the USSR with climate, minerals or flora/fauna.
    • Marx's theory of history was evolutionary and described a progression though historical stages, determined by economic "laws of motion". He used Darwin's theory as a basis for the historical class struggle (biological species ≈ socio-economic classes). Facsist groups use this and other misinterpretations of evolution to justify violence.
    • (presence of gene is always explained as being caused by more replications than rival genes. competition in biological evolution is between variant of genes within a species: can produce violence or cooperation.)

    ⠀ ⠀


    nature of science can be understood with theories=misconceptions

    • Einstein doesn't correct Newton but is radically different (gravitational force, uniform flow of time in respect to motion). same with Kepler and Newton. each ignores and denies its predecessors' basic means of explaining reality.
    • explanations were never true ∴ successive explanations ≠ growth of knowledge about reality.
    • Einstein's misconception of Gravity was an improvement on Newton's misconception, which was an improvement on Kepler's. neo-Darwinian evolution is an improvement on Darwin's misconception, and his on Lamarck's. No infallibility nor finality.

    scientific method: increasingly difficult to ignore philosophical implications of the fact that nature had been understood in unprecedented depth, and of the methods of science and reason by which it was done.

    • perhaps it started with Galileo and became irreversible with newton. (his laws replicated themselves as rational ideas and fidelity was very high as they were so useful)
    • no way of missing rapid that progress was underway after newton. (some like Rousseau tried by arguing reason as harmful, civilization as bad and primitive live as happy).
    • No process can reveal the content and consequences of a discovery before it is made. scientific discovery is ∴ unpredictable but determined by the laws of physics

    evolution: optimizes neither good of species or individual, but the relative ability of surviving variants to spread through population. it favours only genes that spread best.

    • peacock's colourful tail: diminishes viability and harder to evade predators but prominent mating ∴ offspring has more prominent tails, ↻.

    genetic code as language for organisms has shown phenomenal reach.

    • genes replicate themselves by an indirect chemical route, being templates for similar molecules. evolved to specify organisms without having a nervous system, organs, senses, ability to exert force or move.
    • knowledge embodied in genes describes how to get replicated and functionality is achieved by encoding regularities in environments. complexity ≠ evolutionary adaptation. Darwin crystallized this: random mutations are discarded by natural selection.
    • might not be universal since it relies on specific chemicals (proteins) but could be universal constructor (created from inorganic materials like calcium phosphate in bones, programs organisms to construct outside their bodies: nests, dams, houses...)
    • RNA acts as the program which directs the synthesis of enzymes (catalysts, promotes change to other chemicals while remaining unchanged itself) catalysts control all chemical production and regulatory functions of an organism ∴ ≔ organism itself.

    evolution of biological adaptations and creation of human knowledge are similar (ideas and genes are replicators, knowledge and adaptation hard to vary) yet distinct (human knowledge as explanatory and with reach, contrary to adaptations.)

    ⠀ ⠀

    quantum physics

    quantum theory discovered independently by Heisenberg and Schrödinger between 1935 and 1927.

    • Heisenberg: physical variables of a particle are matrices, not values. we now know multiplicity of information is due because a variable has different values for different instances of the object in the multiverse.
    • Heisenberg uncertainty principle: for any fungible collection of instances of a physical object, some of their attributes must be diverse.
    • Schrödinger: mathematical equations that describes a single wave moving in a higher-dimensional space, when applied to an individual particle.
    • Bohr: Copenhagen interpretation, quantum theory as the complete description of reality and only outcomes of observations count as phenomena, they can't exist objectively.
      • proposed the principle of complementarity: phenomena can only be stated in classical language, anthropocentric language, meaning that the transition is caused by human consciousness ∴ acting at a fundamental level in physics.
      • Nothing is ever derived from observation: Mach (positivist), influenced Einstein to eliminate untested assumption from physics, including Newton's idea the time flows at the same rate for all observers.
      • Einstein soon rejected positivism in favour of realism, which explains why he never accepted the Copenhagen interpretation.

    issue: not consistent when applied to the case of an observer performing quantum measurements on another observer.

    • classical physics measures change in quantifiable quantities, quantum physics measures change in discrete variables and their proportions.
    • new type of motion, information flow and structure of the physical world: all objects contain information about which instances of it can interact with instances of other objects and different times are special cases of different universes → time is an entanglement phenomenon which places all equal clock readings into the same history.

    ⠀ ⠀

    history of computers

    • → calculations used to be done by clerks called "computers".

    computational universality should have happened with Babbage's Difference Engine (1820s), which had rules of arithmetic built into hardware to to automate log, cos, sin (used in navigation and engineering).

    • Lovelace argued that The Analytical Engine has no pretensions whatever to originate anything. It can do whatever we know how to order it to perform. can follow analysis but no power of anticipating any analytical truths. Alan Turing called this mistake ‘Lady Lovelace’s objection’. Lovelace failed to appreciate not computational universality, but the universality of the laws of physics.
    • addition of memory and control over which cards to read next (Analytical Engine) → jump to universality.

    193# electrical relays for the analytical engine were just being used for the first applications of electromagnetism and were about to be mass produced for the telegraphy revolution.

    Turing Test: The general-purpose sense of Intelligence that Turing meant (constellation of attributes of the human mind) puzzled philosophers for a millennia. (others are consciousness, free will and meaning).

    • requiring a program to pretend to be human is biased and not relevant to know whether it can think, but it is easy to identify it as a computer if it doesn't.
    • if it can be programmed, it has nothing to do with intelligence –in Turing's sense (can't program it → haven't understood it.)
    • 1936: Turing develops his definitive theory of universal classical computer. His intention is to use the theory to study the nature of mathematical proof, not universality. The development of the first universal computers was for wartime applications.
    • Colossus (🇬🇧, Turing): code breaking → dismantled.
    • ENIAC (🇺🇸): equations -> universality (weather, h-bomb forecast)
    • the early telegraph system, even before the computer, did create an internet-like phenomenon among the operators, with ‘hackers, on-line romances and weddings, chat-rooms, flame wars... and so on’.
    • 1970s: Electronic technology has been miniaturized since WW2, this led to a jump to universality with silicon chips.
    • From then on, designers start with a microprocessor and program it to do specific tasks: washing machines are controlled by a computer that could be programmed to do astrophysics or word processing with enough memory.

    Quantum computation: Computation in which the flow of information is not confined to a single history.

    beginning of infinity

    • Einstein doesn't correct Newton but is radically different (gravitational force, uniform flow of time in respect to motion). same with Kepler and Newton. each ignores and denies its predecessors' basic means of explaining reality.
      • Nothing is ever derived from observation: Mach (positivist), influenced Einstein to eliminate untested assumption from physics, including Newton's idea the time flows at the same rate for all observers.
    • new type of motion, information flow and structure of the physical world: all objects contain information about which instances of it can interact with instances of other objects and different times are special cases of different universes → time is an entanglement phenomenon which places all equal clock readings into the same history.
  • discipline and punish

    michel foucault, 1975

    Seems to be a history of criminology, but Foucault is making a much deeper analysis

    • signaling where the structures of power lie in society
    • the relationship between people in power and the average citizen

    Foucault strong disliked the term "history" He argued that the notion of history as constant progress leading to the endpoint of current civilization is wrong. He wanted to explore how structures of power have changed over time.

    He starts Discipline and Punish describing punishments from 1757 and arguing that one has to do more than just assume moral superiority and dismiss those times as barbarian. That is the key to understanding the similarities between the power structures and relations of the 1750s and today.

    It is important to understand that old punishments like those of Ch.I happened before the American and French revolution ∴ not modeled after the Enlightenment, but after a renaissance interpretation of Hobbes’ Leviathan and Machiavelli's The Prince.

    Punishments were crafted to uphold the Social Contract ∴ crimes were seen as a direct attack on the authority of the king. Here lie the clues to understand the function of the penal system of the 1750s: Neither justice nor fairness, but maintaining social order.

    • Extreme punishments were a deterrent of criminal behavior and reinforcement that the sovereign was still upholding his end of the social order.

    What happens when the power structure no longer serves the needs of the people?

    These extremes public punishments had 2 major unintended consequences. First, the population frequently agreed that punishment>crime and often sided with the criminal, questioning the authority of the sovereign. Second, since public punishments leave no doubt of who is in power, whenever people were not receiving their end of the social contract, there was no doubt as to who to blame.

    People of power soon realized that in their society, the will of the people often had influence over which people were in positions of power. This was very inconvenient for the sovereigns, as it made reigning for long periods of time statistically challenging.

    1757-1837: In order to make power more sustainable, drastic changes had to be made. Foucault argues that the reasons for these changes don’t have to be evil per-se, politicians often only looked at ways of keeping society in peace.

    • Public executions with severe punishments
    • 1790s: Public executions with standardized punishments (Guillotine)
    • Public executions with prisoners being transported in sealed vehicles
    • Public executions with masks
    • Executions moved into courthouse
    • Executions moved to prisons and are now completely private.

    Impossible not to be aware of → Abstract, far, unimportant

    Why do people who want to maintain structures of power prefer systems like this?

    By 1837, two main things had changed

    Emergence of the modern prison system. Much more efficient and effective way of waving power over people.

    Prisoners had every minute of their days scheduled → not much time for thinking

    Surveillance, Normalization, Examination

    • 24/7 Surveillance of prisoners
    • Normalization of how a "good prisoner" should think and behave
    • Constant examination, grading how much of a "good prisoner" you are.

    Foucault thinks this system might have its origins in the works of Jeremy Bentham.

    Panopticon: Building designed so that one in power can see everything every prisoner is doing all the time, but the prisoner is unable to know when he’s being watched. Bentham argued that this would leave prisoners with no choice but to behave as expected every single second.

    All this is much more than just a narration of prison history. Foucault is analyzing how Bentham’s Panopticon is a way of obtaining "power of mind over mind." What stops mental institutions, military trainings, factories, multinational corporations or schools from implementing this design?

    No need to treat employees/patients/students/soldiers as prisoners. Instead, by keeping the leash very loose, people in power could set narrow parameters of what it means to be a good employee/patient/student/soldier.

    If people do not feel like prisoners they will even police themselves to adhere to the normalized way of behaving, because their work life is one of constant surveilling (clocks, deadlines, supervisors, other employees), normalization (speaking, acting, dress codes, political correctness, team player) and examination (monthly evaluations).

    Surveillance, Normalization and Examination has become such a good system of controlling human behavior that it is now embedded in our culture, social circles, media…

    What’s insidious about how modern power keeps people in control today is that people are both subjects being controlled and also active participants in the system that (unknowingly) supports the current power structure.

    Foucault argues that the new goal of the modern penal system is also neither fairness nor justice, but the production of harmless, non-rebellious, working, tax-paying productive citizens who follow the rules and are satisfied with the normalized standard of what it means to be a person, according to people above.

    This explains the stark difference between sentencing of Blue and White Collar crimes:

    • CEO who commits Tax Fraud in the millions vs Store Bulgar
    • CEO doesn't need much correcting in the eyes of those in power (keep doing everything you’re doing, just pay taxes) - 10% go to jail
    • Store Bulgar needs to adhere to how a good citizen is supposed to behave - 90% go to jail

    The goal is reforming criminals to fit a preexisting mold of what a normal person is, not direct retribution for the crime.

    • Sentences drop when prisoners cooperate: as long as you’re willing to reform yourself into the standardized version of what a human should be, it doesn’t really matter what the sentence was.

    People who never change and never reform will eventually end up with life sentences. Foucault argues that it is those kinds of people that are fascinating to us as "normal people." He thinks we love criminals so much because when they refuse to play by the rules of society, they show us what we really are: the law abiding and active participants in a massive global prison.

    Panopticon = modernity

    Constantly being disciplined and reformed into good employees, consumers, students, voters –internalized expectations of ourselves given to us by someone in a position of power.

    We’re given standards by TV Shows, Movies, Books, etc. We have internalized standards of how we should look, what beauty is, what you should care about, what you can and can’t say, etc…

    No prison of method of torture ever devised that can doo to people what they willingly do to themselves in our modern social prison. We live in a Panopticon.

    We have created a world where we are in constant surveillance by ourselves. Surveillance by looking in the mirror.

    Genealogy of the modern soul. The media even gives you the vocabulary you have ∴ the only vocabulary you have to think of yourself as a person

    Billy the Kid, Bonny and Clyde, what happens when you put a criminal beloved by the people in the execution room?

    discipline and punish

    Foucault strong disliked the term "history" He argued that the notion of history as constant progress leading to the endpoint of current civilization is wrong. He wanted to explore how structures of power have changed over time. People of power soon realized that in their society, the will of the people often had influence over which people were in positions of power. This was very inconvenient for the sovereigns, as it made reigning for long periods of time statistically challenging.

  • the discrete image

    stiegler agrees with derrida's critique of the opposition of the signifier and the signified, which proposes that language is always already writing, and in order for language to be written, it must already be a writing, a system of traces, a grammatic of discrete elements.

    image mental ∄ → image mental ≔ image object

    • ∄ image-object sans image mental,
    • ∄ image-mental sans image object.
    • image-object lasts, image-mental ephemeral.
    • ∄ image → ∄ imagination sans memoire ∴ question de l'image porte sur traces et inscriptions, ≈ écriture.


    • barthes proposes that photography is ēpokhē to time, memory and death.
    • manipulation is the rule of the digital photo, contrary to the essence
    • one cannot confirm if what I see in a digital photo exists or not ∴ analogico-digital breaks with bazin's objectivité de l'objectif, l'intentionalité (phenomenology)
    • distinguish true and falls is harder, exploited and generalized w/mass media, dangerous panic decomposing social bond.
    • digital technology allows us to manipulate and transform information unlike analog technology.
    • infinitively manipulable but still a photo, it keeps something from the this was.
      • This was but there is something that isn't quite right. this is because analog photo is a technical synthesis.

    3 main types of reproducibility have constituted and overdetermined great epochs of memory and the relations to time in the west. (letter, analog, digital)

    • reproducibility of the letter (written → printed)
    • analog reproducibility (cine, photo → walter benjamin)
    • digital reproducibility
    • analogico-digital image combines 2 reproducibilities (digital, analog) ∴ shows they are not opposed and need to be overcome.
    • the analog image is ∴ always discrete since its reality effects are determined by the photographic (framing, dof) and literal context in which it is inserted. seems continuous but is discrete.

    director/editor's job is to hide the discontinuity by playing with it (analysis), continuity then comes from spectatorial synthesis (done by good artists)

    • animated image ≔ plurality of discontinuous images sequentially connected
    • spectatorial synthesis: the belief that this was is. made by audience (retinal) persistance and expectations of sequential connections
    • discontinuity dissolves all the more effectively the more cleverly it is orchestrated
    • production/realization.

    discretization opens new artistic, theoretical and scientific knowledges of the image.

    • digitization allows the this was to be decomposed analytically by discretizatizing the continuous.
    • barthes's photographic reality effect has now been integrated into all techniques of digital treatment simulation.
    • spectator's relation to the image is ∴ an analytic relation as well.
      • ⤷ the question is the relation between synthesis and analysis.

    3 kinds of images (analog, digital, analogico-digital) → 3 kinds of intuitive technical knowledges (conditions of image production) → 3 different kinds of belief.

    • the visual image is synthetic in 2 ways: synthesis as belief, the this was effect, is a combination of 2 syntheses (spectator and camera). spectator is affected in the way he synthesizes the image.
      • This requires an image-object ∴ technology.
      • synthesis from the subject comes from its knowledge of the technical conditions of an image-object's production.
    • each image, either analog or digital, contains both knowledge and gaps in knowledge. This new awareness leads to a different form of understanding and knowledge. analogico-digital technology of images opens an epoch of analytic apprehension of the image-object.
      • since synthesis is double, new analytic capacities → new synthetic capacities.
      • this discretization breaks up a continuity ∴ changes the way the observer's viewing. (discretization concernant regard est transformé)
    • since greece we live in an era of the relation to language, shaped by the generalization of alphabetic writing (see: on numbers) that gave rise to logic, philosophy and science. the analogico-digital is of the same order.
    • the adoption of alphabetic writing made analysis and synthesis of language much easier. generalization → discretization.
    • relation to the analog image is going to be very discretized as digitazion techniques of animated images become widespread. this will open a critical access to the image and a chance to develop a culture of reception.

    now there's two syntheses (spectator + camera): evolution of technical synthesis → evolution of spectatorial synthesis.

    • new image-objects will create new mental images and another intelligence of movement (not knowledge of the image but a new techno-intuitive knowledge). this will be influenced by other knowledges which opens up "la chance"
    • technology gives us the chance to look at cinema in a different way. analysis (production) and synthesis (consumption) are more connected, making cinema similar to literature.
      • alphabetic writing reveals the discrete characters of language
      • reading and writing (can't do one without the other)
      • implies the rethink of hollywood's schema of analysis/production - synthesis/consumption.
    • technology will make it possible to watch a movie analytically, making text and tv closer than now.
      • we will be able to navigate though the flow of images in a nonlinear way, with toc and indexes (like books), true hypermedia?
    • technological synthesis is not a replica nor double, like writing is not a replication of speech.
    • life (anima, mental image) is always already cinema (animation, image object).

    discrete image

    • barthes proposes that photography is ēpokhē to time, memory and death.