trans-space communication - hannah weiner

i am interested in exploring methods of communication that will be understood face to face or at any distance, regardless of language, country or planet or origin, by all sending and receiving.

for three years i have used the international code of signals to make poems and poetry events, because this code makes available and possible the translation of simultaneous equivalents:

• flashing light (by morse): abstract visual
• sound signaling (by morse): abstact aural
• live semaphore: motion
• fixed semaphore: motion
• flag hoists: concrete visual
• radio: electronic
• words (including equivalent translations in seven different languages

i consider this code an exploration of linear communication, which has served the binary neurological function of the brain. the most useful thing for me here, in the code, is the understanding of the equivalents:  one kind of signal may equally be substituted for another with the exact same meaning.  it then becomes very clear when a different, non-linear thinking appears, as in "knights thinking" (schizophrenic thinking). Here, as in the chess game, the move is two up in a linear fashion, but then one jump to the side, to a conclusion or a connection that may baffle the listener if he is expecting a linear-casual relationship.

lately my own explorations have dealt with the use of minimal clues: how much information can be received, and how accurately, through how little means.  for example, a television set with its back to the audience and no sound on represents an equivalent translation of movement into light through an electronic medium but offers little information; (negative shadows?). half a ping pong game may readily give the nature of the whole, half a telephone conversation may not.  when is movement a more efficient means of communication than words?  for what complexities of thought?  do different complexities require different methods of communication?  and how do we judge when to use what?

the amount of information available has more than doubled since ww2.  in the next etn years it will double again.  how do we deal with it?

1. do we use more than the 5% of the brain now in use?
2. do we process quicker?
3. do we decode information more and put it in another form (not language) so that the present brain can handle it?
4. is there a change in the neural circuits of the brain?

if the last, is this a change from a binary to an analog system in the brain?  is this a mutant? is this a quantum jump to a different energy level? is there a new form of communication to accomodate these changes? is it here? has it yet to be developed?  has it any relationship to "knights thinking?"  or hauntology? has it any relationship to changes in so-called  "states of consciousness?"  is it analogous, circular, field or some other non-linear system?

what relation will this new form have, or has already, to the high incidence of television, telephone and other electronic communication, to the fact that dr. sackett, at the university of wisconson, has discovered that monkeys reared in isolation have more adaptive learning facilities when the brain has been directly stimulated by electrodes?

at the moment i am interested in exploring methods of communication through space; considering space as space fields or space solids; through great distances of space; through small distances, such as the space between the nucleus and the electrons of an atom; through distances not ordinarily related to the form of communication used.  i am interested in doing this so that we may develop methods of communication that will be understood face to face, or at any distance, regardless of language, country, or planet of origin, by all sending and receiving.  for me this implies an understanding of four, five, (and six?) dimensional space; of how what can be transmitted through this space; of how these special dimensions relate to different "states of consciousness" and to different neurological patterns (if any). 

send replies to:box 619

woodstock, n.y.