     /      ____
    /      /     /\
   /      /--   /__\
  /______/____ /    \
________________________________________________________________
Leonardo Electronic Almanac  volume 11, number 2,  February 2003
________________________________________________________________
ISSN #1071-4391

                            ____________
                           |            |
                           |  CONTENTS  |
                           |____________|

________________________________________________________________

EDITORIAL
---------
by Patrick Lambelet


FEATURES
--------
< The Scientific and Contemplative Exploration of Consciousness >
by B. Alan Wallace

< Materialism and the Immaterial Mind in the Ge-luk Tradition
of Tibetan Buddhism >
by William Magee

< Project *Amala*: An Artistic Vision of Consciousness in
Buddhism >
by Kok Kee Choy

< Samadhi: The Contemplation of Space >
by Robert C. Morgan

< On Audience Awareness: The "Empathy Factor" in the Work of
Nell Tenhaaf >
by Nina Czegledy


LEONARDO DIGITAL REVIEWS
-------------------------
< Mirror of Consciousness: Art, Creativity and Veda >
Reviewed by Robert Pepperell


ISAST NEWS
-----------
< OLATS News >

________________________________________________________________

                            _______________
                           |               |
                           |   EDITORIAL   |
                           |_______________|

________________________________________________________________

We often discuss consciousness in these pages as if it is a
foregone conclusion that we understand what it actually is. By
exploring fields such as artificial intelligence, artificial
life, virtual reality and so on, we may discover and develop
sophisticated means of replicating human behavior and thought,
but if we ask exactly what is consciousness - a deceptively
simple question - we may very well come up empty-handed.
Scientific research, despite stunning achievements in
investigation and measurement of brain activity, still leaves
many unanswered questions about the mind. Is it merely a physical
entity? Is it resident in the brain, the body, the neurons? Is
consciousness exclusive to the realm of "living beings" or can it
be created artificially? What is its nature and where does it
come from?

Although we may be tempted to regard science as infallible in its
search for truth, if we look into ancient spiritual traditions
such as Hinduism and Buddhism, we find extremely sophisticated
and profound studies of these very questions. These inquiries,
moreover, are not mere theories - they are experiential, based on
active investigation of the inner workings of the mind and the
practice of methods that help to develop and expand the
possibilities of the mind. Recent scientific studies also
increasingly indicate that such practices can have tangible
effects on functions of the brain, improving mental and physical
health [1].

Rather than thinking of these modes of thought as separate -
"science" on the one hand and "religion" on the other - it seems
to me an extremely worthwhile line of inquiry to study where
these views overlap and complement each other, without ignoring
their basic differences. This has, in fact, been a central
concern of numerous symposia and studies in the past few years,
one of the most notable being the Mind and Life conferences, an
annual series of discussions between Western experts in
neurology, psychiatry, cognitive psychology and other fields and
experts on Buddhism, such as the Dalai Lama of Tibet [2]. A
number of books have been published from these conferences,
yielding fascinating insights into the different aspects of these
debates.

I have chosen articles for this issue representing a wide range
of opinions and perspectives on this discourse. B. Alan Wallace,
a pioneer in the interdisciplinary study of science and
contemplative spiritual traditions (and translator for many of
the above-mentioned conferences), contributes an article
addressing the question of why science is able to tell us so
little about the subjective realm of the mind while making such
astonishing discoveries in the realm of the "objective" world.
William Magee looks into the relationship between body and mind
as discussed in Tibetan Buddhist thought, comparing this to
scientific views and to Cartesian notions of body/mind duality.
Robert C. Morgan writes about *Samadhi* - an exhibition he
curated that explores the notion of samadhi, or meditative
concentration, through the eyes of 11 artists. Singaporean artist
Kok Kee Choy discusses *Amala,* an interactive artwork presenting
his vision of the highest level of consciousness as presented in
certain schools of Buddhism. Nina Czegledy discusses the work of
artist Nell Tenhaaf and how this sheds light on studies of
consciousness and artistic practice. Finally, in Leonardo Digital
Reviews, we include a recent review by panelist Robert Pepperell,
which discusses a book about art and the Indian Vedic science of
consciousness.

In these turbulent times, it certainly cannot hurt to explore
ways of thinking that could lead to greater balance and harmony
among people in the world. Therefore, I hope that these articles
can contribute in some way to expanded discussion of these ideas,
as opposed to holding rigidly to our ideas as the only ones of
value.

I would like to thank all the contributors to this issue, who
have been very patient with my constant prodding and tight
deadlines, as well as the peer-reviewers and LEA staff,
especially Nisar Keshvani, who encouraged me to take this project
on.

Patrick Lambelet
Managing Editor, LEA
plambelet@tiscali.it

REFERENCES

1. See Daniel Goleman, "Finding Happiness: Cajole Your Brain to
Lean to the Left," *New York Times,* 4 February, 2003.

2. See www.mindandlife.org for more information on the Mind and
Life Institute. See www.InvestigatingTheMind.org for information
on this year's conference.

________________________________________________________________
                     ______________________________
                    |                              |
                    |           FEATURES           |
                    |______________________________|

________________________________________________________________

< The Scientific and Contemplative Exploration of Consciousness >
by B. Alan Wallace, alanwallace@earthlink.net.

As we enter the twenty-first century and look back on the past
400 years of scientific progress, who can fail to be impressed by
the frontiers of knowledge that have been opened to human
inquiry? The physical sciences have illuminated the realm of the
extremely minute - the inner core of the atomic nucleus; events
in the distant past - the first nanoseconds after the Big Bang;
and phenomena on the far side of the universe - the constitution
of galactic clusters billions of light years away. In the
meantime, the biological sciences have made great discoveries
concerning the evolution of life; they have mapped the human
genome and revealed many of the inner workings of the brain. But
in the midst of such extraordinary knowledge of the objective
world, the subjective realm of consciousness remains largely an
enigma. While neuroscientists examine the brain correlates to the
workings of the human spirit, the actual nature of the mind/body
correlation is still a matter of philosophical conjecture: there
is no hard scientific evidence that explains *how* the mind is
related to the brain. There is no scientific consensus concerning
the definition of consciousness and there are no objective,
scientific means of detecting the presence or absence of
consciousness in anything, mineral, plant, animal or human. In
short, scientists have not yet fathomed the nature of
consciousness, its origins or its role in nature.

How is it possible that something so central to scientific
inquiry, namely human consciousness, remains so elusive? Is it
because it is inherently mysterious or even impenetrable to
scientific inquiry? Or have scientists simply failed thus far to
devise appropriate methods for exploring the frontiers of the
inner spirit? To seek an answer to this question, let us review
the ways in which scientists have successfully explored other
realms of the natural world.

Looking first to the physical sciences, astronomy began to move
beyond its medieval heritage when researchers such as Tycho Brahe
devised instruments for making unprecedentedly accurate
measurements of the relative movements of the planets. Whereas
previous generations of astrologers were content to focus
primarily on the alleged *correlations* between the movements of
celestial bodies and terrestrial events, Brahe made careful
observations of the planets themselves, albeit with the intention
to improve the precision of astrological predictions. Similarly,
Galileo made precise observations of falling bodies and other
terrestrial and celestial phenomena. In short, careful
observations of these natural phenomena themselves were the
necessary basis for the subsequent explanation of *why* these
physical phenomena act as they do.

The life sciences developed in a similar way. In the seventeenth
century, the Dutch naturalist Van Leeuwenhoek used the microscope
to observe minute organisms, and over the centuries this
combination of technology and precise observation of living
organisms led to the development of cell biology, molecular
biology, genetics and neuroscience.

It is important to bear in mind, however, that what these
physicists and biologists were observing were appearances to the
human mind, not external, physical objects existing independently
of consciousness. The mind has always played a central role in
scientific observation and analysis, yet the scientific study of
the mind did not even begin until 300 years had lapsed from the
time of Galileo. The obvious assumption behind this long delay
was that consciousness plays no significant role in nature. But
this is a metaphysical assumption, not a scientific conclusion.
Whether or not that hypothesis is a valid one, it is certainly an
oversight to postpone for three centuries the scientific
examination of one's primary instrument of observation of the
natural world: human consciousness.

At the dawn of the modern science of the mind in the late
nineteenth century, the pioneering American psychologist William
James defined this discipline as the study of subjective mental
phenomena, their relations to their objects, to the brain and to
the rest of the world [1]. He argued that introspective
observation must always be the first and foremost method by which
to study these issues, for this is our sole access for observing
mental phenomena directly [2]. This approach parallels that of
Tycho Brahe, Galileo and Van Leeuwenhoek in the development of
astronomy, physics and biology, respectively: carefully observe
the phenomena themselves before trying to explain their origins
or the mechanical laws governing their movements. James added
that introspective study of subjective mental events should be
complemented with the objective examination of their behavioral
and neural correlates. Since his time, great advances have been
made in the behavioral sciences and even more stunning progress
is taking place in the brain sciences. But James' emphasis on the
importance of introspectively observing subjective mental
phenomena themselves has been largely ignored, so there has been
no comparable development of rigorous methods for observing and
experimenting with one's own mental phenomena firsthand.

Progress in astronomy before the time of Brahe and Kepler was
hampered by both empirical and theoretical limitations.
Empirically, medieval astrologers and astronomers failed to
devise new, rigorous methods for the precise observation of
celestial bodies. They were too caught up in their concern with
the terrestrial correlates of celestial events. Theoretically,
their research was limited by their unquestioning acceptance of
the metaphysical assumptions of Aristotle, Christian theology and
astrology. In a similar fashion, contemporary behavioral and
neuroscientific research into the mind is empirically limited by
the absence of rigorous methods for observing mental phenomena
firsthand. And theoretically, such inquiry is hampered by the
metaphysical assumption that all mental events can be reduced to
their neural correlates. This materialist premise is not a
scientific conclusion, but an assumption that underlies virtually
all scientific research into the mind/body problem.

It is with introspection alone that consciousness and a wide
range of other mental phenomena can be examined directly. While
this subjective mode of perception is still marginalized by the
cognitive sciences, the contemplative traditions of the world
have for centuries devised a wide range of methods for rigorously
exploring the frontier of the inner spirit. Long before the time
of Aristotle, the contemplatives of India, for example, devised
sophisticated means of refining the attention, stilling
compulsive thoughts and enhancing the clarity of awareness. This
discipline is known as the development of *samadhi,* or deep
meditative concentration, which was then used to explore
firsthand a wide range of mental phenomena [3].

In profoundly stilling the mind, Hindu and Buddhist
contemplatives have allegedly probed beyond the realm of the
ordinary human mind to an underlying substrate consciousness. In
their view, experientially corroborated by hundreds of
contemplatives throughout Asia, many of them adhering to diverse
philosophical and religious beliefs, the human mind emerges not
from the brain, but from this underlying substrate that carries
on from one life to the next. This substrate consciousness need
not be reified into a kind of ethereal substance, or immutable
soul, but viewed more as a continuum of cumulative experience
that carries on after death. In each lifetime, this stream of
consciousness is conditioned by the body, brain and environment
with which it is conjoined. In the context of such an embodiment,
specific mental processes are contingent upon specific brain
processes. The brain is necessary for the manifestation of those
mental functions once the substrate consciousness is embodied,
but it and its interaction with the environment are not
sufficient for the occurrence of consciousness. Memories and
character traits from one life to the next are stored in this
substrate, not in the brain, and past-life memories can allegedly
be recalled while in samadhi. However, if specific brain
functions are impaired, one may lose access to their correlated
mental functions as long as the substrate consciousness is
conjoined with a body.

Pythagoras, Plato, Origen (a highly influential, third-century
Christian theologian) and much of the Christian community during
the first four centuries of the common era affirmed the
continuity of individual consciousness from one life to the next.
While Augustine thought that souls are likely created due to
conditions present at the time of conception, he acknowledged
that, as far as he knew, the truth of this hypothesis had not
been demonstrated [4]. Moreover, he declared that it was
consonant with the Christian faith to believe that souls exist
prior to conception and incarnate by their own choice [5]. This
subject, he claimed, had not been studied sufficiently by
Christians to be able to decide the issue. Acceptance of the
theory of reincarnation in the Western world decreased from the
fifth century onwards due to its condemnation by ecclesiastical
councils and the decline of contemplative practice in general and
the cultivation of deep meditative concentration in particular.

The theory of the substrate consciousness and its relation to the
human mind has not been invalidated by contemporary neuroscience.
While James did not advocate reincarnation, he believed that the
relation of the brain to the mind is akin to that of a prism
refracting light, rather than mental events originating from the
brain [6]. He declared that this non-materialist view was
compatible with the neuroscientific knowledge of his day, and
this remains true today, so there are no purely scientific
grounds for assuming a materialist view of the mind. While
materialists claim that the burden of proof of the non-physical
nature of the mind rests on those who can provide evidence to
that effect, this is open to question. Introspective observation
of mental phenomena does not suggest that they are physical in
nature, nor does it provide knowledge of the brain. Likewise, the
study of neural events alone provides no knowledge of the mind:
one never sees any mental events in the brain, just
electrochemical events. So it takes a leap of faith to believe
that mental events are really brain functions viewed from a
subjective perspective. Generally speaking, if one believes that
two types of phenomena that *appear* to be radically different
are in fact identical, the burden of proof lies in demonstrating
their equivalence.

Is the belief that the mind is nothing more than a function, or
emergent property, of the brain a scientific hypothesis? If so,
there should be some way, at least in principle, to falsify that
claim. Otherwise, it loses its status as a scientific theory.
Insofar as scientific research on the mind/body problem is
confined to the study of the behavioral and neural correlates of
the subjective experience, it is hard to imagine how one could
ever test for the existence of non-physical mental events. One
would need to step outside materialist methodologies in order to
detect anything non-physical. One viable way to put the
materialist hypothesis to the test, thereby establishing its
status as a scientific theory, is by studying the empirical
evidence suggestive of reincarnation. Such research has been done
not only by contemplatives exploring their past-life memories but
by modern researchers, such as psychiatrist Ian Stevenson [7].
His remarkable work, however, has received little attention by
the scientific community.

The reason for this may be quite simple. As neurologist Antonio
Damasio comments, many neuroscientists are guided by one goal and
one hope: to thoroughly explain *how* neural patterns become
subjectively experienced mental events [8]. Thus they do not
welcome empirical evidence that might suggest that the goal of
their research is illusory. This situation is reminiscent of the
goal of medieval astronomers to demonstrate how all celestial
bodies move in perfect circles - eventually Kepler, who was also
committed to this belief, was distressed when the empirical
evidence accumulated by Tycho Brahe forced him to conclude that
this long-held assumption was false.

With the union of scientific and contemplative inquiry, humanity
may explore the frontier of the inner spirit in unprecedented
ways [9]. The importance of such collaborative research can
hardly be overestimated. The very nature of human identity is at
stake, and those who are committed to the pursuit of truth must
be rely on rigorous, empirical research, even if it invalidates
their most cherished assumptions.

...........................................................

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. William James, "A Plea for Psychology as a Science," in
*Philosophical Review,* Vol. 1 (1892) 146-153.

2. W. James, *The Principles of Psychology,* Vol. 1 (New York,
NY: Dover Publications, 1890/1950) p. 185.

3. See B. Alan Wallace, *The Bridge of Quiescence: Experiencing
Tibetan Buddhist Meditation* (Chicago, IL: Open Court, 1998).

4. Augustine, *The Free Choice of the Will,* Vol. III, trans.
Francis E. Tourscher (Philadelphia, PA: The Peter Reilly Co,
391/1937) Chs. 20-21.

5. Augustine [4] p. 379.

6. W. James, *Essays in Religion and Morality* (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Univ. Press, 1989) pp. 85-86.

7. See Ian Stevenson, M.D., *Where Reincarnation and Biology
Intersect* (Westport, CN: Praeger, 1997).

8. Antonio Damasio, *The Feeling of What Happens: Body and
Emotion in the Making of Consciousness* (New York, NY: Harcourt,
Inc., 1999) p. 322.

9. See B. Alan Wallace, *The Taboo of Subjectivity: Toward a New
Science of Consciousness* (New York, NY: Oxford Univ. Press,
2000).

...........................................................

Printed with permission of Templeton Foundation Press from the
forthcoming *Spiritual Information: 100 Perspectives,*
edited by Charles L. Harper, Jr., copyright 2003.

________________________________________________________________

< Materialism and the Immaterial Mind in the Ge-luk Tradition
of Tibetan Buddhism >
by William Magee, wam7c@ntelos.net.


As the XIVth Dalai Lama, Tibet's exiled political and religious
leader, points out, the embodiment of consciousness is a topic
of great importance both to Tibetan Buddhist philosophers and to
modern scientists [1]. As it happens, the *Ge-luk* school of
Tibetan Buddhism, of which the Dalai Lama is one of the major
exponents, is dualistic: Ge-luks assert that mind and matter
arise from different causes and are mutually exclusive. Although
mind can exist apart from matter, mind functions cooperatively
with matter, when embodied, like a rider mounted on a horse.

In this article, I examine the mind-body connection from the
point of view of the Ge-luk school, differentiating its view of
fundamental mind from non-dualist materialism and the dualism of
Descartes. Although scientists and philosophers, both in the East
and West, have excluded many nuanced approaches to the mind-body
problem, there are in general three prominent ways in which they
have described the embodiment of consciousness:

1. Materialism - mind and matter arise together and exist in a
relationship of being one nature.

2. Cartesian dualism - mind and matter arise separately and exist
in a substantial relationship.

3. Fundamental mind - mind and matter arise separately but are
related, as a rider to a horse.

The first relationship, which I refer to here as the materialist
view, is non-dualist in the sense that mental states are said to
involve only physical properties. Describing his materialist
"identity" theory of mind, philosopher U. T. Place states, "there
is nothing that the introspecting subject says about his
conscious experiences which is inconsistent with what the
physiologist might want to say about the brain processes which
cause him to describe the environment and his consciousness of
that environment in the way he does" [2]. Similarly, D. M.
Armstrong wrote in 1981 that "If we consider the mind-body
problem today ... the present state of scientific knowledge makes
it probable that we can give a purely physico-chemical view of
man's body. It seems increasingly likely that the body and the
brain of man are constituted and work according to exactly the
same principles as those physical principles that govern other,
non-organic matter" [3].

The second relationship, Descartes' substantialist view of matter
and consciousness, asserts different substances - mind and matter
- united in a substantial relationship. Descartes' answer to the
mind-body question has two parts: (1) mind has reality apart from
the body and (2) mind is substantially united with the body [4].
By "substantially united," Descartes means that mind is conjoined
to the entire body but with a more direct and explicit
conjunction at the pineal gland [5].

The Buddhist view - wherein mind and matter arise separately but
are related as a rider to a horse - acknowledges a profound
mind-body connection without asserting that consciousness and
matter are connected substantially. Although mind and body are
seen to be different entities, they function cooperatively and
assert a profound influence on each other's states. Certain
strains of thought in Tibetan Buddhism account for this
cooperation and influence by asserting an immaterial mind
separate from matter but "mounted" throughout the physical body
on a system of subtle "channels" and "winds." Similar notions of
a mind mounted on a body were dismissed by Descartes, who argued
that the mind must be substantially related to the body in order
to constitute "a real man." For Descartes, the relationship of a
pilot with his ship is not intimate enough to stand as a metaphor
for the mind-body connection [6]. Buddhists, on the other hand,
find nothing inappropriate in the rider/horse metaphor.

THE FUNDAMENTAL MIND

The Buddha taught that there are countless individual minds in
the universe. Each mind that exists today has always existed,
without a first moment, taking rebirth in one body after another.
Each mind will continue to take rebirth until it achieves its
full potential in the omniscient state of Buddhahood. This
achievement of a mind's full potential is caused by eliminating
the "afflictions" that prevent enlightenment: ignorance, desire,
anger and so forth. This thorough elimination is possible because
the afflictions are temporary, that is, they do not subsist as
the nature of the mind. The mind itself is seen as fundamentally
pure, allowing for it to be cleansed of the accompanying
afflictions.

In certain presentations, the basic consciousness that goes from
lifetime to lifetime prior to enlightenment is called the
fundamental mind [7]. Following enlightenment, the fundamental
mind abides as the omniscient "Truth Body" - the mind of a
Buddha. From birth until death, this fundamental mind is mounted
on the body like a rider on a horse. After death - and also
during lifetimes in immaterial realms and after enlightenment -
the mind continues onward moment by moment without requiring a
material support, created newly each moment as an effect of its
own previous moments.

The fundamental mind (like all other minds, according to Ge-luk
ontology) is empty of inherent existence, meaning that it does
not exist ultimately (since it cannot be found under analysis)
but exists only conventionally, designated in dependence on its
causes, moments and so forth [8]. Ge-luk philosophy argues that
only a mind that exists as a mere designation could evolve from a
state of ignorance to a state of omniscience, since a more
substantially existent mind would be unchangeable. Similarly,
only an immaterial mind can have the qualities of clarity and
knowledge that define consciousness, since a mind based on
material supports would naturally be limited to an atomic
structure, precluding clarity and knowledge, which are not in the
realm of the atomic. Similarly, the body is said to exist merely
on the conventional level, as does the mind. Like the mind, it
cannot be found under analysis for an ultimate mode of existence
[9]. In this way, a number of core assertions of the Buddhist
religion - including doctrines of reincarnation, mental
purification, enlightenment and ontology - can be seen to depend
upon the doctrine of an immaterial mind that is empty of inherent
existence and thoroughly purifiable.

THOROUGHLY PURIFIABLE

The fundamental mind described by the fifteenth-century Tibetan
scholar Nor-sang-gya-tso is the "basis to be purified" of Tibetan
religious practice, and thus it is essential within Buddhism that
this mind, though temporarily defiled, be thoroughly purifiable.
If it were not so, it would be incapable of becoming the
omniscient mind - the Truth Body - of a Buddha. Here is
Nor-sang-gya-tso's description, from the *Ornament for the
"Stainless Light,"* of how the mental afflictions are
adventitious defilements:

"...[E]ven when water and dirt occur together, water is produced
from its own substantial cause as an entity that is very clear.
Dirt arises from substantial causes other than those of water,
from the conditions of particles of earth and so forth. Hence, it
is suitable for dirt to become separated from the entity of water
and to be adventitious. Similarly, although the mind of clear
light and the ... obstructions are established together from
beginningless time, the mind of clear light is produced as a pure
entity, from substantial causes that are its prior moments of
similar type. Also, defilements arise from the clear light
through the condition of improper mental application in the
manner of a fish rising out of water. Therefore, defilements are
adventitious in the sense that they are suitable to be separated
from the natural mind of clear light."

The ability for the mind to be purified implies that the nature
of the fundamental mind does not become good or bad due to
conditions. The *Ornament* offers an analogy: "...[T]he rays of
the sun descend, covering objects - good things such as jewels,
and so forth, and bad things such as filth - however, it does not
become good or bad due to these conditions. Likewise ... the very
subtle mind of clear light indeed functions in the good birth
states ... and the bad birth states ... but it does not become
good or bad due to these [conditions] because, like the rays of
the sun, [the fundamental mind] is naturally pure."

Although at any moment a mind may be temporarily defiled by anger
or ignorance, the actual entity of the mind does not become that
of anger or ignorance. According to Buddhism, the mind and its
defilements are established together from beginningless (i.e.
infinite) time. However, the mind is produced from substantial
causes that are its own prior moments - as a pure entity - the
afflictions arising separately from what is known as "improper
mental application." They can be removed from their association
with fundamental mind, much as mud can be removed from water,
leaving a pure mental continuum.

The Ge-luk presentation of a relation wherein matter and
consciousness, although arisen separately, function cooperatively
has some similarities with Cartesian dualism but also has
important differences. Perhaps the primary similarity between
Tibetan and Cartesian assertions is that minds are immaterial.
Both agree that no matter how complex a physical object such as a
brain or computer is, it can never be a mind, which has unique
cognitive and conceptual abilities. Descartes, however, insists
on the existence of a substantial connection between body and
mind, which as such is unacceptable to Buddhists on ontological
grounds. A further ontological difference is Descartes' assertion
of the ontological superiority of mind over matter. Buddhists do
not assert a substantial superiority of mind, citing mind and
matter both as equal in lacking inherent existence.

CLASSIFYING MATERIALISTS AS NIHILISTS

The doxological literature of the Ge-luk order classifies
Buddhist and non-Buddhist schools primarily according to their
assertions of the self (atman). Regarding the non-Buddhist
schools, the Tibetan scholar Jam-yang-shay-ba (1648-1721), in his
encyclopedic *Great Exposition of "Tenets,"* identifies 11
non-Buddhist schools of Indian philosophy propounding a permanent
self, and one school of materialists, the Lokayatas [10]. The
Lokayatas, according to Jam-yang-shay-ba, believed that mind is a
product of the four material elements - earth, water, fire and
wind. They also asserted that the continuum of the self is
annihilated at death and that former and later births, the cause
and effect of actions, and so forth, do not exist. These
positions, together with their materialist stance on mind, are
all classified as "nihilistic" in the *Great Exposition of
Tenets.*

Jam-yang-shay-ba elaborates upon Lokayata assertions on the cause
of mind: "From the four great mindless elements the existence of
mind is produced ... like the production of effects from causes
having non-homogeneous characteristics, such as the power of
inebriation from beer, fire from a magnifying glass..." [11].
This passage expresses the Lokayata position on non-homogeneous
production of mind from matter, but Jam-yang-shay-ba does not
believe that mind arises in this way, positing that mind is the
effect of its previous moment. Mind, he posits, can only arise
from mind: it cannot be created newly from matter. This position
enjoys wide acceptance amongst Buddhist schools.

Another important Tibetan scholar, Jang-gya-rol-bay-dor-jay [12],
in his *Presentation of Tenets* [13], examines the logic of three
different Lokayata assertions that attempt to explain how mind is
embodied. These three assertions of mind-body relationship, with
examples, are: (1) the nature of the body includes mind, just as
the nature of beer includes the power to intoxicate; (2) the mind
is an effect of the body, just as light is the effect of a lamp;
and (3) mind is a quality of the body, just as a wall-painting is
a quality of its wall. Each of these three theories sets forth a
mind dependent on the body for its existence but in a way that
allows mind to be both the nature of matter and yet somehow
distinct from matter. In the first, the assertion is that mind
and body are one nature; in the second the relationship between
body and mind is cause and effect. The third is more difficult to
characterize, but it appears to be an assertion that mind is an
uncaused accompaniment to body, distinguishable from body but not
capable of existing separate from the body.

Jang-gya-rol-bay-dor-jay does not find logic in any these
assertions. His own opinion is that a mind dependent on matter
would be completely dependent on matter in ways that would be
observable. Therefore he refutes the first proposition - that
mind is in the nature of the body - by asserting that if this
relation of one nature were the case, then all the qualities of
mind would appear in the body, but they do not. For instance,
conceptual images could be found in the brain and a person's
thoughts would be audible. His second point refutes the mind
being an effect of the body. He reasons that if mind and body
existed in a causal relationship such as that of lamp and
lamplight, then mind's growth and decrease would follow the
growth and decrease of the body, which occurs with a lamp and its
light but not with a body and mind. His third point is that mind
is not a quality of the body, like a wall and a mural, or else
mind would be present in the body after the death of the body.
Jang-gya-rol-bay-dor-jay does not dispute that a wall mural may
still be present in the rubble of a ruined wall, but he disagrees
that the analogy can be extended to a mind being present in a
dead body.

Jang-gya-rol-bay-dor-jay's refutations are outflows of the
Tibetan belief that mind and matter are mutually exclusive:
despite the profound temporary connection and cooperative
functioning of mind and body, no mental thing exists that is
matter. Attempts to find a common locus between mind and matter
are doomed to failure, since the two phenomena are contradictory,
like a horse and its rider.

From the Tibetan perspective, the profound connection and
cooperative functioning that exists between the body and the mind
is not due to the fact that body and mind are somehow the same
entity, or that they are substantially united, but rather that
mind is mounted on an extensive system of winds and channels that
pervade the body.

Despite differences in how this connection is said to be
maintained, a profound mind-body connection is common ground
between the assertions of modern scientists, Cartesian dualists
and Tibetan Buddhists. A happy outcome of the recognition of this
common ground would be if scientific research continued to
discover points of alignment between mind and body while the
ancient philosophy of Tibetan Buddhism continued to demonstrate
that the mental afflictions of ignorance, desire, anger, and all
the rest can be thoroughly eliminated from an immaterial mind.

...........................................................

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. "His Holiness The Dalai Lama in Britain: 1984" (Taped lectures
from Royal Albert Hall).

2. U. T. Place, "Is Consciousness a Brain Process?," in *British
Journal of Psychology* (1956) p. 50.

3. D. M. Armstrong, "The Causal Theory of the Mind," originally
in *The Nature of Mind and Other Essays* (Ithaca, NY: Cornell
Univ. Press, 1981), reprinted in *Mind and Cognition* (Oxford,
U.K.: Blackwell Publishing, 1997) p. 35.

4. Rene Descartes, *Reply to the Fourth Objections, Works, II,*
pp. 102-103. Quoted in James Edie, "Descartes and Embodiment of
Consciousness," *Cartesian Essays* (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff,
1969) p. 100.

5. Rene Descartes, *The Passions of the Soul,* quoted in Peter
Bertocci, "The Person and His Body," *Cartesian Essays* [4] p.
121.

6. Rene Descartes, *Discourse on Method,* Vol. II (New York, NY:
The Library of Liberal Arts, 1956) p. 38.

7. This presentation of fundamental mind is set forth in Tibetan
scholar Nor-sang-gya-tso's *Ornament for the "Stainless Light,"
Clarifying the Three Kalachakras, Outer, Inner, and Alternate*
(Dolanji: Tibetan Bonpo Monastic Centre, 1975) and represents the
thinking of the Ge-luk sect on mind in the context of the
esoteric Vajrayana Vehicle of Buddhism. Fundamental mind is also
called by many synonyms: innate nature, mind of clear light, mind
of the element of [a Superior's] qualities, clear light nature,
indestructible mind, Truth Body of the basic state, mind vajra,
and so forth.

8. For further reading about emptiness in the Ge-luk school, see
William Magee, *The Nature of Things* (Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion
Publishing, 2000).

9. For further reading about the two truths, conventional and
ultimate, in the Ge-luk school, see Guy Newland, *The Two Truths*
(Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion, 1989).

10. These 12 are the Hindu Samkhya, Kapila, Brahmana,
Vaiyakarana, Vedantin, Guhyaka, Vaishnava, Mimamsaka, Aishvara,
Naya-Vaisheshika and the Jain Nirgranthas.

11. Translation from an unpublished manuscript by Jeffrey
Hopkins. For further reading, see Jeffrey Hopkins, *Deity Yoga*
(Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion, 1983).

12. 1717-1786. A Tibetanized Mongolian Lama born in the Am-do
Province of Tibet.

13. Jang-gya-rol-bay-dor-jay, *Presentation of Tenets*
(Dharamsala, India: 1983 reprint) 35.1. I found this discussion
of the three assertions of nature, effect and quality translated
in Jules Levinson, "The Metaphor of Liberation" (University of
Virginia Ph.D. dissertation, 1994) p. 29.

...........................................................

FURTHER READING

Benson, Herbert, *MindScience: An East-West Dialogue* (Boston,
MA: Wisdom Publications, 1995).

The Dalai Lama et al., *Consciousness at the Crossroads* (Ithaca,
NY: Snow Lion Publications, 1999).

Damasio, Antonio. *Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the
Human Brain* (New York, NY: Putnam, 1994).

Lycan, William G., ed. *Mind and Cognition: a Reader* (Oxford,
U.K.: Blackwell Publishers, 1997).

Penfield, Warren. *The Mystery of Mind* (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
Univ. Press, 1975).

________________________________________________________________
< Project *Amala*: An Artistic Vision of Consciousness in
Buddhism >

by Choy Kok Kee, kokkee@artlover.com
WWW: http://www.astn.net/amala/

*AMALA*: PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS

In some schools of Buddhist thought, the spiritual functions of
perception or discernment are divided into nine [1]. These are
called the nine *vijnanas* (Sanskrit), or nine consciousnesses.
The first five consciousnesses correspond to the five senses of
sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch while the sixth to the
ninth are the perceptive functions of the human mind. To perceive
the entirety of the mind as possessing four particular functions
may be difficult for us to comprehend, but this approach hints at
the deep and far-reaching insight of Buddhism.

The sixth of these consciousnesses integrates the perceptions of
the five senses into coherent images and makes judgements about
the external world. For example, when one comes into contact with
a bad-smelling object, one will naturally reject it - such
judgment is made by the sixth consciousness. All living beings
that have a central nervous system, no matter how complex or
simple they may be, are said to possess this sixth consciousness.

The seventh consciousness is known as the *mano*-consciousness
("abstract mind") and represents a deeper function of thought
than that of the sixth consciousness, allowing us to reflect on
our existence rather than simply to deal with external matters of
daily life. This is where our sense of self, or "separateness,"
comes into being. The mano-consciousness spans both the conscious
and subconscious dimensions of life and includes awareness of and
attachment to the self, as well as the capacity to distinguish
between good and evil.

The eighth consciousness is called the *alaya* ("storehouse" or
"repository") consciousness. This consciousness stores all the
actions and experiences, or karma, of the present life and past
lifetimes. These actions and experiences, accumulated through the
first seven consciousnesses, exert an influence on the workings
of the seven consciousnesses. According to Hindu and Buddhist
tradition, karma is the cumulative effect of the causal forces
produced by everything one thinks, says and does - the sum of
these actions imperceptibly influences everything a person
experiences (the Freudian concept of the unconscious is somewhat
similar to this). This consciousness forms the framework of
individual existence.

The ninth consciousness, the basis of all spiritual functions, is
called *amala*-consciousness, amala meaning "pure" or
"undefiled." Whereas the alaya-consciousness is said to contain
karmic impurities, the amala-consciousness lies within the
innermost depths of life and remains pure, free from all
defilement caused by one's actions in previous lives. This is the
fundamental "Buddha-nature," extending from the infinite past
into the infinite future. This is described as an indestructible,
unchanging realm, endowed with four virtues: true self, eternity,
purity and happiness [2]. When activated, its light, so to speak,
floods upward to illuminate the workings of the other eight
consciousnesses, so that the entire interlocking network of
causes and effects forming our individual existence comes to be
based on enlightenment, or a fully awakened state.

AMALA AS AN ARTWORK

The creation of *Amala* as an interactive piece is my personal
homage to the universal depth of life as presented in this view
of Buddhism, highlighting the potential for awakening that exists
within us. I see how one interacts with and reacts to this piece
as an important step - it might be seen as a personal journey, a
person's unconscious spiritual link with his or her own amala.
*Amala* deals with the audience's mental states, encouraging
audience concentration on the movements of the images and the
pulsating sound of bells.

The spectator is also free to influence the movement of the piece
which, when left alone, gathers to form a flowery pattern - a
lotus flower (moving the mouse, without clicking, over the image,
causes it to change). This "gathering and returning formation"
symbolizes the ultimate reality of the Buddha-nature within us,
extending from the infinite past to the infinite future. This
process metaphorically refers to our need, within the context of
a spiritual path, to never slacken in our efforts towards
self-perfection or to become overly influenced or restricted by
circumstances in our environment. We need a solid foundation upon
which we build our lives, which is to be discovered nowhere other
than within ourselves. This is the very essence of Buddha, which
we all possess and which can be tapped through Buddhist practice.
This essence is said to be so powerful that it can change all our
negative aspects into positive attributes - there is no need for
suppression or denial.

This reflects the Buddhist teaching that the conditions of life
are never independent - they instead interrelate and interact
with each other. To better understand this inter-connectedness
between the individual, the everyday world and the enlightened
state, it is helpful to understand the Buddhist concept of ten
basic states of life-conditions, or ten realms - from the "hell
realms" up to Buddhahood [3]. The states of hell through rapture
are commonly known as the "six lower realms," in part because
they embody a person's habitual dependence upon and reaction to
what goes on in his or her environment. Hell, for example, is
said to be a life state of utter misery, where rage often
manifests as self-destructiveness. Rapture, on the other hand,
might be characterized as the state experienced by someone who
has had some personal desire fulfilled. In each of these cases,
one is prevented from recognizing the transitory and illusory
nature of one's perceptions.

The four higher realms - learning, realization, bodhisattva, and
Buddhahood - are also known in some Buddhist texts as the Four
Noble Paths. These involve an effort first to understand, then to
transform oneself and one's environment. In the states of
learning and realization, people make an effort to grasp the
deeper reality of their own existence, thus beginning to perceive
the causes of suffering and working to transform that suffering
into the basis for growth. In the learning stage, this is done by
studying teachings; in the realization stage, insight begins to
emerge through one's contemplative interaction with the
surrounding world.

While people in the learning and realization stages are primarily
concerned with their own development, those in the Bodhisattva
realm pursue the goal of enlightenment by devoting themselves to
compassionate acts for the sake of others. The life-condition of
Buddha, the highest realm, is characterized by boundless
compassion, wisdom, joy and the courage and strength to surmount
all hardships in order to help others attain this state. It is
important to understand, however, that this highest
life-condition is not at all separate from the other nine -
rather, it manifests itself in the other nine and functions to
transform and harmonize them, making them all into means to
develop compassionate understanding and action, rather than
potential obstacles to such states. Combined with the
understanding of the nine consciousnesses, this system provides a
means of understanding subjective and precognitive existence as
well as everyday mental functions.

These interrelated concepts, the ten realms and nine
consciousnesses, describe the total cognitive faculties and
interactive potentials of the individual. Each person possesses
all ten life states, but the dominant one at any given moment
affects the other nine. If Buddhahood dominates, it will function
to purify the lower realms. Its counterpart - tapping into the
amala consciousness - enables us to truly see and transform our
reality.

What is important to understand in this presentation is that life
is seen neither as fixed nor preordained - these concepts suggest
that instead of being trapped in any given life situation, one
can break free of such circumstances. Because of the
inseparability of one's inner, subjective life and the external,
objective world, Buddhism holds that through practice it is
possible to positively transform one's life and environment and
create happiness for oneself and others. The ultimate aim of
Buddhist teachings is to enable even the most ordinary person to
do precisely this. As Buddhist teacher Daisaku Ikeda says:
"Buddhism exists to enable people to realize personal growth and
to improve their lives. Buddhism is always rooted in the reality
of life. It is the wellspring of wisdom for bringing harmony and
happiness to our families, communities and society at large" [4].

In creating *Amala,* it was not my intention to use it as a
provisional religious device by which one achieves spiritual
advancement just by interacting with it - *Amala* should be seen
as an artist's impression of this wonderful potential, our
existing inner Buddha-nature, and the possibility of
self-transformation.

...........................................................

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. For more information on this presentation, see Yasuji
Kirimura, *Fundamentals of Buddhism* (Tokyo: NSIC, 1977).

2. For more information, see Daisaku Ikeda, *SGI President
Ikeda's Recent Guidance* (United Kingdom: SGI-UK Publications,
1996).

3. In the Buddhist view, everyone is said to possess and
sporadically experience each of these ten life states: hell,
hunger, animality, anger, humanity, rapture, learning,
realization, the bodhisattva state and, ultimately, Buddhahood,
or enlightenment. These states should not be mistaken for moods
we pass through or distinct physical realms - they are patterns
that shape one's entire existence, states of being we experience
from moment to moment. The aim of Buddhist practice is to
establish and maintain the predominance of the state of
Buddhahood.

4. See also Daisaku Ikeda, *Choose Life* (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford
Univ. Press, 1989); *A New Humanism* (New York, NY and Tokyo:
Weatherhill, 1996) and *A Lifelong Quest For Peace* (Boston, MA:
Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1992).

...........................................................

GLOSSARY

Bodhisattva - The ninth of the ten states [3], a state
characterized by compassion in which one dedicates oneself to
benefiting others and seeks enlightenment, both for oneself and
others. One who aspires to Buddhahood.

Buddhahood - The state that a Buddha has attained; the highest of
the ten basic states of life conditions or ten realms. Buddhahood
is thought of as a state of perfect freedom in which one is
awakened to the eternal and ultimate truth - the reality of all
things - and is characterized by boundless wisdom and infinite
compassion.

Enlightenment - Clear penetration, or an awakening to the truth,
often used interchangeably with "Buddhahood."

________________________________________________________________
< Samadhi: The Contemplation of Space >

by Robert C. Morgan, Rcmorgan12@aol.com.
Samadhi exhibition web site:
<http://www.chelseaartmuseum.org/materials/>

The Sanskrit term "samadhi" is often used in Zen Buddhism to
describe the condition of meditation in which the focus of
concentration resides in the undivided self [1]. One Chinese
scholar, Garma C. C. Chang, describes the experience of samadhi
as "putting things together" or "the union of the meditator with
the object meditated upon [2]." In visual terms, samadhi may
allude to a specific image or thought made manifest in material
form. For example, Chang describes the one who meditates as being
"absorbed in perfect concentration on the object upon which he is
meditating [3]." The experience of samadhi could be described as
"a state of fusion" that produces "an intensely blissful
sensation, which is both physical and psychic [4]."

Benjamin and Amy Radcliff suggest that "in samadhi, one is
completely involved or absorbed with life rather than ideas about
life [5]." Thus, we could say that the relinquishment of a
conventional cause-and-effect analysis of events in the everyday
world is necessary in order to attain a blissful state of mind
[6]. Samadhi is less about rational categories than about a
closeness to life, where separations between the perceiver and
the object being perceived begin to dissipate. Samadhi occurs
when one leaves the realm of self-consciousness and discovers a
connection between what is held within the mind and what is
simultaneously being processed through one's sensory organs.

In organizing an exhibition for the new Chelsea Art Museum in New
York, I chose 11 works by 11 artists that would somehow connect
with one another. I did this not according to a visual theme or a
method, not according to a process or even a discipline, but
instead by relying on a kind of felt experience between the
diversity of the various works. Whether a reductive concrete
painting by John McLaughlin or a gestural painting by Jean Miotte
or a series of wire-mesh cubes by Rakuko Naito, each work held
its own in the space of this large gallery. I was interested in
the kind of visual conversation the works might have with one
another. My criterion for the selection had something to do with
the singular space of the object or the visual consistency of the
form according to its materials, wherein one might contemplate
the form not simply as a type of formalism, but as a form in
space, where a feeling for the space might preside over
disturbance, and resolve itself as a kind of imperfect, abstract
purity.

I realized that this approach is diametrically opposed to the
kind of images so often seen in West Chelsea today - images
appropriated from the commercial media or complex assemblages,
presumably "loaded" with the weight of an intertextual meaning -
but I wanted to go in another direction. I began searching for
art from the present and from the recent past where the condition
of space was both static and continuous, where the sense of
structure was visible and open, and where the potential viewer
might engage with the implications of the space. In essence, I
wanted to feel the space moving from the outside to the inside in
either direction and to converse visually and conceptually with
other works in the exhibition, including the space of the
physical interior in the building's first floor.

What does all of this have to do with the Zen principle of
samadhi? I am neither an Asian artist nor scholar, but an
American art critic and writer. I have read about Zen Buddhism,
Taoism and some aspects of Hindu philosophy for over 30 years,
but I am not a practitioner - my nature is simply not there. I do
not have the patience or the inclination. I live in the center of
an urban environment where I lecture, travel and write about
contemporary art. Many of my Asian friends are Buddhists, I am
not. Thanks, however, to the painter Jean Miotte and his wife,
Dr. Dorothea Keeser, I was given the opportunity to organize and
curate an exhibition that had a special meaning for me. When I
took the concept of samadhi and applied it to contemporary art, I
got excited and became more energized than I would if I had
thought about meditating. But, as the Buddhist monks might say,
"If you think about meditating, you'll never get there," "there"
being the bliss of samadhi.

I wanted to do an exhibition that went beyond the gravity of
appearance, yet where no foregrounding of a text was necessary. I
am very much against the idea of foregrounding a text in relation
to the experience of art (another notion that has put me at odds
with many of my colleagues. In today's cynical world, emphasis is
given to appearances and separations between mind and body,
between text and image, and between space and time. I chose work
for my exhibition that exceeded the limitations of a single
medium, but gave attention to a quality of stasis - the state of
being without movement. Each work in the exhibition would be
given the contemplation of space through the phenomenology of
viewing [7].

Rather than the duality of consciousness - the subject-object
relationship - normally understood in Western terms, this
exhibition proposes another kind of sensibility: samadhi. Would
it be possible to give viewers a sense of participation in
samadhi, even if only for a moment? I was intrigued by the
possibility that somehow by engaging with the physical
presentations of these 11 works, the visual connections and
conceptual affinities would become clear - not as formalism, but
as experience. Would it be possible that the viewer could enter
the physical space of the gallery without rational determinants?
Could the condition of one's perception be given over to an
intuitive and sensory understanding of the work's structure?

The concept for this exhibition evolved over a period of several
months while thinking in terms of the renovation of a former
factory space in West Chelsea. The former function of this fallow
space was as a toy factory, but this was several decades ago.
What could this space represent now? What could it mean beyond
the constraints of a mundane functionalism? The thought that art
could expand one's awareness of space from a Buddhist perspective
became an obsession for me. In looking for a connection between
reductive form and the gesture - an opposition that also
interested the late sculptor Donald Judd - the concept of samadhi
came into being. In curating such an exhibition, one may aspire
for certain results, even though these hypothetical results
remain outside the control of one's projected vision. Duchamp
used the term "art co-efficient" to describe the process whereby
the viewer ultimately completes the work. In *Samadhi,* many
viewers will complete the exhibition.

In organizing this exhibition, I became interested in artists who
dealt with space in a singular, focused way - not as a maximal
exegesis, but as a distillation, as a process of an emptying-out
the environment. I selected artists whose works would complement
one another within an active (though static) visual field. I
wanted to emphasize the notion that space was not a given
condition, but a created one. The participating artists include:
Ren� Pierre Allain, Robert Barry, Boem Moon, Frederick Eversley,
Tadaaki Kuwayama, John McLaughlin, Jean Miotte, Joan Mitchell,
Rakuko Naito, Kazuo Shiraga and Mimmo Roselli. The unique aspect
of each artist's vision is what contributes to the whole.

During the installation process I became interested in how a 1969
painting by Joan Mitchell - painted in blue and brown patches on
a white field, using her well-known gestural mannerisms - related
to an expansive floor installation of aluminum cylinders set in a
grid by Tadaaki Kuwayama. On another wall, a silvery blue
monochrome - painted with automobile lacquer - by Korean artist
Boem Moon related visually to a bright red painting in a heavy
steel frame by French-Canadian Ren� Pierre Allain. I saw a
connection, if not a resemblance, between these works even though
the artists came from vastly different cultures. Mimmo Roselli's
triangular configuration of brown cords, strung between three
walls, appeared like a floating harp above eye level and related
implicitly to the reductive organization used in John
McLaughlin's painting of two black horizontal bars floating
against a white ground. This provoked another conversation
between John McLaughlin and a nearby sequence of discrete
sculptural cubes, constructed of wire-mesh and folded paper, by
the Japanese artist Rakuko Naito.

On another wall, Kazuo Shiraga's brilliant foot painting, made in
Japan in 1961, evokes the action of the body in the act of
painting while conversing with a recent, large-scale,
black-and-white abstract gestural painting by Jean Miotte.
Frederick Eversley's opaque convex disc, cast in plastic and
situated in the far corner of the gallery, coincided with the
abstract words and phrases printed diagonally on glass at the
entrance of the exhibition by the American conceptualist Robert
Barry. The contrasting and complementary components in the
exhibition offer an effusive and ineffable sensibility to the
large open space on the first floor, thus creating an open visual
dialogue between the various artists' works.

And samadhi, where can it be found? Perhaps less in the objects
than in the viewer's willingness to become a participant. In this
way, the art can be put together and constructed as a mental
image, an intentional concept, forever in transition as one moves
physically throughout the gallery space as one's thoughts move
within the space of the mind. It is possible, of course, that my
intention has little or nothing to do with the conventional
meaning or use of the term samadhi. The appropriation of the term
may be misguided. Even so, the exhibition will be given another
reference point, being one of experience as absence - what
samadhi strives to attain. Here is another way of bringing an
Eastern point of view into the West, or a Westerner's attempt to
deal with Eastern thought as a viable means toward understanding
art on another level, less given to the repetition of secular
misrepresentations. After all the Western theory, samadhi offers
another look at advanced art where privilege is given to
experience by way of spatial continuity instead of the self in
relation to the other.

...........................................................


REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. The self can be said to be a construction derived from Western
culture. Psychologically speaking, it is defined by the ego. The
construction of this self is contingent on separation, i.e. into
"self" and "other." The meditative state realized through samadhi
is "undivided," that is, without separation. In such a state, the
term "undivided self" cannot refer to the self as contingent upon
separation, because the self is no longer a construction of
thought in relation to perception (of the other). In this
context, then, the "undivided self" is the same as being without
self. The problem in describing this phenomenon is due to the
interference of the Western notion of the self as defined by the
ego.

2. Garma C. C. Chang, *The Practice of Zen* (New York, NY: Harper
and Row, 1959) p. 202.

3. Chang [1], p. 203.

4. Chang [1], p. 203

5. Benjamin and Amy Radcliff, *Understanding Zen* (Boston, MA:
Charles E. Tuttle, 1993) p. 121.

6. The course of history as defined in the West advocates the
relationship of cause-and-effect phenomena. In other words, a
certain cause will produce an inevitable effect; thus a chain
reaction of events is determined. In Zen Buddhism, the world is
not perceived merely through conventional cause and effect
relationships. Rather, worldly phenomena are understood as events
in themselves. Something occurs in time; to observe this fact is
enough.

7. In the exhibition *Samadhi,* the 11 artists describe space in
11 different ways. In doing so, the various interpretations of
space interact with one another visually, like a network of
conversations. Ultimately all the works are within the same
space. The phenomenology of viewing relates to the experiential
and corporeal involvement of the viewer as an entity within the
space, as part of the space, seeing with one's own eyes, yet
integrated with everything else that is there.

________________________________________________________________

< On Audience Awareness: The "Empathy Factor" in the Work of
Nell Tenhaaf >
By Nina Czegledy, czegledy@interlog.com.

"Consciousness and New Technologies" was the theme of Seafair
2002, the Skopje Electronic Arts Fair in December 2002, which
brought together cultural theoreticians, practitioners of new
media, philosophers, consciousness experts, neuroscientists,
artists and sociologists. This event - one among many in the past
year - demonstrated how recent explorations into the nature of
consciousness have found new currency among scientists and
artists alike. Clearly, the topic of consciousness represents
today an immense field of interdisciplinary study and practice,
including the evaluation of inter-relations between man and
machine. The full engagement in this discourse by artists is
demonstrated by many new interactive digital projects. Yet,
observing the impressive landscape of these interactive
installations, I find that conceptual and/or pragmatic evaluation
of audience consciousness is missing. The following article
considers this issue briefly, exploring features of audience
participation as illustrated by specific artworks, including the
introduction of the "empathy factor" as presented by artist Nell
Tenhaaf in her *UCBM (You Could Be Me)* installation.

Surprisingly few artists examine the social relationship between
viewers and art objects. As a result, the spectacle of technology
remains a dominant feature of many interactive art projects. This
is intriguing, as current technological advances clearly enable
the search for enhanced communication between the artwork and the
audience, providing a variety of options for an effective
exploration of the state of consciousness within the interactive
loop. On examination, however, underneath the most obvious and
often dazzling exterior layer, one mostly encounters a
pre-determined set of responses, nested in pre-framed
constructions.

"Awareness," according to Collins' *English Thesaurus* [1],
indicates knowledge, perception, realization, recognition and
understanding. "Consciousness" is similarly defined, although my
antiquated dictionary offers an additional definition [2]:
"mental and emotional awareness of an individual or a group." How
do these concepts relate to notions of interactivity? How is
consciousness (of the participant/viewer) addressed in
interactive artworks? How can interactive technology be used to
enrich social interaction?

While seeking answers to these and related questions, a long list
of artists and their works comes to mind. However, a detailed
analysis of the topic is outside the scope of this article.
Consequently, I will illustrate my point with a few pertinent
examples from works by Canadian artists.

For many years, media installation artist David Rokeby has
investigated the complicated notion of interactivity and audience
involvement. For him, "interaction" implies a condition in which
two or more things act upon each other; in other words, a
"relationship" in which all parties are both active and
receptive. This provides us with two hints as to the nature of
"interactive art": first, that a significant part of the content
of the work is to be found in the relationship between the work
and the audience and, second, that this relationship unfolds as a
result of actions on the part of both the mechanism of the
artwork and the audience [3].

To navigate consciousness, Rokeby, in his ongoing installation
*Giver of Names,* engages the awareness of his audience by
creating a complex feedback loop through the perception,
consciousness and memory of the viewer. The installation consists
of a video camera, a computer and a sound source. The camera
"observes" objects presented to it by the audience and, as Rokeby
explains, "thinks about them, associates metaphorically, and then
speaks aloud a sentence it formulates about its impressions of
the object" [4]. Rokeby here is challenging the viewer's
preconceptions of the presented "objects" while he draws them
into speculative explorations. On one hand, the installation
presents us with a dialogue between man and machine, art object
and audience, but it also exerts a captivating effect that
seduces the participant, bringing him or her into a playful
liaison with the artwork.

Consciousness in the communication loop of interactivity has also
been notably addressed via the *Helpless Robot* by artist Norman
White [5]. The artificial personality of White's robot responds
to the behavior of the viewer/participant by using a multitude of
phrases utilizing an electronic voice. White writes that "The
speech that is delivered depends on [the robot's] present and
past experience of 'emotions,' ranging from boredom, frustration,
arrogance and over-stimulation" [6]. White has tried to develop
electromechanical systems endowed with "a life of their own."
Yet, unlike most robots, the helpless robot is essentially
passive and becomes "alive" only with human help. Although its
behavior is programmed, the robot becomes unpredictable by way of
the instinctive, emotional handling of the participating human.
As White writes in the *Helpless Robot* artist's statement, "The
full range of its responses are best experienced by treating it
in a variety of ways, alternatively ignoring and satisfying its
demands" [7]. He also writes, "I started out asking myself can a
machine which is fundamentally a product of the intellect also
model emotions? Are there primary emotions, like primary colours,
from which all other emotions evolve" [8]? *Helpless Robot* aims
to elucidate this issue.

Artist Nell Tenhaaf's *UCBM (You Could Be Me)* does not resolve
the issue of audience awareness, but does articulate pertinent
questions and responses by inventing a simulated situation.
Tenhaaf is deeply interested in how the viewer/participant
experiences his or her own sense of subjectivity. *UCBM* presents
a position-sensitive interactive video installation where
visitors are "tested" and "evaluated," by a video-projected
surrogate of the artist, on their adaptation to "artificial
empathy." Tenhaaf describe her concept as follows: "The intention
in foregrounding simulated empathy is not to advocate more
mediated or artificial relations with other humans. Rather, it is
to create an art experience that is aligned with the a-life goal
of embodying technoscientific knowledge as well as taking into
consideration its narrative and interpretive dimensions" [9].

*UCBM* investigates the nature of the interactive exchange by
extending the viewer's experience. First, the video projection is
activated by a viewer entering the space. A "research scientist,"
clad in white lab coat, becomes visible and turns to the viewer,
asking: "Now, what can I find out about you? I want to know about
your fitness, your empathy factor, your willingness to get
involved." She proceeds with questions such as, "Do you feel
exposed?" and requests responses. Through the interaction, the
viewer not only becomes mindful of his or her subjectivity but
also enters into the loop in the exchange of information. While
the whole interchange is presented as a de facto interview, the
discourse is simultaneously imbued by an amusing sense of irony.
The technology of *UCBM* reveals Tenhaaf's ambition of building
systems that hide their technical limits.

Tenhaaf's research and art practice echoes her interest in
artificial life and issues of mediation. Her involvement in
developmental biology and investigations related to the
biosciences dates back to the late 1980s and in *Species of Life*
(1989), she provided a commentary on scientific procedures,
revealing the process of mediation from the transmission of
objective, neutral facts to encoded personal data. Lately, she
has begun exploring notions of embodiment or lack of embodiment,
turning her attention from direct examination of body-related
issues to the analysis of self-knowledge, issues of identity and
emerging forms of social relations. These investigations informed
several of her current projects, such as *Neonudism,* *You Could
be Me* and *dDNA (d is for dancing)*. The emerging social
networks of Internet chat rooms provided reference for
*Neonudism,* which combined voyeuristic viewing and surrogate
participation in a live "CUSeeMe" two-way video link-up.

The distancing effects of mediated communication in these chats
are often criticized, but Tenhaaf feels that one can actually
gain a considerable amount of knowledge about identity and the
shifting paradigms of social relations through the chat
interactions. In a recent conversation, she told me, "I am very
interested in how the viewers experience their sense of
responsibility in understanding complex things that surround us.
I suppose my interest lies in those discussions, where one
explores issues of identity."

Tenhaaf notes that "*UCBM* offers a way of picturing the active
interfaces we construct with the world and how we are enmeshed in
its always emerging flux." It borrows some of its methods and
premises from artificial-life research: a genetic algorithm (GA)
is used both to generate some of the imagery and as a method for
assessing viewers' "empathy factor." The GA, an artificial
measuring device mimicking genuine standardized systems in
biomedicine, takes a viewer's "empathy score," calculated from
their speed of approach and their answers to three questions, and
calculates it as a set of genes that mutate and cross over to
form offspring. Viewers with adaptive offspring pass their genes
into a gene pool that subsequent viewers interact with. In this
way, the "recombinant" computation of the GA links together a
population of nine viewers before resetting. Each viewer is given
feedback on how they did through voice, a light display and a
fitness chart. Thus *UCBM* is really investigating the nature of
exchange with the viewer, extending his or her experience by
constituting a situation where specific issues are revealed with
questions such as "This is what you are like?" The response to
this work varies a considerable amount from place to place, but
viewers seem to get involved in trying to obtain a "high" score,
often repeatedly trying the test to reach their goal.

Projects such as those discussed here have opened up experimental
inquiries to evaluate the emotional state and awareness of
interactive audiences. The notion of whimsy permeates several of
these works, and audiences (in my experience) respond with relish
to the amiable, somewhat mysterious and often unpredictable
situations. The relative intimacy of the installation
environments also carries an appeal for audiences, who show their
curiosity by lingering, smiling, frowning, asking questions - all
very different from works where the audience navigates through
mouse-clicks. Presumably, the physical involvement (however
slight) makes the difference.

In summary, it is too early to reach definitive conclusions about
audience awareness. However, it is important to note that without
these initial landmarks it would be difficult, if not impossible,
to progress forward on the long journey of investigating
consciousness.

...........................................................

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. *English Thesaurus* (Glasgow, U.K.: Harper Collins Publishers,
 1993) p. 53.

2. *Standard Desk Dictionary* (New York, NY: Funk and Wagnalis,
1977) p. 135.

3. David Rokeby, "Where the Virtual Meets the Real," in *Touch
Touche* catalog (Toronto, Canada: InterAccess Electronic Media
Arts Centre, 1999) pp. 10-12.

4. David Rokeby, "Lecture for 'Info-Art'", Kwangju Biennale. WWW:
http://www.interlog.com/~drokeby/install.htm. See also
http://homepage.mac.com/davidrokeby/home.html.

5. Norman White, "The Helpless Robot," WWW:
http://www.year01.com/helpless.

6. N. White [5].

7. N. White, *Helpless Robot* artist's statement, WWW:
http://www.year01.com/helpless/statement.html.

8. N. White [7].

9. Nell Tenhaaf, *UCBM (You Could Be Me),* WWW:
http://www.yorku.ca/tenhaaf/ucbmx.html.

________________________________________________________________
ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

B. Alan Wallace

Trained for many years as a monk in Buddhist monasteries in India
and Switzerland, Alan Wallace has taught Buddhist theory and
practice in Europe and America since 1976. He has served as
interpreter for numerous Tibetan scholars and contemplatives,
including H. H. the Dalai Lama. After graduating from Amherst
College, where he studied physics and the philosophy of science,
he earned his M.A. and Ph.D. in religious studies at Stanford
University. He has taught at various universities and has edited,
translated, authored and contributed to more than 30 books on
Tibetan Buddhism, medicine, language and culture, and the
interface between science and religion. His most recent book is
*Buddhism and Science: Breaking New Ground* (Columbia University
Press, 2003). He is presently a research scholar and
contemplative associated with the Mind and Life Institute and is
in the planning stage of establishing a university-based,
interdisciplinary, cross-cultural Center for the Study of
Consciousness.

William Magee
William Magee received his Ph.D. in Tibetan studies from the
University of Virginia. He is co-author of *Fluent Tibetan,* a
course in Tibetan language, and author of *The Nature of Things:
Emptiness and Essence in the Ge-luk World* (Ithaca, NY: Snow
Lion, 2000). He is currently translating a commentary on
*Abhisamayalamkara* (Ornament for Clear Realizations), a
fundamental treatise of Indian Buddhism, from Tibetan to English
for the Foundation of the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition
(FPMT).

Kok Kee Choy
Artist Kok Kee Choy lives in Singapore and holds an MA in Design
for Interactive Media from Middlesex University, London. Prior to
his studies in London, he was trained in advertising art/applied
art and fine art. Kok Kee has worked in the creative industry for
more than a decade as a creative consultant and art director. He
is also an educator at tertiary level and advisor to art
institutions. As an artist, Kok Kee's works have won numerous art
awards and have been acquired by both foreign and local
commercial institutions, government bodies, art museums and
educational establishments.

Robert C. Morgan
Robert C. Morgan is a writer, international art critic, curator,
poet, lecturer and artist. His recent books include *Art into
Ideas: Essays on Conceptual Art* (1996), *Between Modern and
Conceptual Art* (1997), *The End of the Art World* (1998), *Gary
Hill* (2000) and *Bruce Nauman* (2002). He writes for *Art News*
(New York) and *Art Press* (Paris) and is a contributing editor
for *Sculpture* magazine (USA) and *Tema Celeste* (Milan). He
holds an MFA in sculpture and a Ph.D. in art history and is
currently adjunct professor of fine art at Pratt Institute. In
1999, he was awarded the Arcale Award for Art Criticism in
Salamanca (Spain).

Nina Czegledy
Nina Czegledy, an independent media artist, curator and writer,
has been involved in collaborative international projects for the
last decade. Czegledy participated in conceptualizing and
curating *Points of Entry,* an electronic arts collaboration
between Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which is currently
touring abroad. She also developed *Digitized Bodies, Virtual
Spectacles,* centered on the changing perceptions of the human
body, which included a series of on-line and on-site events in
Canada (2000), Hungary (2001) and Slovenia (2002). Her
art/science/technology interest is further reflected by
collaborative projects in progress, including *Aurora* and *The
Electromagnetism of Bodies.* Czegledy has curated over 20
international media art/video programs and touring exhibitions,
which have been presented in over 30 countries. She has published
widely both in Europe and North America and is currently the
Chair of the Inter Society for the Electronic Arts (ISEA).

________________________________________________________________

                  _________________________________
                 |                                 |
                 |    LEONARDO DIGITAL REVIEWS     |
                 |            2003.02              |
                 |_________________________________|

________________________________________________________________

This month's report on Leonardo Digital Reviews is mainly limited
to a list of reviews that have been filed during the first two
months of 2003. We also include Robert Pepperell's review of
*Mirror of Consciousness: Art, Creativity and Veda,* by Anna
Bonshek, to coincide with the theme of this month's LEA. The
reasons for this are that first, we are catching up with our
sequence of reporting in LEA after our special issues and second,
as you can see, the panel has been exceptionally busy and taken
up much of our allocated space just with the slate! These
reviews, along with the archive for the year, are all available
at the usual website:
http://mitpress.mit.edu/e-journals/Leonardo/ldr.html.

Michael Punt
Editor-in-Chief
Leonardo Digital Reviews

...........................................................

January 2003

Iconoclash: Beyond the Image Wars in Science, Religion, and Art,
Edited by Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel
Reviewed by Wilfred Niels Arnold

The Body Electric: An Anatomy of the New Bionic Senses,
by James Geary
Reviewed by Stephen Wilson

Mediaworks, by Nancy Paterson
Reviewed by Stefaan Van Ryssen

The Virtual Score: Representation, Retrieval, Restoration -
Computing in Musicology 12, edited by Walter B. Hewlett and
Eleanor Selfridge-Field
Reviewed by Stefaan Van Ryssen

Architects + Engineers = Structures,
by Ivan Margolius. Wiley-Academy
Reviewed by Roy R. Behrens

Artmedia VIII - From Aesthetics of Communication to Net Art
(Conference)
Reviewed by Maia Engeli, CAiiA-STAR

ArtSci 2002: New Dimensions in Collaboration
Reviewed by Amy Ione

Automobiles by Architects, by Ivan Margolius
Reviewed by Roy R. Behrens

Extreme Beauty: The Body Transformed by Harold Koda. Metropolitan
Reviewed by Roy R. Behrens

Computer Music Journal: Music Information Processing
Reviewed by Stefaan Van Ryssen

The Deleuze Connections, by John Rajchman
Reviewed by Fred Andersson

DOC(K)S, 3: 21/22/23/24, 'un notre web' ('a web of ours'), edited
by Akenaton (Philippe Castellin and Jean Torregrosa)
Reviewed by Fred Andersson

Envisioning Science: The Design and Craft of the Science Image,
by Felice Frankel
Reviewed by Roy R. Behrens

JI Festival Internacional de arte, ciencia y technologia:
dinamicas fluidas, by Juan Carrete Parrondo (ed.) et. al.
Reviewed by Stefaan Van Ryssen

Transit, by John Fitz Rogers (composer) and Michael Nicollela
(guitar)
Reviewed by Stefaan Van Ryssen

Frost photographs, by Hans Danuser (text by Urs Stahel)
Reviewed by Stefaan Van Ryssen

Networked Art, by Craig J. Saper
Reviewed by Stefaan Van Ryssen

North America, by Curlew
Reviewed by Stefaan Van Ryssen

pulse music..., by John McGuire
Reviewed by Stefaan Van Ryssen

Computers and Typography 2, compiled by Rosemary Sassoon
Reviewed by Michael R. Mosher

Art, Technology, Consciousness: Mind @ Large, edited by Roy
Ascott
Reviewed by Fred Andersson

February 2003

Archimedia: Changes and Challenges (1) Film Archives in the
Digital era: New Concepts and New Policies, Nederlands Film
Museum, 16-18 January 2003
Reviewed by Michael Punt

Central European Avant-Gardes: Exchange and Transformation,
1910-1930, Timothy O. Benson (ed.)
Reviewed by Robert Pepperell

Conceptual Art and Painting: Further Essays on Art and
Language, by Charles Harrison
Reviewed by Robert Pepperell

CTRL[SPACE], Rhetorics of Surveillance from Bentham to Big
Brother, Thomas Y. Levin, Ursula Frohne and Peter Weibel (eds.)
Reviewed by Stefaan Van Ryssen

From Energy to Information: Representation in Science and
Technology, Art, and Literature, Bruce Clarke and Linda Dalrymple
Henderson (eds.)
Reviewed by Robert Pepperell

Virtual Art: From Illusion to Immersion (Leonardo Books),
by Oliver Grau
Reviewed by Amy Ione

Mille Gilles: A film by Ijsbrand van Veelen
Reviewed by Michael Punt

Obey The Giant: Life in the Image World, by Rick Poynor
Reviewed by Stefaan Van Ryssen

Parables for the Virtual: Movement, affect, sensation,
by Brian Massumi
Reviewed by Angela Ndalianis

Postmodernism and Globalization in Ethnomusicology: An
Epistemological Problem, by Andy Nercessian
Reviewed by Stefaan Van Ryssen

Gerhard Richter: Forty Years of Painting, by Robert Storr and
Gerhard Richter 858, David Breskin (ed.)
Reviewed by Amy Ione

The Secret, by Eve Hoffman
Reviewed by George Gessert

The Spectre of Hope: With Sebasti�o Salgado and John Berger,
directed by Paul Carlin (VHS); Migrations, by Sebasti�o Salgado;
The Children: Refugees and Migrants, by Sebasti�o Salgado and
Lelia Wanick Salgado (eds.)
Reviewed by Amy Ione

The Scientific Temper: An Anthology of Stories on Matters of
Science, by Anthony R. Michaelis
Reviewed by David Topper

Touch: Sensuous Theory and Multisensory Media, by Laura U. Marks
Reviewed by Dene Grigar

________________________________________________________________

< Mirror of Consciousness: Art, Creativity and Veda >

by Anna Bonshek, Montial Banarsidass Publishers, Delhi, 2001. 470
pp., illus. Trade. ISBN: 81-208-1774-5.

Reviewed by Robert Pepperell, pepperell@ntlworld.com.

Anna Bonshek identifies a malaise in Western art, and by
extension our wider culture, in which traditional ideas of the
universal, the absolute and the transcendent have been displaced
by the fragmented narcissism of post-modern language games. What
she argues for instead is a more durable, coherent kind of art
specifically informed by the Vedic Science of His Holiness the
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, of whom she is a disciple.

For Bonshek, the knowledge embodied in the discipline of
Maharishi Vedic Science is no less than a comprehensive "science
of consciousness and its expressions" (p. 52). This claim, and
others made elsewhere about the application of the Vedic method
(such as the influence of the "Extended Maharishi Effect" on
global arms negotiations [p. 106]), will not endear Bonshek, or
her ideas, to the skeptical materialist critic. But the
non-occidental context of this philosophy of mind (it is probably
safer to call it a "philosophy" than a "science") should not give
us any greater cause for skepticism than the consideration of any
other theory of consciousness; if anything, its perceived
distance from our established patterns of enquiry might make it
all the more valuable, while it is in many ways already closer
than we think.

For example, in outlining the  Maharishi's conception of
consciousness she quotes him as saying: "Consciousness is that
which is conscious of itself. Being conscious of itself,
consciousness is the knower of itself. Being the knower of
itself, consciousness is both the knower and the known. Being
both the knower and the known, consciousness is also the process
of knowing" (p. 57). It is the "self-referential singularity" of
these three qualities which "together are the indications of the
existence of consciousness." This self-referential conception of
phenomenal consciousness is certainly consistent with currents
emerging in Western consciousness studies, particularly in some
of the work of Crick and Koch, and Gerald Edelman, and if given
further attention could, I believe, allow us to make significant
progress in describing this most elusive aspect of our
experience.

Having given a reasonable account of recent Western contemporary
theories of art and a summary of the Vedic theory of mind,
Bonshek goes on to explain in some detail the various doctrines
and practices of the Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation-Siddhi
technique. To summarize in very basic terms: there exists around
us a field of pure consciousness of which most of us are only
dimly aware. Through certain exercises we can gradually transcend
the "lower" states of being and move towards a heightened
self-referential awareness, which draws us closer to some
universal coherence and unity. Art, or certain kinds of artistic
practice, can aid and enhance this process.

For what it's worth, the notion of a universal field of
consciousness accords with my own suspicion that thoughts "have"
us as much as, if not more than, we "have" them, while also
resonating with various "consciousness field theories" recently
proposed by biomedical theorists such as Johnjoe McFadden and E.
R. John. The bulk of this long book is concerned with imparting
the teachings of the Maharishi on a variety of topics from art,
creativity and consciousness to selfhood, energy and life. For
the uninitiated, it is rather hard going, with a proliferation of
Sanskrit terms: "The light of Creative Intelligence, on the
self-referral level, is heard as sound or Sruti (the Sanskrit
diacritics are not available) ... audible frequencies of sound
[that] form the basis of material particles or Tanmatras. These
are measured by the five Vrttis in terms of the five Mahabhutas
or elements - Akasha, Vayu, Agni, Jal, and Prthvi ..." and so on
(p. 285). In addition, there are frequent, rather enigmatic
passages taken from the Maharishi himself intended to support
many complex and somewhat nebulous assertions made by Bonshek.

The study of philosophy, consciousness and art in the context of
Asian thought is a highly fascinating area and deserves an
accessible and authoritative text that draws it into current
issues in philosophy of mind. As much as one agrees with
Bonshek's diagnosis of the deficiencies of a lot of contemporary
art, and for all its ambition, sincerity, and tantalizing detail,
I do not think *Mirror of Consciousness* is it. A shorter, less
technical book would, I feel, have won these ideas a wider
audience in an intellectual market where, perhaps, they are
needed most.

_________________________________________________________________
                    ______________________________
                   |                              |
                   |           ISAST NEWS         |
                   |______________________________|

_________________________________________________________________

< OLATS NEWS >

OLATS (Observatoire Leonardo des Arts et des Techno-Sciences):
http://www.olats.org
IDEA online/International Directory of Electronic Arts:
http://nunc.com

1 - Launching of the Cultural Roots of Globalization project
http://www.olats.org/setF12.html

Currently on-line : - A general bibliography (with two book
reviews) presenting important works dealing with the deep origins
of globalization. Of special interest is "Next," an essay by
Italian writer Alessandro Baricco, which addresses the question
of imagination. - Two essays: a translation of the conference by
Roy Ascott "Planetary Technoetics" (CIREN, November 28, 2001) and
a previously unpublished essay by Julien Knebusch, entitled
"Planet Earth in Contemporary Electronic Artistic Production".
These two essays tackle the question of a "planetary
consciousness" by underlining the contribution of artists to this
question. - A section entitled "Words of Globalization"
approaches the linguistic consequences of globalization. This
section currently lists three expressions by philosophers that
attempt to grasp this phenomenon.

2 - Bill Seaman wins the 2002 Leonardo Award for Excellence

Bill Seaman has been chosen as the recipient of the 2002 Leonardo
Award for Excellence for his article, "OULIPO / VS / Recombinant
Poetics" (Leonardo 34:5, 2001, Digital Salon Special Issue). In
his article, Bill Seaman explores alternative avenues of
creativity and redefines them through visual and sonic digital
media. OULIPO, or the Ouvroir de litt�rature potentielle (the
Workshop for Potential Literature), encourages writers to explore
challenging ways of mixing words and letters in their work.
Recombinant poetics is the practice of playing with
media-elements in generative virtual environments to create
entirely new works. "VS" (versus) normally implies antagonism,
but here refers to the standard procedure of titling re-mixed
techno music as "remixing deejay VS original artist." Seaman
describes how the principles of OULIPO, recombinant poetics, and
remixed music have influenced his work in machinic genetics.
These practices led him to attempt creation of a Hybrid Invention
Generator, in which a viewer/user (vuser) could choose multiple
3-D objects and fuse them to create a new invention.

Bill Seaman is head of the Graduate Digital Media Program at
Rhode Island School of Design, and explores issues related to the
continuum between physical and virtual/media space. The 2002
Leonardo Award for Excellence is co-sponsored by the
Technoculture Studies Department and the Art Department at the
University of California, Davis, where it will be presented at a
prize award lecture on campus during the Spring 2003 session. For
further information, visit http://technoculture.ucdavis.edu.

The other nominees for the 2002 Leonardo Award for Excellence
were: Jean-Louis Lhermitte, "Sculpting Ionized Plasma" (Leonardo
34:3); Sheila Pinkel, "Thermonuclear Gardens: Information
Artworks about the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex" (Leonardo
34:4); Ando Arike, "What Are Humans For?: Art in the Age of
Post-Human Development" (Leonardo 34:5, Digital Salon Special
Issue); David Toop, "Not Necessarily Captured, Except as a
Fleeting Glance" (Leonardo Music Journal 11).

Panelists included Lynn Hershman (chair), Lisa Bornstein, Nina
Czegledy, Fran Dyson and Edward Shanken. For further information
about Leonardo/ISAST and the Leonardo Awards Programs, visit
http://www.leonardo.info.

________________________________________________________________
_________
   ___________________
  |                   |
  |                   |
  |      CREDITS      |
  |                   |
  |___________________|


Nisar Keshvani: LEA Editor-in-Chief
Michael Punt: LDR Editor-in-Chief
Patrick Lambelet: LEA Managing Editor
Beth Rainbow: Assistant Editor
Andre Ho: Web Concept and Design Consultant
Roger Malina: Leonardo Executive Editor
Stephen Wilson: Chair, Leonardo/ISAST Web Committee

Editorial Advisory Board:
Roy Ascott, Michael Naimark, Craig Harris, Paul Brown, Julianne
Pierce, Seah Hock Soon

fAf-LEA corresponding editors:
Ricardo Dal Farra, Young Hae-Chang, Fatima Lasay, Jose-Carlos
Mariategui, Marcus Neusetter, Fion Ng and Marc Voge

________________________________________________________________
_________
   ___________________
  |                   |
  |      LEA          |
  | WORLD WIDE WEB    |
  |     ACCESS        |
  |___________________|

The LEA World Wide Web site contains the LEA archives, including
all back issues, the LEA Gallery, the Profiles, Feature Articles,
Publications, Opportunities and Announcements. It is accessible
using the following URL: <http://mitpress2.mit.edu/LEA>

________________________________________________________________
_________
    _________________
   |      LEA        |
   |  PUBLISHING     |
   |  INFORMATION    |
   |_________________|

Editorial Address:
Leonardo Electronic Almanac
Studio 3a, 35 Place du Bourg-de-four
1204 Geneva, Switzerland

E-mail: <lea@mitpress.mit.edu>
________________________________________________________________
_________

Copyright (2003), Leonardo, the International Society for the
Arts, Sciences and Technology

All Rights Reserved.

Leonardo Electronic Almanac is published by:

The MIT Press Journals, Five Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA
02142
U.S.A.

Re-posting of the content of this journal is prohibited without
permission of Leonardo/ISAST, except for the posting of news and
events listings which have been independently received.
Leonardo/ISAST and the MIT Press give institutions permission to
offer access to LEA within the organization through such
resources as restricted local gopher and mosaic services. Open
access to other individuals and organizations is not permitted.

________________________________________________________________
_________

< Ordering Information >

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=4&tid=27&
mode=p

Leonardo Electronic Almanac is free to Leonardo/ISAST members and
to subscribers to the journal Leonardo for the 2003 subscription
year. The rate for Non-Leonardo individual subscribers is $35.00,
and for Non-Leonardo institutional subscribers the rate is
$75.00. All subscriptions are entered for the calendar year only.

All orders must be prepaid by check (must be drawn against U.S.
bank in U.S. funds), money order, MasterCard, VISA, or American
Express. Where student subscription rates are available, a
verification of matriculant status is required.

Note: In order to place orders electronically, you must be using
a browser that is SSL-compliant. If you are unable to open the
ordering link listed above, then your browser does not support
the security features necessary to use this interface. Please use
the addresses below to submit your order. Address all orders and
inquiries to:

Circulation Department
MIT Press Journals
Five Cambridge Center
Cambridge, MA 02142-1407 USA
TEL: (617) 253-2889 (M-F, 9-5)
FAX: (617) 577-1545 (24 hours)

For questions contact:
journals-orders@mit.edu (subscriptions)

________________________________________________________________
_________
   ________________
  |                |
  |  ADVERTISING   |
  |________________|

Individuals and institutions interested in advertising in
Leonardo Electronic Almanac, either in the distributed text
version or on the World Wide Web site should contact
<journals-info@mit.edu> at MIT Press for details.

________________________________________________________________
_________
< End of Leonardo Electronic Almanac 11 (02) >
________________________________________________________________
_________