On an early midweek morning, with dark of night slowly losing its grip, an intermittent rain washes tired concrete.
Trickles of water run down beige pipes from rooftops more used to sunning.
I am beside my machine, heart beating and breathing, it regulates my thought.
Or so it thinks. Or so I think.
A memory of yesterday — an odd request about how to make sense of George Boole within Boole’s own logic. Of course, I knew then, as I know now that logic is not the logic of now, but of parceled past and partial futures. When you know something about your previous knowing it’s not the same as the sensation of knowing right now.
A few minutes ago the faucet rained down on me from within what some refer to as a shower. Not the shower of the clouds but a makeshift, human installed shower. You know, the network of pipes that go to and fro and move water around human systems. Remembering this wet situation and recalling what I thought about then. My concern was my hair but also the nature of meaning, words, context.
Consider now, as I considered in that wetted then, an idea about metrics. Change in numbers associated to states of the world. Perhaps that phrasing doesn’t make sense, dear reader. Of course, it wasn’t clear I was even talking to you. But now that I’ve made clear I am talking to you, a cleared headed person reading these words right now, your attention is at the ready receptive to the information. Consider now the idea of metrics — a change in a data point associated to observed states of the world. It is much clearer now, right? Now that you understand you are the audience. It is also much clearer now that I repeated the thought. Shall we say your understanding has INCREASED in association with 2 presentations of the idea of a metric?
A metric is a presentation of numbers someone claims is associated with states of the world. 3. A number is a quantity. A claim is reference. An association is co-incident of references. 4 presentations about a metric. To what does the word metric make claim? What is the reference a metric asserts? A change in associated state of the world X is referenced by a change in this metric-a movement of the presentation of quantity Y to quantity Y’. 5 or 6 now.
Confounding. Untangle this quite simply, dearest reader losing patience (it is I that am losing patience). The mere presentation of the number of times the word metric appears is associated possibly with a reader’s, perhaps your, comprehension of metric. 7 — 9. It could also be the case that these references, simply being counted, making a claim about quantity and comprehension has actually increased ambiguity, decreased knowledge about metric, but also the point of this essay. So -1.
As I rinsed my hair I had this thought I am having again, but now its within two frames (now and shower now): you cannot explain truth. One has to experience it — go through it — be in consequence with it. Truth is consequences. You cannot talk about a metric and have someone else understand it. Back to 8. Each person must come to the consequences of the metric on their own.
This is the hardest part. Metrics are not facts of the world. They are claims about associations of states of the world. 9 and 10. Metrics are orientations of differing states of the world and awareness of metrics focuses attention on the referenced states of the world. 11. This awareness then does work — changes the states. The theory of metrics is that if you measure something you can change it. 12.
Outside the drips have dropped, the cement refuses to integrate them all and the pipes up top dry out. Inside my hair is still wet from a shower in the past. Less wet than before, at what point will I consider it damp and not wet? Is there a metric of wetness? Phase change. 13.
Before I started composing this Proustian experience of metric (14) I read about Sergey and Larry departing Google/Alphabet. I couldn’t tell if I was reading tweets, blogs, tweets in blogs, emails from Google, emails about Google, emails in tweets from Google about Google and in that mixup I even got lost in what Google, the company is/does/was/wants to be. I’m not even sure I knew Sergey and Larry still actively worked at the company. If I worked at the company I probably would have known that, it certainly would have been very easy to Google it. Nonetheless, what are the consequences of -2 founding executives? With time, probably none. Within enough time — enough presentations of states of the world — the metric of founding executives loses its reference. Founding teams are relevant in relation to the founding event when the founding event is still the most significant state of the world. Once the founding is a minor event in a longer history of consequences that metric of Founding Team becomes less referential — less associated to states of the world today. 15, 16, 17.
I am an artist. 1. This was a significant reference when I wasn’t an artist. I have no idea when I became an artist. Do you? 2.
The machine breathes next to me. It’s been recoloring itself throughout the duration of this besotted beginning. If I had to make a metrics based claim it’s that anything less than 18,19,20, or maybe 21 drops of water is just a sprinkle. 22 and now you have 1 shower.