Shape

105 A Second Look at Calculating
don’t have to intervene from outside later on if I see something new. I’m applying
rules to define parts on the fly, not to match permanent constituents that are defined
in advance. So long as lines fuse, there’s no history that privileges some parts and disadvantages
the rest. I can’t tell parts apart—they’re all the same. What you see is what
you get. It’s visual, and it’s calculating.
The three shapes in the series
each contain a triangle and a chevron. But the star
can be divided in five different ways that are mutually incompatible as I go on. One of
these divisions
is consistent with what I did to start—that’s the constructionist’s reason to keep it—
while the other four
break with the past in a radical way. The process seems discontinuous, but as I show
just below, it really isn’t. It involves a gestalt switch, or maybe a kind of saltation, that I
can describe in a coherent way. The constructionist’s preference is no more rational,
reasonable, or right than any other. Triangles are all alike with respect to my rules.
I’m free to choose. So which of the five triangles in the star is it finally going to be?
There’s no way to tell until I try a rule. And then my decision is only ephemeral. It
needn’t carry over to what I do next. It may be entirely inconsequential—ignored and