“When the correspondences on the plane can be established between:
- all the divisions of one component
- and all the divisions of another component, the construction is a DIAGRAM.”

Source: Semiology of graphics (1967/83), p. 50

Adopted from Wikiquote. Last update June 3, 2021. History

Help us to complete the source, original and additional information

Do you have more details about the quote "When the correspondences on the plane can be established between: - all the divisions of one component - and all the …" by Jacques Bertin?
Jacques Bertin photo
Jacques Bertin 20
French geographer and cartographer 1918–2010

Related quotes

Jacques Bertin photo

“A graphic is a diagram when correspondences on the plane can be established among all elements of another component.”

Jacques Bertin (1918–2010) French geographer and cartographer

Source: Semiology of graphics (1967/83), p. 193

Viktor Schauberger photo

“All motion consists of two components. One component serves inwardness (internalisation) and the other outwardness (dispersion). Both preconditions for motion regulate the eternal flow of metamorphosis (panta Rhei).”

Viktor Schauberger (1885–1958) austrian philosopher and inventor

Implosion Magazine, No. 57, p. 5. (Callum Coats: Energy Evolution (2000))
Implosion Magazine

Jiddu Krishnamurti photo

“Now, one sees all that by observing, by being aware, watching, one is aware of all this. Then out of that awareness you see there is no division between the observer and the observed.”

Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895–1986) Indian spiritual philosopher

Saanen, Switzerland (5 August 1973)
1970s
Context: Now, one sees all that by observing, by being aware, watching, one is aware of all this. Then out of that awareness you see there is no division between the observer and the observed. It is a trick of thought which demands security. Please don't madam, please. And by being aware it sees the observer is the observed, that violence is the observer, violence is not different from the observer. Now how is the observer to end himself and not be violent? Have you understood my question so far? I think so. Right? The observer is the observed, there is no division and therefore no conflict. And is the observer then, knowing all the intricacies of naming, linguistically caught in the image of violence, what happens to that violence? If the observer is violent, can the observer end, otherwise violence will go on? Can the observer end himself, because he is violent? Or what reality has the observer? Right sir? Is he merely put together by words, by experience, by knowledge? So is he put together by the past? So is he the past? Right? Which means the mind is living in the past. Right? obviously. You are living in the past. Right? No? As long as there is an observer there must be living in the past, obviously. And all our life is based on the past, memories, knowledge, images, according to which you react, which is your conditioning, is the past. And living has become the living of the past in the present, modified in the future. That's all, as long as the observer is living. Now does the mind see this as a truth, as a reality, that all my life is living in the past? I may paint most abstract pictures, write the most modern poems, invent the most extraordinary machinery, but I am still living in the past.

“With increasing size and complexity of the implementations of information systems, it is necessary to use some logical construct (or architecture) for defining and controlling the interfaces and the integration of all of the components of the system.”

John Zachman (1934) American computer scientist

Source: A Framework for Information Systems Architecture, 1987, p. 276, cited in: CM Pereira (2004), "A method to define an Enterprise Architecture using the Zachman Framework". in: SAC '04 Proceedings of the 2004 ACM symposium on Applied computing. pp. 1366-1371

René Guénon photo
John le Carré photo
Andrei Tarkovsky photo
Andrei Tarkovsky photo

“No one component of a film can have any meaning in isolation: it is the film that is the work of art.”

And we can only talk about its components rather arbitrarily, dividing it up artificially or the sake of theoretical discussion.
Source: Sculpting in Time (1986), p. 114

T.S. Eliot photo

“The division between those who accept, and those who deny, Christian revelation I take to be the most profound division between human beings.”

T.S. Eliot (1888–1965) 20th century English author

"Revelation" (1937), in The Idea of a Christian Society and Other Writings (London: Faber and Faber, 1982), p. 168

Related topics