easyjet hard against skateboarding

Just gone through “security”* in Luton airport for an easyjet flight to falafel-land*.
Had my skateboard set as wheels for my hand laggage, as the whole setup is the size easyjet allows – i checked..
A guy on the way to security told me that such skateboard wheels are “illegal” – so I put the board inside the bag. (yup, its a small board used for travelling in town. If you haven’t tried, perhaps you should. Its kind of fun! 😉 )
On the way back, the guy that told me off, smiled and let me through. However, the security people that check with a camera stopped me and said I should go to get the board tagged by easyjet.

In fascism, the state’s power is authoritarianly breaking any semblance of equality processes for the benefit, profit, glory and power of capital stake holders. In the little proto fascist state of Luton airport, the security is bent for the benefit of the airlines. Instead of letting me through, as I had a baggage just like anyone, they said that because they could see inside a skateboard, and everyone knows such things are onlt for sport and not some tools for transport – I have to be sent to benefit easyjet and bestow another £27 into their accounts..

Is this the last time I am easyjetting? Perhaps luton airporting?? Perhpas not many other airliners and airports out there offer a different proposition..

I’ll have to check.. Well.. Even if there are alternatives – am just a drop in a huge dry sand desert..

* Security
The equipment that check for metal as you go through blipped for me on my 1st attempt. (before being told to tag the skateboard)
When I asked why, they said it has a random “thing” that blips beyond human intervention.
Then, after tagging the board, it blipped randomly again when I passed through..

* Falafel-land is a possible name for Palestine. Am still negotiating with my kids re that..

significance and meanings with links

Am checking stuff re epigenetics – not sure why, but perhaps that is one of the epigenetic motivators..

So was listening to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycRcLqscnuQ – don’t be fooled by the subject, the delivery is as dry as it gets. She is trying though.. Hopefully she’ll get better.

Anyhow, I think that through that dry delivery, and by thinking along the lines of “wow, she is saying some significant stuff, I wonder if people will find meanings in it because it might be hard to link due to the dryness of the delivery” – that it seems perhaps Significance, Meanings and Links could also be interesting in the context of epigenetics.

An epigenetic event, say an activation of some chemical in a genetic code desert – apparently there are large parts of them deserts – has to link with some genetic code to “express” itself in a significant way. No link = as if it wasn’t there. As if it didn’t happen. As if the whole chemical activation didn’t happen. Hence, if it didn’t happen, it carries an even more weight in people’s mind, and turns into a question of Meaning. It means nothing if it didn’t happen. A bit like a game that has no consequences beyond it – on some sort of championship, for example – being currently linkless, a bit like this blog 😉 is equated with being insignificant and meaningless. However, just like the game, and this blog, indeed a chemical release event – it does and did happen.
Is it not for us, as entities that can actually at least pretend to think, or consider, or imagine, which is slightly different from active & reactive chemicals, to have more ways to link with stuff we might have not known to happen? Is it not, in a strange way, giving each one of us and as various group configurations, some meanings in it self..?

still attempting to simplify yet can not find a tag in my head

this is another follow up that follows this & that.

the”problem” in my head, apart from it being just that, is the imagined need for solution.

the question should be practised – not solution.. eg —>

am on public transport.
i know there will be timespace wheren (where + when come together) i’d cross looks with someone – how to cross eyes with a stranger on trans & port in public? maybe the practice is:
how to question crossing eyes with a stranger on trans & port in public?

We crossed eyes/looks. Something was created for a fleeting moment – that isn’t the interest. That moment has gone. However, the practice could question precisely that – no?
* crossing looks *
Hey dude, no mean to disturb etc. we’ve just crossed. Was wondering how you came to look? i was looking beyond you. and you?
oh! gee.. hummm.. i checked your strange glasses.
(These are object/what based questions)

Hey dude, we’ve just crossed. how did it feel? (am asking so that there will be an aesthetic question, organism, developed out of this crossing..)

for me there was a question of focus – beyond and on – shifting.
dude – i was wondering how it might feel like wearing your glasses. (they are different)
now we have a new aesthetic organism that asks how it feels like to shift focus while sensing a wonderment regarding unfamiliar glasses.
This can be given to visual people, or designers, or biologists, or builders, etc. to do solutions. Or offered to other artists as a way for imagining through.
Indeed I could use this in a follow-up crossing eyes with a stranger on trans & port in public?

Hey dude – we’ve just crossed. I was imagining how someone that shifts focus while being fascinated by unfamiliarity of eyewear might sense you monochromatic dresscode.
really? gosh you are a cheeky bastard! fuck off will you??!!!

Cool – now we have a new kind of crossing eyes with a stranger on trans & port in public? – it has a double folding, no? (crossing eyes + fuck off..)

over complicating with wrong questions – an example?

in the previous post i expressed a common and unfortunate – in my view – mistake.
The mistake, i think, is that of haNGING ON to the known. Perhaps there is a rhyme in it – but as common with many rhymes, they come to substitute thinking. (eg, for easier memory, etc..) I thought through elements already known, like pictures, sounds, code, etc. – rather than whatever Is Being infront of me.

In other, perhaps less abstract lingo:
instead of saying – hey, i am creating switches with people through negotiation x – i thought of how to “communicate” – place these negotiations in the common – via other means..
These Other means have a life of their own. Perhaps a proof of the validity for their inner sensation?? Sure, we can blanket code anything, we can blanket record anything, or even paint – etc – but that doesn’t make being painting/code/etc. It makes that – eg negotiation/switch/bread/crossing/ – an element that is/was coded.
In a way, even in this particular instance of folding, crossing, transing, colliding activities, where we can argue that the crossing – eg that of practice and its communicative carrier – in itself creates a new entity.
However, I suspect this is not a crossing in the sense of two equals, but with a predetermined relationship – that of carrier and a carried, hence very limited. eg, when the film is a documentary about bubble blowing, the film attempts to hide itself for the focus on the bubble blowing, and the latter, is being compromised by both the film’s inhibition and being on a film.. If there was a crossing, they would.. Humm.. perhaps I am wrong and am thinking only in positive ways..? TBC..

However, the case remains that if I am interested in Bubble Blowing, perhaps film is Wrong way to communicate it? Perhaps precisely because it creates a new entity – that of hiding and inhibitions, or some other – inherently obscures the practice.

In a sense, I have to submit to the fact that somehow, any practice, is carried over into the common realms via some other element – and that is HarD to submit to.
However, the question here is then of the link and inter-relationship between the carrier and carried elements. In my mind, this is also a question of Honesty regarding these. Am I for you just a one night stand, or a potential life-long-love story? Is it healthy for us to workout this question – or shall we let each of us Not-Share intents? Shall I keep it a secret that am not interested more than one night, perhaps two at a stretch, while You might keep it well hidden that in fact a different time span is more desirable?
What will happen to the animal/organism that comes out of this kind of link? A relationship based on intents negative to one another that, in themselves, are hidden.. Is that what tragedies are made of?

So, since am not seeking to create a tragedy every time am doing a crossing. Nor am I interested in questioning that tragedy every time – though perhaps this will be an interesting theme to pursue** one day – it seems to me that other means should be used, and other questions be asked, to respond with How to bring the practices, such as curry place searching in Bradford – to the commons and as they are.

One way of doing that is as a research.
One way of doing that is as a question.
One way of doing that is as an invite.
One way of doing that is as an omission.
One way of doing that is as a reference.
One way of doing that is as a doing announcement.
One way of doing that is as translation.
One way of doing that is as interrogation.
One way of doing that is as just doing.
Just doing?
Fear – how will other people be able to critique?
Question – don’t other people ask you what you do?
Question – what do you tell them?
Question = that i collected negative curry places and micro particles in Bradford?
Question – Micro particles can be visualised?
Question – negative curry places, as switch beings, what or how will they live?
Question – do they need – or want – to live beyond a specific spacetime? can they? or other modifications will simply kill them into crystals?

materials art collection confusion and collisions or there about

In the past day or 2 I felt a bit dis-ponded. This in itself should not bother anyone but myself, however, it is the background if not a certain rhythm to the following, which just might have some wider relevance than mememememyself and nothing to do with You!

In the past week, I was doing stuff with Denise & Hilan. We were collaborating, colliding, developing rhythms and related ontologies, as well as ways to create art materials/content that is just what it is – rather than a transform in form. Material that is, through its negotiative process of production, a switch of at least 5 elements – perhaps rhythmic elements – that can be then transformed into other domains/materials/soups/etc..
<< By SWITCHES I refer to "basic materials" that operate as switches between negotiative intents. eg, I am looking for a sound, you are looking for someone searching for sounds, then we talk this and create, just by talking, a certain negotiative switch. The switch will be made of at least the following - without its epi-elements - a Yes - (eg, we both look to negotiate in similar area.) a No - (eg, we will both share some disagreements.) a Maybe - (eg, we will be able at least to condition, and restrict the Yes and No.) a Perhaps - (eg - we will be able at least to condition the Maybe. i.e. We might agree X is a sound, but Y is a noise. Then one of us might condition the Y by saying it is just under Z circumstances. Then, we might disagree about the circumstances, hence generating a Perhaps. Another way of doing that is if we questioned the circumstances' viability.. etc..) a Speculable - (eg at least one element we can add an if to. What If a sound is unheard. How If a sound is unheard, etc..) These, I think are sort of "elementary wavicles" of Switches which allow them to Be between activities. The sense of self dispendency is precisely from the fact this is a rather new ways of art, and despite the fact am part of imagining it, am not entirely understanding it. For example: We walked through Bradford(-Upon-Curry), as "Brasilia’s general and specific committee of street vision (missmanagement/under_management/under_unmanagement) rhythms" to gather stuff. Check Here and HerE.

The idea is VERY simple:
We interact with stuff as that is How we live. No way out of that one in life..? 😉 And as we interact, since we have to negotiate, the focus of our negotiations is in fact the material of that IS being alive. (perhaps not even produced, but organically generated. Organically in the sense of selfless in ability to stop that generation of stuff, but to negotiate with that process itself through, for example, imagination and intention.)
So.. Through the search for curry places we negotiated and created/generated various elements of switches. Elements that are Yes, No, Maybe, Perhaps, and Speculable.
The very negotiations, in themselves, generate their own material.

Now, I have taken the material, as seen from the links to http://itchy.5p.lt/wp-contentroo/ and added visual, conceptual and other elements onto them because I was knowing not. I was practicing knowing not without aknowledging it. I was Doing not knowing how to Share the switches we generated.
and I still feel very uncomfortable – though perhaps some comfort in the state because it is “safe” in its “un” – regarding the doing stuff with the switches, rather than allowing/letting them to Be..