soylent, broccoli and me?

I have been recommending soylent, and considering it myself – for when I have time and money to organise – for some time now.

However, one of my constant grimes with soylent is the feeling it is a sort of conservative effort. Not simply because of its capitalistic outlook – getting funds to automate and make profits – but also because it assumes we know already.
One of the perks of eating various food sources is stumbling on – or risking – ideas regarding to feed. It might be that you eat stuff that isn’t actually very cool for you, eg, cows – or stuff that you had no idea was pretty cool for you, eg broccoli.

However, the way we eat nowadays is in itself too traditional and routed in lives based in times and environments that are foreign for our urban realities. Hence I am convinced we ought to change/evolve how we energise our bodies – am just questioning the soylent solution..
Perhaps I should also raise this question in one of the forums one day..

trans and maths or numbers and meanings?

I keep wondering about stuff like:
the number 2, for example, it can apply for 2 apples, 2 as an abstract outcome of a calculation, as an element of another number, as an element of a calculation, etc… In such usages, the 2 doesn’t mean something other than what it is, but is being applied to be an element greater than just what it is..
20 has a 2 10 can be said to have a 2, but not in the way 7 is.. Which numbers don’t have anything to do with 2??
There are many numbers that have not much to do with 101, for example.. This is a number on a different sort of strands and sequences.. Different kind of rhythms and links and transes..

Are there sort of universal equivalents that are not entirely numbers?

being and aiming through meanings of meanings by meaning without?

Just write some stuff re Meanings on barbicantalk forum:

...
 2- I have learned a lot via this exchange, so placing yourself as "learning", if I accepted that, would feel disingenuous.. For example, It seems that in your mind - I suspect the vast majority of people's minds - there is an idea of seeking meanings. ie you seem to ask, what X Y Z means, or what I might mean. In my mind, meanings are appearances not how stuff is - or might be. The sun appears to go up and down - but it doesn't. Hence I am weary of meanings..
 So when I mentioned rhythms, for example, am considering how rhythms could imagined to Be like, rather than what they might mean. Its a personal preference, nothing more - or less - in importance to imagining meanings. In fact, at times, it is great fun to experience the sun as if it actually moves..
 Many thanks for showing/teaching/confronting me with that!
2.1 - Actually, perhaps it should also be mentioned that in my view, art linked practices have been too involved with meanings.. eg, the contextual language is based on meanings in the form of: take an object, eg, a bed, urinal, a cup of coffee, etc. - change its context - then it can Be art because: the object's meaning was changed via the context. (there are the socio-economical-political elements of being linked to artworld, however the premise of being Linked to artworld is that the context manipulation changed the Meaning. Like recontextualising Mona-Lisa onto a canvass changed hers'..)

The question of meanings keeps coming up..
It seems that if A means A than A Is A. A pie Is a pie not a Pi. However, if I made a pie based on Pi calculations, then it might be said that it contains a Pi meaning. If I ask for a coffee, I utter sounds that in some societies have been confabulated to mean – transferable – into a request to brew stuff made of certain beans we tend to call coffee..

Hence, it might be argued that Meanings are in fact, transferables.. The actual life of meanings is that of being transferred between realms, entities and elements. Between times, stands, sequences and rhythms.
A is A and Can be transfered as B. I ask for coffee, and I mean just that. I could also transfer it to Mean a request for having some time with a person. You asked me to make a cup of coffee and I thought it meant you wanted a chat..

However, the transferable element in meanings is hidden because meanings in and of themselves seem to be of appearance.. Of forgotten confabulative processes.. A might mean B because we agree on that appearance, while knowing – or agreeing to forget – that A is in fact something completely different.

Hence my interest in transferables is different to meaning transing.. Meaning in itself is a trans type/kind/link.
However my interest is in transing immanent to the activity, its imagination and search. In that sense, there is here – perhaps – an extension of transferabilities? Instead of meanings, we can have links, collisions, transing, surfing, searching, etc.. that could be imagined..

Hummm something got lost here.. will be back on that..

violence dreams imagination in cycles?

Heard somewhere someone saying stuff to the effect of “the 1st step of violence is to change dreams”/imagination(?). ie, say there is a cultural dream of telling people not to say certain “rude” words, if I imagine/dream of a culture where such words/terms will not be censored, then by default am being violent towards the censoring folk. Reason being that I deny the propagation of their dream, am saying – there is a better/preferred dream, at least for me. In a sense, by dreaming/imagining differently, I might be violating the dream of others – even if its not yet out there on the streets because am questioning its legitimacy to be?

I like the idea because it emphasises the imagination, and how stuck we are within violence.. However, I am a bit hesitant because it seems to me that there are – could be – a few kinds here:
* the dream that denies yours. ie you are Not allowed to dream of censoring me.
* the dream that allows both of our dreams to evolve. ie my dream of an uncensoring culture is not because i want to deny your dream, but only its monopolistic element – and my dream isn’t denying that..

However.. We can say that the denial of monopolistic dreams is violent? I think this is a violent link, but not a whole.. I think religious people tend to feel it in the way of: “my freedom to be a religious killer is a straggle for equality!!” (eg the halal rules..)

school for poetic computation and yours honestly?

Just bumped into this poetic computation school – yup another School/Edu/Institutional/ Element – however tbh my 1st reaction was:
idk much about how/what they do + why didn’t i do that kind of stuff more since 95 when i did a few poetics with javascript?

Well.. So in a sense, should I not apply the critique I gave myself onto that http://sfpc.io/ activities? The reason, I seem to recall I didn’t develop more of a few elements was that I thought was:
– being too easy upon myself.. too self evident, taking X – eg a computer lingo – and making it poetic.
– too conservative in the sense that it felt like applying the known – an idea/imagination of poetics/art/culture – in a new environment, eg coding language of digital devices.
– the focus of the freshness/newness/reason-of-interest coming from the digital-devices-coding/technology/tool rather than the cultural-technology/art/poetry/imagination/ideas/language.

In a sense, isn’t the interest shown that the sfpc is banged about on the web, is pressingly that coding rather than a certain or certain newly found ways of imagining? (ie a newly found tool to apply established ways of imagining..)

trust trsst rss t

Noticed a newIsh twitter clone wonnabe riding the newly found interest in encryption. My interest here is how the capitalised mind seems to imagine a new found market, a group of people to colonise.
Instead of viewing the privacy question as – how i think it is – an inevitable violation of power, the capitalist imagination attempts to think in How can we get more power out of that violation. The crisis makes people aware of an issue, and that issue of interest can be a market to capitalise upon.
However, that is not entirely why I am distrusting trsst.. The other reason is that they hide where they know power is, behind the impression of providing power to customers/fans/followers/users/audience/slaves – hence they keep the exchange.. In a sense they say:
Hey we do the magic for you. You can keep the data etc.. we don’t really need/want that – we just need you to desire us, hence we’ll control the exchange because this is where real power is!

checmical end of InterNational Criminal Court?

islam and imagining the end of art via prophesy??

In Islam, Mohamed is imagined to be a prophet. He is not just a prophet, but the last of a certain – somehow judeo-christian – line of prophets.
I do not know what islamic tradition means by “prophet”, however, for my mind, the “prophet” is a person that says something which is applicable for all times. Some timeless finding. THe person/s that found 1+1=2 might be prophets, in that sense. However, there is another element of being a prophet, to realise these timeless elements via visions/revelations/epiphanies/drugs/psychological-processes rather than a shared/collaborative/cooperative/share-able-process.

In that sense, I think that perhaps the prophet is an old-school artist that got personally inspired and able to share the out-come rather than the process. Because the process is so personal.. In that sense as well, Search art is a sort of a way to Share the personal via its communal elements, shareable elements..

Therefore a prophet needs a religion, to enforce her/his visions?? If you want to ensure you really are a prophet, that you really do say/utter/dream/visionise stuff that Is future applicable – hence sort of timeless – then you can ensure that via violence,
In that sense, islam, unlike other religions, is violent by the rejection of other, future, prophets. That exclusion is an islamic – mohamedian – prophesy, that that bahai religion members suffer.
However, if we imagine how art might be made by artists/prophets that are, in islam, imagined as being at an end. Perhaps entertainment, for the reason of pleasing the known, is a pure islamic cultural celebration?

transablities? collisequence?

1 2 4 5 6 9 11
as a strand in a collisequence derived from a shopping trip
because in itself it IS, its Being, is Trans-able. I can do it in a photo, a music, a documentary, an essay, as of itself, or an element, strand, etc.

The question in my mind is just why trans in numbers and spaces to do with shops rather than dots and ticks.
That could be a search activity, a collision chamber of trans approaches..?
My position was of a walker, colliding with transient buildings on a slow moving cerface, etc.. I can be open with that, as a narrative? A trans narrative? I imagined myself walking as I was walking.. etc.. I imagined that people imagine me walking as they watched me walking.. That is contrasted by people imagining me spying, later on, as I was taking photos while walking..
Or how to search while transing borders of jordan and israel/palestine in the desert?

happen luck, fortune, fate hap befall occur come-to-pass, happening event

the confabulation search of stuff like hap. Each term, each word, each dna strand lives as a sequence who’s links are contentiously confabulated and searched as to their plastic nature through how we can imagine them.
I really like the term Fork. I can fork a keyboard and a cat, also a cloud – but these are the same fork. Can I say that a wave forked when it met the beach? Can we imagine a ball’s flight as a fork? How can I imagine a fork energising an engine?
—>>> At some element the fork does not link very well. I think that some of the examples fail the fork and succeed in illustrating how we can not apply fork to everything without being too general. Without saying the = of: one one one, oneoneoneone One one one – if you know what I mean..

Also, I used the hap, befall – because of the sense that there is/are elements, non human ones, in link, relation to humans. The muses and gods, the goblins and fates had hierarchical link with humans. However with a network view, like that of Latour(??), the link is between equals and not innately consequential. eg, a is linked to b yet neither are consequence of another. They are 2 entities, even as parent and child. The child entity, once alive, will go on living independently of parent, in that sense the happen-stance can not be taken hierarchicaly.

in a linked sequence you don’t need to kill me to assert yourself

No need != none. Hence a possibility rather than utopia. A possibility that could bring its own harsh outcomes, rather than a complete positive. Its another kind of doubt – i doubt?

In an unlinked culture, a painter, mathematician, etc., can adhere and cultivate traditions, or attempt to “break”. The “break” is to assert a certain authenticity, individuality, a newness, a freshness, an assertion of the self in a way that is Oedipusian – need to kill your “parent” to Be. Or, need to Continue, need to be within the already defined, be becomes meaning and meaning is to conserve the already developed as a known meaning. eg religion. (written slightly convolutely as to illustrate the innate complications I think tradionality cultivates.)

However, if there is a link that is a search sequence. How to: space is a long print of 2km thread being watched via microscope, a 4, a 16 sq, a 24 and a numerical bread. One can link – rather than experience or understand – to elements, notion, idea, etc. of the sequence. This is open via Being rather than Law!

the violence of Being

Am kinda listening to Zizek’s violence revisited where, at the beginningIsh of the tirade he is talking about violence a requirement to “be heard”. I want you to know I think of A B and C + think X Y and Z, so I will violentiise(??!!) the Statements – else I will not be heard/taken seriously..

It seems to me that this is a conservative view/approach that takes the Gap between meaning and being as a given. I hit you, but intend this as a kiss. I make a sound, however it means – I intend it – to be an living entity. It isn’t. I know it is just a sound. Its ontological life is my imagination of it Being alive. How do I make it alive?
I invest power and violence in my intent. The intent will be with a threat – if You disagree, I’ll hurt you, is this sound a live now? Or I’ll place it in a rhythm, Sound, sound, sound sound sound, SoundSoundsoundSound Sound, soundsound, ssssOUNddSound!! Or A narrative, this Sound is very special because it came from our great Great and special foreparents from long long ago. This was the sound that helped them to keep Alive, and if you listen to it, carefully, you can still feel the energy of keeping organisms alive. Sound. Listen carefully.. Sound. They then knew the correct way of making the spell of this sound. They worked hard on keeping this knowledge from one generation to another. Sound.. That knowledge was lost because.. etc..

Will you now recall sound as a living entity?

Well.. I argue that the above process is precisely the difficulty of power and violence. We want to make spells. We want X to be and to be true – even if it isn’t. Just make the poor wealthy. Just make the sick healthy. Just bring the dead to life!
Just make the wrong right – NOW!!!!!!!!!
Yes, this is very understandable. But also a bit lazy.. I think that the gap – when is there – between the being of X and my intent, is because I want it to mean something. If I was just doing the X, make the X Be – then if I do it correctly, X will simply Be. It will be immanent onto itself. In that sense there is a certain violence of Being..
Or
Maybe am conflating violence with energy..?

communal eating dinning histories?

erdogan, turkey, egypt, fear and how to spot a 21st century despot?

I noticed some hebrew publications featured a story re turkey pm, erdogan, and his remark that turkey has some evidence that points towards israeli engineered coup in egypt.
WOW!
As the link to what erdogan allegedly said points out, the evidence is a jew. An intellectual jew. That person, the-intellectual-jew TIJ, was heared saying that morsi, in his opinion, will not stay long in power.
Is this the kind of evidence the pm of turkey finds worthy of consideration?
Well.. perhaps yes, if the next attributed thoughts are erdogan’s, he says that TIJ did not consider elections the only mechanism in a democracy, indeed, TIJ said – according to erdogan – that people’s will is just an element, not THE only tool in a democracy. (I have learned that in 1st citizenship lesson..)

Now, not only erdogan shows himself to be a bigot full of childish, infantile and ignorant views – perhaps even mind, I think that more importantly, he shows himself as clueless about how democracy works while claiming – or pretending – to entrench democracy turkey. In fact, if he thinks democracy has nothing to do with education, civil society, separation of power – indeed critique and perhaps erosion of powers – with emancipation, with equality, etc. – all as processes that never end, then perhaps he does harbour despotic aspirations for turkey. Well, if not despotic, perhaps authoritarian and anti-democratic?

Is this the way 21st century do stuff?

Or, perhaps they could have a sort of communal authoritarianism based on fear as is exeplified by the israeli press coverage of this “story”? ie instead of questioning erdogan’s human integrity and qualities as a turkish pm and representative, he becomes just another example in a tall tale tellers about the jews.

beyond google and evil?

Sometime is the 90’s microsoft seemed to be pissing – or taking the piss – on users, developers, laws, etc. by monopolising internet explorer via means like: disabling other browsers, not letting other browsers be “main” one, etc.. With that kind of background, the young googlers came up with a promise they had to break.
The inevitability of breaking the evil promise is, I think, because capitalism can not let it happen. As capitalism, as an ideology and a practice, is made of winning and losing, of power and fear, of weak and strong, of number exchanged based on more and less – hierarchical structure and its innate abuse-based usage of power, are integral and immanent. There can be no capitalism without such hierarchical exchanges, they constitute the system itself. Indeed, capitalism is a system, not a network or a cluster, etc..

Once googlers – or any kind of grouping – gets to be a top dog, like any other animal, they’d take that power and try to maximise it for themselves. I’d do that, and I think anyone else would as well.
That is one of the reasons I do not want power. (energy yes, power – no thanks!)

Googlers, in my view, can not be excused for “hey this is capitalism and we are its animals”, because they didn’t Have to be capitalistic.
However, I also think they should not be vilified for that very vilification will excuse us, give us the feeling that the system is cool but the googlers aren’t, and therefore create the very imagination that will cultivate a next lot of power junkies.