spam sub subjects?

Just noticed that a spam subject was:
Faculty of gm ignitions department of fatal accidents.
Someone, I thought, was well into Marcel Broodthaers and capitalism..?

Then, after a 2nd – or maybe 3rd – look, it turned out that the subject was, for all other people, more like: Faulty GM Ignitions resulting in Fatal Accidents..

The sound of a sub subject?
Subject’s sub?
Subject aesthetics dept networks..?

a conservative fallacy or

the conservative fallacy?

Was just skateboarding up hartington road, A sort of 1km hill. (am living 97ish meter above sea level..)
Being at the end of my weekly 2 days of fast, the journey felt – or was – a bit different from similar climbs am doing at eating periods.
I noticed that it was needed for me to concentrate differently, to imagine the journey differently than I usually do, for making the activity doable. Else, if felt like stoping and just walking up..

After a few variations, I ended up, for a while, counting the push sequences of my feet. (sometimes the left foot, at others the right is doing the pushing..)
123, 12, 12345, 1234, 1, 12, etc..
WHat I noticed was that more than usual, probably because my body felt weaker, I felt weaker, my balance, the sense of it, was easily disturbed.
Concentrating on the sequences perhaps assisted in fogetting how steep the challenge to come is, and getting me just doing the skateboarding despit the hardship – however, since this concentrated on past beats, I forgot that the future beat might not come to pass. That it could be disrupted and I could fall. Hence more than usual, I had a few near fall sequences..

How to remedy that?

Well, it then occurred to me that counting the sequences and just being in that rhythm, was assuming that the past – the beat sequences I just did – were to form to future sequence.
This is an imposition, a brutal and violent one, but most of all – ignorant – upon the future, because it misses the nature of future.. It is future that is Unknown..

However then it hit me.. Is this not the conservative fallacy?
Check this:
What can we have a shred of some sort of knowledge about from a time perspective?
The past. We can tell that X might probably occurred.
However, the conservative imagination, to be conservative, has a sequence that has to consider the known – past – as the being of the future. Else its not being conservative… Hence if the future happens to resemble, rather than be, or an evolution from, rather than be, or some sort of un known, rather than be like the past – there is a mis match.
This mismatch is precisely where the fallacy is..

The challange is, perhaps, like in search sequences as surfing and skateboarding, to fall less, is to get the shred of known from the past as energies to propel rather than project onto the future. To assist in being open to the knowing of not knowing the future – without, hopefully, being or meaning nor sounding, as Zen as parts of this line are.. 😉

i call it exploit you call it maximise?

In a forbes text, the writer accepts that employers do discriminate financially against people who work for them the longest.

More over, he also says that:
“I don’t fault employers and businesses for the market because it’s their right and duty to maximize their profits.”

While agree that there is no sense of morality within operations – eg fairness is not a question viable in the exchange operation sequence – it seems peculiar that a right wing libertarian sounding capitalist is in fact using Moralistic arguments to justify fucking people up by saying its a “duty”..


non disruptive disruption in capitalism?

non disruptive?
because it is all for continual property exploitation. How can X entity, taco-bell/etc., continue exploiting customers, workers, society, politics, environment, etc. for its own profits to keep. (..and keep growing these profits.)

Is this the conservative “turn”?

X nature of all things

I read from time to time stuff like:
“dualistic nature of all things” or “vibrating nature of all things” or “numerical nature of all things” or some other generalised assumption about the “nature” of all “things”.
I wonder though..
How is it to be a generalised assumptive notion?
Is it to Be a generalised notion or/and to be a bunch of words/terms? A sentence? Does it live on its own or a fungi on human psyche? Do amoebas have similar notions? Can such general notion move between species?
Between elements?
Say an atom, will it have a “trilogic nature of all things”?
How about an octagon..?

art & life question – a short jot

Art & life | Life & art is a question that does not seem relevant for me – however, it seems different for some people around, hence linking a few words/thoughts regarding that. I think..
(also, noticed that the international-necronautical-society has stuff to say re dichotomy they perceive of “life” & “art” A bit strange for me as death is so integral from, not just for, life..No?)

It seems like a perhaps the separation from art and life has a few aspects:
* In “life” we seem to be doing – getting involved and linked – elements that are functional. Elements that seem contingent and immanent to existence, survival and at times even beyond that – but still in the physical realm. (eg we could survive without food taste to our delight – but still do that and perceive such tastes as part of life)
Art, being of aesthetics, sensations that are just there and do not appear to have a direct link, relation, cause-effect, etc. on Being in life, is dysfunctional to non and un-functional range, might seem sort of “remote” and not part of life.
* The perpetrators of art, aka artists but not always nor not just artists, have a history of reflection, reflection and intersecting with elements perceived as “life” – hence cultivate an impression that there is “life” interval “art”. A person in the toilette, someone watching(interval), a photo of the person in the toilette(“art”).
* Art seem to require a space for, of and from its own.
Art, to enable the imagination processes involved and their practice, seem to require the cultivation of taking the artistic process itself outside of the daily routines of survival, and even thrival, so art’s energy and capacity to question and enthuse the way we do imagination in culture and cultuvate the process – have a certain space time. (eg, art gallery/museum/cinema/festival/etc..)
* Imagination, which art linked practices seem to be constantly and timelessly, involved with, is perceived as dichotomic to life. eg We seem to tend to sequence imagination as:
x imagines y – then x might want to “realise”/”implement” the imagined y. As if imagination Is a plan. As if Imagination – in and of itself – is lifeless..
* Perhaps this might seem a cynical element, however am not aiming cynically by claiming that perhaps Value links to art effects/objects/processes/projects – even practices (eg painting is “more” than animation, that is “more” than genetic play, etc..) – gain more financial value if/when art is separated from “life”. Then the “art” can be claimed to be unique (eg has a scarcity value) by having to be accessed via various socio, political, cultural and financial barriers that can be excused by the claim that art is Not life – or Outside of “life”..

freedom with objects is a knott?

Just bumped into – am struck by how restrictive it feels while clearly intent on being serious for pushing for freedom.
Am curious about the sequence.. The restrictive sense (object, define), the cross with intent (we really want all to be free), and the interval – perhaps disconnected interval – via that crossing.

The other element that came to mind is of retribution – isn’t freedom = being fearless about retributional exchange operations?
eg –
if you take this idea and make ot into stuff i disagree – i might engage in exchange, but will Not attempt to harm you!

However, the question might also go the other way around:
if you use this element that is linked to me, will you do it in a way that might feel – or be – harmful to me?
Will you help me remain fearless of you?

net nutrality demonstrates the non nutrality and illetimacy of money?

numerical exchange? or is it just a corrupt island – a where there is a sequence of covering practices between seeming intent (just people with concerns), driving intent (pay people to play as if they are concerned – ie no discussion possible because what they say they want is not what they really want or give a shit about), and entities that pay while knowing that the very fact they have to pay, undermines their argument while raising its visibility, yet that very visibility is that of a bubble because the means undermine it.. Like bought love.. Check this out..?

follow the coin is a bit?

Bumped into follow the coin and thought – hey, i’ve got stuff to say re digital currencies, lets sign up!
But then, turned out that you have to have, err, a twitter account??
Do I need to work for twitter for writing stuff about digital currencies? Not simply work for them, but join the herd and work without getting paid while their stock is rising..?

On the other hand, this can be thought of differently
If twitter is indeed a sort of public need, and the usage of twitter is something people can be asked for/about thoughtlessly as something people generally do. Kind of, what do you like to eat, then perhaps the existence of twitter as a private entity is indeed illegitimate. If its a universal tool, than surely it should belong to all..

hey bitcoin – fairness and numerical exchanges?

a note –

how does 1 bitcoin/dollar/euro/etc get to be more “valuable” than 0.5?
there are 2 0.5 in the 1 – but 1 is more valuable than the 2. If we had voting like that then 1 person’s vote could be more than 2’s votes.. (assuming they happened to vote for 2 different parties. Also if they voted for one, the de-facto value of 1 is more than theirs..)

But back to numerical exchanges..

For 1 to be more valuable than 2 0.5’s we also need a few other elements:
there should be less 1s than 0.5s.
the relative scarcity of 1s within a system makes an element more desireable. but here comes the really twisted fairness of numerical sequences of exchange:
for 1 to have more value, it requires more people to want 1 than people who have 1. Its not a systematic question of altering mechanisms, its a question of the sequence that makes numerical exchange Be as it is, sense life as it does. Its the art of numerical exchange sequences.
I have 1, and for 1 to have more value than 0.5 there has to be more elements that fancy 1 than elements that have 1. To ensure the sequence is not challenged, there are system of power in place..
In my view, bitcoin does not alter that, its just offering a different way to maintain and develop economical in equalities..

take me to space and never come back?

Suppose there was a death trip to space. One that was free of money and death’s discomforts. I wouldn’t be able to know whether or not it works because it would be unknown.
Suppose I’d know that indeed it operates by doing exactly what it claims – what might be my concern? (if indeed i had such a death wish..)
Well, I think my concern/s will be linked to How this operates. Even if I Know it works as promised – it is also a given that it will Operate. It will be or be a part of a sequential rhythm/strand – I’d know that for sure.
What really is unknown is the question whether the premise of the promise will be done.

Hence I think that this shows that the question of whether the whole thing operates generally or not is not so relevant because its clear it will Operate. The clear and real question is about the premise, that is where the speculation is at..

sending people to kill and be killed as a terror act?

Just seen the attack on obama’s admin regarding the release of a us soldier captive for five years by the taliban.

What do the opponents of negotiating with terrorists imagine? They claim it will cost more lives in the long run, but how?
Say i was a taliban and just about to capture a soldier – if i know keeping them alive will benefit me, might i not consider saving a bullet or two?
Say i was a taliban about to be captured – if i know an exchange is possible, will i fight to death – of me and others – or rather live to fight some other day..?

Or perhaps the thinking is about being a soldier – if i was a soldier, would i not fight more ferociously if i knew its better not to be captured? Is that what really people of “no negotiation with terror” imagine? To terrorise their own soldiers’ minds?

capitalists to exploit rape –

this is what capitals does best, no?

Just a not re example of how capitalism cultivates, hopefully intention free, how stuff is rather than might evolve, or – in case of seriously obvious harm – be solved. The incentive is to cultivate sequences because that is how they can pay. People need to research terms on the net to find stuff? lets milk them via a search engine. People need water? Lets get them to pay for that need. Society require education? Fab, lets get them to pay for that too.
People rape others? Why solve when you can simply get paid for cultivating that sequence too?