bathroomisation of life?

If everything is linked to bathroom. Kitchen is preparation for bathroom. Street as a shared toilet and bathing in dirt. Movements, sweating, temperatures are constant body excrements maketrs. The body as an organic toilet, etc.
If everything is a loaf of bread linked. If everything is always inside a container. If everything is linked to a sound of MOO. eg – No is 1.5 steps removed from MOO. Too is 7 times removed from MOO, and so on. If everything is some kind of a radiator:
Colours radiate the vibrations of pigments. Pills radiate the purposes they suppose to help/heal/cure. Sugar radiate sweetness. Airplanes radiate quick and expensive long distance travel/movement. Links radiate connections and combinations of elements. etc..

Here we get into streeeeeeeeeeeeeetching practices, no?
How far can I take Bathroom/radiator/moo/etc. – to blanket cover other stuff. Is this not some sort of an ideology? Using a preconceived notion of X to account for stuff it might not be – all in the altar of linking? All for the god of linking? All for the road of free and fearless imagination. All for the view that if a bread loaf is a keyboard, then keyboard is as essential for this typing – even metaphorically – as the bread-loaf for human lives.

All in the name of everything is a bit authoritarian no?

However there is a very interesting – some might say powerful – perhaps i should say pervasive argument for the stretching of concepts, ideas, things, metaphors, etc – they seem to correspond with some ways we tend to imagine and sometimes think but more often perceive – X as being a bit Like Y. Then the link between the known X and the lesser known Y might make sense and help accommodating Y. Or that X is stuff we fancy learning and taking to its limits. Or that X is done as Y for the sake of imagining itself.

This seems a bit dishonest to me. Or maybe not dishonest but poor in thoughts and consideration? Perhaps a combo of both? Probably some other elements? Anyway, the reason for that critique is that when I stretch stuff – unless it is to break the stretched stuff – eg when and how everything can not actually be a circle – then am using elements that allow stuff to Be stretched. eg when everything is on a razor-blade tilting endlessly from side to side while keeping on an edge that is death itself – am using elements that ALLOW X to be stretched. Am applying Power to the element s that allo w Xtobe Stretch ed and fix the m. I s ay the X can b e y b c a u s e i i m a g i n i t t o b e s o – and thatimaginationisveryimportant.anditakechargeover thatimagination. andthat ispowerno? taking the energy of X – be it stretching of stuff – and Using it. Applying the energy. We have evenrgy of electricity and we apply, use power that directs that energy to turn on a device. no? no? no?

Perhaps if we want to link freely between elements, rather thsn stretching and producing a culture of mini ideologies – seeing x from the view of y – it is possible to get into the link-able? The stuff shared that al;lows linking while keeping x being a Being of x rather than Y?

A certain sequence – 123 is a hundred and twenty three. The numbers though,can be used in 1,2,3 – while keeping their own identity in both cases. In that sense these can be done because numbers, unline coffee – are links in themselves. Letters are links too no?
Perhaps placing stuff on its Linking links frequency allows linking while not stretching?

or is thi a stretch of links and linking?

world worlds of and its need?

Just had a qk browse through stuff about procrastination while clearly had to do some other stuff. The article ends with a notion about doing stuff because the World might – or might not – need that. I wonder. Wonder whether the question of the world’s needs – while being apt in the sense that I felt it at times, and others disscussed it too – is actually relevant.
I mean, the world will be fine without each and every one of us – whatever we do or do not. Is it not a question of how we need to be in this world?
This world and others will be fine without this line, however – will I be able to get on with the rest of the day without writing it?
However, perhaps the world/s question is relevant on a different scale? When the need for writing a line is done, and one can move on to the next one. Or when an amoeba splits and can move one with its life – the world, while not requiring that oparticular act perhaps, ispracticing various rhythms and sequences. Perhaps if it did not practice these kind of rhythms, it would have been a very different world, one that would have been much slower in its rhythms, for example. And how on earth do I know whether or not the world needs x rhythm or sequence or another?

emergence as operational procreative process or practice?

Photons might move very very fast, and that very quick movement, in the environment of space as we know on planet earth, operates together to emerge light rays and heat fr4om the sun. The light and heat, while emerging from the operation of photons and a certain environment, are operations that in and of themselves have their own unique properties. These properties, while being sequentially linked with photnic movement, are also with their own unique and independtly frictionable properties. The light rays can have frictions with stuff that can be engaged with on the light rather than photon frequency. – eg when people make walls, or plants emit oxygen. These further usages and emergences of light – as an example – might provide a requirement for the operation that sustains it. In that sense we have sequence rather than con-sequence. It might be that light, by being required by certaqin operations, is in itself propagating photons and the desire for their being in our universe? In the evolution of materials, it might be that we can at least imagine materials as being elements that fold quickly when nothing around them?

Perhaps it can also argued that imaginary elements are these that emerge in sequences made of collisions between material desires, negativities and time. eg, the persistence (time) of desire for light. This is a constant imagination that might be cultivated currently in our universe via photonic operations, however, the imagination is there all the time for light to Be?

I think the examples here are not very convincing – to say the least.. However, the notion of evolving and living – in a way – materials, a life that is further refined by sentient beings – is very interesting because it places non-central sequences as a way of practicing Being. A non centrality that keeps ptroving, in time, to be a way being might be. 1st they thought it waqs the migrant, I was’t a migrant. Then they came for the minority, and I wasn’t that either. This followed by power going for the socialists, but I am not political. And then they6 went for the sick, I was very healthy! Then they leaped on the vegitarians, and I was always vegan, so when they followed by carnivours, It was not me too. By then they went for the young, and I wasn’t young enough. Then they followed by going afer intellectuals, and I am not officially that either.. Well, by the time they came for me, no one was left to Not help me too..

In that sense, we tended to consider stuff like planet earth as the middle, and by religion and/association, certain places on planet earth to be in the all important centre or both cosmos and the planet. Then it became that the planet had no centre, but surely It was at the centre of the solar system. When it transpired the plant was not event that, the solar system was in the middle of the universe.. Similarly, the centrality of human life on the planet seemed to be central and all important, despote the fact that as time goes by, we can realise increasingly How exactly we are parts of sequences rather than be essential for life.. Indeed, if/when we fuck evething up, it is for us and a few other species, the planet will be fine..

middle east/west asia – extreme or simply violent?

There is a rather common view that pits authoritarian nationalism against authoritarian – indeed, political – religionism in west asia/middle east. As if the 2 kind of authoritarianisms are 2 extremes.

Are they?

* It seems like both adhere to being authoritarian – hence violent.

* It also seems that both nationalism and religionism are not mutually exclusive. Indeed in iran & zionist palestine, the religious nationalism is in power or very darn near it..

Going back to the article – link above – it seems the writer deduced that democracy comes hard for west asiatic people because of two extremes. I can not agree because the “extremes” he is talking about are just sides of a same coin – the authoritarian and violent one.. I’d say that it might be indeed that democracy requires more and more attempts in the middle east because the area is in the grips of violent instead of civil culture.A culture that values power over civility, violent ways of keeping social life, fear and intimidation to solve and resolve difficulties – rather than via civil – often discursive – and fear challenging means.

isis or isil oh da’ash or daesh and lingo magic?

The washiongton post published an idea from France about calling “isis” by a different name. It seems like a sort of “trend” given that other people have some ideas of re-calling isis by some other terms. eg UnIslamicState (U IS??)..

It seems rather curious to interesting that the idea of name and re-naming the stuff seems so very important. As if the name conjours a reality into being.. While at 1st I was like:
wtf this is kind of lol.
It dawned on me that, for example, in the context of Palestine, in my terminology, Israel has not life.. (..or not much of it..) Hence, perhaps for me too the reality of terms and words makes up a sort of magick linguistic leap into a being. If the stuff formerly known as state of israel is the zionist occupied palestine, that whole being of israeliness might have a different sort of life, no?

Perhaps this is the same process in the minds of islamic people? Perhaps.. And if so, maybe my personal difficulties with re-calling the isis as uis, or da’ash, or what-ever is based on a perception that since islam/religion is a constant interpertations of beleifs mediated by brut powers of family/community/state/etc. – while the “isis” might be a minority in islam, and indeed offer a seeming interpretive oxymoron in islamic thought – the caliphate can be headed by a descendant of mohamed only, or something to that effect – the fact that isis people do interprate stuff from islamic rather than hindu or other religion’s culture, makes isis islamic. (..even if most muslims regard isis as utterly un-represtative, and indeed MisRepresentative..)
Moreover, isis, as much as I am against them, and people even remotely like them –
eg the iranian the current turkish religious regime, whabist saudy arabia, the hinduisic india, the gazan regime of fear & intimidation by poor excuses, the militaristic regime of egypt, the deadly authoritarian and pseudo fascistic regimes of china and russia, as well as the plutocratic-ally fascist regimes in the uk and usa –
isis is an organisation that, like other states, use brutality and financial power to establish itself onto a land and people in it. (eg the provision of social care for people who’s religious practices isis approves of, etc..). Also, like other state based/oriented organisations, isis fights others that seem to threaten its interests. Sure, there is a bit of a difference between isis and the uk or feance in the sense that the brutality in the latters is less arbitrary and rooted in a set of arguable and evolving laws. However, I think we should not confuse a sense of evolving or even “open” brutality – with a lack of imposition and intimidation by power over the powerless and the ultimate abuse of power to keep itself in, err, powerful mode..

The other strange thing about the calls for re-naming references to isis is that such calls carry within them a sense of power and brutality which, in some way – i think – reminiscent of precisely the organisation who’s activities are “un islamic”. ie, if i am to use name calling as a way to re-assert my power as, for example, a religious authority, then am foregoing peaceful means for the sake of violent authority. (if 1 was to call on a dialogue with the people who call isis “isis”, to question, for example, the religious authenticity of the organisation, then perhaps their way would be civil?)

However, perhaps my interpretations of these occurrences is limited by a view that emphasises operations. ie if i call isis a cat while it actually Operates as a dog, am not going to make it do many miauuws – even if everyone in the world will call it a cat.

Or perhaps the example is wrong. Perhaps the materiality and operations of a dog are too limited to allow it being a cat as much as we might scream and shout. However, what about a gallery? or a restaurant? say there is a restaurant that cooks and serves its food and another that doesn’t cook, but still serves food. What of a restaurant that doesn’t cook, but sells food Not to be eaten in the premises, can we call it a shop? What might be the differences between such a restaurant and a place to buy food? Is there? Perhaps then we get into magic of naming?
A magic that allows conjuring realities via verbal utterances? Just sounds?

Assuming that since an operation like a religion requires language to Be, not just as a singular category – eg category plants, category chemicals, etc. – but a distinct kind of animal/being/set, then perhaps language is an element of reasonable focus from a religious point of view.
Indeed, if we keep the lingo focus, then it seems strange to suspect and peculiar, that despite the fact religions are based on interpretations, the scholars who bash isis, regard isis’s violence to be a “wrong interpretation” – hence not of that religion. This is kind of strange because the very perceptions that there is a correct interpretation and that indeed there might even be a correct “islami” or other religion – viable violence – is in itself a part of of cultural violent process. If my culture is made of violence, or that I cultivate violence in my culture, then surely, I should expect people to cultivate it in various ways – some of which, differenct to my own interpretation.
Also, the peculiarity arises since we are talking about language, and linguistic meanings – unlike signals – are of ranges and evolving as such – rather than particulars. eg “red” might reffer to a feeling, a sensation, a colour, a state, and so on – in a language. In a sign system such as traffic signs, red is very particular and singular.

Are religions parts of languages or sign systems?

OK.. Here’s something else about language’s creative magic that isn’t religion: schools.

The british public school – is it public or, err, private school system?

How about the “free schools”? Do we have Free schools in england? Free schools in brooklyn? (Notice the end note where it indicates an initial confusion to do with the english “free schools”.)
Are these examples of the interpertative range of “free schools”? Of “freedom”? Of a conflation between “freedom” and “independence”? (eg, can it be argued that the english version has more to do with the independence of the schools from central authorities, than the schools being free? (though that independence is dependent upon generous financial support, no?)
Perhaps the range of freedom’s sequences when they hook up with the ones of independence?

On a personal note, I think its interesting to realise that it was easier to critique religious figures insistence upon their interpretations until I bumped into the educative elements which hit more home chords for me… I had to teach myself that perhaps the interpretations I did not “like”, are still within the sequence range of the terms I use.. And indeed, if they weren’t initially, I have to agree that other people should be able to play with the ranges as they see fit – else am going into a power politics range. (eg, who’s interpretation should rule..) Which is by its nature counter productive because if I care for a certain interpretation, I should strengthen – mistake, not strengthen but ENERGISE – it from within, to perhaps realise its own non interpretative range.
(ie a distinct category, its own radical self – if indeed it has one.. eg red as a term that stems from a colour that has certain properties and can be interpreted in various ways is distinct from road that has other, similar qualities, but none of them is the colour based..)

So perhaps calling a dog a cat will not turn it into a miauew uttering creature, however, it can depict a certain dog’s personality, or someone’s idea of a certain dog’s personality. But as many people as they might come, will not utter enough a “cat” calling unto that dog that will turn the woof into a miauew..
Yet, if these people turned and called the marriage process “doggy” – then it might well catch on and in a few years time many more people might propose to one another to get a bit doggy for a while – before they break into a miauew..

While this might sound very similar to John Searle’s ideas of social construction of reality, I think it might be worth while to indicate that in my mind the implications/trajectories are probably different.
* I do not think these element construct reality, but are simply parts/elements of various sequences and rhythms. In that sense, am considering here the sequences of language usage rather than focusing on using it for gaining power and creating social realities.
* I think the materiality of language allows for questions that can be addressed and directed to specificity of its operations. Hence the focus on kind of utterances.
* Indeed, I doubt the creation by a word requires Social. It can be an individual calling X “blue”. For them, the X might be blue regardless of the social acceptance or otherwise of the usage of blue.

direction without a fit?

It seems curious that “direction of it” has a requirement to, err, Fit. The fitness issue is between words/mind and world/power, in my view. The power is an extension here so will try to focus on why this extension occurred.
If I declare a couple to be married, then according to direction of fit, this declaration will fit the world only if the world will give me the power to do that.
If we are in a world that 2 individuals are of equal power, then one can say to another will you marry me, and the other may make it a mutual wish, or not – however the marriage itself will have to be granted by a different power, one that may alter the social perception of the couple. One that society is willing to allow telling it – the social body sequence – that the couple is indeed “married”.

The issue of power and fitness is interesting here, in my mind, precisely because it illustrates a certain perception of mind/words/desire/beleifs and imagination that am trying to engage but not marry.. The idea is that there is a certain duality between world of general real and world of mind real which they ought to fit somehow as a matter of value assignment. eg when X fit that its valuable, or more of a value then X not fitting. Hence the questions of beliefs and desires and their operational fitness. ie the need or otherwise of beliefs to fit the world or vise-versa.

While I think certain imaginations do have this duality, and obviously people experience it, am critical about its universality and perceived necessity.. (or is it perceived necessity and universality – ie both are perceptions?)
The argument is that if we take imaginative sequences, even these of beliefs – i believe there is a goddess with sexy male angels only. As a belief, it has intrinsic character that places it as a personal vision/revelation that might be fuzzy for some if not all. Hence, in and of itself, as a belief via which I might fancy doing stuff in my life, it is indeed a reality. A believed reality. I can pray for the sexy angles and have an orgy with them and the godless every time I might fancy because I believe it keeps the world rolling. However, this is a belif not a question of necessary power to Make the world, unless I need universal confirmation to maintain the imaginational belief sequence. Not unless I WANT IT TO FIT.

Hence, not all imaginations require having a fit. Indeed, even according to the direction-of0-fit theory, the imagination can be in and of itself, it becomes a question of world fitness only when – via x or y circumstances – the person in question Wants to Make an imagination be a Fitness question.
eg, I can desire Z without having to consume Z – making the desire be a question of fitness. I can simply desire Z and have the Desire itself.
One can believe in the sexy angels and the dog goddess without having that belief matching/fitting their general experience of the physical world.

It might be argued that here am advocating a sort of duality between imagined and generally accessible sequences, however, am saying that its more like a variation in sequences than duality. I might have a sequence of 3 2 5 4 7 6 9 11 13 12 etc..this sequence might be part of other practicalities apart fro numericals – eg a dance, a visual pattern, etc. – however this is not, in my mind, a duality because each physicality is a reality in and of itself. (yes, multiple realities…)

iff if but not then a potential nor speculation

Just had a read/look at the forest bridge proposal (not suggestion??) for london’s tourists, rich and other possible interested parties and individuals. (gee, this line is full of drivel, but hey, need to get on into the meat of this post, no?)

I really wonder whether the making of this image is transforming the imagination into a sort of something that is More than a suggestion but a speculative proposition perhaps.

Maybe a speculation, full and dry?

The images says, in my view, lets See how the imagination of having X bridge will look-like. How the imagination will Be non imagination but an implementation. How we kill the imagination of if forest+bridge+london as an imagination sequence that might be in and of itself, a body and an embodiment – and make it in a need for a different body and an embodiment… In that sense, in my mind, this image represents a kick into how imagination operates in and of itself as an independent element.
The image, and I have done such mistakes as well, illustrates an If – but does more than that, it comes to say: Look, I have been considering all these aspects of Actualisation of an If sequence, give me the dosh and I’ll make it!

An if imagination, in my mind, goes into a different time, rhythm and sequences. Into the particularities of the imagination itself rather than its implementations. eg if london, how is the london in this if? eg if walk from southbank to soho. if london bridge to westminster bridge? if urban particulars linked by intervals? and so on..

This way perhaps we can make a different sort of sequence, of intervals in urban environments?


imagining urban beats and intervals?

the question in mind is HOW these are to be imagination and shared among elements rather than be communicated and/or become something to Be only if it is not an imagination any more..

how can pixels visualise fearss triumph over freedom?

The image of:

is rather strange in terms of both the normality of face pixelation and the uniqueness of who this pixelation is aimed at.

The pixelation of facial features is, in my point of view, an interesting yet somehow forgotten element of contemporary portraiture. Perhaps more than the “selfie”,pixelation is in itself an uber portrait that emphesises the pixels in digital images, and the sense of reticence-dread-to-self’s-safety-fear with their wide spread-ability.

In that way, perhaps the if 1pixel portrait should be revisited?

The uniqueness of this image, in my mind is that while power holders knows who these people are, where they served in the army, etc., the pixels are because these people rather remaining un-recognised by their fellow citizens. The fear is not from violence of the state, but that of its citizens – or some of them..
In that way,perhaps this is an image of society that has adopted fear, intimidation and violence as its mode of operation. Its a society that has married elements of state and citizenry violence. In that way, perhaps this could be argued to be a very unique mode of authoritarianism?

art as a game or game is over?

Just bumped into c acangel’s blurb on art in the whitney‘s website..

Many interesting elements he mentioned. In general, perhaps, its interesting how a bright mind can produce clear statements at times. Very communicative, able to phrase an idea in a way that isn’t just shared,like “here you go, this is what i think”, which I do – but place the idea instantly within the common cultural sphere.
The thing is that am not sure whether or not the idea are so well chewed up that they are “there” already – hence what is required is just a re-utterance. Or is it, as I hope, a genuine ability to commune.

In any case, since the ideas were placed so clearly, it kind of made the Game notion linger longer in my mind. (had to be phrased like that??) Well, there is the beat/element that he will say “game” because he is using games and that kind of makes the conceptual material to be art, or instantly reflective of art.
However, we also have the notion of art as a game, a play between/among all its participants. eg curators, users, audiences, markets, materials, galleries, etc.. In that sense am wondering a few sequences:
* art as a game might be a game in itself – which it is – that could have its time well past by now?
For example, the idea of Redefinition, a constant redefinition, can be both the game, and the requirement for going out of the game paradigm – because maybe art as a practice has its own way, own characteristics that might not require a metaphor or an analogy?
eg, is cooking a game? yes, it could be Seen as such. However, game does not Define cooking. Is driving a game? Yes, we can think of driving as a game – but it can live without that perception. Hence not defined by the game analogy. OK.. How about science? Yes, we can game science too – however the scientific process of enquiry is not a game of specific rules to gain more points over the other participants. The process and the practice of science might include gaming between people that goes in all sorts of other practices, however, that game does not define science and its enquiries.
Now, does art, the artistic process – which might require some sort of a better perception some time – requires game, or a gaming process – to be art?
* the other game and art linked question, i think is the meta sequence of if game gaming game. From a game perspective, perhaps we can ask whether the game can be that of non-gaming. ie of not playing the game, the rules, the process, and then allowing others to make up the rules in hindsight – hence to bring the game onto the art, as a part of an ongoing sequence. Frem this perspective, the being of a game in art is a sequential rather than a defining element. Sequential in the sense of time of stuff-undefined and time of rules absorption – each required one another to be a sequence, at least some, might define as, errr, art..

* The other, and perhaps the last element in this entry is the question of Definition. If we define X, do we not by default place certain rules upon it, and then, by having these rules, make the definition – whatever it is – amenable for a game interpretation?
ie, it might be that traditionally we define art in various ways, and it might also be the case that we can and maybe ought to – ditch that tradition as well?


If art evolution?

Or maybe if art we know not today, but could in a long while from now?

if suggestion and sense?

It seems that people use suggestive lingo for arousing sensual drives.. I bumped into that when checking stuff link possible suggestive lists of terms, words, “language”, and bumped into sexual references. If you fancy some coffee, or I fancy some coffee, etc. where the suggestion is of getting together rather than the coffee itself. In that sense, these suggestion are entirely the kind om not considering when thinking if ab as a suggestion, because am actually referring to ab rather than some other stuff.

If push-pull minus 3 secs and a chewing-gum is precisely a suggestion to imagine pushing and pulling for 3 secs and chewing a gum at the same time. This can be interpreted as a whole body action, however, then it will be made into a speculation, no?

Am just wondering whether suggestions have a sort of directness to do wiyth being or fritioning with sense, eg aesthetics..

the difference between(??)

if/speculation and then(suggestion – or is it the other way around??

I think it is the other way around, no?

if – if i drink water and sugar (I know that i can at least imagine water and sugar, because i, err, just did. In the same way i can IMAGINE, conjour in my inner perception, moon and sugar. IF MOON & SUGAR. If banana shaped space, etc.
These are only in the language and realms of imagination as is for and from itself because these suggest a certain friction between X elements..

If there was a THEN, or Once there is a then, perhaps a speculative element comes in. If Moon and Sugar, then we might lick the moon and it will taste sweet. Or Then we might find a lot of sugar on the moon. Or Then you might be Mad to consider that the moon and sugar can mix without human intervention. etc.

on the other hand, the IF AB, eg, IF MOON & SUGAR might also have a suggestive responce as well:
eg – if moon and salt, if moon and cinnamon, if every moon has a spice to mix with, if not the moon but pluto as a sort of solar system moon and sugar as a moon for food?

the if ab animal/organism??

if ab = suggestive/sleepy/cafenated/etc

The organism(??)/sequence(??)/rhythm(??) comes from the if ab.

say it is a suggestive sequence:
if, while, once.
if ab
while ab
once ab*

* am a bit cautious re once because it might also be speculative as it can refer to a future ab..

From this view, suggestive, while pointing towards a future – if a and b got to be together/occured – it is suggesting them rather than producing a speculation re longevity, viability, or otherwise. Indeed, the very production of subsequent speculation is, partially, a vindication of the operationability of the suggestion.

THe only thing here is that the suggestions are pretty limited in their ways and the speculation they might arouse.

In a sense, there is a sequence of suggestion-speculation which can actually be embraced. I seem to ask people to be suggestive with me, which is wrong. I can be suggestive and they can “answer” with a speculation.
The art, the link is still suggestive rather than focusing on the speculation. The suggestive offers both a speculative reply and/or another suggestive link. If this was only speculative, it would have been discriminating against suggestion..

selling/letting/offering, a bit like an if?

Just bumped into the letting a flat 3mx3m for £255pcm. The surprise in mind was that some might have actually seriously contemplated the idea. ie if there is an offer, maybe someone will inevitably actually take it?

The being an offer, an if flat of 3mx3m in and of itself does not seem like forcing the issue. However, in a violent environment, it does force the issue because the size/price ratio works to increase larger proporties prices and makes it more plausible that a person desperate for a place – might actually contemplate the offer?

In that sense that is not a genuine offer for choice. There is a punishment attached. If you do – or not – get the place, then it will raise other properties prices.

In that sense it can be argued that its a form, an act of an offer rather than a fearless offer..?