if i was a material incapable of sensing time but only needing to survive, i’d fancy raising a sentient being/material that could perhaps take care of me, no? or perhaps the term “needing” requires a note:
i’d be able to survive if my capabilities will include giving rise to multiple stuff, including sentient life forms as strategies to survive..
if i was a material incapable of sensing time but only needing to survive, i’d fancy raising a sentient being/material that could perhaps take care of me, no? or perhaps the term “needing” requires a note:
!!!am feeling a bit stuck stuck STCK!!!
CONSIDERING abstrac dynamic sequences. i keep running into blocks or rather bumping into them head 1st..
the embodiment of links?
the embodiment of intervals?
the embodiment of vibrations?
do we need numbers?
how to deal with concepts?/ideas??
where do frictions/concepts?/ideas come in?
the whole dynamics???
are these their own properties or only in refrence?
however, with if, we need not restrictive rules but keep the question. eg:
if blue bumps 2 that links with quick-friction?
this repeats itself to death, development or evolution. It is not a rule becaue if it doesn’t repeat, its dead on arrival?
no it will have a disintegrative future, this way or the other that, by having the IF, is imanent to itself. take the IF off and you get the need for arbitrary power to keep the sequence. With the if, there is an innate and imanent check.
|||| /||||| |||
|||| /||||| ||| ?
IF |||| /||||| |||
“lambda calculus which is a formal system that just has lambda expressions, which represents a function that takes a function for its sole argument and returns a function. All functions in the lambda calculus are of that type, i.e., λ : λ → λ .”
“Resolving a function: Replacing all occurrences of y with the expression, [eg] (ab)”
(λy.x)(yz))(ab) makes: x(abz)
The lambda expression made a new expression – not lambda, as far as i understand it – that is of x(abz).
A bit like an abstract painting, being looked at by people, and some resolving the shapes, colours, etc., as some sort of more “recognisable” imagery?
if so, then, in my mind, i’d say that perhaps lambda is not abstract enough. If it doesn’t resolve to an abstraction but an instantiation of the abstract exopression, then, if we go back to painting analogy, its a bit like paintings that Looks abstract but actually just abstraction of stuff that can be deducesed from the images..
SCHZEEEEZEE!! AM FEELING DISAPPOINTED..
Hopefully can be put wrong..
e.A few words in the defence of a public enemy – procrastination.
How does the sequence we tend to call procrastination, and one that convinces us we axtually do put off things todo. Initially it seems very common sense. Am supposed to do something, however, am telling myself that the supposed-to-do activity can hold on for a while and be done ater. This can seem very frSTRting when later becomes tomorrow, and tomorrow becomes the next tomorrow.
However, while not doing the “supposed activity” clearly – am doing something else. I was supposed to write about the rain, but ended up playing chess.
One can beat themselves for not doing the supposed activity. However, i tink clearly, this is not a question of non activity, but simply of an activity both the individual and society consider fare to demand doing. In that sense, I think procrastination is a question of operation and aesthetics.
We could, for example, imagine, sense, activities differently. We could have said that in a fearless society, member/people should be able to be free sharing the stuff they do – even if they initially thought that the outcome will be very different. In fact, it might bee interesting to perceive the range between the suppoed and actual ativities.
People say that this waythings will not be done. I think th question is – which things?? Are things that supposed to be done, yet – for example – no one actually fancies to do without cohersion – worth doing? maybe worth doing by other beings that actually fancy doing them?
Or is it that procrastination is a sequence to counter control over the character?
Just bumped into this humourfull response to the banned pickup “artist” story.
I wonder why the term “artist” is used in this context.
It seems that perhaps the term, curiously, is used because the practice is about “picking up” where the goal is precisely – picking up, ie itself.
However, the term kind of fails when it comes to another art element – honesty. The embodiment of imagination requires being honest about the body. However, here, it seems to require a degree of dishonesty. To keep the fact one simply tries to pick up, as a hidden element. As a ghost that informs the practice, but that will damn it as soon as seen.
Perhaps this is the different between a ghost and imagination. The ghost of a time is the stuff period inhabiting people Do not discuss, stuff that is to be understood silently, and when/if discussed – will fold the time/period away. Where as imagination, in my mind, is more robust with the honesty element about itself. It can be acknowledged without folding by the very act.
The ghost in that case is a gorilla filling in the room with its scent – once acknowledged, has to be the focus. eg. with “pickup” – the society full of men fearful of women. How can that be tolerated? How can we tolerate men and women full of fears towards each other, in the simple sequence of sexism?
The imagination is about how we deal with these fears. Should they be hidden behind burkas, beards, pickup dishonesty, decorum, social scripting, acknowledged, or incorporated into an education program?
I think the 1st veriosn iteration is problematic in some ways which perhaps will be clear if i just began with amendmends:
The technology of shared practised (or practiced-able) imagination. — shared goes with the number of connections/links — could be phrased as an object ->> imagination practice sharing technology.. (the life of a language)??
—>> we get un-seen/untouchable –>> like numbers <<— shared.. These are universals. The technology og imaginational practice with materials, or situations, or composition is NOT stuff that we see like a rock or a rain drop or the sun – it is something we conjour as abstraction at worst and as an abstract at best – in my mind..
(( examples –> the contextual language wghen it is being concrete and when it is being its language, its own material of undefinable yet there.. like the numbers.. Or as in the eample with mondrian regarding abstraction — getting abstracts — and then they have an independent life from, for example: tree branches.
The element of embodiment:
Imagination is in itself embodied – even if its not evident to begin with due to the internal processes involved. Fact am imagining a flight colliding with the notion of smooth vibe – does not mean its without a body, whci the embodiment element might suggest. What actually IS that element, I think is more interesting:
Its the SHARE_ABILITY of the imagination. How share-able is that imagination IN and OF and FROM itSelf. That is where Intermedia/Democracy and stuff comes in – because we want to share the body of imaginations as they are, regardless of talents and pre-disposed senses. We want to share imaginations, the practice of imaginations, the How we Imagine, the technologies of imaginations – as they are in all the rich multiplicity and complexities of it. I want to connect, to link to whatever it takes with an amoeba’s imagination, I want to learn how Commet XYZ’s trail imagines the friction with space, if it does.. (Perhaps it imagines stuff I can not!!)
Anyhow, this is beside this sequnce’s focus.
So – we have a shareability of the imagination, the closest it is – the more art- this seems to me, at list in one of art’s dimentions. Hence am going to go with an idea the complex or imaginary number here. Imaginary 10 and a 10 inter-changing, hence canceling discrepecies?
check: (10 : 10i) x (10i : 10) Vs (10 : 1i) x (1i x 10)
There must be a simpler way to express that line..
we can have numberI (imagination) : by i’s sharablity value (the imagination’s embodied link)
X shareability of the single entitiwhich is the distance between the values (ie if the above is 1 + 1i the X is of 0 because the 0 is the distance between the iLess numbers. This way we acertain interals between imaginational practices own processes’, in terms of their critique. The distance between a representation of a flying house on a paper as its embodiment’scshared value to its being as personal imagination, and to a possible abstract of stuff like FlightOfNoneFlyingRootedObejcts being a FONRO, that perhaps can now be a new imagination of Imagination, Materials and History dynamics….
Anyhow sop, the imagination divided by a real numebr times a real number made of the distance if any, between the imagination and “real”. These will operate differently in a design process question because the real will come Befor the the imagination hence frodicing a different complex number to time with the distance.. the distance might in both cases be 2, but 2 x 3+2i is not as 3x2i x 2..
(these ofcourse will be divided for art in links shared number over time – and in design , the latter value will divide he imaginary number based calulation..)
philanthropy and charity tend to be taken as stuff people might be able to feel proud of in setting up.
However, I think the very sense of pride, the genuine wish to do and/or be perceived as doing, stuff for the greater benefit of society, is – in my mind – on the range between autocracy, anti-democracy, and an admission capitalism is about a theft from society.
Theft from society:
The capitalist – the Have person – ensured socio-economic despair, hence feels positive addressing perceived consequences of that. Society, by enlarge, accepts the contribution by the well-off, in peculiar ways. For example, not taxing charitable donations. A practice that is made to both encourage giving, and depriving the greater society a democratic say in How these funds are distributed and to whom.
Once a person decides to give using “their money” – the very said money becomes for society. However the parts of society that get funds are based upon the well-off person’s own whims and moods. The power to decide who will get more social finance is by the hands of an unaccountable individual that thinks its rather cool to use their power over others.
That power might be exercised in a very acceptable way, might be distributed wisely and even correctly by society as a whole.
However, the point here is against that practice as much as against the wise and magnanimous emperor – by the unavoidable focus on one’s powers to do stuff over others, we cultivate violence of who gets to have the autocratic power, who benefits from that aggression, and rid society of ability to hold power accountable based on gaps between statements and activities. (the autocrat can claim to be honest about their power and their right to do with it as they please. (see, chinese rulling party, putin, erdogan, etc..
The ability of the well-off to opt out of the tax system by, in a sense, employing their own tax regime, is a testimony to social in equality that is being celebrated by the personal autocracy, social loss that percipitated the accumulation of power and the perpetuation of that power by contributing to organisations that instead of stopping certain activities, offer stop-gap solutions that help the continuity of social and economical inequality – let alone the cultural ones..
Speech end! lol
Am checking some stuff re bayesian networks and probability calculations. It suddenly occured that it might be interesting to note that probability of, for example, X being a god, and the actual being of being a god are slightly different questions.
Something might indeed be in-spite of all evidence to the contrary, while the same being element might be very improbable. In a sense, a very small probability of something to be, doesn’t necessitate not being – just a small chance.
Therefore the relevancy of probability is to chance of being, or indeed to the question of whether or not x is there, or Might be There in the life as we live.
However, that question is very different – mathematically, logically, or meta-inter-cross-logically – to the question, or search, of being.
The rhythmicality of a search sequence, of an if(ab) where ab can be a+/-/:/xb as well as a()b – ie some-friction-with b that determines the longevity of that search sequence rhythmic being. eg, whether it folds after a short or long period..
However, the if search sequences do the operation as a question rather than an attempt at a mathematical universal. The search sequence is suggestive in its outcome as well as its being, in that sense.
In that way, the rhythmic, perhaps search sequences are more frequentist than bayesian, however, i’d argue that its neither because both, bayesian and frequewntist approaches to probablity, can be as search sequences.
Going back to the god probability, in terms of bayesian and frequentist number crunching, the god as defined by religions has a very small chance of being past, present or future. From a search sequence pov the chances of god are inconsequential because the statement such as:
if being omnipotent + always + links directly with humans if Being at least as an imagination as much as:
if pigs fly * cows as outside of this statement – manages to live a rather long time as a quickly folding imagination that demonstrates its own futility attempting to escape being such a demonstration, rather than any other embodiment.
hence the if god – in this permutation or another – is indeed There at least for the brief period of stating the if search sequence…
Hence the Being is alive, at least as a search sequence imagination, not as a probability of yes/no.. Just a different set of questions – i suppose(?)…
A bit of a thoughts trace:
Was considering my difficulties with rituals and why am sensually uncomfortable with Any ritual, even if its a nice one..
Rituals, by repetition and/or by sharing the sense of repetition with others, are on the face of it a sort of imagination – personal and/or communal/social – imagination embodied by sharing. Say there is a community that imagines an egg to be a flower. So long as that community imagines this as individuals, the embodiment is within each of them and has a sort of communal unclarity. One knows the other has the imagination but no way to negotiate that imagination, no way to have a friction with a single person. Now, suddenly, that community discovers that they can share the imagination via day of the flower eggs, when people make flower eggs to one another. To begin with, I think people tend to come From the sense of egg as a flower, and question their activities because there is a genuine unsureness of how to share and how the imagination might actually be embodied.
(I think this process is very audible in music genres and the history of their process of rituality. A process that propmts some to express stuff to the tune of: XYZ music is too commercial now, not what it was, etc..)
Once this practice of day of egg-flower is being repeated if enters an embodiment process that slowly loses the sense of Ifness about it because people begin to imitate one another, have conventions of how to make, share, and even rules. In a sense, a ritual practice emerges from the initial, questioning and perhaps even open to self-critique and questioning process.
In this sense, rituals are not just time repetition base, but also can be of sequences. If you do the sequence of flower-egg, then you ought to do X elements. That becomes a ritual because it generates its own spectrum of conventions and with them, power. They become activities for their own sake, that – crucially – do Not ask themselves. Do not contain the Ifness we had to begin with, because critique can be audipal, or just be dangerous for people that made lives dependent upon the day of flower-eggs.
Indeed, critique may seem arbitrary and violent to people. We do the flower egg day for 200 years now, nothing wrong, how dare you ask questions!
Hence the person that asks the questions, that attempts to perhaps bring back the if to the practice – re-generate – or evolve a new one, has to have a sense of bravity, a strength.. Here, it seems to me that brutality kicks in. A violence that somehow ironically emerges through the process cultivation is being done..
This is why, in a pouring of self critique, I think the art formulas i was working on are mistaken. They do the Rituals, not the Art. They do the embodiment of imagination, the sharing, the politics/power of sharing, but miss the If.
In some I added the if and it felt awkward, arbitrary.
However, I think now it becomes clearer why these art formulas require the if. Indeed, I think that now, to begin with, they should probably be able to have an abstracted sequene like:
Though this is an initial idea.. it fails, I think, by having an equation while needing to be a search sequence..
I think the elephant-gorilla in this sequence is the question of what if it becomes correct. What if there is a correct art sequence that is for itself, how can it not have a ritualistic process conversion?
I need to play with that on a piece of paper..
What I think might be interesting to elaborate more at some point is that historically we have a sort of binary friction between art and design.. Where people question sense of boundaries between the two strands. I think that here other art-like cultural practices come to ligt with their own equations.. Am thinking currently of religions, rituals and entertainment..
Legacy as continuing dynamics linked with an element/process that does not practise these kind of dynamics any more?
Is the following a legacy over-stretch?
The Toronto panam games 2015 legacy begins before the games and are designed, ctrled and encapsulated on delivery?
I wonder if that’s not better said as resources re-usage design, rather than legacy.
Also, am wondering whether this kind of an approach is not infact an attempt to design time – future in particular.. Though these guys have anotion of legacy Before the games have began.. I guess its because the buildings are there, else it would be like stating a legacy for a person who’s yet to be born, no?
Here’s what i think is a call for celebrating, documenting and preserving an idea of legacy by one person of a few others. I think its really very similar to history writing and the notion of 1st writer setting the context from which others will link with?
However, can it not be that some future historian will simply willingly disregard such a context if they thought it to be baseless?
Despite that last note, i think this story of legacy veneration and possible fetshisation, puts a spanner in the notion of innate non object automatic behaviour of legacy, or legacistic approach. Despite it being more naturally evolutionary oriented than documentation..(??)
However, come to think of it, the community boxes of links in Palestine are doing legacy by the very practice of keeping a practice of linking to/with the activities that took place?
A slightly different interpretation of Legacy is in checking neanderthals genetic legacy in terms of its evolution and operation over time and in contemporary humans.
In this sequence/dynamics, the legacy is a process, perhaps even a practice of genetic adaptation or negotiation using material that its main integrator is not with us any more. A bit like some artist refers to another, dead one, and using part/s of their artistic left-overs. Same can be said of a scientist, or any other person, using stuff like e=mcSq – no?
In this genetic study of the Caribbean, I think can be argued that using genetic legacy archive carriage by local population – rather than a static genetic documentation – the study can map genetic legacies across the islands.
The study is published on arxiv.org – a name which doesn’t document but carries a legacy of the term archive, no?
A quality of the ability to reduce a generalised concept of pairs – to two. 2 apples and 2 stars, with 2 graphs and two keys and two cups of coffee in two loo rolls – are all using the ability to be two.
There might be different Kinds of twoness.. For example, two skies – erathian and marsian – might be different to two planets and two apples because the skies are both emerging visual phenomena.
It can be argued that twoness, being a shared sense of Two in Beings, because its a sense shared rather than expressed, requires to Be in the shared environment a sense that might have twoness in its being. That to Be linked with that element/creature/Being – other stuff should reach to their Twoness in mind. This is a sort of Twoness language. Just like if I fancied reaching to the dogginess shared among us – I need to speak Dog.. (mind, dogs speak human..)
Since the Sky is an emerging visual phenomena, and dogs -forExample- aren’t – perhaps the Kind of languages are different? The twoness of sky and mirage as different from twoness of chairs and light rays?
Also, can it seriously be argued that twoness is a sense different from elevenNess? Or 100ness?
Perhaps that is precisely where the if search collisions come in – questioning the imagination as imagination pracitces creation process.
One might claim that 100ness has its own unique qualities, but shares being Numerical with 2ness. However, in and of themselves they are of different qualities. eg imagine comparing 100 skies and compare that with imagining 2 skies. We can do both, however because of the different magnitudes, require various practices. With twoness, perhaps an internal representation is cool, while 100nes might require Other kind of imaginal materiality..
ALSO and a bit off topic:
It occurs to me, through this activity, that indeed there might be here a sort of social question coming.. The question of if we can Objectivise stuff – the objective quality of stuff: number one might have subjective meaning to an entity, but we can all objectively link to the single entity that, for an entity might mean blue, and for another, its childhood – to a wider degree than used to, then we ought to be able to allow the life of very specific abstracts as well as very general ones. I’d argue that to the extent of a radical transgression of categories.. Or a radical frictionability rather than categorability because objectiveness can irradiate subjectivity. People/entities can claim that because the objectivness is already shared, it has more wight/value/meaning – even if that objectiveness is highly subjective, and even if the very focus on being objective is detrimental to the evolution – rather than development – of the said objective element because it discourages mutations.. (radical alterations)
Perhaps this is why am interested in a sort of, subjective abstract and how these can be shared/linked, rather than objective to begin with. Also, and here an objective person might claim am very biased, the subjective kind of abstracts will offer many to become new objectives. It does not cancel the potential value of mass shared/linked objects and of sense of mass objectiveness – the opposite, it allows a multiplicity of it. Subjective objectiveness allows more universes of objective objectiveness, where as, in my mind, perhaps ironically, an obejctive focused objectiveness is a controlling one that finds it hard to live with the subjective. Like subjective subjectiveness might restrict objectiveness, so objective objectivness restricts subjectiveness..
So, why nor objective subjectiveness? Probably because this refers to the subjective qualities of objective stuff, it describes what’s already there. Objectiveness IS subjective to certain dynamics of its own.
However, the subjective objectiveness is a description of a process to imagine subjective elements with their objective senses and crucially i think through the objectivisation of the specific subjective senses. Hence the Twness of 2 can be different from 100ness of a hundred. These can be fritioned/collisioned/linked through the abstract elements that make them – some of the same kind of language, others might not, might create a new language, cancel one another, who knows – ITS A SEARCH>>
Was re re reading this post todo with categories and hierarchies with some ideas of abstractness thrown in 0 and it sudenly hit me that perhaps am being very vile and violent in my thoughts, or even their implications. Hence perhaps wrong.. Again.. This seems to be a fairly distinct possible sequence because I – or some others – can not ForcE a particular perception, abstract or otherwise, onto others. Well, if its forced – which can be – then something might seriously be mistaken, and or require some revisibility.
I can claim that a red-yellow brightonian Bee, one which buzzes in my mind only – i suspect – is an abstract. I can claim that till time folds and falls asleep, however because of the precise level of description, can people, plants, winds, meteorites and shopping lists can seriously be expected to take that mind bee as an abstract? As an element that is of and onto itself? I do not think so.. I think people can say look this is a pretty concrete kind of a creature, its a bee, it had red and yellow, its from or in brighton and only in your mind!
However, if that is used as a sort of Mind-Bee prop example, then it can be claimed an abstract. But then the question is of how this abstract comes about, being shared as how it is.. I think its a serious question because one can then argue that, for example, if it was shared as a MindBee creature, without the colour and place particulars, maybe it would be more of an abstract. Yet, one can argue that in fact, as such it is NOT an abstract but an Abstraction of the red-yellow brightonian Mind Bee.. Even more than that, it can be argued that the abstract is an illustration of the former..
For example, if we focus on Mondrian for a few lines, his vertical and horizontal lines – and am focusing on lines not colours – clearly stem from his idea that the universe is of two moving lines of the same type.
Now, his stuff appears very abstract. True. However, in terms of ideas, it can be argued that he illustrates a certain conception, a certain cosmology of the world (with De Stijl). More over, Mondrian’s move towards abstract stuff is clearly shown via the tree stuff he did, where the branches progressively being abstracted into lines.. In that sense, perhaps Mondrian’s stuff is an abstractive illustration?
Perhaps a way out of it is precisely the non-importance of the object, the project, the particular shape and material, the process even – but the practice?
Not too sure about that in the context of abstract..
Considering links and crossings and collisions – are these sort of like language based in the sense of focus? ie – water and oil seem to have no “and” but collide. The “language” of each, their vibrations, frequencies, vibes, rhythms – despite being liquid – do not mix much. However they could be combined.
On the same sort of token, perhaps we can claim that Ace (art community environments) might have a different, smoother, friction with stuff like Sae – self addressed envelopes – than with the term abstract art because these in their matterialities have different consistencies, frictions. However Ace with Aa might be at least as smooth as with Sae – however this is an interpretation. Like one might think of 12345 as a set and perhaps fail to notice others?
Just seen a smashed shop window. Nothing too remarkable.
However, I had a flash in mind of a drunk feeling pretty good about themselves for smashing the window. Why did it occur they felt good/satisfied/powerful?
I think the idea of senseless smashing, being like a wind, like a rolling rock, etc. – hit me that violence is all too very automatic. The sun does not ask whether or not to rise at x time, the wave does not do a maybe later if now inconvenient, etc.. This is not to say there are no negotiations, but that these are themselves violent, physical and brutal in the sense that no left overs are kept alive, no prisoners are taken. The ice is cold and you need to get on with it, the ice will not do temperature half way, or by cultural refining – neither with care.
In that way, i think that perhaps the violence of disspossessed, as much as the quiet and assured so to be unseen by power, might actually be a way to have sensations close to nature, to the way one might be while thinking thoughtlessly..?
Was reading this thing about astronauts and when he talks about a philosopher that came to a mistaken conclusion – it occurred to me that what that philosopher did was getting the If defined very well, however, then belongs to the future, specially an If that wasn’t much of before. ie space travels’ effects on human minds..
However, what am doing at the moment is an if as well – if we didn’t use then, for example. This is itself is an If I can not tell its Then because it might seem/be hypocritical in this context, and more so – since in this sequence, like others, its in appropriate. As in – not required at all – at times when speculation might actually be followed and could be made social..
Hummm.. Not too sure about the last bits.. well..
In the About spiritual in art, Kandinki – writing in fact about abstract painting – used a metaphor of a pyramid to illustrate a social hierarchy in which, if most people do not get something, its because they are not at the top of the pyramid, and the message from the top is yet to get through.
I think its a curious usage of the metaphor given the subject of abstract – where hierarchy is a bit of an issue in the way abstracts are used traditionally. ie they are sort of meta categories in an imagined category trees structures.. eg Animals –> Mammals –> Apes –> Chimps —– etc.
I think, at least for me, the abstract is linked to How an element is practised rather than its place in a given hierarchy or – even – in a sequence.
if chimps ant ant ant chimptree is a search sequence we can collide with and create from because its Approach is of abstracts rather than particular concrete chimps.
A concrete chimp will focus on either chimps as a species, or on a particular element/individual/family/tribe – this has a general sensibility.
In that sense, am claiming that the abstract has no need for hierarchical structure, nor so much for categories.