Probably nothing new nor novel, but to help clarify the difference between interpreting and translating in my mind.
To inter-prate it seems there is an operation to Understand – not The whole – but some of what and how another entity is being. (eg communicating, signalling, moving, thinking, etc.) This involves an attempt to create a comprehension of the other. I walk down the road, see a person smiling at me and now am trying to inter-prate what is going on there. Do we know one another? Do I look funny? etc..
A translation does not require an understanding attempt to be. I can see someone smiling at me, and translate it to an x cultural value. eg, could seem rude/friendly, etc. Hence extending the ranges of smiling in that given interaction. A bit like linking and enabling to shape the link’s time, direction, velocity, etc. A ball player in a team translates the other players’ linkup.
In these senses, translation and interpretation do have their own ranges of frequencies. However, they do involve one another’s elements at these frequencies. Its like one is a set of 2 4 6 8 10 and another of 2 6 10 14 – hence sharing bits like 2 6 and 10.
am distubed by representational and descriptive approaches in logic (desc). where lambda is actuateresting imho is generation of other stuff. even logic tables do rep of themselves, no new stuff comes.. however if search in my mind – perhaps only there, seems to offer making too eg never know context, never know times, speed, way of linking, frequencies, etc.. however, i think am might be failing with meanings.. eg might need xness rather than senseNess?
Am feeling critical re ideas to do with chairness as well as fearness – the sensation of fear as an aesthetic practice.
The disturbing element in mind is the fact that, stuff like lessness, etc. can obviously be with Other elements, and these other elements might have nothing todo with neither less nor lessness but ranges and frequencies of sensations.
Hence, so called brain goes, maybe stuff like letterness etc. IS just an abstraction rather than an Abstract.
Am trying to check these thoughts..
2 might be an abstraction of any pair of elements, or N an abstraction of Any numbeR, yes?
However, both N as AnyNumber and 2 as in the aesthetics of being 2 (eg prime, etc.) are in and of themselves abstracts in their own right.
Are abstracts different from abstractions only in the way they might operate?
Is 2ness more of an abstract than Lessness because 2 has a couple of 1s where as lessness mioght have, in collisional frequency, an if search as:
if –>– –><-->..?
could lessness be not in and of itself now as:
I used to follow bits of nba basketball. Ever since childhood, there was something in the range of basketball’s rhythms, frequencies..
Something I used to call “chess in motion”, but Chess is the wrong metaphor. More like “Go in motion” – but probably not that.
Its the combination of body and bodies in quick transitions of dynamics that seem to develop new bodies of installations with 2 “teams” or rather groups of people that play “attack” “defence” “transition” at interchanging times based on who’s got the ball.
As such its an intercrossings for dynamics of thoughts, of various imaginations that bread and develop off from one another in a course of a game and indeed a season of play.
However, NBA is about money. Its about how to make the NBA more money using the visual attraction basketball provides. In a sense, what the NBA is learning to do over the years is how to Game the game of basketball.
The NBA world is not There for doing basketball. Not There for the game, but for exploiting people’s attention for its own financial profits. Hence, for example, in NBA speech, cities where they have teams are referred to as “markets”. Usually “large” eg LA/NY or “small” eg Phylli/Boston markets. That is why the NBA is, somehow ironically, determined to create/develop a sort of equality among the teams, so that the sense of drama is heightened. However this is an equality where the NBA and Money reign supreme – hence no imagination that might deviate from the corporate image is tolerated.
Hopefully, despite what I read recently, the nba will not come to europe.. Lets keep european basketball Less corporate occupied.. (..if not fearless and free..)
The then is environmental, no?
We have a search sequence or a prposition in traditional algorithmic and computational format: eg let a + b )then we get ab etc.)
Once we let the then sequence element drop, the former 1st part has to alter to account for that:
if y .
This though has 3, at least 3 that I can perceive now, operational elements constitutional to it:
the loop of self ref. ie if y . if y . and so on
the Environment/time of person doing the if sequence. they might fancy adding that in:
then a + b (which is why am saying the algorithmic form contains the environment, the inference of using energy into power: if a + b then am using my power to make ab. Its a closure in its abstract sense.. (which might be interesting to explore, no?)
The other element of environment is saying:
If Y .
If X .
If y . . y
which can be collided with one another
they are def collidable, linkable in a way that stuff like:
If xzxz .
might not entirely collide with
If y .
If .. .. X
Because we are doing various frequencies various “sets”.
Through ofcourse we can get elements of each to collide..
(was refering to sequence as a whole..)
If y .
If . y
differently to how it might collide – or not – with
because the range of sequences is different the frequency is different..
Well.. That is how it seems to me anyway..
we can have the time added via distance placements, no?
x mins apart.
might correspond developmentally or recursively, or generatively etc with a map or a . = x mins or an act5ual x mins silence etc.?