a force not power of

habit?

Went to flick the switch on the kettle and turned to fix the coffee.
A few minutes later I noticed that it took me all that time to notice the kettle wasn’t just off – but wasn’t even where it should be to be turned on.

A habit?
A force of habit?

Can it be said that the force/s of habit ae/is driven by absent mindedness? (..an insight into forces, powers and Conservativismo – or an excuse as is the case with absent mindedness and the british empire?)

the false abstract of religions?

This is – I think – a very interesting discussion re peace in Liberia between Amy Goodman and Leymah Gbowee on Democracy now.

One of the interesting trajectories, in my view, is that of how religions were used in a conflict within tribal society. The implementation of christianity and islam as 2 umbrella elements within which tribal divisions could live peacefully, perhaps illustrates the adaptive process of religions with adaptable gods, and using them to implement a rather more peaceful life among groups of people.
This perhaps illustrates the attraction such monotheistic creeds offer?
Where as, for example, Greek religion was linked to specific gods that might have had correlation with Roman religion – both religions required exact links to be who, how and what they are. Ironically, the very flexibility of polytheistic faith, makes it inflexible for other gods to be within it. They can be included, but if there is a conflict, eg, i have the sea god, and you have one to – which is the true sea god? – creates a bit of a problem.
A specifically less specific religion can absorb the local faiths and cultured. eg in islamic africa, dress codes are slightly different in various societies, and christianity is easy about local gods being made saints, angles, etc.

In the above sense, monotheistic creeds seem to operate as abstracts. They seem to allow multiple otherness to operate peacefully while being dependant upon that very diversity to justify its being an abstract. In that way, this seems like a sequence of co-dependency.
Via historical experience though, we know that such religions, once eliminating the co-dependency and create a certain social uniformity, turn towards other groupings to inflict violent exchanges. (indeed, perhaps this can be said to other not necessarily religious groupings..)

However, being religions, the very operation of religions is based on power to deliver revelational narratives, enforce behavioural codes, rituals, customs and beliefs that support the narrative. These specificities reveal non-abstractive practices which fail the premise of being abstract. These show the monotheistic process to be a generalised one – as in placing a group of people/subjects/issues/elements under a category/roof which the general sense can be applied for – rather than being the promised abstract god.
The abstract, like numbers, can be applied to other sub-groups for specific sequential co-dependency, and at the same time, that application is co-dependent sequentially on the very number being able to have its own character Independent of that very application.
Yes, not just numbers, colours and vibrations are abstracts. Notice Abstracts rather than abstractions..(??)

Historically, I think, it can be illustrated that the perception of ultimate hard co-existence between generalised creeds is inevitable. I hope that the Liberian case will be different, an exception – unlike, for example, Nigeria, Egypt, Germany during reformation, England Vs France periods, India Vs Pakistan, Islamic State (specific sunnies) Vs anyone else who isn’t, and indeed the Iberian wars between islamic and christian oriented populations.

a peaceful way of cultivating wars?

If its fighting and if having.
Check the comment about the saying about fighting and having. The version regarding Not fighting, made “no sense” for the corespondent.

If its worth fighting for – its not worth having?
If its no fight – its not having?
If its having worth, there must be a fight?
If its worth, lets have a fight?
If its a fight, there must be a worth?
If its a there, lets have a must?
If its worth sharing, lets have it?
If its not fighting its not real having?
If its fighting, there must be a loving?
If its having a worth, its through blood sacrifice that annoints the value?
If its worthless, its peaceful?
If its fighting and one lost the fight, does it still worth it?
If its won, its worth it?
If its lost, its death?
If its about fighting, can it be said we are peaceful?
If its peace we value, we must have a war?
If its no peace we get, is it always fighting?
If its fighting for, is it worth arguing?
If its worth arguing, do we need to fight or lose the worth value?
If its valuable, we need to fight?
If its money that has to retain its value, we need to fight over it?
If its a valuable quote, was it fought for?
If its worth to add another line here, do we need to have a fight?
If its worth eating, its worth cooking for?
If its worth driving, its worth wearing for?
If its worth sailing for, its worth chatting with?
If its worth watching, its worth smelling?
If its worth typing, its worth reading?
If its worth valuing, its worth questioning?
If its worth spelling, it worth troubling?
If its worth, its worth?
If its something then it must be something slightly different?
If its a difference, does it worth the translation?
If its worth translating, its worth?

quotes and quoting as functions?

Quotes from past, and of famed people seem to me sort of like an attempt to use functions. If you feel down, use X seemingly wise line to get yourself up. Problem is, in my mind, that despite best attempts, unlike computers, to make this work, a quote has to be simplified and then either be stupid in the 1st place – or be a zombie. eg, when going gets tough – tough gets going, and: when in Rome – do as the Romans..
I think though that the tendency – seemingly X cultural – to lean on quotes somehow – or at least use them, can not be dismissed just like that, because people will do that – even if a law came to be to say – do not.
In my mind, quoting as a practice is slightly like genetic inheritance, like using dna stands. Perhaps these are the original memes? Originality question is beside the point in a direct way here – however, indirectly I think it has a deep point.
It seems to me that quoting is a sort of non-thinking, or thoughtless, fallback when people actually reference. ie, linking to X and twisting it by the very operation.
In a sense, we do that when quoting, we provide the quoted a new life and meaning, while no acknowledging the very twist and alteration provided. Hence people, if they know, tend to mention that XYZ famous person said: blah, blah. In a sense, attempting to cloak their positions and ideas with the perceived intelligence and cultural or historical significance of the quoted person. No?

0 zero ideology?

ideology?
Ideological as in having a preconception as to WHERE one fancies going to arrive at.
Ideological opposition to lilac as an intolerance of lilacs and the active celebration of anything at the expense of lilacs – no matter what the evidence actually are?

Perhaps supporting an evolutionary process through the practice of questioning how to assist lilac-free elements to evolve as much as THEY can, must include the ultimate melancholic acceptance of death. Death as a part of one lilac-free process and the birth of another. Another to be questioned rather than celebrated and promoted as aN AIM. qUESTIONED AS A PROCESS.
iS THIS IDEOLOGICAL?

Am I ideologically attempting to excuse my own ideologies?

Unless utterly oblivious of X, i think any attention x gets – affects it. Hence if we are to even be clueless of x – we are doing stuff with x, unless x is utterly out of mind beyond negative positive and neutral. X has to Be the stuff I can not have a clue about not being able to have a clue about – beyondness the beyondness – and so on – of a questioning wave that expands with every such a question.
Therefore there is an imprisoning process of being part of manyfold sequences which alters the sequence if we weren’t there.

Once that is the rhythm, there is a question of HOW TO WISH THE RHYTHM TO BE – no?
That kind of question is ideological because it reflects an idea of affecting the future. Killing the future’s element of precisely being unknown.

Therefor i seem to think that given the inability to be no element of sequences, the question is How to be such an element, no?

from calculative creativity?

if 1 is added to another 1, then we can get something different – a 2. 2 has a different character than 1..
It might be argued that similarly, when we put red with yellow, an orange comes out. A colour with its own character that is independent from the yellow and red. It needs not to have a constant reference to either colours for being itself. A bit like 1.9 that isn’t entirely 2 – though nearly 2 – and therefore is in constant reference to 1..

These ways of creativity, ways that create through processes of utilising propositions – IFs – towards outcomes, is via, or from, calculations of quantities. Even in the case of colours – which I think could be said re sounds, genes and other materials – the focus is on calculation of outcomes. The fact that there ARE outcomes, that differ from the calculative ingredients, make for creative processes.
Hence the focus on the outcome which seems to resolve the propositions. If 1 and 1 then we get something different, a 2.

The interesting element in my mind here is that such calculative processes, when note A played with note G at the same time, will create a different sound that could transcend the A and G, like 2 does to 1+1 and orange to yellow and red. This kind of creativity, with the focus on quantities and relational calculative qualities – ie if 2+2 is 4 and 4 is more than 1, then X might be, as well as have, more than Y.
At least in a conflated way that sounds logical. (eg, rich people deserve their higher quality of life because of their quantities.)

This kind of processes that produce and focus on the transformed, doing stuff for getting some other things which were the intent, seems to miss possibly other kinds of creativities and at the same time deny them.
Ofcourse, we have more pre-outcomes focused processes which emphasis Ways of getting desired outcomes – eg 1.5+0.5 is 2 as well as 502-500, and so on. And indeed, these processes at getting 2 alter some of 2’s qualities. (like nicking 2 pounds will have a different effect upon the person than earning it, or receiving it as a gift, etc. The effects might come to light over time and in the way the person – and/or context – might perceive itself and each other. However, it seems fair to say that the 2 pounds’ character can be argued to be of different qualities.)

However, how about simply the sense of stuff like 1 + 1? It sounds stupid or absurd to consider just on its own because it is made with a resolution in mind. However, say when we get into paying VAT, when a person that earns 100 a second and one that earns 0.1 a second, will pay the same amount of tax – eg, 20% of value – then we get into justifications of such activities via the logic of 1 + 1. We don’t earn the same amount, but why would I need to pay more just because my 1 + 1 is bigger than yours?
Indeed, when we get into the logic of sizable organisations – the kind of bodies that are too large to fail* – then the Size of the numbers involved alters the very Nature of the Operation. If we keep adding 1 + 1 the operation has different qualities to 111 + 111, etc. The 111 contains the 1 – or any element under it – eg 110 – and because of that size of effect, can seem to be too big to fail. If 111 wasn’t here anymore, it might affect all the numbers it is made up of, they might go as well.
..and this kind of if-then argument can be done precisely when calculative creativity is all the rage in culture.

When the focus alters to the process, it seems that as the case with size, the Nature of creativity alters as well.
*In that context it might be curious to note that despite their size, States are NOT TOO big to fail. Indeed, this might be a hole in the process of my thinking, and I hope it can be opened up by others. However, the reason(?) am going over it, is that beside the power relations questions, there might be a codependency question of power too. eg, a Relative small state is not too large to fail because others, in the realms of state powers, are larger – and they are the ones that can not fail. However, in the realms of profit and money earning based organisations, while a high street shop can fail, the bank that profited from its fail – can not in itself fall. (am talking about thought processes and their own logics, rather than attempting to justify. Perhaps a truth without a reconcilliation..)

The focus on pre outcome process shows, I think, that indeed such process have their own nature. A nature of 1+1 that is in and of itself both independent from 1 and 1, as well as independent from a 2.. In that way, the calculative creativity is missing something that is either an ingredient of, or beyond – the questions of quantity and quality.
Perhaps we have here an operative creativity?
A process that focuses on the creation of operations – rather than their quantities nor qualities.
The operation of 1 + 1? A ThenLess operation. It is an operation of senses, of being, of creating a sense of being rather than creativity through outcomes other than its own being.
The sense operates knowing not a then. It can not perform because it known no cause nor outcome to calculate and perform with, for or to. The sense is full of indifferent wonder. A wonder that is fuelled by an inevitable demise. Hence when we sense, its a bit like surfing waves in a rather quick succession?
Am I arguing here that sensations do not perform but operate? Can it be that the very operation of sensations – creates the sensations? I think possibly yes.
Sensing green? sensing green? sensing green? Sensing greeN? Sensssing Green? SensinGGreen? (Oh! here comes a sound of A minor..) Sensing Green as an A minor? Sensing A mirror as green? Sensing green A-minor? The sense of green, at any rate is not there any more.
Can it do a come back?
Yes.
However that will be in a different time – by definition.
So????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok. Since the sense lives via propagation over time rather than propagation of object/s or entities, perhaps time is a constitutional element in this language?
The 1 + 1 creates a 2 and both loses itself in 2 and gains new life there.
1 + 1 between 1 and 1 and 2, propagates itself through possibilities that time offers.
The if/then are focused on time rather than a transformation of the operation. Instead of 1 + 1 is transformed to 2, there is 1 + 1 that rolls on through time as long as time allows.

The sense, in this way can be said to Be very childish. It can not propagate other than by peing dependent on time and links with other senses that might be of beats that do not smash it to pieces.

Yes, this view is very much like that of the religious, in my view. Perhaps that is one of the hard things about it to accept. For me. In me. Am being Ify about these thoughts.
However, it seems that perhaps there is a radical difference with the religious. The difference of being. While the religious lives as senses that fancy themselves over others, and in constant awareness of possible demise, the fear induces violence. The propagation of repetitions, ceremonies, stories, habits, mannerisms, with fear, anxiety and a constant threat of violence.
However, the senses do not have to be imagined as such.
I think the religious is missing the element of allowing the senses to evolve. Mainly to die and take time to take them, but without that evolution is dead too..

therefore, instead of the language of restraint, fear, anxiety, tampered wonder, shame and violence, it seems that here a different language is attempting to be formed. An abstarct one. One that can live as an abstract, need tot be transformed into something else to gain its vitality.
Like the sense of 2 in the abstract language of numbers. Like the sound of A in the latin oriented alphabet. The sense of, for example, wondrous, or uselessness, or wonderousUselessness – are indeed abstracts. Abstracts rather than abstractions that while pointing at possible other elements – eg the wonder of gaps in pavements, as 2 may point at two letters, and two letters eg E and B might point to a term “BE” – they are independent of these specific instances.
Blue can be blue of sky (instance) or of a toe nail – yet it can be as itself. This is not re Perfect Blueness, its just a sense of being blueness that, as an abstract can evolve too precisely because it isn’t something particular, Precisely because it is an abstract.
Unlike Blue though, and because of the religious link, I think to be sure of the possible radical difference, this language has to be able to operate in physicality that requires minimal investment of material resources. A bit like numbers, in that way. I can do a 2 just like that. Blue, as a colour is slightly different.
Now
A from the sense of abundanceness might seem appropriate for a wave such as:
A if ^^^^ ?
However, at times this seems insufficient because the same A is also an A of Apple, and the A of if A + B = X, etc..
The 2 for example, in its physicality, is better than the roman || kind of thing because it makes it distinguishable as its own entity.

One way to get over that is via having a language of links that describes the senses. eg (->–>–>—>~>) for something like abandanceness and (>|-|<) for something like scaresitiness? That though is pretty personal. This isn't nescessarily a problem here because we can have others doing own versions and all will somehow col.lide and develop ionto something rather more coherent no? Why do I think I need to bring out the end..? Is this not a practicve in itself? I can do the process with other peoplke too, no? Why do I kill myself over that? Hummm.. Also, another element that is of the senses.. We have a language of reason and logic. We have developed ways to attempt reasoning about and with senses. However, I think this requires a certain critique - which many people have, precisely because we are not logical beings. Computers are, we are not. We do creativity much better than other creatures we know of, but logic and reason is not entirely how we exhale. However, we created a sense of conflict or a number of conflicts between reasoning and sensing - like reasoning with senses, eg placing senses Under reason's watchful mind. Is this reasonable in itself? Indeed the proposition here is that via abstract elements the wonder, the imagination the senses can Be wild and free - fearless free - and yet be shared, discussed, evolve and be reflected upon without the religious requirement of control or the subjugation to reason's logic ways.

a foot and the friction interaction

question?

OK. Might be stretching stuff here, however for the possibility am not, will try the following:

2 days ago i twisted my right foot’s ankle a bit. Enough to hear some cracks. Landed on it wrongly while running. 1st reaction was to assess the pain level and how it might affect my continuing urge to run.
Hence am calling that a friction between what i fancied doing and a possible developing element that might inhibit the fancy.

More over, it took a while to take a full stock of what actually occurred. It took a while to internalise, comprehend the seriousness of my ankle’s twist, and take it into some sort of consideration Рlike treating it Рin context of other activities. eg sitting on the floor, skateboarding, walking, etc.
Therefore – IT SEEMS – like 1st there was a friction and then the opposing moves and trajectories, once they realised they HAVE TO listen to one another, began to INTERACT. By interact am thinking of a reciprocal process.

Using the the time sequence in this scenario, it seems like friction precedes interaction. either in a sequence or in affordable. (ie, friction can describe interaction, but not the other way around.)
The other option is that in fact, both have an exchanging process between them that I fail to perceive at the moment. It might be that am failing to perceive that precisely because the question of whether or not there is a sort of affordance or sequential relationship between the 2.
Perhaps am blinded by the very question to the obvious that brings the questioning about – perhaps they are in need for one another like the neutron – electron – protons? (interaction – friction – exchange?)

I need to try and explain interaction via friction and check if its possible the otherway around.. If it is, then am thinking that perhaps they do feed one another. It seems that if one can explain another, then it can afford, can contain the other.
If they are sequential, then it will be possible to re-arrange them in time one after another to get various outcomes. (a bit like art, rat and tar..?)

A couple of links I just checked before this post:
http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/atomic-friction.cfm
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/71

an arbitrary if?

Are the if waves arbitrary or something more interesting?
I think that perhaps am currently wrong in their non-arbitrary nature*. However, it seems like they at least could be non arbitrary..

Here it goes:
Say something like
if XyZ with ^ ?
After the initial getting used to it, the wave doesn’t seem to require a “then” because of its ability to fold back into itself and be a rhythm. This is because of the interval (the ^), the ? of the whole (hence spacebar then “?”) and the if in relation to the “?”. This makes the wave be a bit like an abstract version of an imagination such as:
if we go to the pub? – ie the question that repeats in one’s mind prior to a decision to follow it with a Then. When the mind is wondering and wandering among options. eg If we go to the pub? If we stay at home? If we get a train ticket? etc..

* Nature in this case links with autonomous innate operation. Unforced by power of this kind or another..

a clear idea re fuzziness

of meanings?

Don’t meanings operate, the way they move, is actually via fuzzy functions? If people are meanings creators, generators, propagators and re-generators, is it not that it can be claimed that in-fact, on a rather more abstract sense – people, or “meaning” oriented beings, are in fact fuzz makers?

universal no abstract?

A universal element, be it arbitrary or slightly less so – eg, a Universal declaration of human rights (arbitrary) Vs Universality of H2O, etc. – are simply sequences that may (by legislation or evolution) be applicable throughout a fair bit of timespace.
It can be argues that the longevity of such universal is linked to the abstract elements they might be made with. However, It seems that sequences they are not.
Not?
Not because an abstract sequence operates from drawing away from the specific to the general while having a new ability to both allow for the abstracted and be a radical (a different, not necessary linked to the abstracted entity).
Hence Blue – or BlueNess – is an abstract sequence of the blue in a shirt, eyes, sky, etc. – it allows these specific instances to draw In blue and use it. Also, at the same time, Blue is its own sequence independent of the sequences, with its own character. Hence we can feel Blue, listen to Blues, and wear blue at the same time..
While blue has a Universal element in the sense it can be blue in andromeda as well as on earth’s moon – that Universality is part of the sequence, not the whole within in which the sequence is definable.
Same thing perhaps i should say re generality. The generality of categories. No?
No?
No difference between Blue, bill of rights/h2o and the category of mammals?
I think that perhaps there is, no?
Not a difference?
What happens when we consider tigers and mice?
Do we not say that the mice can be linked categorically with rodents and using the same method – tigers are linked with cats?
The categories of cats and rodents can not Be without the specifics that make them, no?
Why?
I think it is due to categories being both arbitrary and non-sensual. Rodents is a category. Rodentness might be a sensation of the imagination that might perceive rodents as a unified category.
If I make the plantibian category where all plants & amphibians are being generalised, am having to link with plants & amphibians constantly. However If this was Plantibianess, the sense of crossing and unity of sequence of amphibians and plants through oxygen and water, then it seems like a possible abstract is born. A sequence that, with the focus on sensation – hence having its own unique frictions, can be on its own, able to gain a new term that need not refer to neither plants nor amphibians but to itself, eg, H2OinOutOrganicLife. (not an elegant terms, but I think it demonstrate the notion of differences between abstract, general and universal.)
No?
Not?
Non of these is claiming non-linkage among these elements. However, the claim here is of a nucleus of interval-difference-friction that operates uniquely in the general, universal and the abstract.
By analogy:
the set of 99, 2, 7, 77, 102, 107 – is not the set of 99, 5, 77, 7, 107, 102 – and bot are not 102, 107, 97, 2, 5, 7, 77, 99
no?
No?
Don’t we know that the sequences that each of these sets will be used as, will be unique?

freedom and nude turban burka?

A woman in Tunisia decided to cover her body with slogans/text and post images of it on the web. She got into trouble with Tunisian power, and Femen decided to show some support. At the bottom half of the link, there is a post by someone in Saudi arabia saying that Nudity liberates her not.

This seems interesting for seemingly mis conceiving nudity? On the face of it, sure baring some body parts that cultural – no, social – norms attempt to hide/cover is indeed, in itself an act of defiance within a normalised discourse (the question of body parts coverage for “modesty” perceptions), which indeed is nothing to do with neither liberation nor freedom but an expression of an outrage in the face of being told what to do.
Another element in the Femen activities is the use of body, which seems to me, again, to be well within an ironic re-inforcement of cultural focus on women’s bodies, – and body parts – as if they are objects
Hence, such an act is indeed an expression that, for a person happy to wear their turban, or work like a 9-17 slave, or get married, or any other authoritarian normative habit practice – is not liberating at all. As expressed in the posted image – don’t tell me what to do. (However, that message ignores the fact that the woman in Tunisia, Amina Tyler, might actually be muslim..)
Since the links to original posts are dead (interesting in itself) – am basing the next bit on the image in the link at the top of this post.

I think that the misunderstanding of liberation and freedom is in the fact that the act by Femen is within the normalised sense of discourse. Hence it is seen as an extreme – ie on one far end of the spectrum, something that prompts people to consider “middle ground” which then seems more measured and responsible.
However, there is another interesting element, a potential radical element in my mind, within the Femen activities.
The cultivation of the abstract. (..and here the nude question is a metaphor of abstractive operations rather than the focus in and of itself..) If the idea is for a culture to cultivate that which allows Other and Otherness to Be, to live fearlessly and flourish, then the Femen IDEA is not an extreme, isn’t it? The idea is simply for human societies to allow differences to live. It is to allow the burka, allow the turban, allow the 9-17 slave, and allow questioning them from top-to-bottom. Indeed, allow not 9-17.00 slavery, marriage, etc..
In this sense, I think, the idea that if nudity is not a social problem then neither will wearing a turban, heavy beard or a burka – is a wishful thinking (e.g. france’s burka laws). It is based on a future correlation that is taken for granted while one thing we know about the future is that it is unknown..
However, if the nude is taken as a metaphor for abstraction, then perhaps it can be argued that – like the secular state for all its different citizens – the nude is a symbol for the bareness that can be twisted by an individual for their own content.

A booty note(?)
It seems like this links with the thinking of elements allowing others – and vice versa – pending on focus. ie
say we focus on neutonian physics, they do not allow relativity. However, relativity allows neutonian. Or say we focus on driving on the left hand side as a guiding Rule of driving, then we limit the scope, we – or some people -find it hard to even consider driving on the right hand side. However, if we focus on Driving – sides are inconsequential, yet allowed to Be.

entropy as a god?

Was just re-reading about Jeremy English’s idea of being within a material evolution in which energies get – i’d say Cultured – into converting/translating energies and disseminating them ever more efficiently so that process will increase entropy.
Note:
Some terms here are via my own energy translation and dissemination – eg “translation”, “culture” (verb) “efficient” (verb in this setting).

J. English is using the term “Work” to describe the part, or an element, which processes the energies – eg the light being processed by a plant, etc. I think this might just be an unfortunate term for a very fruitful theory, It seems that framed as “Work” it will be easy for people to make religious allusions, e.g. that “god” or a”gods” are/is in fact entropy and whether we like it or not, we work for it. Slaves of entropy? Some already do make entropy and god allusions. It just seems unfortunate to fuel that fire terminologically.

free will and expression baka?

I wonder whether expression is a question contrary to that of freedom and particularly that of will?
Isn’t freedom a question of fear rather than expression?
If a fears b – can a have a free will?
in that sense the freedom, the sense of freedom is of ability to turn towards in all intervals imagined, knowing others might do as well, and i’ll need to Negotiate with them and myself. Hence might return to where am now and turn towards other interval. But not get punished for it.

Rather than a freedom of expression where the question is of power to express one’s self regardless. This kind of freedom is precisely about depriving – even temporarily – others freedoms in arbitrary ways that is based on power not negotiation practices. Because as soon as a negotiation question comes in, people sense a loss of freedom and hell becomes the other person..?

questions(?) from brighton pavilion civil(?) liberties(?) hustings with

Caroline Lucas (Green), Purna Sen (Labour), Clarence Mitchell (Conservative), Chris Bowers (Liberal Democrat), Nigel Carter (UKIP), Howard Pilott (The Socialist Party of Great Britain) and Nick Yeomans (Independent).

(details – http://www.meetup.com/ORG-Brighton/events/221341373/ )

The meeting was organised by Open Rights Group (org)

Last night meeting was, I hope, something to learn from…

* I think the setup of a podium of politicians eager for power functioned like a beauty contest instead of getting into a potentially meaningful conversation about the issues.
Personally, I think that perhaps a different setup, eg a workshop to do with freedoms that politicians come to hear and listen, followed by a brief – what did You pick up from the workshop kind of statements – could be much more beneficial and meaningful.
After-all, perhaps if we fancy politicians listening to voters concerns, it might be an idea to place them in a listening situation rather than one where they are being asked to answer..

* Another difficulty that I think popped with the podium sort of set up is that people’s time for questions is limited in these settings. Hence more complex questions are not raised. Questions have to be short and so the replies. I hope something can be done to better that – particularly in settings by a group that is seemingly concerned with people’s participation in political processes to do with rights and freedoms.

…and
* The “chair” seem to have confused himself with a host – instead of assisting the smooth roll of discussions, he inserted himself into the proceedings. Shame as it wasted scarce time.

Perhaps not a very positive sounding reaction – however, would you fault honesty..?

a dodgy note re self questioning?

When, unlike a rock, an entity questions itself. Even as in “can i be z?” (when i is I and z is anything one thinks they are or actually are) The very practice of such questioning – which I think a living material does – creates the ability, more than that – the necessity – to have differences.
Lets check:
Suppose I question whether I should use English here. If indeed I do – then a different lingo must be used, or referred to.
Suppose I question my suitability to Live – should I with all my faults be alive? One way of avoiding jumping off high places and hope for best – is reproduction.
Suppose I question my relationship with others and come to a view that am right and them are wrong – then I’ll reproduce by copying myself. (can think of a fair few people who do that.. not just ameobas..)

In that sense, it seems that perhaps the very operation of questioning allows for new – as in different than question to begin with – to appear. Hence allows for a difference.

If a ^ ? in that way is a short for difference making?

notes todo with questions of operations

functions and immanent objects – or perceptions of – in art?

* The difference between functions and operations seems that operations contain multiple functions. The operation of a steady material in the bike pedal design/implementation is to allow various functions to occur. If the material was ice or paper, then it could be argued the bike’s pedal design operates dysfuntionaly. Or that the operation functions in a way different to the common idea of cycling. The operation offers var functions and their dysfunctionalities to be.

* The material – eg metal – in the bike’s pedal area for example, is a manifestation of certain operational abstract requirements. The manifestation could have been bamboo, fibreglass, a combination of materials, or some other material. While each material would offer a different character and perhaps even meanings range for the bike – eg recycled materials, sustainable materials, etc. – the fact that a given bike is made by, for example: materials with embedded scent, is not intrinsic – not immanent – to the object of that specific bike even if it was the only one in the universe. The scented material could be used for other objects, and is Not the operational requirement for the Object/Bike – but a manifestation of that abstract.

* Traditionally, in “West” oriented art linked practices, the Value of objects comes is perceived via the lenses of immanent intrinsic links between the abstract and the object. Hence Duchamp’s bicycle wheel can be re-done by the artist and retain its cultural value – based on the fact that the very language of Duchamp’s work has the element of the artist own gestures and that the object has to do with being in the realms of contextual meanings rather than moving a person from a to b.
Similarly, notes of a designer, a politician, or other producer that might have done stuff which was not linked to art – because they (notes/possessed-objects/etc) become unique through the friction with the person of cultural significance – they gain Values far beyond their otherwise daily perception.

* The question in my mind is that of operational abstract, the abstract imagination practices with which which various manifestations functions and objects are linked for life.
In a way the IF A ^ ? is there because I think that this is the only way to share imagination as an imagination.
However, is it not a manifestation of an imagination?
I’d say more of a translation because of the material and form. However, is this not very traditional in the way art linked stuff is?
Might be, but am also hoping that if a person considers the IF A ^ ? to be a MIS-Translation – then some other translation ways can be made.

* Let me try to repudiate the IF A ^ ?
Suppose I said the my imagination is this batch of Olive Oil? Suppose it was this room full of defreezing spinach soaked with olive oil? Suppose it was a plastic bag? Suppose it was a line: I imagine a flowered whale? Suppose it was I imagine x + b = Z? Suppose it was imagine agct string?
All these questions, do they manifest an imagination, translate an imagination, or are linked to an imagination – in their being.

* 2 is all the 2 in the universe. 2 translates a one of A and a one of Z. Loosing 3 of a previous 5 apples, etc. The materiality of 2 is not of apples or any other object so it can Be all the 2s in the universe, right? Sure this materiality has unique features that makes 2 Be very different to A or indeed a 3. However, it lasts because we haven’t a better way to do a universal 2. We tried with || for example – but that was too complicated when dealing with complicated stuff.
In this way am not entirely convinced that IF A ^ ? are the Optimum way to do imagination as imagination sharing. However, am sure that both in form and materiality the wave is more innately linked to imagination than A – B = Z or an aeroplane made of coffee soaked books..

power and death of imagination via embodiment?

Some claim that power fears or dreads imagination and that is the basic radical element in art. That art always questions, imagines the world different. Even if its something seemingly innocent and simple, like a drawing. A stoke of a dark pencil that sheds a new light on a familiar surrounding. A re-imaging and by that, a sharing of an imagination of life, or a bit of it. Be it a tree, an idea, a death, an object, etc..

(This is indeed a very traditional and enclosed idea and practices of “art” which am not sure can Be actually “art” however am trying to focus of general accepted conceptions of art – rather than my own views of art and the ideas of it.)

“Art” and its relation to power can also be seen slightly different. As a display,a show, a performance and spectacle and a cultural practice of – err – power.
The traditional sequence of sharing “art” (art-linked stuff), seems to be a process of “materialisation” or embodiment of imagination. To materialise, to embody the imagination, one has to go through centrain loops which demand investments of time, energy, money, social-capital (eg, networking/friends), and opportunities. All these, to occure, demand an aquisition and usage of power. A power which, in my view, ends up as a vail on the imagination. A result that in effect places Power rather than Imagination on display and show.

Here’s an example:

The imagined reality of floating fish might seem initially as a display of a common but fertile imagination. An imagination that attempts to embody itself in the physically shared environment and become a part of people’s daily lives.
However, to get into doing this particular embodiment, to get to have this particular realisation of one’s imagination, the practice involves elements such as an imposition of imagery, political power’s agreement for the objects to be where they are, and a financial power usages which, to be “justified” seem to seek pleasing the viewers eyes. As if saying, hey, we occupy your political, social and visual sensations via power and have to agree to that because it pleases your mind.

More over, such practices that use and require power to Be, thrive on the idea that one person or a group might have the privilege of ability to share their imagination, while others – as individuals or some collections – can not have that very ability of imagination sharing in public.

Im my mind this kind of practice forms a certain imposition, a controlling sequence over people’s imagination. It thrives from the idea that imagination – in and of itself – is NOT embodied already, and requires ways to materialise. Ways to be which will require investments and direction of energies which is mostly well beyond the realm of most people’s lives.

To question, if not challenge, such power-imagination frequencies or spectrum, am very interested in developing a way which enables to inter-prate imagination in a simple way. Leaving the imagination free to Be and Become a materialisation – or even open to materialisations and embodiments – by many people.
That is where the IF A ^ ? comes in as a simple basic sequence within waves or spectrum of given imaginations..
However, at the moment am unclear re sharing this..

How can that be done without doing another display??? Without claiming a way of being and becoming another form of power practice entity??