intergalactic, cosmic, interstellar, space oriented anthropocentric

scene?

Am wondering from the question of how anthropocene might translate, relate, or refute(??) itself when linked with the rest of our curiously nameless universe. (see notes bellow)

This lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmDrLaebUa4 – 28 mins in(ish) he talk of saving planet’s living orgs by preventing an imact by an astreoid kind of thing.
I wonder whether he might be correct. Can it be that given the resrats of planetary lives, having some bastards like us becomes worthwhile for genetic codes?
ie, if i was a code and was given a situation of million years (possible) development in a universe where in that time scale some rocks might probably kill or harm me big time – would i fancy developing beings that could avoid a restart?

Other anthopocenic linked thoughts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDdTqr-5APg (catherine M)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrNEHCZm_Sc (ben b.)

Here’s why am bothered by this extraterrestrial anthropocene question:

Do we – and other animals/intelligence/etc. affect the sun by witnessing
it like an observer affects an art object by witnessing it?

What of moon and mars landings? Can it be claimed that moving bit of
ground here on earth is fundamentally different just because of scale?

How can it be known what and how we affect stuff – since future isn’t in
the known?
Why not go radical with lee smolin and say that in fact we evolve the
seeming laws of physics?

Indeed, why not go past the human and propose an opero-scene?
Or an Opera for short? When the idea is that creating energies, be it by
intelligence or by organic being – as with jeremy london’s hypothesis of
differences between organic and “non-organic” in terms of energy
production – is a part of the whole that indeed creates it?
Or
Perhaps go to the very ability to be an organic compound..?
Indeed, that would imply a this-universe-centricity.. (is there a name for this universe?)

I don’t like that centricity..
Perhaps though, with Operativity, it can be claimed that even in a
universe when time operates as non operation, or de-operation, or as an
element that has nothing to do with operativity – by checking on something abstract like operations, that universe’s qualities could be appreciated?

how to change time?

Evolution could be characterised as changes in time. Am wondering how time itself can evolve.
Can time change?
There are ideas that perhaps time flow in other universes might be different in terms of direction.
What if there is a universal beat. A universal rhythmic characteristic of time that itself evolves – changes is spaces, in areas made of intervals time stretches – according to a universe-particular time character?

In ’95? No, ’96 I made the lost hypercard based timeverse.. Perhaps it should be re-done in a less manifestive way?
Hummm…

What if evolution is Movement in time rather than change? Am saying that cos then perhaps cycles as tide can be incorporated as evolutionary processes?

Reason and time?

Say I do X.
X is done.
By who?
If elements around me attribute X to me doing it – they might ask Why?
e.g. for a child:
Why did you do X?
the child – or me – might be clueless as to reason for doing, or causing, X.
A person might be honest and say:
IDK why I did(?) X.
However, an insistence upon a person to “know” why X was done – may indeed bring a knowledge to that effect.
No?
I might say:
Hey if I say that I did X for ABC reason – I can then move on + the other people don’t think am stupid as much as actually am…

Is that a way of reasoning?

Can it be that Reason is actually a contextualised excuse?
Can it be that what the call for reason is addressing, at least prior to a reasonable cause for affecting a certain X.
Can it be that in a cause free universe – or a slight time period – the reason is also free of causation?
Can it be that the reason for the call from assuming cause and reasonable agency is in fact a call for rhythmicality?
Can it be a call from asking for a set, or a sequence to be discussable?

Are these questions of:
Hey. You just crossed the road while kicking an apple. Do you know you did that? Can we talk of that?
or
Hey, why did you do that apple kicking road crossing? Oh you have no idea? What kind of a person acts in such unknowing way?/Oh! wow.. that is an interesting idea – drawing on tarmacs with the memories of apple desires..

trans mission from manifest ability of?

It seems to me that:

Manifestation presumes a context – hence some meaning emerging. To manifest is to show, or to make x available to Be sensed. This element of availability to be sensed is what seems to presume context. The context might be even the very seemingly meaningful for the manifestor.

If I fancy manifesting but do not make the produce of that fancy in a way that Could be avaliable for others to extrasct meanings, nor for myself to have an understanding of what it is about – then perhaps the produce of the activity is not manifestation but a transmission?

By living, just being a Being, an entity – rocks, fish, waves, clouds, gallaxies, dark matter, etc. – all transmit. Produce elements From themselves into the interval between entities – which is meaningless and clueless.
Transmission happens from me to the rest of whatever – even if i was a decomposing body already.

Sure, this transmission, if and when interacts, having friction with others, can become – be made – into some meaningful manifestation. However, it does not require that meaning nor manifestation to be.

In this sense, I think, the notion of being a transmission is not the same as the contextualised object. In the context language, the object requires an audience to be valuable – if not even to Be.
In transmission, I don’t know that there is an object, and if indeed there is – it does not require meanings. Meanings are a possiblity, but not the only one.
Since meanings, in terms of human manifestation, are between humans. ie I do not know what a bit of moon rock painted black placed in a dark box might mean for an ai or a lion. I have to think that it might not mean anything for any of them. However, the question of meaning is directed to humans. In that sense, meanings production in itself is human centric.
A post human does not require human meanings to be, no?

sequences, categories, and

hierarchies?

Sometimes when I say that, for example, expression is a manifestation type, some people seem to think that the implication is Manifestation is more important than expression.

I do not mean to imply any hierarchy – am i manifesting myself wrongly?

When a person talks about furniture, they talk about stuff that might include benches and armchairs as well as lamps, etc..
In terms of category theory, I think we can say that furniture is, for example all the numbers between 0 and 11. And all beds, as a kind of furniture, are the numbers between 1 and 3, etc..
In that set theory language, the beds category is a sub-set of furniture. With that language I can see how an hierarchical perception can develop.
However, it seems to me that such an hierarchic oriented perception is out of touch with both intent and the Being of sets.
Can there be a set called furniture that has no furniture to furnish it?

Lets say that am saying there is a set of numbers between 5 to 13. Thats’ my set. ok?
Now, lets say..
No lets be more abstract.
Say we have a set of all the undeclared sets. Lets say that this set is made of numbers that are yet to be counted by any beast or machine.
Hence the numbers that might be declared as the make up of the un declared sets – are yet to be witnessed by anyone.
Lets call this set – U.

To prove the U set is there somewhere, one will need to prove that it is highly probable that there are indeed sets that are yet to be declared – right?
Therefor, I think it might be fair to claim that the longevity of U set is dependent on there being these un declared sets, no?
If there was no proof of them, the U set might have to become the set of no sets, or the set of sets that failed to be proven, etc.. In any case, it has, by definition of being a set of sets – to actually have sets well linked to it.

Therefore, it seems to me that we are not talking about heirarchical relationships between, say furniture and beds, or manifestation and expression – but have a possible sequential interlinks.

Just like the word “fish” can not be without the sequence of f,i,s,h – the set of furniture can not be without elements that make it just as much as it makes them.

However, if i fancy talking about chairs and beds and sofas, etc. – it makes life easier to talk of furniture.. Perhaps a category of sleeping furniture, or street furniture, is indeed hierarchically linked there? Not sure.. Perhaps another post?

So when am talking about times that do not require manifestation in art. Times that do not focus on artists manifestations as the outcomes in the artistic practice – so more people could manifest themselves. Am talking about actually opening up all ways of manifestation. Democratising them rather than leaving them in the hands of few. And at the same time, by freeing art from the expense of manifestation, i think we can have more ways that could be manifested.

if a b ^ ?

well.. am still knotted with that..
I think it will just bring new oppressions? Perhaps..
Maybe it should be written as why if ab ^? Not!

birth and birth of inventing a birth?

How to invent a celtic culture?
I think its a lso interesting on the side perhaps, how the pronounciation has altered.
It used to be the S side of C, as in the Glasgow football team – Celtic. Or the Boston Basketball team Celtics.
However, somehow in the early part of the last 100 yearsIsh, the K of C drifted in to become Keltic culture..

transmission, and between, and expression, and

between manifestation?

I think Manifestation allows, at least the conception of expression?
Manifestation can have expression, and reflection, and projection.
Manifestation though is dependent, perhaps made with, context?

Transmission is ironic? It is in between practice. It requires to be transed as a process and making it, practising transmission is doing that interval.
A radio waver transmission is focused on being a radio wave – not on whether or not it will be picked up. It could – or not – however its still a transmission.
In that sense, a failed manifestation – one that has not been witnessed – is a transmission. Hence transmission does not deny manifestations, it allows manifestations through the possibility of some to actually pick up the frequency and interpret it.

burning in the flames of goodies?

Just a quick note re story of anti-sharia activist being barred from publicly voicing the opinion in Warwick Uni.
The line for refusal:
*possible* inflaming people.

Apart from the question of “rights” vs “rights” – and indeed the “right” to upset people in a conversation – i think that there are meta rights issues as well.
Meta-rights?
Well, perhaps issues that allow everyone, or the process of an an inclusive conversation – that of widening conversational p[articipation – which are beyond “rights”.
Beyond?
Yes, because if the opinion is that of how to allow contrasting ideas to interact – even when upsetting one another – then this opinion, or theory if well developed – is to do with allowing people with sharia ideas to tell people about whatever it is they think without having to fear. Having the ability to advocate sharia, a code of rules I personally object to, should also enable the opposite. Both positions – and lots of others – should be given the ability to Be visible in public – and that shutting of possible visibility for one, will shut that very possibility for another..

The student union might want to be “good” and keep things rather calm, however by that very action of barring an opinion, they fail. Sometimes damns have to be open for water to flow calmer in the long run..
No?

A transmission between reason and logic?

When a person tells anyone who cares to hear that all apples are red because they steam off desire – it might be very obvious the speaker might have made a bit of a Logical wrong turn somewhere.
eg:
they might have noticed that (some) apples are Red and decided all of them support that colour.
then they might have noticed a european trend from more christian zeal times, to paint red apples as linked to “original sin”, hence somehow mean sexual desire.
To top that, the person might have added a “steam off” as a personal touch.

Now all these suppositions might be wrong – but for now, lets assume for this topic instance that they are a correct account of what lead to the statement – because the idea is to try and be in the transmission between logic and reason.

In that vibration between being reasonable and logical, i think the example has a certain point. Anyone who checked a bit of logical satements can recognise the fallacy.
However, the process of getting to the fallacy, is not necessarily fallacious in itself. Indeed, it can be deemed as a reasoned process because we can trace back the steps. If it was:
I feel that apples are red etc. and this feeling just makes me feel good, i think the statement would be more of an arbitrary one, and bring different question sets to the discussion.
It seems that because the ability to trace the steps in the argument, and the supposed person’s saying that they are being reasonable – that they said XYZ as a reasoned statement – then in the statement can indeed be subjected to questions of reasoning.

In that light, reasoning is an ability to, for example, use a cause + effect sequence to discuss stuff. Being reasonable in this case does not mean Logical, as in using logic to arrive at conclusions, but using a reasoning process that can be – if appropriate – checked via logical processes.
Hence, in this case,
It might be argued that the conclusion of all aplles are red opens up a transmission between logic and reason, a transmission that might check the statement for logical errors.
These are Logical errors. Not necessarily cognitive, or perceptive errors. It can then be said that after the transmission between logic and reason, the person could say that For Them, in their minds – all apples are Red. It places the statement into a particular context ofcourse, however, beiong logically incorrect, does not mean X is utterly “wrong”, only can not claim to be logically true..

Indeed, perhaps the transmission between logic and reason might create an abstractive opportunity for statements, just to Be – at least for a short bright while.
Let all apples be red and steam off desires?

d e s i r e ? ^ if

if feedesire?
if endesire?
if endingdesire?
if energydesire?
if dysdesire?
if expressdesire?
if movedesire?
if oxygenatedesire?
if infusedesire?
if surfingdesire?
if derbyshiredesire?
if fictiondesire?
if cinnamondesire?
if dictivedesire?
if binarydesire?
if nonominaldesire?
if rhythmicdesire?
if spelldesire?
if dysenergeticdesire?
if 0geometricdesire?
if oceanicdesire?
if metanumericaldesire?
if ifnicaldesire?
if metabolicdesire?
if keyboardiasticdesire?
if 0desire?
if 2desire?
if transmissiondesire?
if 0desiredesiremetadesire?
if wardesire?
if metaldesire?
if materialdesire?
if teethingdesire?
if titteringdesire?
if wavingdesire?
if non0desire?
if inductivedesire?
if absolutivedesire?
if meanionglessdesire?
if lovingdesire?
if elecricaldesire?
if organicdesire?
if operatingdesire?
if operativedesire?
if operatedesire?
if ohoolaladesire?
if oopsdesire?
if optdesire?
if thisdesire?
if howdesire?
if whodesire?
if thatdesire?
if whendesire?
if #desire?
if mountingdesire?
if bangdesire?
if !desire?
if atdesire?
if additivedesire?
if anarchodesire?
if annotatedesire?
if anabolicdesire?
if unabledesire?
if associativedesire?
if accumulativedesire?
if accountdesire?
if accountedesire?
if aptdesire?
if opportunitydesire?
if periodicaldesire?
if opartdesire?
if operadesire?
if ohdesire?
if onessdesire?
if sharpnessdesire?
if lineardesire?
if underscoredesire?
if dyingdesire?
if floatingdesire?
if imagingdesire?
if bottledesire?
if boodesire?
if bootdesire?
if botherdesire?
if blazedesire?
if traildesire?
if valedesire?
if vialdesire?
if vinodesire?
if vinotoodesire?
if vonobodesire?
if vixdesire?
if velbetdesire?
if vooshdesire?
if vinnerdesire?
if villiedesire?
if vumbersdesure?
if valentinedesire?
if vibrationalisticdesire?
if vibrationdesire?
if vibratordesire?
if vdesire?
if violetdesire?
if vocaldesire?
if vocabularydesire?
if verbaldesire?
if violatedesire?
if viciousdesire?
if vimdesire?
if vindicatedesire?
if violatedesire?
if villadesire?
if volvodesire?
if vehicledesire?
if volitiondesire?
if vervdesire?
if vervedesrie?
if vervingdesire?
if vervabledesire?
if vervydesire?
if vanishingdesire?
if verydesire?
if volatiledesire?
if venisondesire?
if voovoozeladesire?
if abductivedesire?
if woodesire?
if couldesire?
if soundesire?
if cannedesire?
if cannibaldesire?
if networkdesire?
if networkedesire?
if netdesire?
if webdesire?
if nettedesire?
if emaildesire?
if patdesire?
if patterndesire?
if returndesire?
if endedesire?
if endesire?
if dilldesire?
if killdesire?
if milldesire?
if pilldesire?
if kneeldesire?
if schpildesire?
if spilldesire?
if drilldesire?
if zealdesire?
if stilldesire?
if steeldesire?
if stalldesire?
if stooldesire?
if slovakiandesire?
if slavdesire?
if slavedesire?
if sleevedesire?
if searchdesire?
if lustdesire?
if negotiativedesire?
if collectivedesaire?
if allocativedesire?
if inquisitivedesire?
if defectivedesire?
if detectivedesire?
if dedesire?
if dodesire?
if dadadesire?
if dereclectivedesire?
if drumdesire?
if doomdesire?
if donedesire?
if vitamindesire?
if pennedsire?
if gluedesire?
if letterdesire?
if ratiodesire?
if rationaldesire?
if reasonedesire?
if pepperedesire?
if spoondesire?
if coocoodesire?
if oozedesire?
if googledesire?
if moodesire?
if roomdesire?
if roombadesire?
if choochoodesire?
if moondesire?
if loodesire?
if pickaboodesire?
if croodesire?
if cockidoodesire?
if digipoodesire?
if spookyfoodesire?
if Sloppywoodesire?
if holyzoodesire?
if booandboodesire?
if voooomdesire?
if desire^desire?
if musedesire?
if ndesire?
if nonndesire?
if noonoodesire?
if opticdesire?
if pitdesire?
if quarkdesire?
if quarkydesire?
if quickdesire?
if quickyfiedesire?
if rdesire?
if sluttydesire?
if satisfiedesire?
if saltydesire?
if transdesire?
if tootanchamoondesire?
if ptolemiumdesire?
if ifdesire?
if whetherdesire?
if expressivedesire?
if desiremissdesire?
if desiremxdesire?
if mutedesire?
if wetdesire?
if boolbullshitdesire?
if zoomdesire?
if bloomdesire?
if ?desire?
if exdesirex?
if scentdesire?
if woofmiaudesire?
if vvvvvvvvvvvdesire?
if udesire?
if .().@’desire?
if /desire?
if idesire?
if 107desire?
if non0-~desire?
if pinkdesire?
if pinkmixdesire?
if 8pinktransdesire?
if ^pinkbrowndesire?
if pillowdesire?
if t.desire?
if ^ desire ^^ ?
if desire?^
if
?
^
desire
?
if
^
?

@’desire if desire if if #desire if /desire if 0desire if 0desiredesiremetadesire if 0geometricdesire if 107desire if 2desire if 8pinktransdesire if ^ ^^ ^pinkbrowndesire if abductivedesire if absolutivedesire if accountdesire if accountedesire if accumulativedesire if additivedesire if allocativedesire if anabolicdesire if anarchodesire if annotatedesire if aptdesire if associativedesire if atdesire if bangdesire if binarydesire if blazedesire if bloomdesire if booandboodesire if boodesire if boolbullshitdesire if bootdesire if botherdesire if bottledesire if cannedesire if cannibaldesire if choochoodesire if cinnamondesire if cockidoodesire if collectivedesaire if coocoodesire if couldesire if croodesire if dadadesire if dedesire if defectivedesire if derbyshiredesire if dereclectivedesire if desire desire ^if ^desire if^ desire^desire if desiremissdesire if desiremxdesire if detectivedesire if dictivedesire if digipoodesire if dilldesire if dodesire if donedesire if doomdesire if drilldesire if drumdesire if dyingdesire if dysdesire if dysenergeticdesire if elecricaldesire if emaildesire if endedesire if endesire if endingdesire if energydesire if exdesirex if expressdesire if expressivedesire if feedesire if fictiondesire if floatingdesire if gluedesire if googledesire if holyzoodesire if howdesire if idesire if if ifdesire if ifnicaldesire if imagingdesire if inductivedesire if infusedesire if inquisitivedesire if keyboardiasticdesire if killdesire if kneeldesire if letterdesire if lineardesire if loodesire if lovingdesire if lustdesire if materialdesire if meanionglessdesire if metabolicdesire if metaldesire if metanumericaldesire if milldesire if moodesire if moondesire if mountingdesire if movedesire if musedesire if mutedesire if ndesire if negotiativedesire if netdesire if nettedesire if networkdesire if networkedesire if non0-~desire if non0desire if nonndesire if nonominaldesire if noonoodesire if oceanicdesire if ohdesire if ohoolaladesire if onessdesire if oopsdesire if oozedesire if opartdesire if operadesire if operatedesire if operatingdesire if operativedesire if opportunitydesire if optdesire if opticdesire if organicdesire if oxygenatedesire if patdesire if patterndesire if pennedsire if pepperedesire if periodicaldesire if pickaboodesire if pilldesire if pillowdesire if pinkdesire if pinkmixdesire if pitdesire if ptolemiumdesire if quarkdesire if quarkydesire if quickdesire if quickyfiedesire if ratiodesire if rationaldesire if rdesire if reasonedesire if returndesire if rhythmicdesire if roombadesire if roomdesire if saltydesire if satisfiedesire if scentdesire if schpildesire if searchdesire if sharpnessdesire if slavdesire if slavedesire if sleevedesire if Sloppywoodesire if slovakiandesire if sluttydesire if soundesire if spelldesire if spilldesire if spookyfoodesire if spoondesire if stalldesire if steeldesire if stilldesire if stooldesire if surfingdesire if t desire if teethingdesire if thatdesire if thisdesire if titteringdesire if tootanchamoondesire if traildesire if transdesire if transmissiondesire if udesire if unabledesire if underscoredesire if valedesire if valentinedesire if vanishingdesire if vdesire if vehicledesire if velbetdesire if venisondesire if verbaldesire if vervabledesire if vervdesire if vervedesrie if vervingdesire if vervydesire if verydesire if vialdesire if vibrationalisticdesire if vibrationdesire if vibratordesire if viciousdesire if villadesire if villiedesire if vimdesire if vindicatedesire if vinnerdesire if vinodesire if vinotoodesire if violatedesire if violetdesire if vitamindesire if vixdesire if vocabularydesire if vocaldesire if volatiledesire if volitiondesire if volvodesire if vonobodesire if voooomdesire if vooshdesire if voovoozeladesire if vumbersdesure if vvvvvvvvvvvdesire if wardesire if wavingdesire if webdesire if wetdesire if whendesire if whetherdesire if whodesire if woodesire if woofmiaudesire if zealdesire if zoomdesire if

?
?
?
^
^
desire
if
if
if !desire?
if #desire?
if .().@’desire?
if /desire?
if 0desire?
if 0desiredesiremetadesire?
if 0geometricdesire?
if 107desire?
if 2desire?
if 8pinktransdesire?
if ?desire?
if ^ desire ^^ ?
if ^pinkbrowndesire?
if abductivedesire?
if absolutivedesire?
if accountdesire?
if accountedesire?
if accumulativedesire?
if additivedesire?
if allocativedesire?
if anabolicdesire?
if anarchodesire?
if annotatedesire?
if aptdesire?
if associativedesire?
if atdesire?
if bangdesire?
if binarydesire?
if blazedesire?
if bloomdesire?
if booandboodesire?
if boodesire?
if boolbullshitdesire?
if bootdesire?
if botherdesire?
if bottledesire?
if cannedesire?
if cannibaldesire?
if choochoodesire?
if cinnamondesire?
if cockidoodesire?
if collectivedesaire?
if coocoodesire?
if couldesire?
if croodesire?
if dadadesire?
if dedesire?
if defectivedesire?
if derbyshiredesire?
if dereclectivedesire?
if desire?^
if desire^desire?
if desiremissdesire?
if desiremxdesire?
if detectivedesire?
if dictivedesire?
if digipoodesire?
if dilldesire?
if dodesire?
if donedesire?
if doomdesire?
if drilldesire?
if drumdesire?
if dyingdesire?
if dysdesire?
if dysenergeticdesire?
if elecricaldesire?
if emaildesire?
if endedesire?
if endesire?
if endesire?
if endingdesire?
if energydesire?
if exdesirex?
if expressdesire?
if expressivedesire?
if feedesire?
if fictiondesire?
if floatingdesire?
if gluedesire?
if googledesire?
if holyzoodesire?
if howdesire?
if idesire?
if ifdesire?
if ifnicaldesire?
if imagingdesire?
if inductivedesire?
if infusedesire?
if inquisitivedesire?
if keyboardiasticdesire?
if killdesire?
if kneeldesire?
if letterdesire?
if lineardesire?
if loodesire?
if lovingdesire?
if lustdesire?
if materialdesire?
if meanionglessdesire?
if metabolicdesire?
if metaldesire?
if metanumericaldesire?
if milldesire?
if moodesire?
if moondesire?
if mountingdesire?
if movedesire?
if musedesire?
if mutedesire?
if ndesire?
if negotiativedesire?
if netdesire?
if nettedesire?
if networkdesire?
if networkedesire?
if non0-~desire?
if non0desire?
if nonndesire?
if nonominaldesire?
if noonoodesire?
if oceanicdesire?
if ohdesire?
if ohoolaladesire?
if onessdesire?
if oopsdesire?
if oozedesire?
if opartdesire?
if operadesire?
if operatedesire?
if operatingdesire?
if operativedesire?
if opportunitydesire?
if optdesire?
if opticdesire?
if organicdesire?
if oxygenatedesire?
if patdesire?
if patterndesire?
if pennedsire?
if pepperedesire?
if periodicaldesire?
if pickaboodesire?
if pilldesire?
if pillowdesire?
if pinkdesire?
if pinkmixdesire?
if pitdesire?
if ptolemiumdesire?
if quarkdesire?
if quarkydesire?
if quickdesire?
if quickyfiedesire?
if ratiodesire?
if rationaldesire?
if rdesire?
if reasonedesire?
if returndesire?
if rhythmicdesire?
if roombadesire?
if roomdesire?
if saltydesire?
if satisfiedesire?
if scentdesire?
if schpildesire?
if searchdesire?
if sharpnessdesire?
if slavdesire?
if slavedesire?
if sleevedesire?
if Sloppywoodesire?
if slovakiandesire?
if sluttydesire?
if soundesire?
if spelldesire?
if spilldesire?
if spookyfoodesire?
if spoondesire?
if stalldesire?
if steeldesire?
if stilldesire?
if stooldesire?
if surfingdesire?
if t.desire?
if teethingdesire?
if thatdesire?
if thisdesire?
if titteringdesire?
if tootanchamoondesire?
if traildesire?
if transdesire?
if transmissiondesire?
if udesire?
if unabledesire?
if underscoredesire?
if valedesire?
if valentinedesire?
if vanishingdesire?
if vdesire?
if vehicledesire?
if velbetdesire?
if venisondesire?
if verbaldesire?
if vervabledesire?
if vervdesire?
if vervedesrie?
if vervingdesire?
if vervydesire?
if verydesire?
if vialdesire?
if vibrationalisticdesire?
if vibrationdesire?
if vibratordesire?
if viciousdesire?
if villadesire?
if villiedesire?
if vimdesire?
if vindicatedesire?
if vinnerdesire?
if vinodesire?
if vinotoodesire?
if violatedesire?
if violatedesire?
if violetdesire?
if vitamindesire?
if vixdesire?
if vocabularydesire?
if vocaldesire?
if volatiledesire?
if volitiondesire?
if volvodesire?
if vonobodesire?
if voooomdesire?
if vooshdesire?
if voovoozeladesire?
if vumbersdesure?
if vvvvvvvvvvvdesire?
if wardesire?
if wavingdesire?
if webdesire?
if wetdesire?
if whendesire?
if whetherdesire?
if whodesire?
if woodesire?
if woofmiaudesire?
if zealdesire?
if zoomdesire?

λ : λ → λ and the Replacing Operation?

(λy.x)(yz))(ab) makes: x(abz) because we replace the lambda y and the other y with ab.

However, is replacing the only way to produce new functions?

Also, why functions? Why not doing abstracts – abstracts of abstracts, or indeed, the typing that that typing makes, etc..?
(sounds a bit Deleuzian, but hey, I think there is a fair point for kicking categories out..)

However, perhaps i need to check what’s between functions and operations..?

a b c is both a set and a function?

a + b – c : d x e f(ex) is most def a function

+ – : x (ex) are operators displayed as a set

1 – 1 || 1 – b has an operator that links between elements, hence makes a function? and then i can perhaps say that the 0 is a result of the function’s operation.

However, going back to ideas of abstractiojns of abstracts and typification of typing, etc., is it not that the way Operators, or the linking nature of operators, needs to be used?

eg, operator TO in typing, the link between activity that converts? And the operator TOUCH – as the link between the TOs..

Does it matter that it is typing?

The TO and TOUCH operators can be, can operational link in other practices, no?

What i think am missing here is how one can, non arbitrarily – eg, i came up with touch and to fairly arbitrarily – evolve and create these operators.

can we claim to have non link operators??

check:
in aircrafts – all systems operate together, and each system functions.

from

functional requirements

What the system is supposed to do, process orders, send bills, regulate the temperature etc. etc.

operational requirements
These are about how to run the system. Logging, startup/shutdown controls, monitoring, resource consumption, back up, availability etc.etc.

technical requirements

These are about how the system is built. Which language, which OS, standards to be adhered to etc.

These days “operational’ and “technical” requirements are usually bundled together as “non-functional requirements” — mainly to stop silly arguments as to whether “system will respond to a user request within 1 second” is an operational or technical requirement.

Another example. A functional school is not smooth but fulfilling x purpose. It might fullfil the purpose in various Operational ways..?

meta tautological?

if tautology assess the truth of a form
perhaps the form has no truth but simply of being?

there is a largest number or there isn’t
there is a mookliko or there isn’t
there + is + or + there + isn’t

isn’t + is + or there ++ there (eg isn’t a largest number is or there there – is not concerned with truth but a possible element/nature of a largest number. )
ie
are tautological forms require the question of truth/false by relying on meanings rather than forms?
or
Am I indeed mistaking a sequence to relying?

maps representation and power?

Perhaps the ability to demarcate borders is one of the abilities that define Power?

https://en.uit.no/forskning/forskningsgrupper/sub?p_document_id=344750&sub_id=363591 Has a fair few links to texts to do with borders and maps. I have not read most of these texts. However checking the short blurbs, I think its interesting to note that, at least historically – if not intrinsically – cartography has a link with maintaining, applying and extending the power of:
dominant regimes?
forces that fancy challenging the dominance of a given regime.
Hence it might be argued that:
The use of maps as tools for operating representation lends itself for power interests?

To question the Power centric view of Maps and representation, I should read more of:
http://www.euborderscapes.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/EUBORDERSCAPES_State_of_Debate_Report_1.pdf (eg a claim borders are some basic human need..)

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/spais/migrated/documents/fotiadis0609.pdf is about the power of cartographic representation?

A deconstructive view of cartographic power? http://lazarus.elte.hu/~zoltorok/oktat/Kuhn/Deconstructing%20the%20Map.pdf
I note that Foucault is being evoked via questions of which rules allow X and not Y.
(..though deficiencies, I think, in these questions is the un questioned assumption of rules..?)
+
(perhaps should question rules frictions/transmissions with axioms?)

As in the Critical Cartography articles’ postulations:

Critical Cartography


Maps and mapping is not “neutral” – unsure by “neutral” – but they claim cartographic activities to be of a political nature. Ontologically spontaneously political – rather than political element as an add on?
(ie we need water hence X will use it for power – eg build a settlement near water. Vs Y knows how to build roads in a way tanks can move on them, etc.. (perhaps not the best of examples?)

The suspicious bit:
I suspect that these notes come following or in some kind of transmissions with the operational – post-human-centric, post-manifestational – interests that might come to the notion of doing entities/languages/clusters/waves/etc. that are their own Beings.
Say a map is infact an organism that lives by cartographic processes. That Is its food and production. What kind of aesthetics this will have? By making mapping frictive outside of the human realms, perhaps maps could be free of our centric power at least.
Why do that?
Possibly for its possible. However I can excuse by saying things am unsure of bulshit value of – to do with corruption, the un acknowledged transmissions that are used to keep power and can always fail it?

axioms rules and basketball?

According to some web links, the initial 13 rules(?) of basketball are infact axioms. eg:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_basketball#Original_rules
and
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/dchome/basketball.html

While there might be other basketball specific axioms, I’d like toi focus on one – that if the activity is basketball, then scores are made by making the ball go Through the hole in the top of a “basket”.

The focus here is 2 fold:
The game specifity of the axiom.
The illustration of transmissions between rules and axioms.

Rules and axioms, as the example with basketball’s history shows, may seem similar to the extent of being the same.

I think that while there are indeed similarities – some distinctions are ramarkable. And if a discussion is not about certain rules/axoms – but rather whether these element are rules, axioms, or something else – then perhaps the issue of the transmitting beats between axioms and rules are indeed relevant.

The postulation am proposing is that an axiom is ontological to the element being axiomatized – or the axiom itself.
i.e. an axiom of 2 is that it represents all values of couples. A couple can not be 3 because then it is Not a couple. This is not a rule, but a plausible fact. that fact might have evolved and became specific to our universe – e.g. L. Smolin. I think its a fair point, hence the importance of attempting to disprove the axiom. I am unable, but maybe someone can.
In that ontological way, scoring by making a ball go through a “basket” is a basketball specific axiom. It doesn’t provide a rule but a description of what makes basketball a game of basketball rather than football or tennis.
The fact that most times a ball goes through the “basket”, everyone involved counts it as 2 points is a rule. It can change, we can count as 2.5 or 5 – and the game will still be basketball. Maybe a slightly different version, but of basketball. If we said that points are awarded by crossing a goal line, then we might struggle to still call it basketball.
Right?

Now, if correct, then perhaps the text illustrates the idea of Logical and illogical axioms. The logical ones are considered not specific to one system, the illogical ones are system specific.
Hence the axiom of 2 is a logical one, where as the axiom of scoring in a basketball game is illogical.

Here, I’d like to argue there is a crossing of frequencies, of transmissions between being an axiom and a rule. From the perspective of description opf How to play basketball as a game, ie outside of that game, one checks for definitions, distinctions of that activity. The scoring via “making a basket”, is definitely one of them. The fact this particular element can operate both as an axiom and a rule, is not very important indeed.
Yes?
Say the question is How to play basketball. I might say that one of the goals in the game is to get the ball go through a “basket”. I can also say that this getting through the basket is done by hands. However these 2 elements, from the view of basketball practice and evolution, are not the same. One defines where the game comes from in terms of being itself. The other, defines a rule, a boundary that is relatively temporal and does not define the game as a whole. e.g. to begin with the use of hands was very strict. Nowadays, if the ball happens to come off my arms and into a “basket” – its cool.

While this might seem very trivial, indeed basketball is, I think its a rather less culturally weighted way to consider Rules, Axioms and Religions.
Here, like basketball, my position is currently that religions to be who and what they are, have to hold illogical axioms. e.g. Jesus is the son of god. There is a god. There are gods. There is a god and it is always, everywhere, all knowing, omnipotent and can never have kids. That god sends prophets and Mohammed was the last ever. That it sends prophets and Mohamed wasn’t last ever. (Baha’i..) That there are universal levels and Buddha got in the top one. etc..

The am calling axioms because, as in the basketball example, a christian might fancy the pope as gods rep, and another might consider the pope a religious head honcho rather than a rep. Yet each person’s communities, after years of fighting, of killing and dying, kind of came to agree that they are both christians – but with different rules.

If indeed these axioms in religions are of the illogical kind, then perhaps it might be interesting to compare it to basketball in a different way.
Say the game of basketball was perceived as playable, but deficient, so long as it is not being played in each and every community on earth, or the universe?
ie what if the practice of getting a ball through a “basket” to score –
was seen as having a universal need, in order for it to become true?

In that way, I think perhaps games such as basketball might differ from religions. When we come to the universality requirements, of having a god, of having levels, etc. – that is when the transmissions of games and religions become more distinctive?

trans interval mission difference?

Considering intervals, in-betweens.
Read somewhere a definition of interval as being the Difference between X and Y.. Or is it that in fact a difference is the interval?

What I am not comfortable with in the interval/difference – apart from the philosophy, differance, attached – is that both ideas imagine the motion as static.
Difference is a static, as in a state. And it seems that interval are as well.
We can point at X and say This is An interval.
Y is a difference.

Another element in difference that both fascinates and disturbs is the rather common notion for humans – perhaps others – to Make a difference. Making a difference as to have an ImpacT, a resonance of sorts.
Its kind of comforting to feel the idea might have sort of universal; linmks, but that particular link is expressive, perhaps even violent and requires power.

A rather less self centred and power requiring perception of being in an intervalistic motion is, I think, the use of Transmission.
I think it can be said that both Intervals and Differences are made during a transmission.
Durig a time when Z is either being – or being perceived, or made – to be moving Between X and Y. That movement makes both the interval and the difference – visible/acknowledge-able.
No?

Here comes the idea that transmission has, like difference, a sense of universality. The idea of transmitting opne’s culture, genes, ideas, etc..
However, here too there is a sense of violence.
Unless.
If we look at transmission as the process from which differences are made, then it might be made dys-agressively by being transmit-able?

Not sure..

transmission – to be sent across..
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=transmission