sounds from nicking?

Does anyone nick music?

Ever?

Nicking sounds – same as nicking music?

Hold on.. Why the term “to nick”?

If someone recorded a sound, a song, and I copied the recording without permission – is it not nicking?

If someone made a flute, or some string instrument – like am sure someone did eons ago – and I listened to the tunning of that instrument, and then tuned my own instrument the same, is it like I nicked something?

Is it not different when a person just listens to other person’s sounds, or music – rather than Do stuff with it?

Is it not the case that if a person used samples, they are more likely to be viewed as if there was a nick around..?

So what might be music or sound nicking?

Is that the question, or should we not go for is there a way to steal sounds or music?

Is there a way to steal an apple?

Which one, the company objects and copyrights, or the fruit?

do trump does an anarchist illustration of agamben?

Trump does Agamben?

Well.. perhaps its Agamben who did trump and his ilk?

Trump an anarchist?

In an Agambian way?

Some of the stuff agamben points out re privileged people, aka people in power, is that they get to do anarchy, right?

Right? where? When?

Well.. Why wouldn’t you check agamben?

Why not just give the link?

‘Cos I can do the rules?

Am I not against rules?

Well.. Whether agamben said it or not, is there no reasonable argumernt to be made claiming that to make laws, in fact, one has toy be outside of the laws?

Now.. Say we have a whole class of people outside the laws?

Which laws?

Well.. A candidate for the us presidency just plead with a different country, russia no less, to spy on a rival candidate.. Lets say I called on some friendly country, like Denmark, or even Poland – picking up one we didn’t fight once – and ask them to spy on the pm’s emails. Will I not get at least a bit questioned by the powers-that-be?

Oh! Why would they question?

According to agamben, perhaps, its because I am not part of the ruling anarchy – because I don’t have anarchic privileges?

..and trump enjoys the privileges?

post truth aesthetic dump in pokemon go?

After the truth has gone?

Is there a song?

A cute pokemon song?

Can we train it?

It?

Train the truth?

Train the song?

An honest pokemon go truth?

Sure. Are we not post truth here?

When was is that truth was not an emerging reality?

Well.. Check the canary’s buzzfeed plusterdump.. Interesting, no?

What?

Did you dig the caricature of “details details”?

Why not details details details?

Why not details infinity?

An infinite time?

Why details?

The argument, like “we need X”, “we need a leader”..

A strong leader?

Details?

The argument.. What if it was like a house?

What house?

Any house?

Why?

What if the details are like the stuff that make the difference between having a house and an attempt at building a house?

Like a brick house without bricks?

Is there a song..?

Not this one?

lol.. do we not need an AI to work this out?

And the argument is a house?

The house that houses what the argument might mean?

But we don’t need details?

Like having a brick house without bricks?

How can we have a brick house without bricks?

How can we have an argument based on details that aren’t there?

Like saying we need a prime minister because there’s gold at the end of the rainbow?

Gold?

But there isn’t a rainbow’s end.. You know that?

Sure, but that doesn’t mean the argument isn’t valid!?

oh.. lol.. So.. Where’s pokemon go in here?

The aesthetics?

huh??

Do we not have an argument of a mixed reality aesthetics?

WTF??

Is it not the fuck up of claiming the brick house is all of one kind of bricks?

Oh.. like what if some bricks were made of water, others of clay, and others of words?

Well.. Is it not that it is a mixed reality already?

Is it an acknowledged mixed real?

It?

The it of a house/argument?

But not the it of pokemon go?

in distrust we trust?

Is it that blockchain distrust oriented computing?

Distrust in people?

Distrust in a blockchain technology?

Distrust in anything other than a blockchain algorithm?

Is there only one algorithm to manage blockchains – or is it a distrust in some but not others?

Is it really a question of distrust – or trust in something particular yet unfamiliar?

Is it a question of a lacanian kinda bigother ideology?

Huh?

Like people say it is to do with distrust while knowing that this distrust underlines a silent trust in a particular technology?

queue against equality?

Is it an equality kind of a thing to claim that whoever appears 1st in a queue is before the 2nd, 3rd, and so on?

What if the queue is for something todo with health – should it not then be dependent on time and need rather than time only?

Time? Interesting.. What if money from a temporal view, is a way to manage social resource allocation over time?

How come?

If X costs 100 and a person has 100 – they can either get X now (temporarily), or get in the queue with people that can afford 100, right?

Oh! Is it not that the more people have 100, the longer the queue will be?

Sure. However, the more expensive X is compared to what most people can afford, the quicker the queue, no?

Shorter?

Yes.. Temporarily speaking, I think its quick, right? 😉

Does this mean that with a system that manages queues wait periods, there will always be people given priority based on numbers rather than queue time arrival and/or need?

A bit like easyjet priority queue?

Does it not cost more to fly on priority queue?

Hummm.. So.. Unless we think of having more money as a fair situation, how can there be equality?

Perhaps having financial disparity is an equal situation to have on a social scale?

Well.. Since we can not afford resources all at the same time, how else can we manage the temporal availability of resources?

Indeed, how else?

Indeed, what happens if intact, for most people, its impossible to ever get to a priority queue?

If rugs to riches is impossible?

Is it ever impossible?

the lie of a non truth?

Maybe it should be a truth of a lie that isn’t a non truth?

WTF?

Say a given information is contested. say a history is being contested as to what and how stuff actually happened. There might be a narrative that places a person in a given context while they were very obviously not, yes?

Like an alibi?

Could be.. Say some people say there wasn’t a holocaust. The reason the idea seems so abusive and repulsive is that there is such an overwhelming evidence the holocaust has happened that any contention has to do with its murderous nittygritty – and ignoring that is an attempt to contempt unutterable deaths.. However, it isn’t the same when the question might be the history of germany, right?

..as in the questionably?

Is it not the the question assumes there is a question of germany?

Within that assumption, we can get all sort of ideas.. however, now lets consider, what if a person does not consider having multiple idea, narratives and sequences which might link to a german history – as a possibility?

Like, when a person denies the armenian holocaust as a non narrative in a turkish history?

Is it not an obscene position to have?

Denying the armenian holocaust?

I’d say obcene.. However, what happens when the examples, the discourse is not regarding life and death, but of more gray areas?

Are questions of truth and lies different when concerning gray areas?

What about german history.. Is it cool to link german immigration to north america and the choking of native american people..?

Is it cool to link german involvement as people, as a group of people, or as a political entity – germany?

Is it cool to link the slow holocaust of native americans with germany more than with britain, spain, or other european countries?

Exactly.. but now lets imagine someone denying all these questions exist.. Lets imagine someone saying the fact that many europeans brought un intended diseases to america, means the whole question of european involvement in the deaths of natives is just irrelevant and should be treated as not existent.. Is it correct to claim that such a person is lying by claiming the other views are not within the discourse – while using a certain truth – ie the disease issue?

alcohol, cancer and art?

ok. so since alcohol is directly linked with known and, err, probably known cancer – perhaps an idea to cutoff is due?

Over due?

Both?

..and cancer can cancel the alcoholic feelgood factor, yes?

However, how else can we get a bit of a brain augmenting experience that isn’t for entertaining the mind?

Isn’t alcohol for entertainment?

Perhaps For – however, is it always entertaining?

What’s the difference between drinking and using alcohol?

..and art?

Well.. Hell.. Art.. Would people rather risk losing, bending, augmenting, tossing, hacking, kicking, questioning, booing their own culture – via art; or putting their bodies through the road to cancer via alcohol?

Isn’t it clear people will choose alcohol?

Might be, however, even if its clear, does it not worth having the question out there?

AH! I am talking of critique, losing, blah blah – but do i really question stuff? Do i really question this blog for example?

art, rhythms, qualities and quantities?

is this to do with art and objects price?

the price being a quantity?

is this todo with math and art?

how?

well.. maths deal with quantities and the qualities that arise?
Like when 2 is a quantity while having its own quality of 2ness?

How rhythms come into this question?

Rhythms seem to link.. Can there be both qualities and quantities that are somehow tied to eachother but do not link?

Does it matter if there can or can not be – or infact the question is – how do we get a connection between links, qualities and quantities?

But.. Why rhythms as links? Why not osculations? Why not colours? Why not time? Why not starvation? Why not electricity?

Why not duplicity?

free fear speaks terror loud?

Does post coup turkey seems to be in a midst of an officially staged putch?

A coup or a coup as a terror plot?

Curious.. Rebranding freedom of speech? Where do we know that from?

Is it not a journo sexup? the person in the vid talks about “could be terror”, no?

Well.. sexup or not – seems like web over lord has its own eco of carbon copies?

hold on.. what about rebranding social democracy as “radical”?

Yes.. Is it not more interesting than pointing fingers at turkey and other masked dictatorships, to focus on how freedom of speech is being quashed by stealth in the uk?

by stealth?

Once we define – agree to define – stuff like, for example, searching about isis as a terror linked activity, is it not that without seeming coercion, a certain activity been deemed terroristic?

Is this about defining the discourse?

Perhaps.. Also defining the terms and how they operate?

Is this not a conspiracy?

Is it a conspiracy when people of a similar persuasion and algorithm usage, and with some tenancy for lazy consideration – echo each other?

Is there no difference between echo and definition?

Well.. How easy would it be now to propagate the idea that in the video about the turkish purge of free speech, terror is linked to free expression in a way different to what the title suggests?

Anyhow, why focus on free rather than fearless expression?Why focus on expression?

replication, copy and imitation as best appreciation?

Heard the recent plagiarism woohaa re trump and obama??

lol.. the replication, copying and replication unattributed?

Ah! Unattributed and pretended isn’t there..?

Does it all mean Obama is now officially the Trump god?

Hummm.. Perhaps there’s another interesting point here.. Lets call it “elephant appreciation”?

WhaT? Why start from the end?

Is this to diss elephants?

Check stuff like rightwing, conservative, libertarian (huh??!!) kind of attitudes which, for example, come on such posts to do with blacklivesmatter and gamersgate. Do they not call for “free expression” based on the historically western reformist, progressive and emancipatory movements?

They?

The neo right-wing libertarians.. Whichever way they call themselves.. OK?

They say that they are not given the “right” for free expression?

Don’t they say that whenever they use free expression, say what they think, they are being told to shut up?

Yes.. In that sense, it seems like they Imitate the historical left call for Free expression, no?

Where’s the elephant?

Well.. The elephant in the room is usually the most obvious thing people do not notice.. Is that the reference?

So.. If someone imitates, is that a way they in fact appreciate whoever it is they imitate?

Like.. Trump infact appreciate Obama..? Even if for nothing else but oratory skills?

Or like the contemporary rightwingers appreciate the need for free speech?

Unlike older rightwingers which historically tried to control and stamp out free speech?

However, how do these contemporary right wingers do the free speech.. Look, they try to use it for abusing people.. Don’t they use free speech against people seen as low in the social hierarchy set?

Is that the same as saying rightwingers abuse free speech for talking down and bully people with some perceived vulnerabilities?

Is that like fascists using democracy to get elected so they could end democracy?

Where’s the elephant?

Well.. Should the left not combat that rightwing trend to abuse what was achieved by all these emancipatory pushes?

What if, when the detractor imitates, it can be an end of a cycle?

What if once a person that said no, is now arguing for a yes – be it their own version of a Yes – then its an end of a wave?

Why not point to how hypocritical they are?

An end of a wave? Is that giving up time?

Maybe an end of a wave is a beginning for a new one?

Why not be critical of free speech, based upon its call to be used even if the usage of free speech is to frighten people?

What if indeed instead of free speech we’d do another radical shift – to fearless speech?

Will that not be allowing threatening speech to claim it is fearless to utter itself?

.. perhaps, but then how would it deal with the reality of using fear upon others?

Is this not the same as saying that the rightwing free speech is hypocritical and corrupted because, in fact it attempts to use freedom to take it away from others?

Yes.. I think there are similarities.. However, does it not take away the rag of free as an expression and focuses on fearless as the generator and maker of freedom?

As in can one be free whilst living in fear?

aesthetics as a way to get politics?

Is this to do with aesthetics of politics?

Rancière’s seeming fusion of aesthetics and politics?

From the text above, i doubt. But maybe am wrong?

Think.. No.. Lets consider political trajectories as rhythms?

Trajectories?

Kind of general political tendencies.. But maybe this is the wrong way to share the idea of aesthetics as way to Get/Dig politics?

Look.. Take this current labour shebang. One side is interested in power and being in government not in 20 years time but kind of presently.. Lets call that a quick rhythm?

Why? Cause they fancy stuff Now. The now is rather quick, no?

Now.. The other guys, they might have some fab ideas, but people are yet to be ready for some of the plausibly relevant.. and..

How can you say that?

Because the approach the labour left is taking is that of a person having to convince the other to change mind. Are they not talking in terms of ideologies?

No.. LOL.. Its the media.. If the media gave the left more time and space.. If the media represented the left honestly, then the left wouldn’t need to explain much. All the ideas would be in echo chamber already.. Have you read manufacturing consent?

This kind of bias must have an effect. Seriously..

Well.. I think sometimes the other side might have certain hard to take points.. Can it not be that just like the left portrays the labour right as power hungry, something the right resents – the right’s portrayal of the left as not ready for power, as a pressure group, might have a point as well?

These are very general generalisations, no?

Yes.. They probably have holes because of that.. Like the fact individuals aren’t the group?

Sure.. Sure.. However.. What if we look at the schism in Labour as a rhythmical question, as a sensation, a vibe that each group is moved by, or tends to move by?

For example?

Say people on the right, if you want their attention, they are *likely* to be turned on if you mention something practical, something for now, something that can be taken as used for control and government – now.. Is it not that the left *tends* to have a rather more long-term view?

Is it a better view?

IDK.. Without better/worst.. Without that binary.. Just How people sense, it seems like a question of listening, tunning in, being moved by different cycle of sensations.. Does this make the idea clearer?

WOW!! Sensations? Thought it was aesthetics that was the subject.. How did this slide into sensations?

Because of aesthetics sensations, like this?

lol.. hummm.. Can it be that aesthetics are rhythmical sensations in and of themselves?

Are they? How?

an M monster of the hill?

..ok.. so a person is not going up a hill because they are scared of a monster.. say i was with that person.. could it be possible to ignore that fear – or will i be forced to deal with it?

hold on.. that person.. the one who’s scared of monsters of hills – how do they deal with the fear?

does it matter?

what?

how they might deal with the fear, and your possible relations?

hummm.. suppose we were on some other madeup stuff.. say how we consider exchanges.. don’t we have hill monsters there?

rubbish! with the economy, we know that if we have certain conditions – for example more supply than demand – then prices go down.. These aren’t madeup monsters.. Surely?

Unless that is considered as an un recognised interval?

Where is an interval?

Think about it.. When a person says: If X, Then Y.. Do we not get an interval between the if and the then?

hummmm.. a link maybe?

exactly.. its a link, like a bridge, only once it is already there, no?

..or presumed to be there?

yes! once this is an unquestioned interval.. an interval that is already taken to be of a particular link – do we not get a corruption?

..or a possible corruption?

if unquestioned..

lol!

lol?

LOL! have i not just now posited an if-then without questioning..?

lingo oginl corruption?

Another corruption?

Interesting.. Etymologically its “a break done together”. Com – together. Rupture – a break. Isn’t this a kind of an interval?

Hummm.. An interval done together?

Yes.. And a togetherness that has brought about a forgetting of the process done together?

Isn’t it a confabulation?

Why break? Why not just forging something together?

I think its todo with preconception, sort of prejudice, and assumptions that we might let ourselves forget are there?

huh?

say.. in english, what is the gender of the moon?

Interesting.. I think culturally, have we not borrowed from
french the idea of moon being female?

ok.. what about a bus?

Gender? Bus is an it.. Unless you call it Adel..?

..and why? Why assume Adel has a particular gender.. Why indeed I am not an it? Why do I need to be presumed a he..?

How about tenses in english..?

Sure.. Are we not presuming without much questioning a particular structure of time..?

But surely.. We.. No.. Where the fuck is the corruption? Is it wrong to presume somethings?

Yes.. c’ommon! Even in maths.. We know whole numbers are approximations.. But..

Exactly! Thats why in maths its a constant question.. Is it not why we divide whole numbers from real numbers?

hummm.. not sure.. but.. Isn’t it that the assumptions, confabulated assumptions – for example – in languages – offer an interval that seems not to be there?

Not to be there?

If we don’t question, do we remember or use the fact that time in english it perceived as, among others, past that goes into the future?

Do you want to force people into thinking they might not have thought time correctly all along?

lol.. I thinking its to do with forgetting that there is a tacit agreement of stuff that might be different.. Is that forcing people?

..But how else can we function as a society? Don’t we need these tacit silent agreements?

Don’t we need to have someone pointing the emperor is, in fact, naked?

Isn’t there a time for that – a time, a beat that isn’t always..?