neutrality and neutrality? neural neutrality?

fake news or facebook’s fake are feeds?

Fake feeds?

How can the feeds be fake?

Maybe by containing a megaloads of fake news?

But look, don’t they look to sort that?

Sort? Like sorting autumn leafs in a stormy day?

How can facebook sort it while relying on feedbubble?

Whats that to do with fake news?

Is it too far fetched to consider that getting info one only likes to hear, creates a sense of fakeness?

Like considering the echoes, from the feedbubble, to be authentic voices?

Is it not interesting how people found a culprit for T’s election, without any proper checking?

Does this behaviour reminds of someone? 😉

still supporting free speech?

Free speech or the freedom of expression?

What brings this about?

Post-truth, word of the year?

How does this link to free expression?

Is it not that the idea is – anyone can express anything they fancy?

That’s freedom, no?

And are you free?

Who is free to say whatever they fancy?

Maybe a very very very very very rich person?

Like freedom is still power dependent?

Perhaps when its freedom of speech?

Hummm.. Is this how free expression loving people suddenly fancy facebook to censor fake sites?

Is it about fake news of “search bubble”?

A feed bubble?

Maybe they should move to narcissus algorithm?

an.. or.. err.. How about the question of free expression and the fact that it plays so nicely with power?

How?

If I am more powerfull, I have more expression freedom, right?

Why?

It seems that if a person is more powerful, they can say stuff, some beleive instantly for power, and others will be afraid to say anyting, yes?

I don’t think its exactly as simple as that. However, fear, is it not interesting to have come up?

How come?

Well.. Do we fancy free speech, or fearless speech?

Is that same as free expression?

Fearless expression – anyone has a problem with that?

Does parrhesia negate power?

Wouldn’t you like to try?

arbitrality, running and AI?

Just came back from a run??

Do you run arbitrarily?

Arbitrarily has to do with Yes/No arbitrary, no?

Well.. When a person runs in a rhythm like: fast 50 secs, stop 10 secs – and so on – do they stop/run at arbitrary times?

As in the run/stop are whimsical, will dependent or despotic?

How about when there’s stuff on the way which makes a runner stop/start?

What, like gates, cars, people, etc.?

Yes.. They come by chance, no?

How about the runners’ body.. Say a person runs fast until it hurts. Stops until pain fades slightly and starts all over again – is the body arbitrary too?

Arbitrary means all these things mentioned, but it comes from arbiter, a judge, a decision maker. How did it turn from that to whimsical and stuff?

The body, the pain, emerges organically no?

We call it organically, however, does it not depend on various elements, the quality of which is arbitrary?

Is quality an arbitrary thing by nature?

LOL!

LOL?

Is the question of arbitrality, really, is a twist on the culture/nature question?

Or going into the question of formalitiness?

Hummm.. Would an AI make such connections?

Are these connections or links?

Since they don’t connect yet?

formally informal formalities?

Why not just formal and informal?

A binary scratches wrong ways, no? 😉

Maybe the question is that of various formalities?

Like informal and informal?

Why formalities? Isn’t the the question is of forms?

Maybe formulations?

How about the movement of formalities?

Movements?

As in formalitism?

How they move?

Maybe their weight?

Weight?

Marble weight more than a gene?

A pyramid weighs more than a cloud?

A chair weighs more than fat?

Doesn’t it depend on how much fat?

OK.. Fat weighs more than a number?

A number weighs more than the sensation from numerality?

…and that kind of sensation seems a bit, shall we say, informal?

However, isn’t it that by checking various materialities, movements, weighs, of formality’s forms, we can actually Get the differences better?

How do you mean?

Say I give you a recipe, a pen, and an idea – all might be rather informal – however, they are different, no?

Semantically different?

I think radical difference since, for example, an idea is utterly different in material than a pen or a recipe?

Is this a nonformal approach?

An un-formal?

Maybe its a formal afterall? 😉

a contingent art that imagines my body?

I used to imagine my body can not roll into a ball, hence the question was between necessity and contingency, right?

What was the necessity?

It seems the inability to roll into a ball?

..or a necessity for bones?

However, is this a necessity – bones – or some contingent evolution that turned out this way?

..and can be re-designed?

Is this radical? Redesign?

Can be re-artified?

Artified?

Re-imagined?

Re-wondered?

Who’s the artist here?

Why re-xyz?

Why not taken from the current and into some yet to be evolutions?

Isn’t that a re?

I doubt as when we get into evolutions, the contingency of remaining as is – is also viable, no?

Are we out of evolution now?

Nope.. But we can speed processes up, provide ways to imagine bonelessness bodies, etc.?

Nope.. Is that evolution? Stack in a body?

Evolving might include no-body?

Or un-body-ment?

Technologically?

Might turn techno.. However, to begin with, don’t we need to begin with art?

With art?

With a wonder, no? 😉

The art lovers from Ain Sakhri?

Is it where they are from, or when?

Art lovers from circa 11k years ago?

How about How these came to be, and art – non-the-less?

Are we talking about:

From this, it looks like an early fetish of fetish indeed, no?

A meta fetish?

More like a proto-fetish?

Are you saying Art is a proto meta fetish?

A meta proto fetish more likely?

Some stuff linked with being a fetish?

Are you using fetish because of the sex?

You reckon when people fetishise a book or a painting or a technology – its to do with sex?

So.. art is a fetish making of sort?

Maybe Art but not art?

LOL.. That is a lol, right?

between liking, affinity and corruption in art?

Do you find ideas from post representationalism interesting?

The ideas are fairly wide, no?

What do you mean?

Well.. Can we not say there seem to be at least 3?

Which?

Are you talking about psychology?

What is taken nowadays as art?

Can we call abstract painting as post-representational?

Can we not say that abstract numbers are post representational?

Know of any non abstract numbers?

Shall we say there’s the Lets’ turn the museum into a post representational place full of educationalism?

Educationalism?

Is this a euphemism for Instrumentalist?

How about the post representational in terms of need to be not and un represented for being? To be unseen and anonymous?

As in imagery that highlights anonymity?

How about highlighting by absence?

Aren’t they all such clever ideas?

Is this sarcasm I smell?

No. Seriously – for example, Hito is really questioning how we might consider imagery, no?

However, do they seem like clever ideas since they link with contemporary cultural experiences – and, in fact – represent these cultural currents?

Consider or imagine?

Well.. I do like these ideas, however, they seem to be corrupted no?

Corrupted? Isn’t that a strong term?

There seem to be an unacknowledged interval between premises, ideas and activities, perhaps even materialities?

What did you just say?

When the museum is a time space when people represent stuff for each other – educationbally or other wise – the fact that they might not think of it representationaly, doesn’t make it so, right?

Perhaps there’s a mix up in your mind, my friend?

How?

Well.. Post representational is to do with a Focus, lets focus on Other stuff in the museum/visuals/etc. – other than representational, no?

Would you say Beuys was “representational”?

Is this to do with his idea that people experience an Akt from which they can debate etc.?

Is post-modern = non-modern? Is post-representational = non-representational?

Hummm.. In that case.. are we not facing a certain artistic algorithm?

An art algorithm?

A sort of machine run that considers art to be via certain means and in particular times and spaces?

Are you saying art is infact an algorithm?

Is it not a question by capital – how can we make money from this visually/aurally/conceptually arresting stuff?

From spectacles?

or spectacle-able?

How much money can one do from a number?

Which one?

Two?

Knowing the number can make you shit loads!

But can you own it?

Like owning an abstract painting?

Or even owning a colour like venba black?

See.. Isn’t it that once its’ a property to be owned, it can not be such an abstract?

Are you saying that since post rep stuff is a focus alteration for how we already seem to imagine art to be – the caboodle isn’t radical?

an end from algorithms?

an end for algorithms?

..maybe Of some kind of algorithms?

Lets Search FROM “pattern evolving algorithms“?

What does it mean?

I think, an algorithm that might: 1. recognise something as being a patten without that pattern being prior to that recognition. 2. Once there is a recognised pattern, to evolve it in a way that it might stop being a pattern, that kind of pattern and mix/have-kids with other such elements (patterns or not)?

What’s the idea with all that?

Say we have an algo as described, it will need to search for patterns, right?

To recognise patterns, It seems like searching for them is a way?

However, if you search for something you already have an idea about 1. is it a search or a research? and apart from seeming semantics.. 2. how can it go “oh, actually, I thought this was a pattern – but its not” after deciding it was indeed a pattern? 3. How can the algo go: “it used to be a pattern, but not anymore following X evolution”?

Is that a “search from”?

a network authenticity?

Like A proof of work?

Is this not conflation authenticity with authentication?

How can you tell whether a given agent in a network is friendly?

Or one that pretends to be an authentic part of the network – but is not?

Might be an ai?

Does it matter ai/human/mouse/etc. – so long as it is an authentic entity?

Is it not curious that the notion of “authentic” seems to link with an entity that is, at the very least, critical of it’s network?

In what way?

Is it not that an authentic person is someone who might not follow traditions and conventions?

So how do we get authenticity as in distinguishing X element that is a part of a network, from y that isn’t?

By how critical it is of the network?

Like fancy destroying the network or not?

Maybe more in a way of assisting critically?

Like, hey I am interested in windsurfing – then someone comes and critique that?

How would you tell between an entity that criticizes from pretension and one that is genuine?

Through time?

Genuine stuff takes time?

What if you already know the critique?

Hummm.. If someone offers a plausibly known crit, don’t they risk being thought of an in-authentic?

Going back to being unconventional?

Is this crit of a windsurfer conventional -> cow has flown green back camel in a loop from it that eats coffee in a drink -> ??

Is it helpful?

It might turn to be – no?

hence – time?

..and here comes the other question – how to be authentic, able to assist and relevant?

feeling post representational?

an infinity from finite?

If infinity, how finite?

If an infinity between 1 and 2, can you see the finite?

Nope. The 1 and the 2 are not finites but approximations, are they not?

Is this to do with algorithms?

Oulipo perhaps?

How?

Like an infinite combinations within a specific/finite algorithm?

Or within a set of rules oulipo style?

Humm.. Interesting re Oulipo and infinity, I think.. Is it not that Oulipo itself could be infinite, however the projects that are tagged by “oulipo” are in fact finite?

In the way that Oulipo, at least with certain projects, might continually be enriched?

As in projects find their infinities in Oulipo?

Why focus on that?

How is it with algorithms and infinity?

Are hueristics infinite?

Perhaps the premise of the question – using Finite – is all too silly?

How would it be better re-phrased?

What about Infinities from approximations?

Aren’t approximations infinite?

Sure.. Like 0.9~ ?

However, approximations are a kind of infinite, maybe an infinite that allows “linking infinities” between one approximation to another?

headings or categories and?

Are you categorising?

Are you a human being?

Am I a paper rod?

A heading?

Is that another way to say a category?

And..?

Say we have a category like fruits, ok..?

go on..

Now say I encounter someone placing bananas as a category outside of fruits and, in fact, making a distinction between the two – how’s that?

Like bananas and fruits are different?

Yes.. Its like bananas are not, by definition a fruit type?

Is that an analogy for something?

Like Art & poetry?

Art and music?

Art and performance?

Art and curation?

Art and.. hummm..?

Hold on.. When it seems like there is an Unacknowledged interval between categories and their operations – are we actually looking at where a crisis is?

Like a crisis in how art is seen through the inability to categorise?

But why categorise – can we not have art free of a heading?

Say you are right, why not place coding, or playing, or walking, or poetry or some other stuff under this beautifully non categorisible term – art?

trustness and gmo?

the sensation of trust?

trust-ness?

and gmos?

did you know putin aka russia bans gmo?

don’t you like russian food?

can you trust putin/russia when they say stuff?

is it not more of a question – can you Not trust russia in its current form?

Huh??!!

Say you have some questions, is russia open enough to ask?

is russia transparent for questioning answers?

can you speek russian?

say you found stuff to do with food that you think is a bit suspicious, without knowing russian – can you investigate?

say you hired someone to investigate in russia – will they be safe?

khold on.. say putin wakes up and decides to make russia open and transparent and make stuff in accountable ways – would you not trust them?

such measures will be the end of russia aka putin, no? 😉

is it not interesting that there is an economic impact at the heart of being – or convincing people of being – open, fearless and transparent?

a technology too shrt?

Is this anything to do with technology being a bit of a shifting term?

Terms do tend to shift, no?

Are these shifts themselves, a technology in the meanings of terms?

ie – without shifting, terms wouldn’t Be?

If you want to do a certain thing – you need to go through xyz rhythms – isn’t that a technology?

So.. What happens when the If is ThenLess?

Just If you want XYZ?

Isn’t the technology will be in the way the If XYZ is itself?

if from and causes?

that question makes sense of none?

lol

if a person said: I came to see you because i was in the market – same kind of stuff as -> came to see you from the market?

Pending on locations, no?

OK.. I drank coffee because earlier i had a banana, same as I had a banana the coffee?

moved from x to y, rather than y because of an earlier x?

but perhaps coffee after banana is for the taste?

taste as the cause?

if its a cause – is it always the case that coffee after banana?