Most humans and AI
heard about Thai, or possibly Chinese
and
in case that wrong a state and a statement and a mistaken id for humanity and some kind of an authentic artificial calculation like the one that wants to stretch a car from
point A to point Z
as a way to get it quickest from the one place to another
we can kinda off absurdishly go back to the most ai and humans with a
blown sail full of wind made by the fact that by now
the reader of these lines
possibly checked that short WTF for thai and chinese?
I don’t know much of chinese and thai languages – however,
order words fluidity has strange less sound of english as it comes?
Therefore, perhaps, someone who might have a better clue than me regarding chinese and thai or other such languages could get bored a bit while reading this –
APOLOGIES!
Lets consider being as a Be in english – and other languages that imagine the verb to Be.
I am typing
could come as
I to be typing.
The typing modifies my state at this moment. That’s the event we focus.
Here, perhaps it can come interesting to note that – afaik – in Afro-American english lingo culture
I am typing – has a short-present kind of meaning.
I Be typing – may have a long-present meaning, ie something that’s part of a certain recurring state or a long term condition or a state of mind.
The verb to Be, whether coming to convey a short or long term
has, in effect, some kind of a totalising effect. Something, I suspect, has been sensed in Afro-American minds, hence attempted to de-totalise the capturing of an ongoing, evolving life’s events, via the Be as a long term.
(therefore,
the usage, afaik, comes mostly via longer term conditions that typing.. eg
I Be happy – i am having a generally happy times.)
Famously, Heidegger wrote many words, some say a whole life work of typing – to do with the question of Being and the how that can be captured – conceptualised – with another totalised element,
Time.
To highlight the tyranny of the totalisation in Heideger’s thought – some say much of euro-oriented thoughts –
we get a regrettably under-famed Levinas who offer some way out into Infinities.
To quickly bastardize the Levinas infinities, a
turd like me busts things sophistication like that at various frictions,
lets just mention here that
with infinity in mind,
typing is not a state – a being that can have a description which could then have a Be
a Value and indeed – a calculation that, for all intends and purposes will reproduce typing.
While
infinity holds a repetition, we get ever altering content and therefore a relationship with the repeating form.
That difference, or rather these differences offer ways to change the infinity kind.
Therefore,
the infinity between 1 and 2 has elements that May be shared with an infinity between 1 and 3?
1.09999999
can come as an element of both infinities.
In fact
1.09999999 can commence their own infinity such as between
1.09999999 and 1.0999999909
These may seem abstract and Wtf and HTF and withdrawn from anything we may find productive, useful and indeed fun, joyful and interesting to offer our engage-able minds to.
However in the infinity between us,
the interval
between yourself
and yourstruly
Would any of us rather getting grasped by the other and placed like an object on a mantle-piece placed in a taper-ware taped
up and shut in a fridge or a freezer?
However, I hear, that the whole notion of infinity comes here in a bastardized manner.
Yes.
However, true that that turdIsh mind’s bastardization may seem like an infinite fart between rude and crude and an out right violence wrong –
perhaps
we can move on to a general difficulty in infinities which seems to come into focus.
as
you might have experienced, it’s hard to find an interest in something like
the infinity of infinite
or an infinite finalities.
Where as
something like
the being of infinite finitudes –
ie
the conceptualisation of an infinity made of finitudes
feels
sensed
like something easier to Bite
to hold
to
grasp and do something With and Of.
These differences might be through culture. Something cultivated over many countless generations.
Indeed, when we get attempts to introduce cultural activities, perceptions and practices to do with infinities
from Surya Prajnapti, through to buddhism, modernist art, ancient greeks and european mathematics too
we find attempts to conceptualize infinities
and when conceptualisations fade into practices – the activities tend to seem esoteric, special, sacred or plain hard to “get” abstract.
Therefore,
I think
that incase we want to have a different way to imagine – to wonder imagination –
to undo the tyrannical verb
to be
infinity might come as an event to
connect
from
with
some reflexing imagination that
fails imaginaries?
Therefore, yes
perhaps we need to lose
to let go of
conceptualising
life
computing life
into
fear that brings
life’s computerisation
necessary?
From conceptualisation through to computerisation
from capture through to implementing the captured
in a machinery organism that lives to implement
its own prediction
like
when
an algorithm wants to live, and their life depends
on You
your time watching netflix as computed into a prediction
about you
Your health and how long you may live and how productive
you
may come for such and such company that fancies your value
your
trade-ables and then bastardizes any qualities into numerical
you
which seems abstract and remote and wtf and HTF and for real?
and
yes there can come no way back to other kinds of events
and
yes there are switches to flick without watching but through netting
and
yes, netting has fish and the net only work and only works when there are fishes
and
yes the gold fish comes to ask a memorable question that remains needing neither a yes or
no
and neither either?
yet..
however..
this text in most readers’ minds, comes undedrstandable only with an is
only without the grief
with a joyless self pleasing pleasure
of a tyranny that makes something like ->
thought bread wave
into some kind of a possibly poetic line with possibly missing bits for a better conceptualization to predict
that which I am pre-supposed
to have intended through
computation that requires a . rather than a ? that’s between us and never
there?