An openletter From How to Write to Who Do I write For?

Dear From How to Write to Who Do I write For?

No multi universe in one cosmo? sure – write another open letter why wouln’t you? (later)

or can we go:

or shall we say:

and try:

Are these a few different addressees?

Who will read and how they might consider this letter is not so much in focus here, as a tilt towards questions from a sensed need of writing with diverse intelligences that read.
(Intelligences? Is that a proper english??
before we get into the Intelligence questions, let’s try to sort a few things.
Someone who writes
tends to have a some-other-one who will read in mind. Plausibly in similar manners that someone who someone that opens a shop, or a website, or writes a piece of music will all share an idea of who are their audience might be –
as they prepare for humans to engage with their endeavors.
Sometimes, the audiences in mind are not entirely human; a concept illustrated, an ideology adhered to, or a history – are examples when we have a tradition of humans doing stuff for other than only humans who provide the act of engaging one endeavor or another.
Open letters seem to have a slight unique call for engagement since they
kind of circumvent the question of addressees.
One may
write a letter to a particular person, a company, an event, a cause, an idea, a particular group of people, and so on – however, the very
Openess of the letter hints the scribbler has a not so clueless intent for the text to be read, understood and engage for a wider audience set than the stated addressees.

how does it work when the addressee is precisely that set of wider possible addressees in particular;
How is it when that very question opens an exit, a door, a gate, a switch (maybe), into –
*any* addressee as the specific set of audiences?
How is it when you might consider placing a message in a bottle onto a journey
and consider the possibility that fish, octopuses, waves, boats, humans, streams, winds, wandering debris and so on – may read your note?
A question that i hope turn a clarity onto how it comes with a bottomless pit in the way that
widest possible could well be
no-one at all?

With the widest possible readers and the possibility that this necessitate no-one at all will read
in mind,
this letter has “…Write to Who Do I write For?” as a question with an elaborated reply that, in itself, is an offer of a way to think rather than some kind of a sketching-out the very question itself. ie
the life-form that’s inhabiting

Since, when we consider the letter as an opening towards something, onto some element – maybe even the very act of opening itself –
there is a movement; the beginning hints at a that moving gesture by starting with a “from”.
A “From” as a gesture we can encounter as it is both part of – and the body – from which the question of How to write comes with.
Like a wave to surf, it is an energy we engage with for part of its way, and while we do – have to accept that it’s only through the very act of surfing that where we will get to will transpire.

Writing to intelligences comes fairly common imho.
So frequent and banal, that it seems many writers rarely entirely consider that their scribbles come with possible appeals towards a wide range of intelligences.

For example?
a simple calculation contains a claim of multiple and cross intelligence capacity.
1 + 0 = 3 should, goes the theory, be found as an error by humans, computers or any other mathematical calculating species in the universe we inhabit. Otherwise, all sorts of “laws” will have to be broken.
In that way, when one scribbles any simple mathematical equation for themselves or some particular others – the
calculation can be said to potentially appeal for many intelligences.

1 + 0 = 3 seems like an error, however, we could both deduce it from some other species in the universe, and consider their mathematical logic through the very error.
Since humans managed to meaningfully begin deciphering signs b long gone civilizations – from africa through to central and south america – the fact that sings look very different when made by a fellow civilisation in this universe, should come as no great barrier for understanding.
we could say that following the sign =, the number 1 should appear in the shape of 3.
The number 2 should come in the value of 3, the number 4 in the value of 4 and the number 3 in the value of 5. In other words:
when we do an addition which results in a prime number, we do the result comes as the next number going “up”. (done Only in prime numbers’ case)
Assuming we have no clue whether Prime numbers work the same way across multiple universes
any math-familiar intelligence which noticed scribbled signs that could be decyphered into their corresponding numericals (like 1,23,4,5, etc.) could
translate the scribbles into something in their own ways of doing mathematics
work out how the calculations are done?
Indeed, for all we know they might think something like:
How come these bluePlaneterS calculate with primes rather than:
0 + 1 = 3
1 + 1 = 4
2 + 1 = 5
3 + 1 = 6
4 + 1 = 7
5 + 1 = 8
6 + 1 = 11
7 + 1 = 13
Sure, while we call these kind of numbers Fibonacci, and they may call these sequences: “aasafj'”
which could translate to a particular rock formation found on a mythical asteroid that used to spread these kind of numbers across the universe –
the assumption is that we humans,
as well as our math and
computers or
any other mathematics read/write-able intelligence on any planet –
could have a notion – if not a grasp –
of what is going on with the texts they encounter and attempt reading.

Math apart, another way of writing to other intelligences comes via programming.
Whether attempting to program genes – aka gene sequence alterations – or doing a 3d shape that will be taken by a 3d printing device to produce that shape – or
writing notations that can be interpreted by musicians of all kinds, or indeed
writing a computer program –
humans scribble stuff for multiple intelligences.

Indeed, it could be said that when a human does cartographical objects – be it maps, charts, diagrams and such like,
the appeal, via abstraction, is towards intelligences that may or may not come entirely as humans.
An intelligence composed by light, fungi and viruses that may perceive the scribbles as distinct patterns, could
at the very least, comprehend that a map type of object –
whether of roads
or a flow chart
or an algorithmic diagram
is attempting to convey something other than the obejct itself.
That the object is made to live as an exit between their perception’s link-making ways, and someone else’s.

At the very least, a sign indicates, that very basic grafiti-instict:
X was here.
An intelligence was Here.
Something that seems to be inter species on earth (when considering urination and such like),
and seems plausible to operate between various intelligences.

Intelligences? That’s not a crrct eng – i seem to hear.
Yet, How else shall we write an indication for a multitude of intelligence manners and ways in succinctly?
Perhaps –
we could acknowledge the limitations imposed by english, and simply say:
ie, from now on when encountering the sequence of NtlgncS –
we can note that a variety of intelligence ways comes to the fore?
Another way to solve that could come via migrating, moving away, from a focus on intelligence and shifting the focus on Biases.
(Yes, like the mathematical biases of 1 + 1 = 2, 1 + 1 =3 and 1 + 0 = 3.
while we remain with intelligence, as
a term of making connections
that may not always betheIntelligentconnection to make –
it seems that we are still faced with a question of another kind of bias:
How do we include other IntlgncS than the one, a person, a life manner, may find their own comforting bias with?
I may have a certain human kind of bias in the very way in which I make connections – the very manner in which I may produce intelligence. A bias that,
like the mathematical example,
when it comes clear and open for all –
lives as an offer to energise connection between IntlgncS?

How to write an open letter
From How to Write to Who Do I write For?
perhaps, in a different universe of our shared cosmos, there’s someone who considers logical propositions differently?
For example,
In a universe without prime numbers, without the colours and audible frequencies; a universe where there are no sensations we can perceive, conceive nor make sense of or from, a whole vastness of infinities that live outside of any imaginary by any creature from the universe we inhabit – how might something like programming, map/pattern-making, mathematics, or logic, or indeed art –
come to live between IntlgncS?

Perhaps, we need to accept a universal confinement rather than a cosmic one?
Yet, for that kind of confinement to be accepted, we need to imagine a duality of two largely distinct elements –
the confined and it’s universe.
A confinement sensation who, I think,
could come sensed by any IntlgnC that
goes something like:
when they considered an element that is coincided species specific – given an opportunity to live universally, cross species and IntlgncS;
in case someone reads this and is schooled in english language, and considering terms like “come” and “live” that appear in this text when variations of the verb “Be” usually, errr, come?