How to have a Biastophe?
We can make the term Biastrophe from a Bias and a +strephein (ie the +strophe, and made the S double with the one from biaS.)
Biases come and indeed move with a slant, a “side-ways”, an accent, an angle. Is there a presumption that something Has a bias – have an angle – always in connection with something else?
Can the slash / come with an up-down slant without anything else around it, no gravity, nor a watchful mind?
(https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/10/10/why-is-there-no-up-and-down-in-space/)
Do biases require at the very least, gravity?
For itself, if we consider the bias-qualities (biasities) of a . (a dot that isn’t already a full stop), a bias has nothing to indicate its’ side-waysNess.
How do you move in a slant when there’s nothing else around? An angular movement in relation to what?
Here comes one way that biastrophe can help.
Consider the +strephe as a winding, a turning. Now lets offer the following collection of dots – (a line rather than a dash),
and lets allow the – to fill the whole of everything and anything through all kinds of infinities.
Now, let say, that in fact this – is a cosmos since it contains all other Everything else. All universes live inside the – (therefore, we may call it the cosmos.)
Now we have a – that is the lot that can ever come to be, live, die, be-gone, recalled and well forgotten.
Does – have a bias?
An infinite bias rather than co textual.
In a biastrophe
the bias ability of a certain movement, the fact it would appear moving in one manner or another if there was something else to notice the move – comes to life through the strophes-ability of that which makes the bias. Therefore it seems possible to offer a biastrophe that lives auto generationally. Biastrophy brings themselves to life.
It seems that maybe –
can be said to have a bias according to its very own -Ness.
(we can not say that – has a bias since they could be / or that there’s a / somewhere outside of -)
However, the Strophe of – can come from everything in it. From its’ very own cosmic arrangement (cosmos, as a term, touches arranging), -’s very own composition offers inner turns, twists and windings; therefore, for the whole sensation of – we get a bias.
Biastophe, perhaps, reminds a bit the ideas to do with Folding? Folding, unfolding, refolding, defolding, anafolding, xenofolding, schizofolding, cultifolding, and so on – on geologic, planetary, organic, universal and cosmic scales?
From D&G to motion and origami too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fold%3A_Leibniz_and_the_Baroque
https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/origami-and-laws-physics/
Therefore,
Lets’ attempt something other than Biastrophe – the Biasfold.
Do we get a difference between
Biastrophe
and
Biasfold?
Can we say that Catastrophe theory can come as CataFold, or downwards (cata) fold, a DownFold theory?
Can we say that Catastrophe theory can come as CataTurn, or downwards (cata) turn, a DownTurn theory?
Currently, we don’t have downturn nor downfold theories. However, “downturn” is a turn we use to describe something like a capitalistic recession. I think, its safe to claim that a capitalistic catastrophe, unlike a recession, will offer no way back. Unlike the persistance of capitalism through all kinds of downturns,
a catastrophe will end the game completely.
For example, abuses like enslavement come as catastrophic – they offer no! Way! Back! Only a need to get through to the other side, and build new. Slavery, much like a rape, doesn’t live as a downturn in a person or a culture’s mind – we don’t just go through a patchy period or some such, it’s not a slightly harder than usual, but an infliction that’s calling to survive, get through and build new so we go on and thrive.
Therefore
it seems that perhaps BiasTurn can not isomorph nor replace Biastrophe. Though, how about BiasFold?
Biastrophe as a study logy
as a gravity
as a fold
as an exit for questions marked by biastrophe? Through the slantednessanglecity
Here we get a difference between possibly N4 ways of going sideways –
Bias
to
Fold
to
Strophe
Do we have an interval between bending and strophe?
How do we tell such differences when, earlier we claim that a strophe comes as a bend?
OK
Lets go with this question backwards.
How can we define something from itself without other terms, other comparable or isomorphic thoughts around? Indeed
the easy fallback comes as reliance on other terms.
Rather than claiming that a +strophe is a strophe is a strophe – akin to Why the sun shines? because suns do shining kind of stuff – we can claim that in aesthetic manner, we have in a strophe a bend. ie a line may move out of a certain trajectory into another and that’s a strophe. If we consider something like
anastrophe – the trajectory bends towards the initial direction (ie opposite direction)
catastrophe – the trajectory bends towards a break in the overall direction.
The differences then, are not merely semantic when we focus on the actual life of the terms. Their movements, trajectories, combinations, alliances, ranges and desires. The sublimity, the aesthetic of bending can seem from afar to resemble that of a +strophe – afteral, how can we tell one winding move from another?
However, when we examine the line closely, a bend can offer something like
-~- ie a move that strayed a bit, and then came roughly back to where it was.
A +strophic bending then lives very differently in a way that there’s no going back. The strophic aesthetic offers a terminal alteration that affects the whole.
Turn can be a bend, but bends don’t turn, bends dont do stuff like u-turns.
Strophe do turn?
Biasturn
nope since strophe can bend and turn
From this, we can ask how a Biastophe offer an aesthetic that alters the whole from within rather than either
forces outside such as a push or frictions with some other biases.
or
telling there’s a biastrophe through context – ie comparing elements to one another.
Going back to our – cosmos,
we have the strophic –