# calclulate into being?

i just declared a being by the name of gloopshtang. Gloopshtang is made of a living horse made of glue and poo.

the problem, in my mind, with the declerative gloopshtang, like unicorns, is that it might exist in my head, but not in yours unless i have power – hence gloopshtang isn’t here among us. For gloopshtang to Be, it requires neither horse shape, nor glue or poo. For gloopshtang to be, even to be Not, it requires much simpler elements than the physics of shape and organic materials, it seems to me that all glooshtang requires is a calculation.

If gloopshtang is the sum of poo and glue in a horse. Or the number of horse shaped life-forms in a given space-time that are made entirely of glue and poo. Or the number of such beings that might be placed in a given space, eg a 4mx4m room. Or the volume of the calls these beings make between 1600 and 1900 on fridays and mondays, etc.

Even if the sum of some of these calculation are 0, the very process of calculation, even fleetingly, seems to bring stuff into being, no? Have you tried any of the calculations..?

From the death factories language perspective, perhaps something very similar can be claimed – at least partially. The death factories are not alive because someone declared them into existence. Nor are they alive because they declare themselves, like pyramids do – declare themselves and then being translated into calculations rather than being themselves parts of any operating calculations. Death factories, we know how they did their death production via calculations. More over, we can still work calculation on them that they both continually produce and engage with.
In a sense, perhaps UN-intuitively, the calculations Are the aesthetics.. Calculations are the senses.. If I can calculate the distance from a gassing building and a train station – we have a certain sense of life length, a sense of rhythm, and a sequence.. If I calculate the size of rocks to recall dead communities and these to recall a person – we get sense of proportional aesthetics, no? If I calculate the number of trees, their age, their size, the space between them and compare them to the number of people killed in a given period that they might have been witnessing – do we get a sort of aesthetics of time and silence and density? If we calculate the distances/spaces between huts of function for working a death factory and the size of crater dug by hands, do we not get some other, perhaps unutterable yet There sort of sense/aesthetics?

Here’s another one.. More to the tune of culture/cultivation..
Take stuff like dont walk under ladders or black cats, etc.. We know that there is no bad-luck, and that bad luck doesn’t stem from stuff other than our own negativity.
However, we also know our brain, and when stuff goes wrong it will search for Reasons, prejudiced for reason as it is, for stuff to have gone wrong. Hence in its calculations as to why we didn’t win the lottery, one of the plausibilities might be the passing of the black cats that didn’t follow by a dance. We know it has a 0 effect, however that 0 is precisely the out come of a calculation we still cultivate. It matters not whether the calculation is sumed to 19% effect, or 0, o even -19%. Because we calculate, it which we calculate is there being cultivated.
If i didn’t win the lottery and someone said:
did you go out with right or left foot 1st this morning?
or
Did you eat honey-pepper at 13.00?
and I said – no. why do you ask.
and they said
well, doing these brings you good luck.
and i’d say bullshit! and follow that with disregard to these practices, then and only then i wouldn’t be cultivating them.
However, if i didn’t do them and failed the luck of the lottery, and then thought – i wonder if i did go out with right foot and had some honey pepper.. If I did that, then, in a sense, I would begin cultivating these practices, no?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.