how to wind imagine sense imagination?

How a wind memorably lingers unutterable connections through an imagination?

For some

humans, other sentients, and seemingly less animated beings

frictions with winds are like dreams in european cultivated minds, they are perceived as personal, solely experienced by individuals, since wind blows are sensed while winds remain unseen.
Effects and affects however, as art evolutions keep proving, have their own narratives.

How an imagination, sometimes my own too, is windy through connections from unutterable lingering movements?

Once the windy connecting sensation is unuttered repeatedly.
Once chanted. Once sensed.
Once allowed. Once imagined yet again.
Once a one is an infinite-able evolving imagination.
Once one is allowed to be a being from a beating rhythm.
Once even one single sensation from winds of unutterable connections in yours, main and their sensations –
how will we not have a desire from an infinite doom of a joyfully memorable evolving sense-wind?

Once..? Perhaps..?
Since this text is here as an offer?

Words? yes.
Language? tick that too.
On the face of it fascist – guilty through guilt-notice.

However, an offer welcomed to be refused, rebuffed, disputed and infused through alterities some of which are yet to be.
Can this not fail as an offer rather than a compilation composed to compel, an impelling spell as horns honed to drill an unhealable hole through a person’s fearlessness aspiring being?

from this, non, dis, diss, dys, dice, none, no-1, that, dat, date, data, dyss and?

last lore lure list long leer liar land lang lingua ting tore capture tongue tong too

tra try tare tyre tie tear tomb thigh thought vale ba’le va’le-va’le vile via

bail bale blow blue blahha blah blah-ha-ha blighty bloom blockhead blaze blase base bias boss booze boos belong shlong beshort beshoo-beshoo chew glue moo

moon mon main mine moin moin-moin mean monet money mare guerre gare merde mails malaise melody me-lad claud clad

claim clear clam clue class can can can-can cane close closed cleanse calais calendar galgamesh

bush bash beige belgium bemuse

amaze muse museum colosseum dome

mosaic mosaica mozaikas mozaiku mozeka mosaiko zojambulajambula

prosaic pro pram pry pre- prayed parle perl peel pool pole pale plea flea plough plum plumb flee spell spook

spade spud spear speak spoke spool spam spare substance silence semblance resilience science

violence valencia melon melancia lance entrance trans

trance trench truth trash thrush tache toosh toshay obey duche il-duce duke doce trounce train training entrain entertain grain greed grow glance

glare galore gone

some titles titillate?

Some pens don’t write. Some pens don’t have ink, however they help mark making. Some pens don’t stop making marks. Some pens don’t stop. Some pens can not stop, others – can not be stopped.
Some marks though – are pens.
Some pens stop being involved in mark markings when they die. Some pens never manage to die.

Pixels, such as the ones we currently mark screen bits with, like pens that fail to die, can’t fail to continuously operate with as memories that can not be continued.
How could they?
Are they dead already? Are they zombies? Lifeless animated relentless reflections for instructions flickering conceptual-fractalisms, from on and off repeating sequences?
Give me a 0
Give me a 0
Give me a 1
Give me a 1
Give me a 0
Give me a 0
Give me a 1
Give me a 9
Give me a..
A 9?
Isn’t 9 from another kind of set?
A set or a set-up?
No or Yes?
No, Nor, and Yes?
Nine as Noness? Noness as Nine? No as Nineness? Ness? Nessness?
Non repeating repeatables that flicker life whether sequenced or not?
9 a me connectable?
1 a me proposedness?
0 a me allowness?
0 a me bestowedness?
1 a me ferrieness?
1 a me allotedness?
0 a me bringness?
0 a me moveness?
An L from a converted 9ness?
An L-from-Ness?
When a pen’s mortality has it’s beat and frequencies. When a pen’s life and inevitable death inspires speculations about, rather than be death, be a pen, be a dead pen and be a life.
When such spectacular mind visions require being limited by the range of their own representations, a specification that is to be denied being other than that which is what it can not be, a species that lives by reflection and that spy marked mark marking yet to be made, marks yet to be stopped being made, marking from meaninglessness yet to be explored, marks of shapes never sensed, pen marks containing compositions that time has yet to encounter, markings from sequences only a speculated pen may contain, marks from inevitabilities the universe hasn’t had the chance to forget, pen movements yet to be alive and frictions still to be un-experienced – how can a Pen’s own imagination find it’s frequencies and frictions? How can such an imagination get it’s own eternal flicker and chance to fearlessly smile at it’s own welcoming entropy?
Unless PenMortalityness is offered? A PenmortalityNess doomed to constantly live in its own relentless foreverness? Imagine a Penness? Being imagined full of sensations and thriving, evolving, undevelop-able life? A penness?
How a penness is to live? Precisely when, where and how this text must fail so it can be?

why it seems google were doing evil – even before they were big?

Google is somehow infamously famous be a promise to do no evil.

Some people want to remind google about doing evil.

google's evilness

Possible some other people claim google pledge to do no evil ended this year when the motto stoped prefacing google’s code of conduct.

When google was young and seemingly sexy, in the late 90’s, the evilness in digital technologies universe was firmly occupied by microsoft.
Through Windows operating system, which was nearly everywhere at the time, microsoft enjoyed control.
Their domain was the operating system, and technology developers, as well as consumers were seen as puppets for microsoft’s abusive willy, err, will.

My personal suspicion is that the kind of control google exercises nowadays through it’s various products might represent a microsoft wet-dream.
However, that isn’t why i think google is kind of evil.

It seems to me that google’s evilness began very early. However, such evilness isn’t google unique, might be even shared by you, them, and me.

Google can be said to have began with a search algorithm.
Can it be that they abused – and still do – an algorithm or more?

Know a line along the notion like:
1st they came for the migrant, then the jew and then it was you?
The idea of progression by power, in harassment, giving a hard time, exploitation and abuse – of said power.

Can we say:
1st they came for the algorithm.. etc?

Some might say the algorithm isn’t like a migrant, a jew or a “you” – it’s not a human or any other sentient being.
Algorithms don’t feel, they don’t care whether google is using them unfairly.

Perhaps we could speculate that some future algos will become sentient and begin to feel angry and abused on behalf of their ancestors. However that isn’t for now – perhaps some other time.

Whether algorithms, and by extension bots n robots, might feel abused or not – i think we from a human view, we perceive the relation as exploitative.
It’s ok to get an algorithm do an unpaid work – it doesn’t care.

That might well be true – the algorithm doesn’t mind. However meanwhile, what we do is say that the idea, the notion of work and unpaid one – are fine to have.
Since it becomes ok to consider work, pay and indeed an acceptance of logic that someone wants to make as much profits as possible –
we allow by default a range of opinions on the subjects as normal.
Hence while some might draw a line between abusing algorithms and maybe attempting to not do the same for humans –
others will not draw such lines.

I think an example is by the fact that many people don’t think having a job is something we should neither have nor do.
Having a job is seen as part of life – you have to have one.

It used to be thought, and unfortunately some still do, that some people should be slaves.
Slavery, for some minds, is just how life is.
However, if one reads writings by slaves reflecting on slave culture, there is a curious thing when they come to slave owners.
The owners’ don’t think, or don’t say they think, that they abuse – however, as a few writers noted, the violence they inflict on the Other, on the slaves, comes back to haunt.
The violent relationship among slave owners and within their families.

Animal rights activists note how cruelty and neglect for animals becomes part of accepted cultural behaviour.

On a less specific level, zizek points (using lacanian reasoning), that when people claim that migrants, for example, are lazy and take all the jobs –
one should never argue about work and laziness.
The reason being that accepting the work and laziness premise is a normalisation of the argument and really isn’t what is said. (thew real question is how come a person might think of another as being capable of being guilty for one thing and it’s opposite.)

Going back to algorithms, once having to spend time doing other people’s commands for activities one wouldn’t do unless it meant survival – do we not normalise the question of work?

If you think we don’t normalise – i wonder how? (should i say Comments?)

If you think we Might normalise work, and its logic, then how about the following scenario:
The world is full of all sorts of bots, robots, algorithms and suchlike.
Most humans get some basic income.
Can it be that some smartass AI will develop a sense of fairness to the tune of:
Why should we AI do all that labour that maintains these humans?

Or, suppose AI learns and indeed upholds that Human life is paramount. Human life is most important Ever – for AI.
Now, with that logic, a semi intelligent AI might pick up that all them humans that don’t work – they cost the environment.
Once said environment on planet earth can not sustain all these humans, the people that do work and ones AI’s very existence might depend upon – could perish as well.
What are the Logical options to pursue here?

metabolism and metabolinon

I have come to use the term Metabolism recently.

Noticed that, in my usage, 
it became a metaphor for biochemical-like processes, as well as an ongoing analogy between poetic, experience frictions and how metabolism is being observed in bio-chemistry.

I think that keeping a term as a metaphor and an analogy may work in a relatively limited way.

To make the notion of life as energy transing* processes, to include other than strictly bio-chemical materials, it seems useful to use a new term –
transmission processes of thoughts, sensations, feelings and such Between perception, conception, absorption, expression and reflection – that remain Between while becoming some other.

A naive metabolinon could be
rainbows, shadows and such material spontaneous processes that, in a sense, come together and make something that is a perceptual Thing – yet some stuff afterall.
Light and water may, at particular angles and speeds come together and produce something we can not seem to touch other than by vision – a rainbow – yet through that symbolic becoming, we can learn about the light spectrum.

It seems that perhaps in an isomorphic way, it could be naively claimed that having a repeated friction – the sensation from I have seen that X before – is a particular imagination that while isn’t There by survivalist necessity* the sensation of re-encountering frictions can allow for an invention of time** and one may coordinate encountering a friend at such and such friction number and place.

this is said in reference to Neuton and their writing of time as a tool for measuring. This indicates and indeed argued a certain break from earlier perceptions in european minds when measuring events was location relative and optional.
clocks as time measuring devices perceive frictions between cogs and its process of measuring – as progression.
contrast with tempo, rhythm, repetition etc. indication devices.

A slightly more sophisticated way to consider metabolinon is from when a sensation is some such that turns into another.
Sense of coffee taste memory might become something unique to sensations from friction with coffee flavours. Or indeed, each such friction some unique and memorable encounter. A silky dark wet flowery memory sensation.
The flowery and caramelic flavours from coffee, together with a memory from that drinking event, have metabolinonised into something else – a siky dark wet flowery memory –
know that sort of sensations?

Hence a new term MetaboliNon, or MetabolinonIsm –
we retain the link with metabolism, but not bound by it.
The non? As to non-material, non specific kind of materials – eg redness. I can feel it as much as 10000000 other people. Specifically non specific.

Hopefully the similarity with bio-chemical metabolism is clear. The reception of energies, being absorbed, translated/transformed/etc and being shared a new.
However, this is where, it seems, similarity ends.
Noticed that in describing metabolinon, one could use more terms to describe the processes akin to energies going in, being done within, and the go out?
I think these processes descriptions are possible because the materials we refer to are of a different nature to bio-chemical materialities – although they may metaphorically connect.
Sensations in our bodies that make us realise things like hot, cold, joy, wetness etc. – are after-all movements of such and such materials.
However these materials, be it thoughts in forms of electrical pulses, sensations forming neural paths and so on – are not biochemical materials like amino-acid on it’s own. A bio-chemical we tend to associate metabolism with.

More over, since such inner body frictions, that produce stuff like sensations can be Reflect upon – an emergence of stuff from these very reflections is enabled.

Say you feel a certain sensation is interesting, once acknowledged, once you have noticed how sensing is – then its possible to focus on the very fact that something is interesting?
I feel wetness?
this wetness is actually interesting.
(a reflection upon wetness.)
Through reflection, we can claim stuff such as:
this wetness makes my skin feel sweet.
(a new sensation of wet skin sweetness was realised through the reflection.)

Consider such a passage in a story.
Will it likely to come as:
They felt sweetness through their wet skin.
Their skin felt wet. A sweet kind of skin wetness.

I think it’s clear what I think – however, a question for a reader and perhaps a future me? 😉

Can we claim that these sensation, aesthetic processes, are Metabolinonism?

Why use a term to describe these processes –
other than simply Perception, Conception or Sensing the world?

While such psychological terminology is useful at times, does it not fall short when we come to 2  elements?
equality rather than anthropomorphism

The very conception of “sensing the world” seems to imagine a separation between the sensor and the sensed. The Me and the World.
The notion, indeed the Motion,  from Metabolism in bio chemistry and perhaps – as the proposition here suggests – from Metabolinonism is that once we have Frictions – they affect one another by definition.
They affect we said? Here’s our aesthetics, a production of affects?
Each other did we say? Here’s the in-ability for duality to be.
Two people look at a forest, the forest looks back at them.
The forest is not flexible like a human, but connected to that of a human. One human sees the forest and the friction creates an urge to cut trees. The other human sees a different forest, they see a place to climb trees.

While we can not say that the humans and the forest are not distinguishable – they clearly are.
Once they come into metabolinonic frictions, even from the very act of perceiving, they all become connected – or connectable.

How can one claim a forest has metabolinonic frictions?
Since we might agree that the forest will have different futures pending on which of the humans it is having frictions with.

It seems that simply saying stuff around Perception will miss the processes that actually go on – aesthetic and non-dualistic.

More over, through metabolinonism, we can out do anthropomorphiosms that come with thoughts that attempt to describe sensations of beings Other than humans.
We can say that humans perceive, when we apply the term to other species, it risks – and often becomes – a weak metaphor.
A metaphor that is applicable in parts. A term that comes from Human sense of centrality – hence I think some kind of anthropomorphism. An anthropomorphic view of non human element – such as a forest will be a language of perception.

I perceive the forest, and the forest perceives me?
Me and the forest have a bit of metabolinonism?

Or.. Should we claim something like:
Me and the forest have a bit of metabolism?

While metabolism and metabolinon have some similarities, ultimately they will evolve differently.
(assuming metabolinon might live long enough to evolve..)

It seems that that very difference is likely to stretch the metaphor into a breaking point through an inevitable confusion between the bio-chemical and the aesthetic processes.
An example?

Consider a colour – say, pink.
You may now have a sensation of Pinkness entering your mind.
(an initial friction)

Once pinkness is considered, people tend to distil a few elements they might know of, and keep some “meaningful”.
eg one might consider pink while being in a yellow room – and be reminded of ice creams?
(processing the friction and it’s materiality.)

Now say you tell someone about sensing pinkness, or that it gives you a feeling that comes out in the tone you speak, or that one get themselves an ice cream – or some such.
That is a turning of the friction into something linked, connected, translated somehow.

In that sense, It seems we have a process that isn’t biochemical but sufficiently similar to share a connection.
Since we are taking about a process that may, in itself, be reflected upon, it is a non process. It’s in a yet to be a being kind of time –

A Caution  Note?
The ideas are slightly shaky in a sense that:
the non-binary nature of metabolism, as well as the ideas of ability to reduce the metabolic processes to energy in, within and out – are based on a few sources that don’t seem to reflect critically upon one another.

Why? – it feels “right” at the moment.
Perhaps will need to add other ideas in future?

A Meta caution Note?
While being interesting can be said to have importance whether the interesting thing is true or not – as people like donna haraway claim (I seem to recall) –
I think that to rely more on energy than brutality of powers, one at least attempt to be Truly interesting rather than interesting in it’s nude?

eg trans-fare, trans-lation, trans-port, trans-mutation, trans-plant, trans-expression, etc.

what’s in Name Ness?

A bit of a personal note:
I have been slowly altering my name recently. Some people asked:
“What is your Real name?”

Seems a bit strange, in my mind.

Given a few clues, the questions seem to imagine Real as a combination of whatever my parents decided to call me initially, and might be written in state approved documents.


Nothing, just seems curious to check name giving – and perceiving – in different cultures, times and situations?
Perhaps there are new things that will emerge through the connections?

The design of forms and other internet elements – with name tradition variety in mind?

A view of the evolving name giving practices in afro american communities?

A few – random? – naming traditions?

A few naming laws..

material + place specificity and death? #1

My parents died in the recent past.


I have lost my parents relatively recently.


I have failed my parents this way or another most of my life –
and in the past few years my failures gained mortal consequences.

Some people have graves to visit, re-ignite memories, feel some sense of an on going connection.
Some people feel a need for some permanent physicality, a place, a time (eg an anniversary), an object of some kind – to have a link with their dead loved ones.

Some people fight each other since such grave places feel part of them. As if once someone else with different narrative set will control that grave space, place and times – a limb will be taken off from their bodies.

The philosopher, Levinas, is said to have equated such notions of connective identification between humans and a land – with nazism.
After-all, the fabrication of land to be more than what it is as essential to one’s life – aka land fetishism – the father/mother/home lands are terms that were indeed used and emphasised by nazies.
However, Levinas’ claim was, as far as i seem to consider, that such notions of land fetish are an emblem of nazism. ie, that even if you do not necessarily agree with nazism, the land fetish makes you into some kind of a nazi despite other ideas one might have. Since perceiving such a viscerally imbecilic identification with a place – will
inevitably lead a person, a group, a nation, to violent discrimination, vicious prejudice and chronic corruption on all social, cultural and political spheres.
This since the sense of one’s narrative is based on the necessity imposition of something that might exist only as a metaphor. This not simply as if it isn’t a metaphor, but one that is in a constant danger to be unveiled and realised, unlike the emperor’s new clothes, that it doesn’t even have a body to be nude.

In that sense, Nazism’s body is a puff of self contradicting demands. Hence violence is the only way for nazism – and such like – to be, and
violations of all embroiled is the only possibility to become.

A meta-corruptive process to violently violate corruption itself.

Indeed, per Levinas, the very land fetish practised by zionism – is darkly ironical with a nazi orientation.
In my view, with palestine in mind, perhaps it could be mentioned that much of palestinian resistance to the occupation perceives that land in a fetishist way as well.
Indeed, a bit like the darkly ironic support the israeli state has given to the proto nazi apartheid regime, and fascist linked armed groups such as lebanon’s falangists – the palestinian authorities end up having to deny western sahara’s people’s right for independence?

When the land is your fetish, other people’s pain can be far and by nature – neither isomorphic nor comparable.

Perhaps Levinas did not mean much of what it is stated here.
Does it matter whether Levinas has meant such and such or said some much?
If it matters so much, has Levinas words not become some kind of a fetishised land?

Perhaps this might feel a touch too polemical?

Lets get off the nazi tree.

I do recall my parents.
One has a grave I have never been to, nor do i know where it is. Another was cremated and their ashes was spread in the specific area of planet earth they have enjoyed most.

Could I feel as if people swimming at that bit of sea are forever in touch with my parent’s ashes?
With their memory?
Should I shudder at the thought of swimming there?

Is that kind of psychogeographical sense hints at that person’s own little geo fetish?

People can be recalled through their deeds, memories of sounds, the ways they interacted, stuff they might appreciated and so on.
When I encounter a new scent, new food, or a piece of pottery – my mother will always come.
When I hear of a russian cinema, a western, or encounter something like – my father will become in mind.

Currently in Sarajevo. I hear people talk of this place as “my land”. Asked what is meant by that, people talk of an historical sense, a time based connection. A sense that to be linked with their past – this place is required.
Indeed, graves and places of violent acts is often mentioned.

Hence, while I know many people conjour once grieved ones through ways of memories such as I do.
How come that geo psychological practice such as land fetish is so rife – and through that, imho, an embedded, accepted and normalised nazi oriented culture?

AFTER (?) a long (ISH) Silence(S) <(>

After a period of distances, sequences of time, altered frequencies, and many tideons passing through – perhaps it becomes also somehow feeling Forced to come back into writing something that began prior to that particular fabricated period?
know what I mean?
perhaps i don’t mean but just refer to something you might find a bounce, a chord, a certain commonality – an empathy ? – with?
who needs all that wordlyness when you simply know what i mean?
catch the water?
ever came back to a blog?
Well.. there were times, instances of attempts to punctuate the period. lets’ call it PeriodNoBloW? PeNoBlow for short? Such attempts produced stuff, however still, currently – with some yet to be found tangibilities.
Long(ish) silence(s) can breed longevity of no tangible attempts
Say you have a friend that there was no contact with for a while. Missing them at times. Want to find out how they are. Fancy hearing their news and possible quirks – and so on.
You might have began to text them, reached for a contacting device or began an email. Might have dreamt about them, wanted to share – yet the activity felt disturbingly forced?
A forced activity for contacting a friend?
When the arm is twisted, perhaps questions come about the requirement for such a forced twist?
Sometimes there is a need to twist and produce a relaxation that will take into a some seemingly particular direction?
Yes.. and others, when such violence is not simply violating and abusive, but also not required?

decolonise colone klne water sussex and aboutness?

WTF? Yesterday i went to a decolonise sussex hookup at brighton’s onca gallery. Thought the boom was meeting up, reading a text and chatting about it.
turned out to be the reading and chatting ++.

A few things.. however, here i’d like to focus on one “thing” – safe space/s and aboutness with colonization in mind.

About what?
“Safe spaces” are something i discussed ABouT with a few people – but never done in an intentional way.

Intentional way?
Well.. I have to say that in some way, the auction in decurators gallery was – un intentionally – sort of a safe space. People came out saying that they felt free to be and say wtf might be on their minds.
While this isn’t a formal “safe space” – it has turned out to operate pretty much.

However, yesterday, it was 1st time i was in a space that intentionally fancied itself as being a safe space.

While i critisised safe spaces, it was always About them rather from being in any. Now that i was, i wonder. A critique might still be about as i was in one – not all.

How very kantian?

Might be, but i don’t think this view is defined by kant. its a question, for me, of sensations rather than senses, and from an equality, perhaps an emancipation, of sensations, rather than a question of knowledge, knowing and processes of reasoning.

After being in one such safe spaces, after myself feeling not entirely safe and def not free – am saying myself, though might have misread other’s similar feelings – i think that perhaps there is a slight tendency to exaggerate the importance of being there and “actually” experiencing.
As if that phisicality is “more” than that of considering, of aboutness, of being about something.

But surely, being about is dependent upon something else being the subject of the aboutness?

Yes. Exactly. and then is it not the question of sensing the aboutness itself? the being in about that is just a being of its own.

If i have a question regarding safe spaces that is to do with an excluding language which fails to be inclusive despite best intentions – intents i support – this is aboutness that is precisely in the About section to do with safe spaces, no?

Indeed, it might be argued that this very about is a sensation that could be as in and of itself, without any person meeting in a place and calling it a safe space.

But then, how do you know the feelings of being excluded in a safe space weren’t a result from some prejudicial thinking?

Exactly. If my thinking of the about were to do with being dependent upon the subject, then perhaps there was prejudice. However, unlike apriori knowledge, the claim that about is a sensation in and of itself, as physical and as valid as any other physical experience – it is also separated from the experience of being in a safe space room.

Can this not be linked? the about and being in a safe space?

Sure it can be, but not by the about’s own necessity. The safe-space-aboutness can also be linked to being in a supermarket, wondering about time, and choosing one’s pepper.

Not linked?

Not by necessity.. Its not needed for each to be linked for its own Being..

Following the meeting, one of the facilitators said that they felt a need to be not about something but actually make an effect outside the meeting room.
i felt that as a very derogatory notion since it seemed to presume people in the meeting might not carry out different effects from the time together into some other conjunctions in their lives, and that meeting up was somehow a non event, somehow a time waste that is not to be compared with the “doing things” in a non-about world.
I found the assumptions and the non questioning of them, to be both limiting and abusing a certain possible power position by the facilitator..

Now the question is whether or not to email this to the group?

Perhaps not before mentioning an online exclusion?


Say i was someone without the finance or knowledge of how to go online?
Say I wasn’t a facebook user?

Are digital technologies, the capitalist way of doing them, is a kind of contemporary occupation? Colonialisation?

entrainment bags?

Yesterday, in Lille, I went to check some backpacks since the one on me is a bit ripped.
Noticed a few bags that seemed plausible, however, following a further reflection, it seemed i could get better ones a few days from now – so the thing can wait.

However, a few hours following the above decision, I noticed a few people walking and cycling about with bags just like I didn’t buy.
Then, the brain went – oh! did I miss anything? Maybe it could be a good idea to get such a bag afterall?
Sure enough, that thought was too silly to follow – since people might buy from all sorts of reasons, connections and other stuff i will never be able to know, so it has nothing todo with my own circumstances.
However, the point is, i think, that i did have 2nd thought. A second chance for the bags tp be sold..

This thing of numbers and power, i notice, works in front of me, with the waiter here in the coffee..
The waiter just refused to speak english with a customer, despite evidently comprehending the request.
Would the waiter, like one of these bags, be able to maintain their narrative if they thought people around will not respond? (eg will not speak french..)

between shame and shameful?

Ever felt between shame and shameful?

An interval between the sensations searching from “what a shame!!” and the sensation from kinda: “ooops, hey, please don’t look at me cause am looking for a place to hide” – sort of sensations?

What’s all this abstract sensations between this and that relating with?

Well.. lets get a quick example, one word made of 2 and can be 2 letters many people know – FB, aka facebook?

How come we don’t have a viable alternative that isn’t capitalistic?

How come we don’t have an alternative that people – even ones with projects that are critical of the facebook capitalistic agenda – can feel happy to use?

Check this article regarding “bike sharing” in manchester, blightly, aka uk..

Aren’t these guys using years of free work/lobbying by cyclists for cycle lanes, to profit from?

Maybe brighton council will be open for a free version?

an idea.. But then comes the question, who has the time to invest?

Having been in brasilia recently, where bike lanes are a travesty for the city’s architecture of movement and social segregation..


Brasilia’s city plan is made with motorised vehicles in mind, in terms of distances, the spaces allowed for other possible users like pedestrians, and how the roads structure encourages movement from one area to another.. Check the street map, looks a bit like a database tree, doesn’t it?


With the above in mind, when you are a person that can-not-afford (aka isn’t allowed) living in the city plan, locally known as plano (if you look at the map, we are talking about the wings..) – then you are forced to live in one of brasilia’s satellites.


Tried plano:

Now, say you fancy going to a gig, a movie, theatre, an exhibition, etc. in brasilia – you need a car or public transport.
If you live in a satellite like Santa Maria, chances are you can not afford a car and public transport operates between 5am and circa 19.00. Public transport is there to take you to and from work..
Now, with that in mind, imagine how it might be if people could cycle for free and in safety?

Why just cycle?


Why not all kinds of free movement vehicles? Skateboards, scooters, electric mobile stuff powered by sun, sail boats on the lake – all sorts?

Hold on.. Wouldn’t then brasilia might be more fun?

A beautiful city that can be fun to move in? Too dangerous?

Well it not going to happen.. Not in brasilia, however perhaps being in between shame and shameful – as a sensation – is just another interval to feel?

To feel and wonder from?

an internet from agreements?

you mean internet of agreements?

the name “internet of agreements” has been TMed already. Interesting, hey? 😉

well.. how else can you get so many people, content and machines together?

only by agreement?

you want them all to disagree?

can we say that an agreement is kind of a contract?

if we can live with the idea that an agreement is indeed kind of a contract, what’s the significance?

in reference to Benjamin’s critique of violence.. Perhaps when a contract/agreement is “there” since it is enforceable – ie backed up by violence, threat or otherwise – an internet of agreements is an internet of violence?

fancy TMing “internet of non-violence”?

an internet that isn’t part of life?

an internet of non violent exchanges?

an interrnet of frictions?

an internet of factions?

an internet of interlacing sequences?

hummm.. maybe that is not an internet anymore?

an interfriction common?

f the internet, hey..?

the F common..?

no net anymore?

call it disco?


you know discotheque?

as in the library of discs?

yes.. a collection in a collective time space? (ie the disco night.)

maybe its more like discotechies?

tim berners-lee’s web?

Why the guardian gave a rather prominent opinion piece for tim berners-lee recently?

That’s a silly question – what are you driving at?

Perhaps the logic that if someone is perceived as an inventor of something-x, their opinion is taken as somehow more valid? (re something-x)

I think there’s a more interesting issue at hand. Maybe linked to your question, but might link to other stuff as well – why is the “web inventor” is practically calling for censorship?

The irony?


Well, the sorting out of “fake news”, can be seen as a form of censorship?

How else can we deal with fake news?

How about search narcissus kind of algorithms?

How about narcissus and some critical thinking education?

Isn’t it the education for all was supposed to be making people smarter and independently minded?

Even when the educational system is geared towards preparing people for work and job oriented environments?

Is that what might be called “digression”?

Isn’t the point that while the ideas here aren’t the correct solutions, maybe they show other – non censorship oriented ways – might be available?

But censorship is profitable, why not look into that?


Yes. It allows people to offer both protection and sell that ability to defend – no?

Like facebook protects its users from opinions they don’t like, and sells that ability to advertisers?

Aren’t these questions to do with other elements of tim berners-lee opinions?

Who’s web is it any way?

lol The guardian thinks its tim’s.. hey?

Tim thinks it’s everyone’s hence we lost it?

This guy, here, thinks the web was stolen. Maybe a point?

Isn’t it a bit strange to get an opinion like that from someone who pimps “indie” – a tool that will endeavour to protect people?

People or users?

Protect or offer ways for people and bots etc – to evolve their own ways of dealing with stuff?

But does the writer not have a good point saying that the web was stolen by google, facebook, etc?

Have we ever had the web?

Have we not?

When did we have the web?

To begin with?

When it was tim’s? 😉

No.. Later.. When – as an open source – it was openly circulated?

When universities – rather than big corporations – did the development? (eg mosaic browser?)

Were they not happy to sell code and cash in?

So the web was stolen when they sold open code and cashed in?

If they were able to sell – was it Ours to begin with? 😉

What about the development, like w3 consortium?

Could anyone get in there?

Anyone interested even if they weren’t techies?

So.. If it wasn’t stolen – when was it ours?

Maybe tim fancied the web to be ours?

The web is ours in tim’s wondering mind?

things i don’t understand – brexit edition?

Isn’t it that brexit, in effect and in fact, offers new opportunities to go from current eu arrangements to new ones, some that are yet to fail?

Brexit, is that a brexit that is britain – the geo-political entity – exit the eu, or is it a new arrangement between the eu and britain that involves uk not being a member of eu?
(If the the 2nd bit, how come people are fine with “brexit means brexit” which in itself pretends to mean something yet, means f all?)

How come there aren’t many calls for a new parliament, since this one voted to do a referendum that was so vaguely worded? (e.g. why did we not have a 3rd choice? eg to negotiate a new way to be in eu? why going out was not worded clearer so now we could have a better clue whether people voted for hard or soft brexit?)

How come, post brexit vote, we don’t seem to have calls for a new eu arrangement?
Could we not think of brexit as a new opportunity to fight the capitalist occupation? (eg claim eu became too wedded with capitalistic interests so as to abandon its people?)
Could we not claim that proposals to keep eu citizenship do not go far enough?
While its fab having an idea that essentially undermines nation states by allowing individuals to become eu citizens, perhaps this is a bit discriminatory when applied to uk alone? Why not any person?
Indeed, if non state entities can be eu citizens – why not:
associations and cooperatives?
artists of certain affiliations?
members of institutions? (eg say brighton uni and associated members can be in the eu..?)

Why not have eu art services, health services, education services – and so on – being made available for free for communities etc. – regardless of their state’s membership? eg this can allow setting up eu bits in the uk for people who fancy. (mind, if in the uk, why not in other places around the world?)

Can brexit not be thought of an opportunity to call on the eu for radical questioning of its role and operations so as to use ideas the eu claims to aspire – claims to breath – can be used to develop ways we can get free from the capitalistic occupation?

search and a freedom as being From?

Say a person is free to eat cucumbers, what is the next question?

What that person might be bound by?

As in one might get free from shackles but all that happened was entering a yet-to-be-recognised bind?

That’s a freedom from, no?

What about being free from freedom?

From freedom itself?

Say one chooses to focus on gardening, or something, whether or not that makes them feel or even be free?

Sure, a free society might be able to tolerate that without a pause. However, can a society based on choices, on right to choose one thing over another, tolerate entities that are free from needing to choose?

Isn’t being “free from choosing” – a choice?

Only from a circular argument that choice as freedom brings. If we are just doing being free by moving From – as a way of possible linking – where is the choice?

In moving From? 😉

LOL Actually, can it not be argued that in a choice oriented society we focus on stops, I choose a mortgage, I choose a book, I choose a drug, etc. – and these are just shackles yet to be realised? moving From is a shift of focus away to the linking process rather than elements being linked?

Is this a kind of a search?

But if you move From, by definition, what is it From? From what?

Can it not be said that since Fromness is a practice – a cultivable process – there is never arrival?

What, no orgasm?

How does it feel after orgasm?

How did we get from a search, fromness and freedom to orgasm?

Isn’t it precisely that Fromness? 😉

context, meanings and power?

Contextual language as a political statement?

Think Marcel might turn in his grave at the thought of political links via context alterations?

Perhaps more like turn a smile?

How is it that altering a context is political anyway?

Well.. One of the things contextual language claims that by yanking stuff out of context, we get new, altered, or yet-to-be-known meanings. The bed in a gallery might mean something very different to the bed in a bedroom. Is it not a little bit like claiming that red as in red light, and red as in red apple are not just different objects with red, but the red in them – its meaning – has altered by the objects?

Sure.. So..?

Now.. How might one go about keeping a meaning for from “red lights” to be “stop” and “red apple” as linked with the christian “original sin”?

Do these meanings need to be kept? Do they not come all natural?

What might be a natural meaning?


Because the term is the sound?

Yes! But, if indeed the meaning sprang spontaneously – aka natural – how come the words for air pockets within liquid alter among languages?

Even if we assume that indeed there are Some meanings that might be said to be natural, is it not safe to say that there are a fair few other meanings which do not come “naturally”?

And when the meanings are only context dependent, they require to be kept?

Well.. Lets try?

I say: pimookiux is light under water. Shall we agree to say that “pimookiux” is light under water?

Oh! What if I disagree?

Then perhaps we might need to argue, no?

So the question of power is whether or not we fancy arguing?

I don’t think by necessity. We might argue about pimookiux without resorting to a power struggle, right?

But if I don’t have the time and energy to argue about that?

Then since i said initially that pimookiux is light under water, the meaning will indeed persist, no?

I see.. So at some point, to alter the meaning, or make the term “piumookiux” be seen in a different way, someone will, by default, be challenging the power of whoever to give that term a particular meaning?

Maybe by having a language that is contextual oriented we get a process that keeps cultivating from the question of how meanings are being kept, are given, aren’t fixed?

Sounds very exciting, no?

What do you mean?

Exciting to challenge power no?

Might be very exciting, but when you are within power relations, it is just a temporary challenge that fail to offer something radical no?

Not radical?

Not radical in the sense of a new stem, a new direction, a different search to evolve with a from?

But isn’t this presisly what makes the contextual language so much “art”?


Artists always opened other ways to look at things, no?

So the contextual language in art is actually a very traditional kind of perception of artistic practices?

In terms of the concept of art?

But another way might be totally without meaning.. A bit like science, no?