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 –
the transmission process of thoughts, sensations, feelings and such Between perception, conception, absorption, expression and reflection.
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.
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.