All these are the ingerients of my current breakfast. I could claim them to come under breakfast recepe category for which the abstraction could be of food, time linked with body waking and/or following a rest/sleep and with the intent of getting stuff to last for a while..
This is an abstraction – there can be Other Breakfast abstractions. Like ones more concerned by the actual day time? (eg other lingo where breakfast is a concept tied with day time/s)
Here’s a specific abstraction – tsunami physics – http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/tsunami/general/physics/characteristics.html – the abstract physical elements in tsunami contexts..
This isn’t therefore The absraction – or abstraction process – ala modernist kind. A process and indeed a practice towards – not from – a certain ultimate, the red of all reds, the object of all objects, the process of all processes, etc..
Indeed, I’ll claim that in mind anything is an abstract – once places as such..
How to place hot chilli as an abstract?
Perhaps when its a hot chilli, any will do, rather than a specific jalapino?
Sure, can be the abstract from which other jalapinos come from.
What might be the abstract of being a jalapino abstract? how it differs from being a non abstract jalapino?
I think its the being in a sequence, a batch, a certain whole that operates, evolves and aquires a present status which requires some sort of jalapino rather than other chilli hotty types?
This way, it can be imagined that:
cold night memory geographically linked with a supermarket distribution, collidingly linked* with a person’s time and whether reaction, hot jalapino chillies, cheap honey and ginger?
This allows someone to take a few elements and place in a different imagination – and/or search from them.
colliding link between random numbers generation process and a particular day-time with a memory-link from jalapino peppers.
..and this can be abstracted from – eg just chilli pepers, in a different search sequence – no?
The question, if the above is positive, is how these search sequences might be approached critically. How one can tell, yes this sequence, and maybe another because it has a problem..
* collidingly linking is an example of an abstract that might require a link to its sequence/s?
Here’s an argument:
a liquid container of material X colliding with a liquid container of material Y (x and y are different yet breakable materials) smooth linked with an image of same material based containers colliding but not breaking.
Now – why an image of, rather than smooth-linked? (why smooth-linked at all, but that is not for here.. I think..)
Lets talk just about the way using the examples as samples for thoughts..
For me the “image of” is in fact a question of adding time to the process of making the sequence, linking sequence materials – eg, words with photos, and a documentation of activities as part of the search sequence.
However, why does it need the Actual – or an actual – photo?
Why does it not simply require something like: ( time, documentation, not breaking) for objects to collide with