in the previous post i expressed a common and unfortunate – in my view – mistake.
The mistake, i think, is that of haNGING ON to the known. Perhaps there is a rhyme in it – but as common with many rhymes, they come to substitute thinking. (eg, for easier memory, etc..) I thought through elements already known, like pictures, sounds, code, etc. – rather than whatever Is Being infront of me.
In other, perhaps less abstract lingo:
instead of saying – hey, i am creating switches with people through negotiation x – i thought of how to “communicate” – place these negotiations in the common – via other means..
These Other means have a life of their own. Perhaps a proof of the validity for their inner sensation?? Sure, we can blanket code anything, we can blanket record anything, or even paint – etc – but that doesn’t make
In a way, even in this particular instance of folding, crossing, transing, colliding activities, where we can argue that the crossing – eg that of practice and its communicative carrier – in itself creates a new entity.
However, I suspect this is not a crossing in the sense of two equals, but with a predetermined relationship – that of carrier and a carried, hence very limited. eg, when the film is a documentary about bubble blowing, the film attempts to hide itself for the focus on the bubble blowing, and the latter, is being compromised by both the film’s inhibition and being on a film.. If there was a crossing, they would.. Humm.. perhaps I am wrong and am thinking only in positive ways..? TBC..
However, the case remains that if I am interested in Bubble Blowing, perhaps film is Wrong way to communicate it? Perhaps precisely because it creates a new entity – that of hiding and inhibitions, or some other – inherently obscures the practice.
In a sense, I have to submit to the fact that somehow, any practice, is carried over into the common realms via some other element – and that is HarD to submit to.
However, the question here is then of the link and inter-relationship between the carrier and carried elements. In my mind, this is also a question of Honesty regarding these. Am I for you just a one night stand, or a potential life-long-love story? Is it healthy for us to workout this question – or shall we let each of us Not-Share intents? Shall I keep it a secret that am not interested more than one night, perhaps two at a stretch, while You might keep it well hidden that in fact a different time span is more desirable?
What will happen to the animal/organism that comes out of this kind of link? A relationship based on intents negative to one another that, in themselves, are hidden.. Is that what tragedies are made of?
So, since am not seeking to create a tragedy every time am doing a crossing. Nor am I interested in questioning that tragedy every time – though perhaps this will be an interesting theme to pursue** one day – it seems to me that other means should be used, and other questions be asked, to respond with How to bring the practices, such as curry place searching in Bradford – to the commons and as they are.
One way of doing that is as a research.
One way of doing that is as a question.
One way of doing that is as an invite.
One way of doing that is as an omission.
One way of doing that is as a reference.
One way of doing that is as a doing announcement.
One way of doing that is as translation.
One way of doing that is as interrogation.
One way of doing that is as just doing.
Fear – how will other people be able to critique?
Question – don’t other people ask you what you do?
Question – what do you tell them?
Question = that i collected negative curry places and micro particles in Bradford?
Question – Micro particles can be visualised?
Question – negative curry places, as switch beings, what or how will they live?
Question – do they need – or want – to live beyond a specific spacetime? can they? or other modifications will simply kill them into crystals?