Sometimes when I say that, for example, expression is a manifestation type, some people seem to think that the implication is Manifestation is more important than expression.
I do not mean to imply any hierarchy – am i manifesting myself wrongly?
When a person talks about furniture, they talk about stuff that might include benches and armchairs as well as lamps, etc..
In terms of category theory, I think we can say that furniture is, for example all the numbers between 0 and 11. And all beds, as a kind of furniture, are the numbers between 1 and 3, etc..
In that set theory language, the beds category is a sub-set of furniture. With that language I can see how an hierarchical perception can develop.
However, it seems to me that such an hierarchic oriented perception is out of touch with both intent and the Being of sets.
Can there be a set called furniture that has no furniture to furnish it?
Lets say that am saying there is a set of numbers between 5 to 13. Thats’ my set. ok?
Now, lets say..
No lets be more abstract.
Say we have a set of all the undeclared sets. Lets say that this set is made of numbers that are yet to be counted by any beast or machine.
Hence the numbers that might be declared as the make up of the un declared sets – are yet to be witnessed by anyone.
Lets call this set – U.
To prove the U set is there somewhere, one will need to prove that it is highly probable that there are indeed sets that are yet to be declared – right?
Therefor, I think it might be fair to claim that the longevity of U set is dependent on there being these un declared sets, no?
If there was no proof of them, the U set might have to become the set of no sets, or the set of sets that failed to be proven, etc.. In any case, it has, by definition of being a set of sets – to actually have sets well linked to it.
Therefore, it seems to me that we are not talking about heirarchical relationships between, say furniture and beds, or manifestation and expression – but have a possible sequential interlinks.
Just like the word “fish” can not be without the sequence of f,i,s,h – the set of furniture can not be without elements that make it just as much as it makes them.
However, if i fancy talking about chairs and beds and sofas, etc. – it makes life easier to talk of furniture.. Perhaps a category of sleeping furniture, or street furniture, is indeed hierarchically linked there? Not sure.. Perhaps another post?
So when am talking about times that do not require manifestation in art. Times that do not focus on artists manifestations as the outcomes in the artistic practice – so more people could manifest themselves. Am talking about actually opening up all ways of manifestation. Democratising them rather than leaving them in the hands of few. And at the same time, by freeing art from the expense of manifestation, i think we can have more ways that could be manifested.
if a b ^ ?
well.. am still knotted with that..
I think it will just bring new oppressions? Perhaps..
Maybe it should be written as why if ab ^? Not!