Was checking a bit about sequences in maths. eg 1,3,5,7,9 then comes..? With the idea that there is a rule, you find it, apply that and get the result. eg 2 and next number is 11..
However, what if there are no rules, not really.. There are enablers that take you so far and that’s it?
eg, instead of what is the rule, we can ask how can this sequence be? How is it being enabled? My argument is that there is a frequency, a 2 frequency that will enable that particular rhythm. However, because the 2 frequency enables the rhythmic movement of the sequence – rather than 2 being a geographic kind of rule that confines it – this thinking has the rhythmic fluidity at its core.. eg we can have:
morning, wakeup, coffee, read, write, run, come-back, time till next morning. (mwcrwrcttnm)
that is a sequence of a daily length enabled by:
physical-fresh-feel, refresh-wake-feel, mental.focus-fresh, mental.focus-refresh, physical-speed, mixing with other frequencies and sequences till next day.
The morning is not rule based, not as a rhythm.. It folds into the rest of the day – by enablers, not rule breaking. I think that is more accurate. It does not attempt to isolate morning and idealise it, iconise it, perfectise it, fetishise it – that is where you need rules for and more crucially – when.. Because even these rules, they live in rhythmic reality.
Now the next element is the period-length of the sequence frequencies. The period, again as a rhythmic element is an enabler rather than rule, it has fuzzy ends, it allows foldings and collapses, collisions and come-backs. That is how:
11,13,15,17,18,19,21,22,26,27,30,34,38,42 – can come about and fold into 42,46,50,52,54,56, etc..
or the mwcrwrcttnm sequence & frequencies can get a phone call between:
refresh-wake-feel and mental.focus-fresh, while incorporating the call rather than – necessarily – breaking the rhythm..
All these stuff above is perhaps good and dandy, but am not very happy about this:
* it doesn’t Read as it is written.. It reads like rules of a notion, rather than a rhythmic enabler.
* i think that maybe the reason for that is that it isn’t written/presented as a search. It is an idea within, presumably, a certain search – but not a search in itself?
Perhaps it needs to be written as a critique? (of itself..)