attempting to link something?
this is not, i think, a collision linked link.. Collision should be later, no?
ok..
say:
gravity/falling-object (eg an apple being pulled by gravity)
this is a certain sequence.. On this level I might not be too concerned that gravity might be a phenomenon made of other stuff, or that the apple is a type of fruit.. Because am making a new life, that of gravity/falling-object. It has a time, a language, a space, a rhythm, a sequence, a function, an effect of its own, a sound, a resonance, expressions, (might even be argued) mutations/offsprings..
However, if I perceived a different life, life that attempted to manipulate gravity itself, for example, then referring to gravity is superfluous. Then I need to have a different sequence, perhaps the inner forces/materials/energies/whatever of gravity, and…?
The atoms of the object? IDK..
Perhaps gravity is the wrong example because of that..
The reason am using gravity, though, one of the reasons, might be excuses, I guess, is that of hierarchy..
One of my difficulties is dealing with hierarchies.. I was thinking.. Is there a hierarchical link between an object falling and gravity. Is it a perceived hierarchy or an actual one..?
It seems to me, that there is No hierarchy at all once they are the same, parts of the same, sequence. We might perceive an hierarchy in sequences, however, I think such perceptions can be fairly easily argued away based on interdependency of being.
If gravity/falling-object is just a life, then its peculiarities are not based on some more to less important elements, its made of the equality – yet function differentialities – of & between its elements.
(in this sense, the idea of being non hierarchical is not that of morality, but of not *imposing* constraints..)
In that sense, even the resonances linked with gravity/falling-object are not in heirarchical relations.. all that happens is a linked being of gravity/falling-object/resonance..
Perhaps it can be argued that in that case we do have hierarchy.. (on the parent->child account) However, It seems like having a tail-chasing cyclicality.. If we go on with that kind of perception, that of parent->child, as if it generally immanent to our reality.. Then we get who made gravity/falling-object, then who made that, and so on..
Am not saying these are intrinsically Not interesting questions.. However if asked from a network rather than hierarchical pov, we can actually get at the materiality of these much better and less restricted..
eg gravity/falling-object might have a wind/time-of-year link.. this though, from a network pov, both has a life of its own, and does not restrict us from imagining other direct links to gravity/falling-object – eg, birds/grass, grass/position-to-sun, earth-type/slope-angles, and so on.. We could also imagine an apple-throwing/kid/bird..