## how to make a line out of time?

Lets say i fancy making a stretch of seemingly continuous colour that evidently begins and end in 2 different places?
Something like:
_______________
What exactly has that process involved?
There are many “exacts”, each of which might be very interesting and relevant. However, here am trying to focus on time.
Could a line such as:
____________________
be made without time involved?
My mind gets stuck in the process of time that it takes to stretch the line from a given place in the screen’s space.
Indeed, the screen’s space is, in the time sense, a result of stretched lines made of various materials..
To make a line, in a sense, am I not hacking time’s movement to mark a continuous set of very close proximity dots? ________________________________________ ?
Once we get the _________________________ it suddenly emerges with its own time. It has its own rhythm and contingency to disappear in time – hence it own period. Say this was a line on a paper, then it might depend upon the rhythmic physicality of the paper, however, i think its emergent because its independent from the stroke that initiated it. In fact, it seems fair to claim that people – sentient beings – might attempt to compute the initiating stroke in direct link with the possibility of the line being an independent emergent property. Hence, I think, people consider the materials, contet, distribution, etc. that might be involved in a line after the time of initiating it hass gone to be focused on some other stuff. ie the line will have its own timee.
No?
In that sense, perhaps a line might be the visual interval between types of time? Or types of time rhythms? ie sentient-being and organic non-sentient? Different kinds of rhythm?

However, it might also be apt to argue that the other “exacts” am referring to at the top, might in themselves be another kind of Out of time, no? Say we consider lines such as ______________ as nothing to do with time but everything to do with a sense of sace, or sense of quantities, ie how far a is from b, etc..

## more re anthropocene and the tempo?

From salvage http://salvage.zone/in-print/against-the-anthropocene/
I think a bit too early to crit with temporality in mind on the account that the period is unclear.
It seems might be interesting to crit the very attempt to define the temporal in a scale, a geography, a given period – rather than a certain kind of an infinity.
A certain kind of sensations that emerge from a given frictive practice?
So, for example, the infinity we create with atomic energies and the kind of geological storage places earth can provide? Its a very certain kind of temporality. One that is used politically as well, in this context..

A sort of self critical critical theory? http://www.publicseminar.org/2014/08/critical-theory-after-the-anthropocene/
I think that if indeed there is an anthropocene then the “human scale temporality” alters.
Indeed that’s one of the flips/turns.
That we have to consider “human scale” temporalities in different rhythms.
No?

Picked on http://geologicnow.com/ for the now temporal point..?

Seems like a other people find anthropocenic temporality interesting? A conference?
http://huminst.uic.edu/ifth/events/working-groups/temporalities/2015-2016/2015/10/22/default-calendar/temporality-of-the-anthropocene-time-scales-and-the-environmental-humanities

A conversation to do with temporality and anthropocene?
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/o/ohp/12527215.0001.001/1:14/–architecture-in-the-anthropocene-encounters-among-design?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

Interesting? Various temporalities?
https://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/historyenvironmentfuture/2014/02/06/167/

## how to change time?

Evolution could be characterised as changes in time. Am wondering how time itself can evolve.
Can time change?
There are ideas that perhaps time flow in other universes might be different in terms of direction.
What if there is a universal beat. A universal rhythmic characteristic of time that itself evolves – changes is spaces, in areas made of intervals time stretches – according to a universe-particular time character?

In ’95? No, ’96 I made the lost hypercard based timeverse.. Perhaps it should be re-done in a less manifestive way?
Hummm…

What if evolution is Movement in time rather than change? Am saying that cos then perhaps cycles as tide can be incorporated as evolutionary processes?

## isis or isil oh da’ash or daesh and lingo magic?

The washiongton post published an idea from France about calling “isis” by a different name. It seems like a sort of “trend” given that other people have some ideas of re-calling isis by some other terms. eg UnIslamicState (U IS??)..

It seems rather curious to interesting that the idea of name and re-naming the stuff seems so very important. As if the name conjours a reality into being.. While at 1st I was like:
wtf this is kind of lol.
It dawned on me that, for example, in the context of Palestine, in my terminology, Israel has not life.. (..or not much of it..) Hence, perhaps for me too the reality of terms and words makes up a sort of magick linguistic leap into a being. If the stuff formerly known as state of israel is the zionist occupied palestine, that whole being of israeliness might have a different sort of life, no?

Perhaps this is the same process in the minds of islamic people? Perhaps.. And if so, maybe my personal difficulties with re-calling the isis as uis, or da’ash, or what-ever is based on a perception that since islam/religion is a constant interpertations of beleifs mediated by brut powers of family/community/state/etc. – while the “isis” might be a minority in islam, and indeed offer a seeming interpretive oxymoron in islamic thought – the caliphate can be headed by a descendant of mohamed only, or something to that effect – the fact that isis people do interprate stuff from islamic rather than hindu or other religion’s culture, makes isis islamic. (..even if most muslims regard isis as utterly un-represtative, and indeed MisRepresentative..)
Moreover, isis, as much as I am against them, and people even remotely like them –
eg the iranian the current turkish religious regime, whabist saudy arabia, the hinduisic india, the gazan regime of fear & intimidation by poor excuses, the militaristic regime of egypt, the deadly authoritarian and pseudo fascistic regimes of china and russia, as well as the plutocratic-ally fascist regimes in the uk and usa –
isis is an organisation that, like other states, use brutality and financial power to establish itself onto a land and people in it. (eg the provision of social care for people who’s religious practices isis approves of, etc..). Also, like other state based/oriented organisations, isis fights others that seem to threaten its interests. Sure, there is a bit of a difference between isis and the uk or feance in the sense that the brutality in the latters is less arbitrary and rooted in a set of arguable and evolving laws. However, I think we should not confuse a sense of evolving or even “open” brutality – with a lack of imposition and intimidation by power over the powerless and the ultimate abuse of power to keep itself in, err, powerful mode..

The other strange thing about the calls for re-naming references to isis is that such calls carry within them a sense of power and brutality which, in some way – i think – reminiscent of precisely the organisation who’s activities are “un islamic”. ie, if i am to use name calling as a way to re-assert my power as, for example, a religious authority, then am foregoing peaceful means for the sake of violent authority. (if 1 was to call on a dialogue with the people who call isis “isis”, to question, for example, the religious authenticity of the organisation, then perhaps their way would be civil?)

However, perhaps my interpretations of these occurrences is limited by a view that emphasises operations. ie if i call isis a cat while it actually Operates as a dog, am not going to make it do many miauuws – even if everyone in the world will call it a cat.
no?

Or perhaps the example is wrong. Perhaps the materiality and operations of a dog are too limited to allow it being a cat as much as we might scream and shout. However, what about a gallery? or a restaurant? say there is a restaurant that cooks and serves its food and another that doesn’t cook, but still serves food. What of a restaurant that doesn’t cook, but sells food Not to be eaten in the premises, can we call it a shop? What might be the differences between such a restaurant and a place to buy food? Is there? Perhaps then we get into magic of naming?
A magic that allows conjuring realities via verbal utterances? Just sounds?

Assuming that since an operation like a religion requires language to Be, not just as a singular category – eg category plants, category chemicals, etc. – but a distinct kind of animal/being/set, then perhaps language is an element of reasonable focus from a religious point of view.
Indeed, if we keep the lingo focus, then it seems strange to suspect and peculiar, that despite the fact religions are based on interpretations, the scholars who bash isis, regard isis’s violence to be a “wrong interpretation” – hence not of that religion. This is kind of strange because the very perceptions that there is a correct interpretation and that indeed there might even be a correct “islami” or other religion – viable violence – is in itself a part of of cultural violent process. If my culture is made of violence, or that I cultivate violence in my culture, then surely, I should expect people to cultivate it in various ways – some of which, differenct to my own interpretation.
Also, the peculiarity arises since we are talking about language, and linguistic meanings – unlike signals – are of ranges and evolving as such – rather than particulars. eg “red” might reffer to a feeling, a sensation, a colour, a state, and so on – in a language. In a sign system such as traffic signs, red is very particular and singular.

Are religions parts of languages or sign systems?

OK.. Here’s something else about language’s creative magic that isn’t religion: schools.

The british public school – is it public or, err, private school system?

How about the “free schools”? Do we have Free schools in england? Free schools in brooklyn? (Notice the end note where it indicates an initial confusion to do with the english “free schools”.)
Are these examples of the interpertative range of “free schools”? Of “freedom”? Of a conflation between “freedom” and “independence”? (eg, can it be argued that the english version has more to do with the independence of the schools from central authorities, than the schools being free? (though that independence is dependent upon generous financial support, no?)
Perhaps the range of freedom’s sequences when they hook up with the ones of independence?

On a personal note, I think its interesting to realise that it was easier to critique religious figures insistence upon their interpretations until I bumped into the educative elements which hit more home chords for me… I had to teach myself that perhaps the interpretations I did not “like”, are still within the sequence range of the terms I use.. And indeed, if they weren’t initially, I have to agree that other people should be able to play with the ranges as they see fit – else am going into a power politics range. (eg, who’s interpretation should rule..) Which is by its nature counter productive because if I care for a certain interpretation, I should strengthen – mistake, not strengthen but ENERGISE – it from within, to perhaps realise its own non interpretative range.
(ie a distinct category, its own radical self – if indeed it has one.. eg red as a term that stems from a colour that has certain properties and can be interpreted in various ways is distinct from road that has other, similar qualities, but none of them is the colour based..)

So perhaps calling a dog a cat will not turn it into a miauew uttering creature, however, it can depict a certain dog’s personality, or someone’s idea of a certain dog’s personality. But as many people as they might come, will not utter enough a “cat” calling unto that dog that will turn the woof into a miauew..
Yet, if these people turned and called the marriage process “doggy” – then it might well catch on and in a few years time many more people might propose to one another to get a bit doggy for a while – before they break into a miauew..

While this might sound very similar to John Searle’s ideas of social construction of reality, I think it might be worth while to indicate that in my mind the implications/trajectories are probably different.
* I do not think these element construct reality, but are simply parts/elements of various sequences and rhythms. In that sense, am considering here the sequences of language usage rather than focusing on using it for gaining power and creating social realities.
* I think the materiality of language allows for questions that can be addressed and directed to specificity of its operations. Hence the focus on kind of utterances.
* Indeed, I doubt the creation by a word requires Social. It can be an individual calling X “blue”. For them, the X might be blue regardless of the social acceptance or otherwise of the usage of blue.

## quick thoughts on strands, sequences and systems?

These thoughts follow a quick read about analogue computing – neuromorphic style.

From a rhythmic point of view, the sequences and strands move/operate by reacting/interacting/connection/linking/exchanging with one another. The more these operations occur, the denser the proximity between strands and the frequencies of activities is quick/high.
Because there are strands and sequences going in all sorts of directions, either by themselves or via collisions, or avoidance/dejection, the further one gets from the dense – not main – activity space, the less frequent are the occurrences, and the frequencies are slower..

From a view via the outside, this will look like a system. Like an organised interconnected elements that operate in some sort of connectivity with one another.
However:
This is a view from the out side. It fails to reflect how and what it is to Be that “system”. An example is the “ecosystem”. Imagining the system as a complete unit is sort of mechanical in the way it images clear lines and design-like features. eg plants and photosynthesis, some plants, perhaps in the less frequent plant sequences, use other ways to keep alive. In terms of life on earth, perhaps if oxygen was choked, these plants could multiply more? The eco-connections’ sequences might alter precisely because it is not a fixed system..

In terms of networking, it seems that people try to come up with so called “open” platforms. Systems that are aimed-at/designed to operate in a certain manner. I think this might be di=ue to our desire to operate stuff, however it is slightly conflated. Confusing the ability to operate with forcing an operation. So we get stuff like etherium that Talks about being open for bitcoin kind of networking by being a platform language rather than offer specific solutions/tools. However, this is precisely the point, the design from a set of operators/company/team of some specific systems that suppose to provide X. even if the x seems like an enabler, as is in etherium.. Hence we get other similar efforts that fight and waste energies on surviving each other rather than imagining.

## data on the web is too static

for the internet?

Following the day we fight back‘s instance in brighton, some thoughts came to me regarding critique of how we do stuff.

It seems for me, that at least to some partial extent, the ability of entities like google to use our content/data is precisely because We tend to imagine the data in static/object terms. For example, we might imagine this writing as data that is in effect residing statically on a server somewhere – hence can be easily indexed, and accessed time and again while receiving the same data at all times..

Does it have to be like that?

In ’98 I was involved with a project called “building bable 2” in Coventry university, as far as I can recall.. One of my contributions to the event was a live application of simulating a net-bot which operated as an avatar. That “organism” was the representative of a person in the digital “space”, and linked between the various physicalities.. (the digital and organic) Hence a person did not have to have a “web-page” to be “online” nor required all their information to be readily available at all times on the network. A person, for example, could get a request from their avatar-bot for information about some subject, and then, they could relay that data directly to the person that wanted it – via the bot-avatar.
In a sense, the bot-avatar was more of a live, active, moving and thinking link that enabled people to use data as when and how They fancied – as well as having a digital entity to do some mundane stuff for them.. eg check for information about subjects/topics.. Negotiate information exchanges with other bots, etc..

I got reminded of these ideas when attempted to consider stuff rhythmically and the idea of personal servers. (eg on mobile devices)
Rhythmically – why do I need to had a constant instant information/data always online? Isn’t the always on more appropriate for a more active “application” rather than data?
What if I placed my data on a *Secure* device of myown – perhaps something like blackphone??!! – and then use various means that it can be accessed at various times..?

Perhaps I should experiment and use this static data place to report..? 😉

—————————-

Had a bit of a feedback from someone am not sure fancies their name here.. The feedback goes to the tune of:
an interesting idea aharon but:
– is it not kind of taking us back to tv..? (with program schedules)
– power play that comes with rhythms and how might that affect information?

OK.. to be fair, the idea here is a modified version of why i told the said person.. Forgot about this idea at the time and was talking only about personal servers that operate when people fancy to turn them on..

However, I think there are still some relevant issues/questions that prickle my mind from the feedback..

To begin with, a meta prickle.. It seems – perhaps wrongly – that I gave an impression of sort of cure-it-all-panacea. Nope what so ever. The idea is to try some new ways and bump into new problems/difficulties/etc.
If the question is then Why this particular new way, then my reply would be that because this dynamic imagination does not preclude today’s static – while today’s static has a bias – if it was a person – that makes dynamic data imagination if not entirely impossible, harder to do..
So this is not a rhythmism – be rhythmic or be gone/die. This, I think is more subtle and hence radical – rather than extreme – than that. The claim is that via rhythmic imagination we can include the static, it is just element that has a slower rhythmic nature. However, while imagining only in static, rhythmic imagination is having a hard time to Be. (..am making a bit of allusions to democratic processes because it seems very similar to me.. For example saying that we strive towards ever growing equality between people, does not prevent prejudicially some groups/units/companies to have an unequal hierarchy. However if society is to have a per-ordained hierarchy of one kind or another – it is constitutionally prejudiced towards certain elements and prevents having non hierarchical groupings.. As they, by nature, will question the very social constitution..)

The TV thing..
Not sure exactly what is meant by the scheduling problem.. I take it meaning/reffering to times. eg, if you want to watch X program, you want to “catch it” on time.
Well.. There are a few elements here, imho..]
Phil talks a fair bit about how social media is just like the old tv.. The gist of it, as I seem to understand, is that with the activity streams you get something very akin to scheduling, in a sense.. Indeed, sales people who try to “catch” audience for certain topics, time their posts for certain periods of the day..
However, in the idea above – with the link-avatar-bot entity – as well as the one when a person just turns on/off their personal server, it is a question of contacting rather then schedualing, I think.. Because information on the server from yesterday, might still be there, pending on the authors will. Just like in posts here on this blog, I can turn some data on/off public..
The difference is that if this data was not, as it currently is, on a server somewhere in california, and subject to some laws and regulations that people might find somehow palatable there and I have no say in. Or that despite the fact it is supposed to be “my server”, the data is very much open to the company that runs it, and they can be pushed here and there by all sorts of other organisations.. Or they could just burn and all my data – if it wasnt in fact saved here with me – could be gone for ever..
Instead of that, situation, I could have a local server that will perhaps forego the Always instantly On for anyone, and just send signals when it is on so people could check it.. If one doesn’t feel like, or can not check at X time – they could later on..
Also, with the link-bot-avatar-entity idea, it can be that your online-data-link presence will gather the new info from X databases, and/or in relation to Y topic, and then simply relay to you as and when You fancy..
I think perhaps the problems with such an imagination will be different.. I think they could be of more person-to-person nature.. However, I much rather these than systematic preclusions..

Power.. Hummm.. Again.. not entirely sure I fully understand the intent in the comment, however, I think that power is not rhythmically inherent.. eg all the geographic power relations.. Therefore I think it can be said that indeed this idea does not rid us – in a sort of inherent fashion – from power plays.. I personally doubt there are some inherent elements that rid us from power games.. While it doesn’t dis-allow people using power games however, I think it can be claimed that it doesn’t require power games, hence culturally it is, at least, neutral in that regard..
Perhaps, and hopefully am wrong and there are ways to culturally support fearlessness without power.. I do not yet know that we might have a clue.. Even the use, my use, of the sense of fear, links directly to questions of power.. 🙁

## Data archiving for art??

How artists and art orgs etc archive their data?

I have seen a post or posts about this subject recently on new-media curation, nettime and probably netbehaviour as well..

Something kind of felt un-easy about this subject and probably felt sort of melancholic joy being unable to point at wtf is that feeling..

Then I bumped today into BioLinux, a distro with lots of apps and arrangements to do bioinfo stuff easy. I noticed that some of the tools are actually for arranging data so it can be UseD in various ways..
(..am emphasising UseD because my interest is in data Being, rather than usage, however, the manipulation via X/certain intent, is very interesting for me..)

Indeed, it does feel a bit strange that given the nature/being of data different to paint-data, stone, or even manuscript data, that the treatment of it – in terms of art – is as if the data is an object akin to a rock, metal, etc..

My thinking(??) – perhaps more instinct – is that to begin with, maybe the if a + b is also in and of itself a data structure.. Or rather than a data sequence that is also, by its very nature, structure.. (I don’t feel comfortable with structures..)
A data arrangement that lives with the strand..
In that sense, maybe some art data arrangements is: if a + b (eg a collage??), and maybe others can be, for example, if a – b (e.g. a chiseled statue..)???

## propagative emergence generate?

seems like there is a certain sequence of emergentive, generative and propagation properties.

its a sort of a rhythm?

When conversing with a rock/object, or a sentient being, there are various elements of the sequence that we share.. A bit like sentiments like, oh, if we met when I was younger. Or I can do x now..

Properties tend to emerge constantly, and most fade quickly, like stupid ideas. Some are sustained, or become sustainable, and then generative comes into the sequence, at least for a while. oh, its an interesting idea – that emerged – lets check what can be done, can it be sustained – ie is it generative?
Once generativeness is added to the sequence, the question of propagation will become relevant. The propagation is linked to the way emergent and generative elements interlink. Though it could also be a question of sequence links rather than consequences. ie emergent a If of E + G might have had a P added that was of incomparable with their link – hence the sequence died?

So when chatting with elements like sun-rays-type photons, or rocks, the links they are made of and the way their spacetime is sensed, should be considered…?
eg rocks rhythms are very slow.. emergence and sustainability elements seem very very tight, where as the propagation is utterly dependant on forces applied by other energies.. Hence very slow, yet can be hazardous..

So perhaps a rock will have more emergent frequencies that link with sentient beings but – because of their rhythms – collide with light..?

While this might be interesting, am suspicious of the analytical approach because the 3 elements, as a sequence, are not separated and indeed might be embedded within one another.. Perhaps its a question of accents?

## an instant bit of ownbit coin coinage?

I think its rather interesting how quick, or better put – the speed of the rhythms – in which stuff is being automated and instantised.. (perhaps enshrined and killed.. some might argue..)

Bitcoin can now be seen as simply a marketing question. You can go to http://coingen.io/ and begin your own.. For a small bitcoiny fee..

Isn’t that kind of quick killing allows fast moving on to, for example, imagining a different exchange generation..?
However, the rhythms’ speed.. Is that innate in the coin exchange practice or some techno imposition that obscures contemplation time – to get much more of elements before they are killed and die..?

## when X is an X for Y rather than modernistic?

Some of my sequences of thoughts regarding ROO and linked approaches, were criticised – mainly by my own mind – as Modernistic at least in approach, or even in culture.. (as in the stuff they cultivate..) For example, the idea of getting a sort of quint essential rhythm of an entity is a sort of reductionist approach that can be said to resemble Modernistic ones..
However, I’d like to argue that perhaps this is a case of mistaken identity.. It might look like reductionist – but it isn’t, and that the very reductionist Look/seemingness is because of a very different take to bareness than that of Modernism.. (however, why do I compare..? hummm..)

In Modern minds, as far as I can tell, the reductionism was a cultivation of the imagination of ideal. The reduction of painting to find/uncover/realise/experience/do the paintingness of painting. Or to write the book that will be the ideal of all books – book of books.. A sort of reductionism to accelerate the end of history.. Therefore, the spacetime of Modernism is an evolving reduction process towards a language of shapes, colours, materials that in and of itself was/is/will keep searching in ways that might link to ideals of colours, shapes, materials, concepts, contexts, etc..

With ROO am/we(??) trying something a bit different..
The idea is not a reduction for an ideal – but an abstraction (that looks like reduction) that is/are connectable, transferable, foldable, and crossable, collidable in its own spacetime.
This is not an ideal, but a bit like a number. 1 is not an ideal of an apple, it can be used when abstracting a single apple for connecting with an exchange/crossing/collision. I’ll give you 1 apple, and you’ll give me 2 looks? (eg.. it makes harder to agree for something like: i give you apple you give me look.. in that case, i might mean to give you the appleness of apple, the colour of apple, etc.. ie what exactly is apple without the an..?)

## Transvangarde Transvantgarde and money based art spectrum?

while checking for palesitian art residencies, I bumped into october art gallery and the term Transvanguarde art, together with a promise of its bright future – together with exhibitions of transvanguarde masters of 2012 & 2013.
Really? Are they onto type error art and forgot a T? Are they referring to a re-use of transavantguarde? That was a “trans” of beyond avantguarde art..
The october gallery’s one is a trans of crossing and moving in between..
According to this very short blog entry: “..the transvangarde can perhaps best be described as an ongoing multi-cultural experiment in the visual arts that can only be understood in the context of a globally active – and consciously interactive – contemporary art scene without borders or boundaries.” (And the blog’s name is african art..)

Fine words.. However, perhaps am too sceptic(??) that am failing to perceive something(??), the label (transvanguarde), its usage and the objects/artefacts seem to me very culturally specific – they all seem of capitalistic culture. I guess it depends on certain definitions, which are shifty, however why do we have to buy into a geographic based cultural definitions? In a sense, if indeed this is an “experiment” as the blurb says, or a sort of “movement”, that rejects geographical base cultural and artistic definitions, maybe the socio-economic critical cultural approach to this is precisely what’s appropriate and respectful of the transvanguade’s proponent’s intents?

The african art’s short blog post that basically seem to try and direct me to a book about transvanguarde artists, appears suspiciously like a sales pitch to me. Beyond the question of wrongness, or otherwise, of attempting to sell stuff, am simply attempting to describe here what IT IS, in my mind – not whether its X or Y on a wrong/right scale.
One element though is not enough for me, we need to cross, to trans even for some realisations that perhaps have some grounding.. (just like finding stuff in libraries..)
So.. check the october art gallery website.. Check the terms and usage of images.. The minimal images approach, that supposed to make me feel as if there is something out in the gallery to visit – just because the gallery imposes some degree of scarcity, seems very capitalistic in its culture. The attempt to glorify, both in terms of words and scarcity, the transvanguarde art, artists and objects, appears to me suspiciously like art linked proponents in the 80’s that tried to prepare, manufacture and sell art trends and movements. That, again, seems to me part and parcel of capitalistic culture where the ideology of financial, numerical, and power gains, seem to be the kind of practices that are venerated, celebrated and cultivated..

True, this is not exactly my culture. Or it might be argued that I’d like it not to be my culture, yet it is the culture I know..
However, am not trying here to down-play capitalistic cultural practices, just highlight that the trans in transvanguarde art linked objects – might not cross much.. Not if we try to look at it from its own terms.. Event the avant-guarde reference in the name, seems for me to be a link to a vey specific culture of art history. A history that is based on and within capitalism, yes the very capitalism some avatguarde movements wanted to reject – however, this is a singular culture.. Indeed, without the singularity, the very metaphor and militaristic reference of avant guarde – is meaningless..

The idea of crossing and transing though is very evocative for me.. Transing rhythmically rather than geographically..

## sequences rules frequencies and enablers with lawlessness?

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..)

## being and aiming through meanings of meanings by meaning without?

Just write some stuff re Meanings on barbicantalk forum:

```...
2- I have learned a lot via this exchange, so placing yourself as "learning", if I accepted that, would feel disingenuous.. For example, It seems that in your mind - I suspect the vast majority of people's minds - there is an idea of seeking meanings. ie you seem to ask, what X Y Z means, or what I might mean. In my mind, meanings are appearances not how stuff is - or might be. The sun appears to go up and down - but it doesn't. Hence I am weary of meanings..
So when I mentioned rhythms, for example, am considering how rhythms could imagined to Be like, rather than what they might mean. Its a personal preference, nothing more - or less - in importance to imagining meanings. In fact, at times, it is great fun to experience the sun as if it actually moves..
Many thanks for showing/teaching/confronting me with that!```
`2.1 - Actually, perhaps it should also be mentioned that in my view, art linked practices have been too involved with meanings.. eg, the contextual language is based on meanings in the form of: take an object, eg, a bed, urinal, a cup of coffee, etc. - change its context - then it can Be art because: the object's meaning was changed via the context. (there are the socio-economical-political elements of being linked to artworld, however the premise of being Linked to artworld is that the context manipulation changed the Meaning. Like recontextualising Mona-Lisa onto a canvass changed hers'..)`

The question of meanings keeps coming up..
It seems that if A means A than A Is A. A pie Is a pie not a Pi. However, if I made a pie based on Pi calculations, then it might be said that it contains a Pi meaning. If I ask for a coffee, I utter sounds that in some societies have been confabulated to mean – transferable – into a request to brew stuff made of certain beans we tend to call coffee..

Hence, it might be argued that Meanings are in fact, transferables.. The actual life of meanings is that of being transferred between realms, entities and elements. Between times, stands, sequences and rhythms.
A is A and Can be transfered as B. I ask for coffee, and I mean just that. I could also transfer it to Mean a request for having some time with a person. You asked me to make a cup of coffee and I thought it meant you wanted a chat..

However, the transferable element in meanings is hidden because meanings in and of themselves seem to be of appearance.. Of forgotten confabulative processes.. A might mean B because we agree on that appearance, while knowing – or agreeing to forget – that A is in fact something completely different.

Hence my interest in transferables is different to meaning transing.. Meaning in itself is a trans type/kind/link.
However my interest is in transing immanent to the activity, its imagination and search. In that sense, there is here – perhaps – an extension of transferabilities? Instead of meanings, we can have links, collisions, transing, surfing, searching, etc.. that could be imagined..

Hummm something got lost here.. will be back on that..

## rhythms of hegel acceleratism?

Zizek writes that Hegel seemed to have wittingly noted: secrets of the Egyptians are secrets for the Egyptians themselves.
Zizek writes about this from the view of big-otherness, which is an interesting composition, I think. However, it occurred to me that in fact the Hegelian idea lacks the same elements acceleration solutions do: they miss the rhythm. They accelerate the appearance of negativity as a positive, but miss the negativities of that very action. (Perhaps shades, rather than negativities??)
What I probably refer to is that is an acceleration of monetary exchange, eg using monetary exchange more and more in more and more ways, faster and faster – this is only half measure. The acceleration is of the seen, rather than the unseen, unknown, etc., but focusing on a single element.

Perhaps this is because the focus is, or the action is on question that perhaps misses/conflates itself with the confabulative and search activities?

Maybe I should try to find out if this can be put in simpler terms?
Instead of assuming secrets and imagining them as secrets for the people who produced them, we want to, in a sense be more radical. For some people, even in egytian olden times, the pyramids were not a secret, for some they might have been a political symbol, others might have imagined it as a process of nature culture interaction, etc.. For some there wasn’t a secret, ie some hidden element to uncover behind the objects and cultural entities, for some it might have been enablers to imagine other stuff. For some, it might have been objects for providing a sense of cultural stability and they sis not give a damn about some possible meanings. Some others might have had in mind some religious function-meanings. Probably others that I can not imagine.
Am not trying to make stuff complicated, am trying to illustrate that a simple acceleration misses its own point. However, in order to make such notion simpler, what am saying is that the accelerationist is conservative in a the sense that it accepts questions as unquestionables. The secret might actually not be such. The monetary exchange might not be needed. The oil/petrol based transport – might not be the only problem needed to be accelerated for undoing oil/petrol dependency.
The egyptian “secrets” are “secrets” only because we imagine them as belonging to past times people and culture. Indeed, if we want to understand them, they must come into how these live in our own times – to search the egyptian cultural entities in ower lives because they are not dead – they evolve. Indeed, in Hegelian times, the pyramids were elements in islamification of egypt – eg usage of plaques in the Mohamed Ali mosque – and europe/middle east political power play – see Napoleon in egypt..
Amen(??!!)

## 5 dimensions are 3 + 2 rhythms of storage?

Seems like down the road in Southampton they did 5 dimensional storage..? Not sure I misunderstand correctly, however the 3 usual dimensions seem to be joined by expanding and moving data nano elements that, in a sense, express themselves in rhythms..

(( I think perhaps my mind goes – if the link of substance, that which is immanent for itself at a particular sequence, is based on 3 dimensions of space, the time element of space is there but not entirely relevant? ))