is this a bit mad about imagination or

simply some space-time sequence encountered – though perhaps something else?

I was thinking about linked elements, or linkable elements, and came up with a pathetic list.. However, then I thought how can linkables/linking elements/materials have their own spahen*, and that each spahen might link not just in relation to its rate, but also time-space. (eg if my spahen is 11, and yours is BooeB00e600e6003 – we might not link..)

Now then it seemed that if space-time in itself is a rhythmical sequence that vibrates, there must be various space-times that may, or may not allow some frequencies within them. This, in my mind is sort of akin to context – something I’d need to expand – but then if we are in the context element of the sequence, it seems that the next element is that space-time is, or needs to be, imagined collectively.
Because we have so many many multiple spahens, some might not link, we have meta elements to enable sharing. eg each spoken language has its own imagination that is shared among its speakers..
In latin we need to imagine elements as male/female, in english not. But in both we need to imagine a difference between inanimate and “non-inanimate” elements..

non communication and art

Am doing searches for un/no/non-communications – when practices, activities, events or other stuff, does Not communicate, either by intent/nature or failure. eg when i type, i am doing a communicative practice that might fail to mean something, or be misunderstood/construed – however it is a communicative activity. When I go to the toilette, or fix a brew, sleep, look out of the window, etc. – it might Mean something for another person, specially in various communicative contexts, or it might be understood by another in various ways. However, these activities are by intent and their nature, not communicative. They in and of themselves are not an attempt to deliver a message other than whatever another person may read into them. (eg, i may understand you are thirsty when you drink, but i could have also read into this that perhaps you enjoy liquids at 6.37am every day – without misreading or not understanding you, because the reading, the attempt to make your drinking communicate to me, is my own act..)

Now, lets imagine that you drink on stage. That in a sense you share or invite people to share the view of you having a brew. Drinking as a practice then, through the stage/media becomes shareable. Through the processes of letting-others-know i am drinking, there is an assumption that some communication – by intent – takes place. a – else why inform others. b. if am attempting to let-others-know am implying that there is a communicative interest/intent.
However, the shareable mean – eg media – is seen instinctively as a tool rather than a part of a communicative act. This, ofcourse, is an instinctive mistake – eg McLuhan et al – however, if one is interested in UN-intentional, potential constitutive – non-communication processes – perhaps these are the activities/places i should look at?

Searching non-communication brings non-verbal but communicative activities, like tone, gestures, etc..
Maybe am imagining some stuff wrongly here..