language creation art and geisha sequence/strand? – checked this and somehow got which bumped me into: when notices that perhaps geisha has “art” in it. – towards the end of the “page” where it seems like “art” refers to entertainment/perfomative-acts like singing & dancing..

I now wonder if this might also have anything to do with the survival thoughts/concerns? eg –

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..

happen luck, fortune, fate hap befall occur come-to-pass, happening event

the confabulation search of stuff like hap. Each term, each word, each dna strand lives as a sequence who’s links are contentiously confabulated and searched as to their plastic nature through how we can imagine them.
I really like the term Fork. I can fork a keyboard and a cat, also a cloud – but these are the same fork. Can I say that a wave forked when it met the beach? Can we imagine a ball’s flight as a fork? How can I imagine a fork energising an engine?
—>>> At some element the fork does not link very well. I think that some of the examples fail the fork and succeed in illustrating how we can not apply fork to everything without being too general. Without saying the = of: one one one, oneoneoneone One one one – if you know what I mean..

Also, I used the hap, befall – because of the sense that there is/are elements, non human ones, in link, relation to humans. The muses and gods, the goblins and fates had hierarchical link with humans. However with a network view, like that of Latour(??), the link is between equals and not innately consequential. eg, a is linked to b yet neither are consequence of another. They are 2 entities, even as parent and child. The child entity, once alive, will go on living independently of parent, in that sense the happen-stance can not be taken hierarchicaly.