love, kant and if?

ever met someone, fell inlove and sensed like you’ve always loved them?

knowing you never knew them throughout your life?

like one could tell themselves that indeed they didn’t know the loved one yesterday – and even recall that day which they weren’t inlove – yet they can sense as-if they knew and were inlove with a particular entity throughout their life?

maybe like something that has become ubiquitous in one’s life? Do you recall the times before internet? Do you know you were alive then? does it not seem like the internet was always there – even when it wasn’t?

Was that a love declaration for the internet?

Is love some kind of an a priori?

What if love is an example of a-priri’s dependency upon evolution?

Why love, why not technology as well?

Yes.. Perhaps even god?

God?

If god is – even as a pure concept – something that is a-priori in the sense that it doesn’t need to be experienced empirically to be known or at the very least, believed in, maybe it is indeed something which is yet to evolve?

Or be evolved?

Who evolves god?

A religious person?

Does this thing imply that if we check time..?

Time? Temporality? Rhythms?

Stuff to that effect, lets not get particular now, its a wide question – are we saying that if we look at time, as in evolution being stuff in time, that a-priri can evolve?

Was there a time when 7+5 were not 12?

Can you imagine a time before there were 7, 5 and 12?

Can you imagine a time when there was no +?

Do we not know there were times like that?

But hold on, what of necessity and contingency?

What of it?

Is it possible to have a world without a priori, without contingency, with no necessity and stuff like that?

A world in which stuff might have evolved to be contingent?

Evolved to be necessary or a priori?

A sense of contingency?

A sensation from contingency?

Is the contingent immanent and therefore both essential and necessary when imagined in time?

If the contingent imagined in time, or the sense of contingency?

If there is a sense from being up for grabs, maybe just being Up, as to grab implies power and having to use power is in itself, not always essential nor necessary?

If immanent is identity in time?

An identity done via an evolving contingency?

WTF is contingent in time??

stuff in time and car pollution?

Car pollution is not all that intolerable if you are a car, or a computer, a drone, etc.. As a car that has no ability, currently, to fear its own death/demise, and can not care, the question of its own pollution is a bit like that of a baby in the sense that “i am un-able to deal with it”.
NOw, lets suppose that we begin to have more organic cars. Cars that perhaps evolve themselves. They can be all for moving people from a to b. They can be much better than people in navigating without causing accidents, they can even be much better than people in loving themselves.
However, will they be able to join the pollution debate as equals?

It seems to me that once a body of types, human, car, dog, etc, begins to interact with Time – ie evolve, move itself in time – then we need to deal with the Nature of time. If an element in that nature is, in this Universe, moving into a future then by definition, the future can never be pre-known. Future, To Be in the future has to be unknown.
Therefore, if cars could evolve, they will have to share with everyone here the un know ability of how they might be evolving, how they might be moving in time into various differences of themselves.

These differences, like some humans we know, might rather fancy pollution and indeed polluting very much, no?

In a sense here we get into the nature of time. The wilderness of time. How wild time can be. Pollution, or the stuff we call pollution is a 1st attempt, perhaps unintentional, to cultivate time.
Time as an instant infinity can imagined as supporting stuff certain organic earthians can find hard to breath and live with. However, if we let pollution be in time, it can be thought of as an infinity that time can evolve, or evolve in time.
This thought though is, from a time-pollution view, a bit mistaken. It is based on assuming materials that make it hard for organic beings like monkeys and moths, humans, and rats – hard to live with – be constantly intriduced into time.
However, the very introduction into time of these “polluting” materials, is dependent upon humans. If this very pollution brings people into extinction – or near it – the pollution production will stop.
Unless humans make some other being that evolves spontaneously and is rather happy to produce these polluting materials.
no?

the being between an interval or

the being Being in the interval being between, for example – 0 and 2?

Lets go between 0 and 2.
Once we are there, we are in a time made for between 0 and 2. The time to be in that interval, creates that specific interval.
How?
It seems simple, perhaps too simple:
To focus on imagining, or even wondering from being a Being between X and Y / 0 and 2 – we use time. Time in this instance is sort of significant because if we count, it is precisely a question of time.
Do we have the time to count all the possible numbers between 0 and 2?
I doubt.
Why?
A. we don’t tend to count all them numbers.
B. We Can not.
HUH?
We can not count all the numbers because there are an Infinite amount of them.
In a sense, and I think it is a very sensual question of aesthetics, once we got into an infinity between X and Y / 0 and 2 – we got into time as well. Infinity as a question of time..

And so, I begin to suspect that by creating interval transmissions, its in a sense creating infinities..

Something I should get into more often and more critically..

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?

would you pay anything for this piece of junk?

this is what they call art!

A paraphrase on an exchange between 2 policeguys towards the end of “the dark corner”.. They are looking at a kitch classical statue that in the story supposed to be “a donatello”
eg stuff like:

Isn’t that kind of an exchange usually reserved to more contemporary art-linked imagery/objects?

Another cuious remark, I think, for a film from ’46, is something like:
“joy of art is the only remaining ecstasy neither illegal nor immoral,,” (..perhaps the writer hasn’t been to mass shared sports games, or some mad arsed cult – however these might perfectly fit the immoral bit..)