a contingent art that imagines my body?

I used to imagine my body can not roll into a ball, hence the question was between necessity and contingency, right?

What was the necessity?

It seems the inability to roll into a ball?

..or a necessity for bones?

However, is this a necessity – bones – or some contingent evolution that turned out this way?

..and can be re-designed?

Is this radical? Redesign?

Can be re-artified?

Artified?

Re-imagined?

Re-wondered?

Who’s the artist here?

Why re-xyz?

Why not taken from the current and into some yet to be evolutions?

Isn’t that a re?

I doubt as when we get into evolutions, the contingency of remaining as is – is also viable, no?

Are we out of evolution now?

Nope.. But we can speed processes up, provide ways to imagine bonelessness bodies, etc.?

Nope.. Is that evolution? Stack in a body?

Evolving might include no-body?

Or un-body-ment?

Technologically?

Might turn techno.. However, to begin with, don’t we need to begin with art?

With art?

With a wonder, no? 😉

wondering from wonderment?

Here is a bit of an expression – lets do a calculation!
2 + 1 = 3 -> that is a calculation.

lets do a bit of computation?
if 2 + 1 = 3
then
call this “my computation”
else
call this “other computation”

Now –
What’s wondering got to do with this?

Wonderment?
lets say:
2 + 1?
This, is a a stream of contingent elements placed in a readable way. It could have been:
? 2 1 +
A bunch of data that might come in various sequences, and perhaps one of these sequences could repeat itself enough times for it to be able and form some meaning computationally, expressively, calculatively, etc..

Wonderment, in this sense, is a way to interact. We can put stuff in various streams and wonder with it. The difference from stuff like computation is that wonderment is aimless, yet can allow aims to emerge. It is meaningless, unlike an expression – yet allow meanings to emerge without relying on prior intents and configurations. Wonderment is non calculational, yet offers time for calculations to evolve and develop.

A wonderment might be an X – Z as a question. If it reapits – there might be a rhythmic time for meanings to evolve. Oh X might mean 2 and Z might mean 1. Or X might mean all even numbers, and Z might mean all odd numbers. Humm.. Interesting? Maybe we should check some calculations?

If calculation get their time, the ? is replaced by a = and focus is shifted to a computational process with a need to produce specific outcome types from its processes.

I think its rather interesting that these kind of practices end up feeding one another, energising one another. Powering rather than Empowering one another.
The fact we might get a calculation emerging from a wonderment, does not mean the calculation is subordinate – the opposite. Its Free, as in having its own possible infinity that need not be linked with its wonderment linked history.
The fact we can do 2 + 1 = 3 have this new number/element and play with that is independent from the 2 + 1 wonderment. In fact, now by having a new number, 3, we can feed That into some other wonderment. Now we might have 3-1? or -2 + ? 3 1 etc..

The question though, if we go back to wonder wonderment, is whether there can be some wondering kinds. Can we develop ways from wonderment, or perhaps wondering is rather limited to a certain particular way?