I think the 1st veriosn iteration is problematic in some ways which perhaps will be clear if i just began with amendmends:
The technology of shared practised (or practiced-able) imagination. — shared goes with the number of connections/links — could be phrased as an object ->> imagination practice sharing technology.. (the life of a language)??
—>> we get un-seen/untouchable –>> like numbers <<— shared.. These are universals. The technology og imaginational practice with materials, or situations, or composition is NOT stuff that we see like a rock or a rain drop or the sun – it is something we conjour as abstraction at worst and as an abstract at best – in my mind..
(( examples –> the contextual language wghen it is being concrete and when it is being its language, its own material of undefinable yet there.. like the numbers.. Or as in the eample with mondrian regarding abstraction — getting abstracts — and then they have an independent life from, for example: tree branches.
The element of embodiment:
Imagination is in itself embodied – even if its not evident to begin with due to the internal processes involved. Fact am imagining a flight colliding with the notion of smooth vibe – does not mean its without a body, whci the embodiment element might suggest. What actually IS that element, I think is more interesting:
Its the SHARE_ABILITY of the imagination. How share-able is that imagination IN and OF and FROM itSelf. That is where Intermedia/Democracy and stuff comes in – because we want to share the body of imaginations as they are, regardless of talents and pre-disposed senses. We want to share imaginations, the practice of imaginations, the How we Imagine, the technologies of imaginations – as they are in all the rich multiplicity and complexities of it. I want to connect, to link to whatever it takes with an amoeba’s imagination, I want to learn how Commet XYZ’s trail imagines the friction with space, if it does.. (Perhaps it imagines stuff I can not!!)
Anyhow, this is beside this sequnce’s focus.
So – we have a shareability of the imagination, the closest it is – the more art- this seems to me, at list in one of art’s dimentions. Hence am going to go with an idea the complex or imaginary number here. Imaginary 10 and a 10 inter-changing, hence canceling discrepecies?
check: (10 : 10i) x (10i : 10) Vs (10 : 1i) x (1i x 10)
There must be a simpler way to express that line..
we can have numberI (imagination) : by i’s sharablity value (the imagination’s embodied link)
X shareability of the single entitiwhich is the distance between the values (ie if the above is 1 + 1i the X is of 0 because the 0 is the distance between the iLess numbers. This way we acertain interals between imaginational practices own processes’, in terms of their critique. The distance between a representation of a flying house on a paper as its embodiment’scshared value to its being as personal imagination, and to a possible abstract of stuff like FlightOfNoneFlyingRootedObejcts being a FONRO, that perhaps can now be a new imagination of Imagination, Materials and History dynamics….
Anyhow sop, the imagination divided by a real numebr times a real number made of the distance if any, between the imagination and “real”. These will operate differently in a design process question because the real will come Befor the the imagination hence frodicing a different complex number to time with the distance.. the distance might in both cases be 2, but 2 x 3+2i is not as 3x2i x 2..
(these ofcourse will be divided for art in links shared number over time – and in design , the latter value will divide he imaginary number based calulation..)