Some of my sequences of thoughts regarding ROO and linked approaches, were criticised – mainly by my own mind – as Modernistic at least in approach, or even in culture.. (as in the stuff they cultivate..) For example, the idea of getting a sort of quint essential rhythm of an entity is a sort of reductionist approach that can be said to resemble Modernistic ones..
However, I’d like to argue that perhaps this is a case of mistaken identity.. It might look like reductionist – but it isn’t, and that the very reductionist Look/seemingness is because of a very different take to bareness than that of Modernism.. (however, why do I compare..? hummm..)
In Modern minds, as far as I can tell, the reductionism was a cultivation of the imagination of ideal. The reduction of painting to find/uncover/realise/experience/do the paintingness of painting. Or to write the book that will be the ideal of all books – book of books.. A sort of reductionism to accelerate the end of history.. Therefore, the spacetime of Modernism is an evolving reduction process towards a language of shapes, colours, materials that in and of itself was/is/will keep searching in ways that might link to ideals of colours, shapes, materials, concepts, contexts, etc..
With ROO am/we(??) trying something a bit different..
The idea is not a reduction for an ideal – but an abstraction (that looks like reduction) that is/are connectable, transferable, foldable, and crossable, collidable in its own spacetime.
This is not an ideal, but a bit like a number. 1 is not an ideal of an apple, it can be used when abstracting a single apple for connecting with an exchange/crossing/collision. I’ll give you 1 apple, and you’ll give me 2 looks? (eg.. it makes harder to agree for something like: i give you apple you give me look.. in that case, i might mean to give you the appleness of apple, the colour of apple, etc.. ie what exactly is apple without the an..?)