attempting to comprehend if xyz.xyz ?
A bit of background thoughts
I think it will be worth while to consider the approach as Dynamic.
Am not linking up with some dynamism here.
However pointing out that the approach has to do with dynamics rather than objects as static elements.
I think bearing this point in mind could help assessing claims such as:
If we have a + b + c, it is different to c + b + a. While it could be ludicrous to claim that a + b is not b + a when the objects are numbers, since the focus is on sensations, I think we can not treat the objects as numbers but as senses.
Lets say that the a + b + c referred to notes/sounds from a piano. Playing the sequence c + b + a will feel different, right? In that manner am claiming that the difference has to do with the alterations of dynamics between the sounds*.
Since the focus here is on dynamics between x y and z, I think it will be worth recalling that when criticizing ideas such as inability to have less than 4 elements.
(Background thoughts have just ended)
I think the initial stream in http://ifxyz.xyz, as in initiating stuff rather than beginning as in origin and originating*, is something like that:
We have an X which is the not Z.
We have a Z which is the not X.
Movement is not mass and vice versa. An idea is not an apple and vice versa. And so on..
Y is really for ^. ^ is an interval linked with X and Z.
The interval, say between X and Z is akin to intervals between numerical elements in that sense – ie it is an infinity. We can never tell what and how the interval between X and Z might be. Indeed, perhaps “between” is a misleading term.
Perhaps more appropriate will be to say “with”.
The claim is that the sense of infinity, the interval, is an element that allows X to be other than Z and vice versa. As such they have to link, but do not necessarily have to be there.
Lets check this?
OK.. Am making an assumption that a person might rather not be in either give money or life, kind of sequence.
Assuming such a person, what might they rather? I think one of the possibilities is to have other options than the 2 binary ones. e.g.
Money, life – or some other options. These other options might not be there in any way but absence. Give me money. Give me your life. and the subject of these demands might wish there were other ideas that aren’t forth coming. The fact these wished for ideas are there by absence, in my mind, makes them an interval that is not in between the X and Z. The interval is outside of the X and Z – money/life – however the absence makes the sense of starkness in X and Z.
If the sequence was, money, life, lemon, time, or a new idea – the whole dynamic would be very different. No?
So now lets wonder from the notion of movement sensation. Say to initiate wonders, perhaps of a certain kind, we use movements.
if xyz (if X interval Z) .(link) XZ^
if movement(X), interval(Y), not X movement(Z) – am claiming to link it with – movement_not-that-movement_an-infinity-linked-with-X-and-Z
Now someone else might come and say:
if movement(X), interval(Y), not X movement(Z) – am claiming to link it with – an-infinity-linked-with-X-and-Z_movement_not-that-movement
While both wonders are different, they do not deny one another. Not by necessity.
I think that once we have movement, we can build other wonder sensations from it. I suspect this can be done with other elementary properties, but will begin from movement for now.
An attempt to point out the elements in the movement
X is some element.
Y is some interval for it is linked with both X and Z while 1. being other than X and Z, and is required by both X and Z.
Z is not X.
The 4th element is what ever emerges when and while XYZ have their dynamics.
In that sense:
ifxyz is a dynamic that allows an emergence of xyz.
Are these rules?
I think they are not, but they could be.
Since we have if some stuff, it could turn out to be a rule. However, for the time it is If some stuff, I think we have to conclude that its some sort of contingency that is likely to fold and disappear.
if X Y Z as a question. The initial dynamic am talking about here:
if x y z ? We get an:
if some initial dynamic/movement ?
I do not see why this can not fold and disappear while some other stuff might prove to be more appropriate. Hence it seems like a continuous question of If rather than a rule of do.
The *ed stuff:
* dynamics in link with art?