%%xx “)”)”nn mm LLjj++– !!!!!!!!!!~~~~ ######

A quality of the ability to reduce a generalised concept of pairs – to two. 2 apples and 2 stars, with 2 graphs and two keys and two cups of coffee in two loo rolls – are all using the ability to be two.
There might be different Kinds of twoness.. For example, two skies – erathian and marsian – might be different to two planets and two apples because the skies are both emerging visual phenomena.

It can be argued that twoness, being a shared sense of Two in Beings, because its a sense shared rather than expressed, requires to Be in the shared environment a sense that might have twoness in its being. That to Be linked with that element/creature/Being – other stuff should reach to their Twoness in mind. This is a sort of Twoness language. Just like if I fancied reaching to the dogginess shared among us – I need to speak Dog.. (mind, dogs speak human..)

Since the Sky is an emerging visual phenomena, and dogs -forExample- aren’t – perhaps the Kind of languages are different? The twoness of sky and mirage as different from twoness of chairs and light rays?
Also, can it seriously be argued that twoness is a sense different from elevenNess? Or 100ness?

Perhaps that is precisely where the if search collisions come in – questioning the imagination as imagination pracitces creation process.
One might claim that 100ness has its own unique qualities, but shares being Numerical with 2ness. However, in and of themselves they are of different qualities. eg imagine comparing 100 skies and compare that with imagining 2 skies. We can do both, however because of the different magnitudes, require various practices. With twoness, perhaps an internal representation is cool, while 100nes might require Other kind of imaginal materiality..

ALSO and a bit off topic:
It occurs to me, through this activity, that indeed there might be here a sort of social question coming.. The question of if we can Objectivise stuff – the objective quality of stuff: number one might have subjective meaning to an entity, but we can all objectively link to the single entity that, for an entity might mean blue, and for another, its childhood – to a wider degree than used to, then we ought to be able to allow the life of very specific abstracts as well as very general ones. I’d argue that to the extent of a radical transgression of categories.. Or a radical frictionability rather than categorability because objectiveness can irradiate subjectivity. People/entities can claim that because the objectivness is already shared, it has more wight/value/meaning – even if that objectiveness is highly subjective, and even if the very focus on being objective is detrimental to the evolution – rather than development – of the said objective element because it discourages mutations.. (radical alterations)

Perhaps this is why am interested in a sort of, subjective abstract and how these can be shared/linked, rather than objective to begin with. Also, and here an objective person might claim am very biased, the subjective kind of abstracts will offer many to become new objectives. It does not cancel the potential value of mass shared/linked objects and of sense of mass objectiveness – the opposite, it allows a multiplicity of it. Subjective objectiveness allows more universes of objective objectiveness, where as, in my mind, perhaps ironically, an obejctive focused objectiveness is a controlling one that finds it hard to live with the subjective. Like subjective subjectiveness might restrict objectiveness, so objective objectivness restricts subjectiveness..

So, why nor objective subjectiveness? Probably because this refers to the subjective qualities of objective stuff, it describes what’s already there. Objectiveness IS subjective to certain dynamics of its own.
However, the subjective objectiveness is a description of a process to imagine subjective elements with their objective senses and crucially i think through the objectivisation of the specific subjective senses. Hence the Twness of 2 can be different from 100ness of a hundred. These can be fritioned/collisioned/linked through the abstract elements that make them – some of the same kind of language, others might not, might create a new language, cancel one another, who knows – ITS A SEARCH>>

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.