Lets say that I want to talk about rhythms. I want to talk via writing about rhythms, yes? My talk is metaphorical to writing which is seen as the activity – yet am kind of actually typing. Lets just say I want to type about rhythms? Is typing the immanent term for the stuff am doing now, and was considering doing earlier on?
Or
Do I Really know what am doing, or am I kind of pointing out a few nodes/points/vibrations/beats that later can be taken to Signify – infer knowledge – am currently clueless about?
Hence the question is how do I dare to say/utter/share/attempt anything if doubting the doubt with doubtfullness is possibly the only doubtless element I might be less clueless about? In that case, let me ask if in the sequence of this wqriting, untill kind of now, if I used a different sequence, would it be a different strand? Would I have been able to say the line before last?
Indeed, lets say that “boom” is a talk about rhythms. “foom” is the want to talk, “woom” is writing about rhythms, and “toom” is metaphorical to writing. “goom” is typing and “soom” is typing about rhythms..
So:
boom ; foom ; woom ; toom ; goom ; soom – are now beats in a bunch of possible rhythmic sequences. soomsoom goom ; woom ; boom || foom ; boom ; boomsoomgoom ; woom toom – and so on.. However, am typing this, still typing..
Since rhythms tend to lend themselves to sounds, noises and such audiable elements – should I not attempt this in a sound file/recording?
https://archive.org/details/RhythmsPhilosophy
If I did, and added that to this text – say as an attachment – will the two not be collidable, making a BANG!! with beats that are only accessible if we are ready to search for them?