December | 2001 | Rhythm Oriented Ontology

https://archive.org/details/roo04

The Speech-to-Text wiki:
<br />

ranges sequences
I will begin today not tomorrow am acytually beginnign with time tiem as a range in and of itself.
However my intent was to begin with a parody of or from a link to yesterday.
Start rhythms a rhythm a start.
An ape. Aping maybe even utterly there like Apicoros. Yousee,
To get from Aping to apicoros I ahd to place a space. THere is a space at least intially for a relatively new link. And the point. Or the rhythmic accent here is the new not radical.
Inauguration of stuff perhaps has a certain newness.
Escaping is a kind of newness that perhaps might be radical. However let go to the other range, that of aping. Like algorithms are a sort of aping, parodying, infecting, infected – or really gravity, gravity elements within the sequence of time space. As was said before, with in my mind a conflation between systems and sequences, that time is making space with gravity and gravity with space make time. Though I think these beats, these sequences are on a range of between frequencies.
The frequencies at the noisy sense of inner beat are more frequent. Beats. Beats, Beats. Interval, algorithm, Beats, Beats, Beats, Interval Interval not interval when is mentioned as interval, beats, Beats, Mentioned Beats, Frequency, algorithm..
Perhaps this is now the sort lesser frequent beat, sequence of “beat” when Algorithm comes in, in ininininin Algorithm in this sequence here The algorithm.
Here we have an edgeless life.. Much like “real” life though where is this gravity coming trajecting?
I think there is an element of crossing. Of colliding. Combooming that keeps degenerate boomed elements and both generational and propagational elements that come via these collisions that make up lets say, sequences that were not in that beat before. Or linked to that. These might offer short phases. Phase in concrete. Or phase in time. Or just hints of phases in gravity gravitating into almost sequences. or phased into sequences of their own radicality.
Radicality has at the moment nothing to do with it but its moment will come here. I think..
So lets go back to ranges. The range of meanings and the range of the means being. Its very interesting for me to realise that just like we have a huge sort gap between say 200 and 200 as a part of say a sequence that goes 2 200 202 300 500 5002 and so and for that gap the gravity the stuff that might Hold it together will need to take more time to “sink” in that then sequence of 12345 with much shorter intervals, gaps. Just link meanings. in that sense…
I wonder about the use of events and innaguration as linking with radical and new. Also am wondering regarding the range of events and whether not actually how they might neighter end nor middle tlet alnge begin, just kind be beats, beats nbeats beats in beats in the rabnge of their own eventual ebntful life. Being. Prop[agation. degenegration. Aping, Modifing self and linking. combooming. with THis!
Boom
A range of a seunce might have various gaps. These are gaps that nescesitate the event opf considering tthe se seaquence and freequnceis via threir own totality. Or am I being total stranger to life?
event
bords of events

———

It is again an interesting circularity: events can only be identified in terms of other events unless we break the circle with primitives – be them objects or concrete phases. Cleland believes objects can be understood themselves in terms of events (and concrete phases). Now, concrete phases themselves can be unpacked in terms of events for if we take them to change states in a phase – and therefore inaugurate a state – and if states are themselves determinable properties, an event inaugurates also a phase. States and phases are bordered by events. Events are both what bring about a state and what give an end to a state – and to a phase. When we postulate primitives like concrete phases or objects, we don’t focus on their borders. The difficulties with individuation of events can suggest that we should rather postulate events as basic entities. The borders, and not what they border, would be the constituents (of objects, concrete phase or whatever else these can construe). Look at the covers, would say the injunction of such an event-oriented ontology, not to what is inside. Events are what separate states and phases. If we take them to be basic, it could be attractive to take them to be already individuated. But if events are changes, then it is not convincing that can be individuated independently of what they change.

Month: December 2001

a smooth paved hammer of computation?

5th

to post

frequencies of sequence rhythms cultivation

how rhythms do the time sequence shape?

rhythm language links