“What” is a question of particular aesthetics.
If I was a “what”, if I was one of that particular species, How will I Be, and How will I sense the connections, the interactions and my being in and within life?
*notice*
to get a notion of inner workings of reality, even as “what”, i have to imagine How – the devil’s question <<"devil is in the How">> – rather than, for example a recursive one such as the Whatness of What..
The What as a blip In a sequence.
Descriptions are What X is/might be. Now am writing a description of What is missing if one’s focus is on What. Not How that missing element might be or even is.
By providing instructions, I am keeping it safe. I control the ingredients, I get the feeling that I am building something by my own will. By focusing on What i can feel as if i get near to what i might wish to express. I have something in mind – and the What is how I get to express/share stuff the reflect it.
However, like describing a dna sequence while thinking that’ll be enough to create/reproduce, for example, a species – and that’ll ignore the epigenetic material – so does the focus on the What. If rhythms are epigenetical in the sense that they are essential compounds that link raw data – genes/material – with it’s own movements and that of its environment’s, then How they live rather than What they are, is a kind of question that gets to bring out Who they are. (Perhaps. It seems logical, however it is worth mentioning that life isn’t logical..)
In that sense, perhaps the way to do an ontology of rhythms – indeed rhythm based or oriented – entails, or even inherently entrains, the need to be with them rhythms, to Be as they are. To be a How, rather than a What.
Indeed, there might be a sort of survivalist view
To get something described – via the What it is – one gets the element to have an initial presence, a contour. What am I talking about? A tree/ A tap/ A key – etc.
How am I talking about is more complex
I have no idea What this might be, however my interest is #How it lives. How the connections, the switches interact. I think that maybe there is a conduite kind of flow between How the involved entities’ materiality is linked. We have metalicness, liquidness, fleshness.
Yes, it could be. Taps might be an instance. However there might be others. If my focus is on the rhythms, by saying a tap – perhaps an not helping?
Well.. It could have been:
I think the rhythms of – for example – trees are, x y z. However then the focus would be the what of these rhythms.
By sharing doubts and abstract questions, am allowing people better than me in doing What – to extract Whats via the How.. No?
indeed, how would I know?
maybe, if you want to judge value of seemingly abstract stuff, you want to critique the fact that the How of possible tap reads like a description – it is not yet a genuine How.. How of knowing not and not knowing what.
Maybe How you what to decide the value, for you and others, is through examining the immanency of elements to one another?