ok.. the title suggests a tall order, and this post is a quick something – note(?) – to something longer later on in life.
The trajectory here might not actually relate to rhythm ontology, despite a sensation – not desire – that it does. I can not explain the sensation, apologies and please try and bare with this..
At some time i was wondering about the rhythms of ontologies. The crossings, transes, sequences, foldings, etc. – of ontologies.
The other element is that in my mind this is a trajectory kind of research rather than proving/disproving an idea/hypothesis/notion/ideal/prejudice/etc. Rhythms, in the way they form(??) possibly live, begin with a certain known and evolve towards unintended unknowns. just clap hands in a certain rhythm – boom bam bam / boom bam bam – and i bet, at some fold of timespace, the rhythm will change, perhaps develop, maybe evolve. boom baaa bam/bam – or whatever.. That will come, seemingly emerge, rather than be pre-decided upon. What will be prejudiced is doing rhythms with clapping – probably.
Is this a similar way, or analogous to, generative hypothesis science? Where a hypothesis is the aim rather than motivator? (i think that’s what it is – and if not, then the practice of generating questions/hypothesis – rather than investigating them – is def kind of stuff that interests me.)
If generating art questions to imagine and pursue is possible, then how will the rhythms of the generation process will be?
Also, such a practice is based on knowns. Known elements. If I know that element A is collidable with B, then the question is how to collide, rather than what might happen if. The question is how to collide and offer the question of that collision to visualisers, thinkers, dancers, actors, writers, drivers, teachers, coders, etc. – to practice with. No?
Hummmm….