Month: October 2013

Seems like spectating is very much linked or linkedAble to spectrum via spectre and in my mind spectacularly so..

from spectate –
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=spectate
through –
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=spectator&allowed_in_frame=0
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=spectacle&allowed_in_frame=0
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=spectre&searchmode=none
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=specter&allowed_in_frame=0 (note the ghost..?)
to spectrum –
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=spectrum&allowed_in_frame=0

Scope, as a sort of Wave-extent, is more the kind of vibrations I have in mind re spectrum – seemingly wrongly..

Perhaps even more so, the german word spähen “to spy”. Sense of “distance the mind can reach..”
This sounds to me more like an innate searchness of a wave.. As in wave as a spy/searching-rhythms that seem to have aim via aimless other energies.. They are just linked, not aimed.. Hence full of energy..? (not power.. power requires aim/meaning..)

Transing, as in crossing various spectrums. eg, the spectrum of time, the spectrum of physicality, like surfing from one wave onto another, seems the kind of stuff that might be correct for the following idea:
How to interview a dead person? How to interview stuff of a different sort of language – like a rock or a tree, a cockroach, a person that doesn’t want to Be interviewed, etc..?
Are these the same as an interview with you? Or a TV/radio/etc interview? Sure I could use interview and people could understand it as a metaphor. However, I think using the transview places the activity in a spectrum of its own.. No?
It also makes the practice more share-able.. Shareable as an element in rhythmical ontology, as it highlights the element of transing and how it can be done..?

Whom will you fancy doing a transview with?
I’d like various links between sequences and frequencies.. Perhaps I should make a list..?

am I talking here about other rhythmic oriented elements that in reality have nothing to do with territories? Is this just a made up link?
Can rhythms explain territorial imagination, yet territorial perception fails to imagine rhythmically?

Was checking a bit about sequences in maths. eg 1,3,5,7,9 then comes..? With the idea that there is a rule, you find it, apply that and get the result. eg 2 and next number is 11..
However, what if there are no rules, not really.. There are enablers that take you so far and that’s it?
eg, instead of what is the rule, we can ask how can this sequence be? How is it being enabled? My argument is that there is a frequency, a 2 frequency that will enable that particular rhythm. However, because the 2 frequency enables the rhythmic movement of the sequence – rather than 2 being a geographic kind of rule that confines it – this thinking has the rhythmic fluidity at its core.. eg we can have:
morning, wakeup, coffee, read, write, run, come-back, time till next morning. (mwcrwrcttnm)
that is a sequence of a daily length enabled by:
physical-fresh-feel, refresh-wake-feel, mental-focus-fresh, mental-focus-refresh, physical-speed, mixing with other frequencies and sequences till next day.

The morning is not rule based, not as a rhythm.. It folds into the rest of the day – by enablers, not rule breaking. I think that is more accurate. It does not attempt to isolate morning and idealise it, iconise it, perfectise it, fetishise it – that is where you need rules for and more crucially – when.. Because even these rules, they live in rhythmic reality.

Now the next element is the period-length of the sequence frequencies. The period, again as a rhythmic element is an enabler rather than rule, it has fuzzy ends, it allows foldings and collapses, collisions and come-backs. That is how:
11,13,15,17,18,19,21,22,26,27,30,34,38,42 – can come about and fold into 42,46,50,52,54,56, etc..
or the mwcrwrcttnm sequence & frequencies can get a phone call between:
refresh-wake-feel and mental-focus-fresh, while incorporating the call rather than – necessarily – breaking the rhythm..

All these stuff above is perhaps good and dandy, but am not very happy about this:
* it doesn’t Read as it is written.. It reads like rules of a notion, rather than a rhythmic enabler.
* i think that maybe the reason for that is that it isn’t written/presented as a search. It is an idea within, presumably, a certain search – but not a search in itself?
—
Perhaps it needs to be written as a critique? (of itself..)