Rhythm Oriented Ontology

One can parody, imitate and ape generation. One can Be generational in a way of another, eg a Turing test of being. However, unless the being a bot, or a dna, or a brass, or a wind, or a poem – in terms of rhythms is both individually unique and of various species-able ranges,
Perhaps the degeneration process – like a crack/glitch in being – can not do that which generation does. It is both an element in the operation that affords and allows generational process and yet, at the same beat, just with a different sequence/twist, it is an element in a operation that can not ape but itself. Each being degenerates UN-escapably in its own rhythmic beats of an affording and in-escapable reality. In that sense, to put it crudely, death is the truth life can spring its up-for-grabness from..
Is that the lighter beat of dark humour..? 😉
Or
In that SensE, the propagational material, the aesthetic operations of inheritress and transmission, are these of degeneration spectrum capacity ranges. These can allow generational operations to be. These can allow a generation of memories of being under up-front Thatcherite rule, or witnessing the birth life and death of the Concorde – however, the degeneration of these memories, from propagation through to
sharing/voicing opinions about them – is intertwined with the degeneration of the degerational operation’s inescapable elements, its innate immanence rhythms. Sure these are affected by the time generation the entity is at, however, this is a different process to the one am interested to focus here. Not a secondary, but has its own various links and affordances.. It so seems now, anyway..

Can there be an aesthetics of imansense..? (not immanence..)

https://archive.org/details/roo03

The Speech-to-Text wiki:

An interpretative transcription of the recordings:

recording #01

A term that seem to come back in un record ed discussion s – entanglement.
What’s meant?
No.
No?
Mixed?
No specific sense.
A salad?
Wires are entangled.
Elements are entangled yet retain individuality?
Each wire is individual?
Or
And?
Or part is meshed with one another and others retain their individuality.
Entanglement and entrainment?

Rhythms.

Continue reading roo discussion 03

When I checked Graham Harman’s lectures re Objects, It seemed to me a bit cool. Interesting. Sure. An Object. A objective. A clear. A clarity. Clarity. Klarity. Boom.

However. what rang. Home. Unlike ET – was the multiplicity of connections, of beings, of centrality free beings that are moving about. At least in my. Sense. Senses.

It reminded me the 1st time seeing stuff Through an actual microscope. I still recall the view of the movements. Of the blobs. Of the darkness and light. And of a mind scraping and ranging the experience, the process, the scope of the eye with its glasses. And it wasn’t an it.

THrough the microscope it seemed like I was looking into the night’s sky. It felt like space. So much so that my mind went:
What is right now some giant that isn’t a giant for itself in its own well proportioned mirror, looks via a microscope and inside that is where our universe? Is it not like this little amoebae might sense me? Does it not live on that blob that moves about like a planet on a different universe?

I might think of it as a space of non universality because of size – but if I was that amoebae, as I might be for our universal giant – would I not consider my space to be the universe that there is?

Another element, or rather operation that I can recall, and which seems to correspond, or vibrate, or somehow rate, or cross, or use a sort of term Harman is employing to reason for Objects, is the following: there seem to be no objects, in the sense that the blobs seemed like objects to begin with, and in-between them, so called space, is only an object if I force the term onto it because in fact its borderless, as this is exactly the stuff, the operations objects seem in my understanding or mis appropriation of it do – the y do that not explaining the in betweeness. Between the borders, that inevitably rise, if, and perhaps only if, we have objects, a clear, a clarity that differentiate between one object to another. This might seem like I am seeking a theory of all yet its not, this is just using Graham’s own terminology. He talks about deficiencies in others’ theories from the view of them not explaining stuff, phenomenas that should be easily related to. Personally, am very happy to have various explanations that might be partial or mistaken even – however challange, extend, playful, and radical for the senses. As for the senses not all all visual, nor all is aural, or neither all is not conceptual, or not practical, and even not all impractical. However we cross, and cross, and criss and cross information, data, streams, each other, and via the connections the collisions the transmissions the gravities the searches the strands the entanglements the soups the entrainments the links the relations that rise – confabulatory and some even realisation processes rise. No? Well
for a person who might seek realisationsal sensations.
I am just more limited.
Am more like the amoebae – am stuck on the sensation. Sensation operations.

The sensations of rhythms however, harking back to OOO and Harman, do seem to “explain” to enable using their own terms for the seeming objects and in between. If we are borderless, when the seeming edges are so only for convenience of the viewer – not in and of themselves, in their own realities, in their own dis-clarify processes, and cultivations, in their own scopes of micro and macro, in the own ranges that rolls like waves of beats into one another?
And so is time-sapce that makes up the vibes when and where the blobby vibrational vibrators seem to be moving towards, through, and from.
No?

Indeed aesthetically speaking. From the most rudimentary visuality of making images of drawing with a pen and a pencil/chalk/etc – one of the 1st lessons of seeing the world is precisely the impressionistic culture of light, and objects, and movements. The border as an imposition, and of fuzz as the taste of life that unlike coke – is not encaptuable. Not in the scale that is from us, nor that from the amoebae. Not without brutality.

Perhaps we need brutality for encapsulation? And encapsulation is a worldly requirement. Well and then it might have to criss and cross other stuff that will, in a dark ironic way, from the encapsulated own view, erode its edges.

No?

Idly sort of way I was checking information to do with rhythmic mosaics. How do people already imagine the term.

Turned out a few links.. I think its interesting though to note:

The patent application calls this rhythmic mosaic partly because the Method that generated the tiles is time-based. In a sense, the being a rhythm is via the generation over time. Although the mosaic is experienced as a pattern, the way it is made perhaps can be claimed to be rhythmical..

I this the kind of look?

I think this post might be in the range of frequencies from over speculative to over pratical and ond under non-practical (rather than abstract). However, there is a search sequence for you.. (however, there is here an example of how repetitive/chantic/mantric(?) beat might operate for emerging stuff..)

Yesterday I bumped into some questionable research that suggests Choice is a sort of illusion. (..am bringing this here as a beat) I kind of had a bit of choice thinking periodically in the past day..

An hour or so ago, a friend called about police harassing him at Home (WTF!!) and I suddenly, choicelessly ;), found myself talking about brutalisation as a rhythm, and then as such, to disrupt it so as to avoide being brutalised yourself. eg the sense of needing to get back at them, etc.. (if they make you get at them, they ctrl you, even if you “win”)

Coming back from a skateboarding session, I considered my chat with that friend and realised that what I was suggesting, genetically, is akin to rearranging genes. lets make AGC strand instead of AAGGCC and fined out what might have happen.

Making coffee, I was re-orering sequences and then thought, say Choice IS an illusion. In other word, it can be argued that choice is an imagination, and an Illusion if we consider it in physical life because no one has a Choice.
However
is it not that we sense – whether we like/agree or not – as IF WE DO have a choice, and by enlarge, socially, consider we are? (classic criminal case..)
If we go back to genetic code and its modification, perhaps, at some time, we could arrange code that perhaps Will provide a free will?
Or, perhaps we could have a clue how to re-arrange beats so that they are immune from brutalisation by violence? (see how this goes both ways..?)

If indeed, we get these rhythms, these beats of free will. Like the beats of Hunger that we might sense and yet able to change them for a while to get food as and when it might be there.. (rather than allow these beats to gravitate us into a sequence of hunger induced anxiety, etc..

The idea of a total fabricated imagination based on a sense that evolutionarily works its emergence into a shared physical actuality is interesting for me. Accepting the rhythms of evolution’s frequencies is different to these of development. Evolution has desire from, and development’s desire is for/towards.
I dont have a free will , but I desire from it, hence imagine I do. Or I dont have a free will and develop for it – as if I do.

However, is this labour of rhythm, if indeed somehow analogous to genes, can be used for developing specific strands of beat frequencies to get at particular elements?
Will be ironic..

if gravity-in-time?time-in-gravity? if gravity-in-time?time-in-gravity? if gravity-in-time?time-in-gravity? if gravity-in-time?time-in-gravity? if gravity-in-timegravity-in-timegravity-in-timegravity-in-time if?

if gravity-in-time?

if time-in-gravity?

if

time-in-gravity

if gravity-in-time

graityintimeif-graityintimeif-graityintimeif-graityintimeif-graityintimeif-graityintimeif-graityintimeif-graityintimeif-graityintimeif-graityintimeif-iftimeingravity-iftimeingravity-iftimeingravity-iftimeingravity-iftimeingravity-iftimeingravity-of

if

gravity-in-time

iftimeingravity

of

time in gravity

if

if space-in-gravity—? if gravity in space? if space-in-gravity? if gravity in space? if space-in-gravity? if gravity in ————–space?———————————————————————if space-in-gravity? if gravity in space? if space-in-gravity? if gravity in space?if space-in-gravity? if gravity in space? if space-in-gravity? if gravity in space?if space-in-gravity? if gravity in space? if space-in-gravity? if gravity in space?

if gravity gravity in space?

if space space spcing spacing space in gravity?

if space if space-in-gravity? if gravity in space?

if time time timetimetimetimetimetimes times times space in gravity in time ifspaceingravityintimein timein timing-gravity in space in if

if space if time if gravity if ifififif iff

if

gravityintime

timeingravity

gravity inspace

gravityin time

in space

if time in gravity link if time with gravity link if time and times gravity link gravity in space and space of if gravity energy timespace?

1. nnn
2. ^^^^^
3. 0-0-)(*

what is it?

idk..

However, just for now at least, or forever between you and me:

Line 1. = curliness downwards | Line 2. pointedness upwards | Line 3.= neitherness of line 1 and 2.

Now perhaps we can do various pointed curliness stuff like
1112332
or
131323132112
etc..?

I think this might be kind of interesting but too code/communicative like and not flex enough like a proper language. eg made of sense-able sounds that have confabulatory ranges of meanings… (eg red is not just “stop!” as in traffic lights, it can be seduction, or importance (red carpet) etc..)

A more communicative example/illustration:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/sounds-you-cant-unhear/373036/

A Note to Imagination? (a note to self?)

Well.. It suddenly seems to me that all this rhythmic pursuits might give an impression, both for my senses and others’ – that am being a rhythmisist. That am considering rhythms to be a sort of prime of all Beings.
It occurred to me while checking people like Graham Harman and his objects that perhaps for him Objects are a way to explain stuff which other ways not Do not – but Can not. (eg he talks about emergence and change that networks and non-objects(?) respectively do not explain, as examples of why Objects are sort of more “correct”)
For me though, this sounds very superficial. Who am I, or why would I even be interested in “explaining” – let alone “everything”?????!!!!!
Perhaps this is A difference between philosophy and how art is, in my mind?

In my mind rhythms are sensational elements of interest. Am currently, nor in the past, been interested in objects. Am into lists – eg curiosity re Harman – however for me these are strands rather than objects. Lists sense life as clusters of crossings in temporal operations, not as objects. Perhaps after the rhythmic focus, I might check the Being temporal crossings? IDK

Am simply interested in Being rhythms because it seems fertile. It seems to correspond with many of my confabulations as a person, and the ontology and aesthetics of rhythms doesn’t seem to Be there – in my mind.

This keeps referring to “my mind” because the interest Does come from Me. In that sense it is very much within the Me entity/human checking world/s entities – in terms of directing my focus into X trajectory or another. Perhaps I do not direct, but sense it as directing.
In fact, directionality – the sense of – is an element that could perhaps be its own aesthetics too. Again, because it seems to me that elements – operations – indeed Objects too, sense being as spaceless directions. Directions in beyond time-space, perhaps trajectories is better describing that? A movement beyond space and time that Happened to be in this universe?

On some other side of this discourse, am also interested that rhythms do not Disallow/deny objects or networks, or even territories. However, they are being denied by objects, etc..