Great post, photo, - and questionmarks --- the knot somehow??
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Alan Sondheim <[email protected]> wrote: > passing through > > http://www.alansondheim.org/schooling52.jpg > > what does it mean, that space passes through space? that time > passes through time? one space can pass through another; one > time can be embedded in another. but to pass through? a > translation - affine, dilation, diminution - or space? a circle > passing through a circle, a sphere through a sphere? or cross- > dimensional, a sphere through a circle, circle tangent to > hypersphere, any manifolds of any dimension passing through any > manifolds of any dimention, but the embedding? two spaces into > one, one set of coordinates - as if there were an all > encompassing space or infinite-dimensional space and then of > what order of infinity - the highest order conceivable, beyond > that? - in any case, if two objects pass through each other in > an embedding space, does space not pass through space? or no, > space does not pass through space, and perhaps this is > meaningless, think of definitions of dimension for example - so > then I think of metaphor (the 'I think' already implying mind > somewhere along the line of passage - and mind already implying > contamination, contagion) - like water through water - that's > possible - glass through glass, but then there's viscosity to > consider, thought through thought? time through time? rates > might well be different, neutrino for example, the experience of > time, the rate? but that's not quite the same thing (but then > there are time rates and velocities passing through other time > rates and velocities, at least around them, but 'through' them, > and then what happens to momentum, is time always leaping > forward, but then positrons for example might as well be moving > in reverse, and then what?)- for example people passing through > a city, psychogeographies; the metaphor of passing, passage, > paysage, the figure of speech, the figural, tends to dissolve - > and if, upon dying, upon the universe heads towards structural > annihilation - we are capable of becoming space, becoming time, > space-time, but I see these, then, as separated (senseless!) - > that broken flux - bad physics and cosmology - and nothing else, > thought gone in the gone world - then what? as 'then' itself > disappears - universe without consequence - but a survival > dependent upon the lack of witness - inconceivable, as well as > 'why is there being rather than nothing' - (think of the > differend of the differend for example) - another example, but > what of this nothing that from the previous (temporal, spatial, > space-time) boundary of the container (think of the weight of > time) - existence of mind, apparatus, proton (half-lives to all) > - is postulated, promulgated, always approaching, like the death > of organisms, promulgation itself; such promulgation then > naturally - one believes - self-annihilates over inconceivable > times and distances (or no time, no distance, no measuring, no > measurement left, no observer) - that's it, at that interval or > segment, nothing has passed through, neither interval nor > segment; in another universe, something that, theoretically as > well, must, of necessity, be bypassed, a local disturbance (from > without), elsewhere and elsewhen, internally not at all - such > that from the other side of the boundary, that construct must > appear as knot, aporia, entangled in annihilation, entangled in > a not, or not at all - (they're thinking about us, about our > 'condition,' elsewhere, elsewhen, cut off, just as we are, now, > for the moment of survival, structure, semiosis, as, for > example, an example or hypothetical, that knot which is the > example, that hypothetical which always elsewhere, elsewhen, is > not.) _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
