March 08, 2008
Here are some observations on our interaction with the beaded strings (or necklaces, or anything else people might seem them as):
1) People interact with them in different ways. And the way they interact with them is a result of how they asses the structure and the whole idea of the beads.
2) When two separate beaded necklaces interact, an interlocking system is formed.
3) This achievement is made possible through a support system — the table — in this case.
4) The meaning of the beads changes as we interact with them. There is a departure from its inherited identity.
5) We experiment with what is possible.
6) There is a need to see each bead as its own and not as a collection, an entity.
7) To say that they are all the same may be belittling the work that goes into the making of the beads.
8) They have the same appearance, but upon our interaction with them we can change them, manipulate their appearance, and experiment with the purposes they may serve. Once we interact with them, or noticeably alter their appearance, they are never the same, and they have become somehow different.
9) Sometimes we can document this change by taking pictures — this is a way to satisfies people’s desire to maintain a degree of permanence.
10) Impressions and markings are made that can’t always be seen.
Posted by pbali at March 8, 2008 06:55 PM
Yes, and the table as support system is itself supported --a chain of interdependence, for which the supported beads themselves may be a model.
Departure from inherited identity yes, and a retention of influence of inheritance in models of interacting systems that assume intersection generally leaves (or is able/can be enabled to leave) some form of evidence of encounter whose effects endure for some period of time on some scale.
Interactions support movement in which movement may be forms of change
--within of course, any of this, the range of what is possible within frameworks of circumstances active in an encounter.
Some of the beauty of possibility as a framework, perhaps as a framing system within which "the allness of allness" functions, is how only the possible manifests, and this possible includes what is possible for imagination, the realities possible to establish and maintain there.
The impossible tends not to occur.
And if something presumed impossible occurs, that occurrence immediately becomes possible, occurrence an indication of possibility.
Yes; each bead is a more singular entity; the necklace is a more complex entity, the chain is a more complex entity. Even a single bead contains parts, is not, in the necklace model, necessarily reduced (yet) to the smallest possible unit, though perhaps could serve as a model of that reduction.
The belittling effect may be understood as a function of generalizing to form groups with wider frames, wider boundaries, approaching an allness that can be presumed to be more generalized that the smaller groups and clusters within the all --the more universal, the less specific when considering larger boundaries. In pursuit of common parts at increasingly specific or reduced boundaries, generalized components may also be reached, atomic locations, subatomic locations,
so presumably basic units and increasingly inclusive units tend to emphasize shared content conditions, exclusivity more a function of other scales, circumstances.
And evidence of symmetry too, especially Limited Fork symmetries in which forms of extension contribute to a kaleidoscopic model of existence. Responses to some components of existence participate in this symmetry building, in extending connections.
Yes; the unseen, the unheard, the unsmelled, untouched and yet there --the mysterious? the inexplicable? Can imagination and its landscapes which can't be seen in usual understandings of seeing, requiring an external object to serve as he object of the occasion of seeing (Helen Keller reported being able to see within the mind), its soundscapes which no external vibrations necessarily enter the physical mechanisms of hearing, and so forth; can/should imagination be placed within the unseen, unheard, unsmelled, untouched and yet there, yet real imagined places?
And is it item 10 that offers support for aesthetic expression? Impetus? Inspiration? Creativity --these situations of mind and emotion? Something happens in the brain, the location, few disbelieve, of the mind during creative expression, during aesthetic expression --and more and more of this is being documented, studied.
The beads as those networks, the links between external circumstances and internal responses, which may manifest outcomes anywhere along an internal-external continuum.
So much to consider here --thanks.
Posted by: thyliasm at March 11, 2008 11:23 AMLogin to leave a comment. Create a new account.