Not Elementals, Indescribable Whats

Date sent: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 00:14:30
From: A. Jenn Sondheim

Not Elementals, Indescribable Whats

(4)If not primordials, not elementals, indescribable whats, imaginaries, you might think of a _singularity_ as a name, you might think of a _chaotic domain_ as Jennifer (you never know!), you might think of clean bifurcations or splits as hypertextings. Then Jennifer is already past or prior to the name, and what's Jennifer? Think of a conflation of _tellings_ or strands, think of irruptions, momentary forgetfulnesses within the strands - all within the chaotic domain. Then are we looking into the movements, say, of the damped(1) and driven(2) pendulum(3)?

(1)wetted, slowed, Jennifer returning speech to silence, silence to touch, touch to taste, taste to ground(4) (2)driven, heated, Jennifer interfering with systems resonances (3)pendulum, pendulous, Jennifer rocking back and forth, echolalias across applications, eddying rings(5)

(5)Spreading out, spanning (bandwidths), borderline personalities frayed at the edges, margins, potential wells.

Swollen tumescences, convexities; meniscus lenses, sinusoidal meanderings: dependent upon metric geometries. But not the meanderings themselves. Well Jennifer might put it this way, there are so many tellings, they make a space, even though it doesn't seem like one. You've got to add the protocols to make everything visible, Peirce's sheet of assertion at the least.

But the tellings don't need that, don't need the breathings, well only for you to see or hear or touch or taste or smell them. But that's an emanation.

Musing on Elementals

Having spoken of elementals as qualitative morphological changes, such as collapse to or expansion from, singularities (into and out of chaos or other bifurcation regimes), I now retreat from 'elemental,' which is far too mythologizing, too harrowing. For I do not mean to imply anything beyond _elementary,_ that these are primitive operations, perhaps -- not primitives themselves. Negation is a primitive (as well as an operation); what might be called a spurt or collapse isn't, at least in the same sense. On the other hand, it might be worthwhile to construct a logic of spurts and collapses, splits and sutures - a _viscous_ logic between, say, standard fuzzy logic and the propositional calculus. Call this the calculus of _rills_ ("small streams, runnels, or rivulets"), which have a tendency towards whitewater, mini-waterfalls, bifurcations, desiccation as well. In other words, _eliminate the primordial_ in favor of the imaginary and see what results. Such a logic could be developed temporally or not; if so, for example, a bifurcation of a bifurcation is still a bifurcation, (bi*bi = bi), while a singularity from a bifurcation is a singularity (bi*si = si). In fact we have in general (xy = y); the system has no memory. If however, we proceed in terms of non-temporality we might send fuzzy markers through a network, and wonder about their potential appearance at any point. Again, this seems simple; if there are X number of paths, then the overall appearance at any path might be 1/X, unless the paths are weighted. There's no need for a special logic here.

In fact we see that the logic is always close to useless, and relates to fuzzy set theory. Instead, perhaps, one might speak of contractions and expansions (tied into couplings and linkages presented elsewhere), lending themselves towards collapses and spurts, splits and sutures. We might insist that these operations aren't necessarily the basis of logic, but the quality of the world itself. We might add annihilations and creations to complete the morphological taxonomy. We might find ourselves close to Heraclitus at this point.


logos links future demos past
Comments? Contributions? Write to Serchan.