[NetBehaviour] passing through

[Bjørn Magnhildøen]

Great post, photo, - and questionmarks --- the knot somehow??

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Alan Sondheim <sondheim at panix.com> 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.)