The Alan Sondheim Mail Archive

October 20, 2015

passing through

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

viola trio good sound best sound

1st viola w/ mute midrange
2nd viola w/ mute hirange
3rd viola no mute lowrange

viola by John Juzek after 1941

(wanted to play this for a long time)

Generated by Mnemosyne 0.12.