Message-ID: <alpine.NEB.2.11.1510201232260.7814@panix3.panix.com>
From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>
To: Arc.hive@tekspost.no
Subject: passing through
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:34:17 -0400 (EDT)
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.)