This is a philosophy of tacit-form, rather than explicit form. A good analogy for conceptual understanding, could be riding a bike. The PowerPoint presentation on how to ride a bike would be the explicit form of knowledge. Where one would explore and silo as much knowledge as the could on how to ride a bike. This, however, would not mean that one actually knows how to ride a bike, as the determination could be understood with the tacit-form. One enthused about riding a bike, would soon discover they haven't understood the maneuvering involved in their distinct center of gravity.
Meaning, there is a distinction between the explicit form and the tacit form. One who, for example, is a champion of bike-riding at the X-games, or Olympics, wouldn't have to be an explicit-form expert to remain a tacit-form expert. Nor would their motivations have to align with the explicit-form to demonstrate excellence of the tacit-form. Much like an excellent bike rider, of the tacit-form, doesn't mean one would be the best candidate for being a bike mechanic, likely a book of knowledge involving a heavy emphasis on explicit form. This isn't to say an individual, over time, both emphasizing explicit or tacit form, wouldn't cross over and develop into a well-rounded form, the established emphasis and difference would remain. If one is a professional bike-rider, competing, that wouldn't be the same emphasis as one who is repairing bikes. So when I say tacit-form, in relation to philosophy, I have this difference noted.
The focus, wouldn't be of the trivial play of category, which is what the colonial mind, of static cultivation, considers when delving into this notion of philosophy. All of us remain predominately influenced by this limited institutional form of arrangement, so there will be these trivial plays often, of philosophical notion belonging to authorship, and the discussion on the basis of the static cultivation, which is misguided in relation to my "philosophy cultures" activities. That is, there is a dynamic form of language arrangement, that would need to be explored, of measures, organizing on a basis that would surpass the very abilities of the human mind. Still, the human mind, remains needed, considering one needs to contextualize and curate tacit-form methods, to figure out what forms achieve best, for a particular task. This to me, isn't profound. This would be like one learning to maneuver a bike or skateboard, and then formalizing the activities into a form embraced by social norm. I don't care what Deleuze had to say, or what Deleuze book was written. I care about the methods that establish some measure, some consistency measure of generalized form to be more exact in my current interests.
Something that actually establishes a sound basis, which a mind of static cultivation, even among the age of reason, post-modernity, and the like, bound to an arbitrary and universal arrangement of the language, could not achieve, by design. I think of this form, as a bike, or skateboard with square tires. There is the illusion of maneuvering, of what we deem knowing, and yet, the arrangement impedes actual dynamic maneuvering (of arrangement), of what is clear among our animate design, of any foundational basis involving and evolving interactivity. So here I am, among this analogy, on a dynamic-form skateboard (round wheels) maneuvering with the dynamic arrangement of the language, among a networked tradition ready to critique, among static-form skateboards (square wheels) with limited motion, norming my work in a colonial manner, which doesn’t actually work. The explicit-form shared has followed suit, tested for the trivial verbiage, and yet, I am maneuvering in relation to tacit-form, in relation to understanding a distinct relation with a center of gravity, interacting with the dynamic arrangement of the language. The goal, for me, at least for now, is simply to produce emergent models that will serve in relation to the informatic quantum, of books. The process essentially would be a dynamic form of comparative modeling.
I say cultures, like that of a petri dish, where there are ways of controlling cultures, with tacit-form arrangement, but among that form, there remain uncontrollable aspects, among the explicit form. So it is odd when one wants to test the waters with me on the basis of explicit-form. I will chat to chat, but I'm not taking the conversation seriously, nor am I that concerned about saying something that would be deemed, among this odd notion of "age of reason," as being "intelligent" among the explicit form, which isn't possible in relation to the static form of language cultivation. To be able to interact with unstructured information in this way. This is like being a new type of gardener. Much like the work with the tacit binder, I can take an unkempt bush of information and transform it into some kind of topiary. This could be useful? This wouldn't be my call or place, but as I have already demonstrated, the dynamic form has newer capacities in relation to language arrangement. I do think there is the potential to creatively respond to critical challenges with these newer capacities, as well as opportunities for significant institutional development, both public and private.
