Informatic Key

 In terms of endogeneity and exogeneity, I will be working with an informatic key, that works from a basic, generalized model, where the concepts do serve as some informational precipice for interactive thinking. That is, based on consistency measure, the terms by informatic design, reasonably serve as the contextual backdrop in relation to exogenous and endogenous materials. The informatic model itself, is derived from a professionally curated work, of colonial cultivation. With this informatic key, I can then derive concepts from exogenous and endogenous materials explored. 

Informatic Chrysalis

I don't take this form of language arrangement seriously. I hold an interest in terms of the impact of this form's rigid structure, like that of the Deleuze model where a Language::Based::Abstract becomes impacted on the basis of Single::Assemblage that would form concrete notion. I think in the opening of this ::Bridge:: as I shift modality, there is this polemical residue, which the structural arrangement will address. Meaning the work begins with a movement away from the colonial cultivation, as the initial phase, of the informatic, would be a transitional state, away from colonial institutional form. The modality, the mode, wouldn't be this self-deemed assertion, rather, the method and the comparative modeling, of colonial form in relation to informatic form will be the dynamic. This hasn't been done before.  The bridge itself, would involve something like that of Deleuzian Refrain, of which matters interact between some form of endogeneity and exogeneity, like a consideration of, a between, among poles.  Obviously, when we are interacting between an endogeneity and exogeneity there will be unexpected patterning, likely of a notion of chaos, of which we can respond in a variety of ways, at the Colonial level, and at the DeColonial level, of informatic form. The informatic models guide and structure, while among the colonial cultivation, even with AI, we have enhanced capacities of rapid growth, like that of a bush with some form of fertilizer. The unstructured form can grow rapidly, from inches to feet overnight, to offer an analogy. The informatic form, quickly reshapes the form into something meaningful, something guided, something that can work in relation to a larger scheme among an entire landscape.  Similar to the landscape, I think of matters associated with modernity, post-modernity, his-tory, grids, systems of codification, capitalism, circulations (like labor and capital), and the materializing forms driven by the synergies. We have a new forest. This would be an informational forest, unkempt. I think there is a lot to explore and discover in terms of informatic experimentation and discovery, of which yes, there is the modeling form itself, like libriatics, but then there is the interactive form, of the informatic in relation to the existing institutional arrangement, like that of philosophy cultures, that works with something that might be a manifestation of Deleuzian influence, though I can't really say for sure. That is, to offer sobering insight, we are not of a Deleuzian time, any more than we are of a post-modern time, as there is this newer capacity to arrange the language differently. A time, where the basis of even education wouldn't need to begin from a book, nor would one, considering the flaws of the colonial arrangement advise this basis for anything educational. The book, of the colonial arrangement, would be a raw material that needs to be refined, before use. I do believe academia needs to begin with some form of informatic chrysalis instead. There is now the opportunity and capacity to begin with consistency measures first, to identify key concepts, establish socially normed methods, of which we explore those concepts, based upon such measure. 

Shifting modalities

This transition from a narrative computation modality to a "Philosophy Cultures" modality will be exciting, but the transition is difficult. We "humans" are fortunate in terms of brain plasticity, so the modality can always shift, which remains interesting to me, of dynamic spaces opening in relation to some form of interactivity. Still, I think of this notion, like "we are creatures of habit," so there isn't simply conscious control among the experimentation, even if there is conscious control.  Still, there can be structures that counteract habitual patterns as we rewire.  The structuring, even for the Philosophy Cultures site, does something like this I would think, as we address single assemblage and linear understanding.  All in all, this is enjoyable. It's my very own basketball diaries to Gilbert Grape and beyond.  It's not a conventional existence, but I can't go for the safe and sound, when a ding in the universe can be had. If I went the safe and sound path, and I'm not knocking it, but if I did, I would likely wilt out of sheer boredom.  I have to cultivate a process that pushes the rigor further.  Granted, after years of pushing matters, I am easing up with philosophy & art. It's time. I've turned a bit grey, and I know someone else who is entirely grey, and there are people I grew up with, who I've seen at work, and we are all chickens who missed the spring now. One foot in. Only a matter of time until we blossom fully into our potential as chicken of the sea. Canned. And as the mirror fades to grey, the meaning involves modality form. A dynamic modality does seem to open one up to a better livelihood, regardless of reflections in the mirror. Not of superficial smiles and happiness, or "reassuring" literal universals ad nauseum, but a gratifying sense concerning something underlying the fade. I appreciate the shifting modality. Life isn't this mysterious, inexplicable form, even among this sensory chaos. Between the superficial polarities, there is this pulse to matters, so greying doesn't bother me, and I don't sense this linear passage of time, fleeting.  There's just this new emergence among an ongoing process that is something to look forward to, that offers a genuine sense of gratitude among the inevitable frictions of a mirroring world in disarray. There is this interaction between them, so I can be okay with both. I can also have fun being a lively curmudgeon of a desired humorous grumpiness that is sobering and yet uplifting. At least, that seems to be my flavor. Optimistic, even if I say the world is going to hell in an artisanal handbasket if we are lucky. What can I say?  I enjoy a good artisanal handbasket like enjoying a good development of shifting modality. Something with an interesting pulsation, at least; Something like a tea kettle heating up, or my shoes on spin cycle, of some unexpected patterning, among the expected. This is what I mean. 

Comparative Modeling & Tacit-Form Philosophy

 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.