Pulses (laser)Let's be clear about patterns-for. For doesn't mean for a conscious (human) observer. It means that in order for there to be a pattern there has to be 1+n objects.
A rhythm is an interaction between 1+n objects. An element of rhythm is called a beat. Think of sound. Lots and lots of beats happening quickly (frequency) result in tones. A sonic beat requires one frequency to be canceled out. Rhythms positively guarantee that there is always at least one withdrawn object in the vicinity. Something executes the canceling out of 1+n frequencies, producing a pulse or sequence of pulses.
Heard sound, for instance, is when beats interfere with the beats already occurring in your ear.
The configuration space in which the patterns of the patterns of the patterns...happen is what Jarrod Fowler calls rhythmicity, and Quentin Meillassoux calls hyperchaos. Why chaos? From this perspective (OOO), because of that 1+n. At least one object is not accounted for in the system—for there to be a system. There is at least one contradiction at any state of the configuration space. This is what reality is.
1 comment:
Very Whiteheadian. The many become one and are increased by one. That's rhythm, no?
Where are the objects here - a single beat? the polyrhythmic combination over a certain period of time? Are these all 'sensuous' objects rather than 'real' ones? Are the drummers, and the drums, the only real objects, with everything else in the picture (the coming together to play, the rhythms, the motion as bodies incorporate it in their sway and dance, the musical event as a whole, etc) merely 'sensuous'?
I've read Graham's stuff on 'real' versus 'sensuous' objects, but I don't like the way the dichotomy sets up a certain kind of privileging of what's more real and what's less real. The sensuous, the relational - these to me seem like the real stuff of life... Or maybe I'm misremembering what I read based on my own kneejerk reaction to the dichotomy. In any case... I'm still trying to figure out why, with your attentiveness to the rich liveliness of things, you're so keen on the 'objects' (to the point where you're expanding the vocabulary to include hyperobjects, which to me seem all the more 'sensuous' rather than 'real' in Graham's sense). The rhythm continues...
Post a Comment