overt ones

[noemata at kunst.no]

day and night : aren't we supposed to sleep half the time? that we sleep
one third is our own excess of rationality. how do theology account for
sleep? novalis fragment we finally should rid of sleeping. kind of root,
but what's deep about dark? nothing, and what's deep about nothing? it's
not that light grows out of dark, though goethe might have believed so.
that might give a clue, he's experiencing it through his tree, so that
it seems rooted, might shed light on the primal tree idea. the tree,
supposedly from 'wood', not monad, dyad, tryad. how is romanticism like
a tree? one to three - one is one and nothing can be said, two are at
war, three are rooted, the two are one. bosons in gauge theory, bearers
of the force, integer spin, while fermion, matter, have fraction spin.
you could say these are romantic/classical divide. problems are pushed
into the romantic until later. let's see, particles, and then
necessarily a force between particles, ok, and these forces are, yes,
particles, force-carrying particles, oh, they 'carry' the 'force'?, how
nice, in their rucksack? you could also see it from the particle-wave
dyad. if it's not interfered with it's romantic, having interference,
and if it's interfered with it's classical, having no interference. so
the interference is one place or the other, in 'nature' or in 'science',
in the romantic process, or the classic formula. the bosons are
interfering, bozos, the interference, not obeying the exclusion
principle (related to 'particle' in a sense), like the clown is a
replay, a primal glue, force-carrying particle, two in one, the
travesty. the clown is constantly fixed, constanted, an integer
fractioned into matter spin. we see it the other way, the romantic is a
mess, a force-particle buffoonery, what could possibly come out of it,
oh, just matter.

overtones : it's like nature is counting, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10... for
everything it's counting up, if one, then infinite, weakening but still
counting. because of air, interference in a medium? why should nature be
counting? the overtones would all be fractions, what about irrational
numbers? i once heard music based on primes, it's very noisy, only prime
overtones. where exactly does the irrational come in? i know the
diagonal of the square, what becomes of the diagonal in e.g. overtones?
if you had an irrational chord it would sound forever, or not sound, how
could it sound? to create a diagonal in music would you need another
dimension, is the diagonal another dimension, it's a travesty, we're
back to that. you could also form a triangle that's not irrational, but
it's a relation between three that's possibly irrational. do you need
three, how's the square a three? the two sides are irrational, but the
square is rational, how is that? kind of inverted direction, the
rational is build from the irrational adding dimension. we're used to
view it in the other direction. this all digresses, no way back, it's
broken. what was the riddle, 'cat eats dogfood, but the bowl is broken'?



__

isbn 82-92428-06-2