? @ahanon@artoot.xyz

Since, imho, meanings themselves are noisy. They rely on power to keep going. Hence when one might point at the insincerity from a politician urging Love of country while pillaging it's resources (aka bojo)
One could do well recalling that the very way by which such thoughts may make things clear, relies on violent training of people to use that very language

#speculative?
one considers X to be a possibility.
#algorithms might have their own ways to become wind.

#interrogative(??!!)
is to accept the fact that X has escaped one way or another, once uttered, noticed, or was missed.
Hence we are left with questioning how X collapses
- it's rhythmicalablity of vibrations, frictions and intervals.

How an algorithm has become wind?

Whichever the decision will be, i think it will be Self Justifying as a condition. ie
the condition of networking will justify itself be Yes, Later or No.

ie both cheezu and frequency will gain something by networking now, later or never.

Both terms are to do with sharing themselves as well as whatever they may mean and signify. Despite the fact they are from different languages and seemingly unrelated etymologies too.

a sentence as a mini - possibly scalable - network?

Say you are a word.

The word: Frequency.

As frequency - would you be able to live by yourself?

Here's another word:
Cheezu.

Do you network with that word, not, or not for now?

I suspect that in case we want a network that exits centralization the exchange we will find is that of qualities rather than values.

Qualities that justifies themselves, like liquid...

and therefore may require techne rather than techno? (or is this an ideological ask..?)

as the point on nonmonetary quality of #bitcoin demonstrates -
* we have a quality in the network itself.
(eg the fact btc is in fact built upon a network - blockchain.)

and indeed - 1 btc is therefore NOT 1 btc since when in case i want to send You 1btc, one will need to add the network fees - aka gas fees - precisely because the network Is Not the #bitcoin..

land argues that 1 #bitcoin = 1 bitcoin and that forms a condition for exchange rather than a scatology.

ie - unlike, say 1 gbp = n gold that backs the value of gbp. (not true but works for the example)
land thinks that 1 btc is backed by it's own value - hence creating a condition for value oriented exchange.

this, imho, unintentionally slights nick land's view of #bitcoin as outlined in

https://etscrivner.github.io/cryptocurrent/

there is a curious passage here re #bitcoin's *nonmonetary* value.
The idea comes from a general theory of currencies as having to have a quality beyond any given exchange value.

eg - the quality of a #decentralized network.

https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/62430

#bitcoin #crypto #blockchain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQumjBCfEJw

https://lcca.lv/en/

they have a workshop of plants, raspberry pi, unstable networking and their aesthetics later this month.

in #berlin?

https://artlaboratory-berlin.org/exhibitions/under-the-viral-shadow/

https://isea2022.isea-international.org/submit-your-proposal/

https://arthist.net/archive/34743

https://www.disruptionlab.org/powers-of-truth

https://www.outofmanypresents.org/

http://ikgallery.ca/contingent-systems-symposium/

an event of october 1st..

https://nickoal.github.io/Radical-Open-Access-Symposium/

https://www.post-publishing.org/