Space cannot be framed.

[Mellowmarsh]

Art is natural it resists confinement. The nature of art is artificial ( framed )

Trying to put a frame around the natural changes its essence. A frame requires a boundary, a beginning, and an end of what has no edge. Any frame we try to place on it is just a temporary boxed in view of it losing sight of its true essence. 

The great square has no corners.

[Joseph Maynor]

The cannot is a framing.  

[Mellowmarsh]

7 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

The cannot is a framing.  

Illusory. 

[Mellowmarsh]

There are no triangles only 3 V’s and 3 Pac-Man’s

 

[kavaris]

Another weird aspect to framing is how you feel, nd how it feels to frame ~And to try to build said *framing* or content inside its framing center ~ via imagination ~ or a felt-space thats being activated by the imagination visa vii ~ its poke and prod

That is to describe how, you can have an active memory of an experience that defies a visual center, but it may exist or " be of", a sortve wire-frame-felt-personality / which itself has application * when its in the drawing center * cause the drawing is something that always happens. Like, our framebuffer has no on or off, that ppart is the *just is*, and the felt space is a modality that might even precede visual building. Unfortunately thats the best i can do in describing it, as ive not wrote any notes on it or anything yet.

 

[Joseph Maynor]

Art is unlimited.  Whether someone resonates with it or not is a second question.  Creation can break any rule, even if it is language and purely fantasy.  

[kavaris]

I guess you could (or u *can, im sure u can take it however u want too) just boiled down what i said to a *felt-space* in etymological sensing (feeling that is itself the truth, since its direct, but its also just relevant to you in telling the story ~from a place very much unlike anything that looks like a visual or storyish realm)

Edited 5 hours ago by kavaris

[Mellowmarsh]

18 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Art is unlimited.  Whether someone resonates with it or not is a second question.  Creation can break any rule, even if it is language and purely fantasy.  

Creator doesn’t need creation / creation need creator.

If all is one then illusion is truth and the illusion of multiplicity is truth thus resulting in the reality of multiplicity.

[kavaris]

Alls i know is that, alot of us are gonna be up against the edge of creation and understanding; where we are now / it might be different in just a week or two of realizations. Creation from nothing is itself the paradox that keeps on giving. I dont know what it is, what it means to keep pulling out pieces from within. Thats why, when i heard 'creation from nothing, i was like, this'll be the hill we die on, cause it captures everything, as a "resetus" button.

Like, the idea of *words* falls, or comes short of, at the walled-waterfall where we eventually want to invoke istemi anyway, seeing as we will, by definition, be separation, trying to point to unification. There can of course just be practical ideas and realizations within it, but it will, at some point, start to resemble separation, trying to point towards unification.

[kavaris]

(Cont.) So in that way, atleast in a sense, istemi & other words are like agreements, or declarations or constitutions that you have w/ others, like the constitutional, classic words (of your choosing) to represent non oltre, or non piu avanti, or like a "beyond this point, they wont come"

"If they build it, they will (or will not) come" (Magical Latin speaking -in a nutshell). I dont know why i said this now, i just felt like it fit, lol 

Edited 4 hours ago by kavaris

[Mellowmarsh]

A sunset is natural artistry , it can be known as observed just for it’s natural unowned, beauty. The sunset never asks to be admired or says here is my beauty, look at my beauty. The beauty is simply there naturally to be enjoyed beneath the surface of what the mind thinks changing its natural pure essence. Every form is a natural piece of art, artist unknown, yet known in it’s image,  but never seen. 

 

[cetus]

 I find God/ infinity in the negative space. For without the negative space no form would be distinguishable.

[kavaris]

3 hours ago, kavaris said:

"If they build it, they will (or will not) come" (Magical Latin speaking -in a nutshell). I dont know why i said this now, i just felt like it fit, lol 

One last thing ill add, because this is sortve like "the stand, the hold on" ~to something otherwise transient in nature, Theres the deep contrast of like "the change thats made when i perform X", so in another sense of the word, we can fulfill/carry out a sequence of our own making, or we can choose to \*hold on to something or pursue something.

When we go through the motions of purely changing and moving for the sake of motion/change, it doesnt imply that we've taken a hold on anything or have understood anything, Likewise, taking hold of something doesnt necessarily imply that weve made any motion or movement. Like, the sequence behind our doing is not itself synonymous w/ changes in the way one might assume. And im not sure what got me thinking about this idea, but its something that sounded / felt like made sense, beyond the scope of what i cant address directly.

Edited 48 minutes ago by kavaris

[Mellowmarsh]

9 minutes ago, cetus said:

 I find God/ infinity in the negative space. For without the negative space no form would be distinguishable.

One exist because of other as one is rooted in the other. 

[Mellowmarsh]

13 minutes ago, kavaris said:

One last thing ill add, because this is sortve like "the stand, the hold on" ~to something otherwise transient in nature, Theres the deep contrast of like "the change thats made when i perform X", so in another sense of the word, we can fulfill/carry out a sequence of our own making, or we can choose to \*hold on to something or pursue something.

When we go through the motions of purely changing and moving for the sake of motion/change, it doesnt imply that we've taken a hold on anything or have understood anything, Likewise, taking hold of something doesnt necessarily imply that weve made any motion or movement. Like, the sequence behind our doing is not itself synonymous w/ changes in the way one might assume. And im not sure what got me thinking about this idea, but its something that sounded / felt like made sense, beyond the scope of what i cant address directly.

To move, an object must travel into empty space. Since empty space does not exist, motion is impossible.