namzezam
Real name: Erez ElulWebsite: iswith.info
Wikidot.com user since: 1168034579|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z (%O ago)
Account type: Pro
Karma level: guru
Hi, I am namzezam :) my name is Erez Elul and my current project is of ComComizing and invite you to become a ComComist too (see here why should you). You can use this for contact me and if you like join us and be with others an owner of this iswith-platform.
My art is a poetry of integrated contradictions using its language for taking its receiver to meet something out of the language, where all such integrated contradictions have inner relationships making each be better understandable by the others.
Such languages, in which such poetry act, are
Hebrew (poems),
math (from circle of zeros until pile-technology),
logic (the whole vs all)
politics (constitution of its citizens) or
business (comcomism and its derivatives such as comcom social and govcomcom).
For more about
comcomism see http://www.google.com/search?q=comcomism
comcom social see http://www.google.com/search?q=comcom+social
govcomcom see http://www.google.com/search?q=comcomism
constitution of its citizens see http://www.google.com/search?q=constitution+of+its+citizens
e.g.( for the art in logic):
One must first distinguish between 2 types of non-existences prior to having established the concept we may name all, where the types are the one which is attributed to all and which does not include any referable existence whereas the other attributed to any existences included in all and which includes all other referable existences in that all.
Being included is a type of being with, one with the other, but only where one of the pair conditions the accesses and/or existence of the other. e.g. i am in the room, meaning i am with the room, but only such that i could never be (found) unless the room was and the room is in me, meaning the room is with me, but only such that the room could never be (found) unless i was.
Hence it is proposed to well understand 2 types of negation (one referable and the other is not) and distinguish well between all and whole, such that the wholeness of a thing is the thing together with its non existences and such that the last statement together with what ever was not said in that statement is the wholeness of that statement.
Seven or more years ago, I accomplished developing a mathematical theory for organising things (a theory of organising) and already then it was computable. As an algorithm what it does is systematically integrating in recursion, by building while breaking patriarchal-or-tree-like structures, in other words it recurrently relates relations building together a space consisting only of relations, the space then constitutes an equal citizenship of relations and the relations are put-in/pull-from the space in an order defined by the relations. Please contact for to know more about that.
For long time before that, say some 15 years ago or more, such organizing theory was my ambition, as a poet dreaming to break the (binary) concept of (either) inclusion (or) exclusion. and so I could ask:
"Subject and object are distinct" said Rene Descartes, hence the distinction matters, but between being objective and being subjective does there exists other being, is a distinction in itself either an object or a subject, does any distinction between two is to be counted as the third, could we call such third a meta thing and could we avoid counting the matter of such third, as the matter of a distinction is, in any theory attempting to organize things?
Eventually I defined a whole of a thing as the thing together with its non-existences. For more about that initial concept leading to that theory of organizing you can see here satisfactory versus confinement.
Anyhow, nowadays this (mathematical) theory of organizing is proven to be stronger (enabling higher order of expression and based on more alternatives) and more intuitive and flexible then trees or dimensional structures as for providing space into which we put thing for organizing them.
It may sound complex for some experts, but children get along with it much easier and I continued to develop this theory by producing some implication of such organization.
see if you like the p2pcommunities project which you are invited to join in developing but only in ComCom.
gtgl (Good Time Good Luck)
c u :)
All rights reserved.
