What is art? What is beauty?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2018 3:04 pm


Post by pulcinella » Sun Sep 23, 2018 3:15 pm

By combining the net objectification with the structure of semantic semblance proper to introversion, the corresponding morphological-visual of a certain moment-duration lying on, or better impressed by, what we will define as amorphous, is interspersed for focalization, which adopt a possible morphological appearance. In fact, the recognizable form is a semantic morphological relationship between the subjective and the object articulation of perceptive individuation.

The morphological correspondent, lying on a certain position conceived, loosens the prescindable bonds of the first instant and becomes ductile causal sync of the random expression and, as the imagination can operate as synecdoche of the conscience, such ductility is semantic expression impressed in the moment duration precisely of the metaphysical perception of the subjective.
The formal memory on the same spatial plane specifies one of the morphological possibilities, while the articulation of different visual planes can mature a detachment from the static system and develop a self-formation of morphologies (as in the changing relation of details or in de-focusing , ie in the position of the visual focus near or far from the object plane).
The form and the meaning attributed are determined by the presence of the significant subjective and the objective signifier, here distinguished as the professed and the professing. These, like the moment-duration, can be said to be interspersed with sudden symbolic semantics.
The formal language in the amorphous form is therefore an adaptation of the subjectivity impressed to the semantic possibility of the symbol, which lies either on the relationship of meaning, or on the possible pareidolia, or on both overlapping possibilities, or on the form released from the significant - which last possibility embodied in the rotation of private forms of the speculation of consciousness.

*the different focalisations are driven to objectification by more or less evident pivotal points and linked to the transience of the subject-object mimesis. As mimesis can continue in the rotation, these hinges "last" until the perceptive attention is moved to other synoles.
************************************************** ***********
The morphologies therefore change with the change of the moment-duration of the perceptual, which joins the momentary imaginary of the subject-object. As a morphological movement vector, it can be the sensorial dynamics, in this case the view, and more specifically the object focusing of spatial planes and / or conjectured forms, in the same way to conduct the metamorphosis can propose any particular extrinsecation of the present moment to the subject, a recall of a more or less interpenetrated idea, a psychosomatic trait, a second perception added to the attention, such as listening to music or a dialogue, a characteristic smell etc.
Thus the amorphous being can be revealed in its eclecticism both in the visual and in the generic analytical-relational relationships of a subject-object.
In the absence of the harmony of the expressive and impressive biunivative connotations of the presentation of the relations of the objectifying and objectified subject, sinolo will be the result of negative etymologies with respect to the moment-duration of the subjective harmony (or identifying microcosm).

An advice on how to approach the design: frame, wait, focus and wait again for new focus. Ask the text to help you ... &theater[u][/u]

Therefore, by amorphous we must understand what is of changing objectification.
As the metamorphosis of objectification is lasting or falls according to the observation of morphologically uncertain plans, the perception of a "known" saying follows the belonging of the contemplative action of the said microcosm, which lies either on the previous information or on a changing relationship of the animated objectification of the reality of existence in its different objectifying and objectified levels.
The conscious extraction, if we want to be dialogic, of the relationship (s) object-object, is represented by the perceptiveness in directional relation in both the verses of the objectifying and the objectified, gushing in the moment-duration of the cyclic-spiral reiteration of the microcosm particular. The object side of the image can therefore be so internal (as a memory or an imaginative fantasy) as it is external.
Assuming an experimental possibility of the possible microcosm tending to the infinity of the potentialities of the "objectual and subjective" actuality, intuitible as a point without boundaries by the infinite possible centralities (these not necessarily concerning this totality) the dialogue between an object (s) and a form can lead to the infinite presentation of the particularity, a relationship postulated by the real truth in the momentary "apparent" of the presence of the generality in their manifestations.
The essence of the conscious relation of immediacy is emanated from the continuous presentation of forms, declined according to the participation of the being in extrinsecation.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest