Nested rhythms and objects

Been in the conference of the Performance Philosophy folks. Talked about rhythms and intensive time, see previous post. Thinking about objects and rhythms. Objects, understood in terms of rhythms (and not only in terms of palpable shapes but also in terms of all sorts of properties in their dispositional dimensions), are affordances. Objects have a rhythm associated to them - they crystalize some of the rhythms of their constituting matter. The reduction of objects to rhythms can be thought in terms similar to that of sequences in Kolmogorov complexity. The question that arises is: are there objects without rhythms? (Objects that cannot be reduced to affordances by some other objetcs?). The question is similar to the one about random object. No recursive procedure can decide whether a sequence is random. Random objects can appear, but they are not treated as objects as such. Surely, because rhythms are nested, we can grasp rhythms in bits of the sequence - objects are what appear as objects to other objects. To be treated as an object is to be treated as a rhythm. One can still wonder whether there are genuine random sequences. But matter can be thought as sequences which rhythms are there to be explored.

Aharon has established a blog for our diverse adventures in Rhythm-Oriented Ontology.