My best,
never to be mine, are
moments in memory that are

relational without explicit condition
and without explicit intent
nor with the intent of physical transaction

The transaction occurred metaphysically
The transaction was a side effect
of the transitional nature of the in-between

The transaction of the intangibles were in function
of fleetingly maintaining, ever so shortly,
the potential of relation,

beyond the fetal state of that relation
where the relation most likely, yet not intentionally,
would not grow beyond

Even in relationships that endured very long
and some still are continuing
the moments of depth, bond and passion

are mainly those of metaphysical fleeing, seemingly un-calculated, spontaneous, short-lived, unrepeated de-habiting interactions; with integrity or authenticity. They occur in meters and stanza, spaces and pauses, and rhythms and tempos unknown, changing yet familiar and the fade, they fade, the fade is heavenly uninhabited and uninhibitedly human.

All the while these relationships too find depth in the custom, habit and ritual no longer in need of negotiation yet filled with mutual respect, compassion and nuanced care. Those moments that are not taken beyond a pinnacle of saturation and fade in satisfaction before any sourness or staleness sets in. They exist because they do not have to.

These moments are not mechanized, not reproduced, not automated. Possibly they are not even anthropomorphic yet they are humanly experienced. They are not capitalised neither in letter nor in cent. They do follow sequence and arguably they have some algorithmic pattern as much as we can see a facial pattern on the surface of Mars.

Yet such models would lack the intangible they had intended to capture: “I was there.” And when they do claim to contain the experiences, they shall be adapted, or abandoned for yet another unforeseen, even serendipitously so. In their eagerness such models would confirm an ungraspable ontology of the anti-ontological.

What are these moments in memory? None possible to be actually reproduced yet actually there following intentional triggering. The events are memorized, fantastical structures allowing to trigger the sensation of the indescribable moment. All in all nonsensical these moments are when tried to be verbalized; as the words here are attempting, and failing. Would Magritte now rise as an event to one such moment or one such set of moments?

What are these moments in memory triggered by what events? The events of an imagined memorized past could have been those few minutes standing in front of an artwork while an other human was standing there as well. Or, I now imagine, I was Tintin’s dog while standing next to a human; a not-Tintin human. Not saying a word. Not being explicitly acknowledged, except perhaps with that fleeing movement of air when peacefully moving around the artwork. Now the artwork becomes a sculpture, or an artifact, of three dimensional potential; since we are crossing each other while walking around the work; four dimensionally. An attribute of the moment adored here is, for instance, a probability of being there (five) as Milou while being non-physically entangled with a non-comical human being (six), who might have sought and brought to mind a similar history of the art work being observed, as I was observing (seven). Or, better yet, a probability that it was a human, standing there with me in relation and via the artwork, who might have conjured up an entirely different story from the one I was (eight dimensionally). Who needs to know, really? Yet, we were there: relationally (collapsing space and time).

It could have been a moment triggered by an absurd event created by engaging with a grocery store clerk who was asked for a type of vegetable –and that in the most serious of ways– that didn’t and still does not physically exist. The grocery store clerk or owner might have started off thinking to be engaging in a transactional event, yet quickly might have realized the trick, and directed the inquiry to another grocery store, further down the street. To a store that didn’t exist, because it was never visited by the inquirer. Did the man in the store play along or whisk away? Who needs to know a singularity of the event, really?

An event could have been that singing of a song, forgotten now and a song nonetheless, while walking. It was a song convoluting the event with having someone cross the street and walk along me for a bit of the way, imagined to be doing so because she was enjoying the vocalization. Then the song ended and we parted ways: untouched, unspoken, unwatched.

Or more silently and serene, it could have been that crossing of sight when aiding someone in need, without lingering time allowing to be reimbursed for the effort by word or deed. Not saying a word, not introducing, not accolading. Not adulating, not debasing.

In non of these moments lies epic heroics. There neither is violent conquering and ripping up someone’s space, nor violating their being or restricting their becoming, nor a taking of their integrity as if some rightful collectable on a checklist of haves-and-still-need-to-gets.

These events and these moments, leading to these relationships, do not include these actualities at all. These moments might be(come) by means of that what is not (“actual” or psychical). There in those in-betweens there is nonverbal and Brownian acknowledgment at levels of unspoken relation, fleeing yet simultaneously universal, infinite, as the over-used adage hints of the proverbial universe looking onto itself.

Then it passes, then they pass
ever to remain

unexpectedly
.

—animasuri’22

pervertedly note-taking… of resisting the common sensed structures, of Quine, W.V.’s 1948 “On What There Is,” of symbolic AI, of the 2022 Nobel price in Physics, of the Belgian cartoonist Hergé — not to mention the painter that is not— (of the Belgian, since the memory of the events suggests these events took place in Belgium while the memories are now localized in a brain in Beijing and even more “now” superficially hinted at here or there and there as digital signals), of plagiarism and of automated taking as if a new automated peer review (this latter which has been bluntly copied from well-respected academics on LinkedIn).”