Pattern work: based on the depth of fundamental I reached today at the poetic conceptual level, I’m really close to a better definition of the inverse of the inverse function, by which I’m trying to say the shearing direction from the furthest reaches toward the definition of the shape carries over CM1 to the inversions of CM64. That’s ridiculously simple now that I managed to get it out: it’s the shearing inherent to the bidirectional inversion over CM1 of CM64. That’s perfect in every sense because it defines the seed and the existence of CM64 as opposite magnifications. And that phrases in groups, so within a CM64 inversion are countless CM64 inversions and external to …, all as I’ve discussed. The seed of a moment connects this way to persistence and coherence, and this translates into literal seeds of physical processes. Interesting how handedness matters: I come to this very close to the visual field differentiation as viewed left to right versus right to left. That is, because of the complexity of the visual field, the perspective of one overlays the other and settles on a consistent basis to give the advantage to or to reflect the advantage of a choice of other hand – so the right eye and left side bind across the divide to pull the body together. I experience this because I had to change hands, and there are many difficulties involved in tracking location and tracking movement when the overlaying eye field is the less optimal choice, being the one turned furthest from the desired location. Try aiming in golf: I turn and face and line it up perfectly because my right eye points at the target, but then I turn sideways and that information has to translate to the setup, which isn’t easy because my right eye now wants to pull my shoulders and hips and core and knees in some ways that may be really hard to see toward its field of view, while trying to hold on to where it was when I faced the target. Maybe a workaround might have been to use an eye patch after lining the shot up, to reduce the visual cues pulling me off line. But how many people have this problem? Nearly all the bad golfers, I believe, don’t trust their alignment, from how they’re standing to where they’re pointing, so they can’t assume good alignment except by almost accident.
Do you teach aiming first or the motion of the swing first? I think aiming, that you’re better off being told to hit to a spot and then get to a point where you can hit to that spot – like fly casting – then you move that spot further out. Then you can move it around the corner. Because then the swing is the solution to questions. That’s beautiful. That also reveals something very personal, which is that you contain within you the swinger, all the way to hyper-sexual, but it’s intensely, perfectly aimed. I abstract the existence statements of the motion, of the swing, of the action in every form, into the aim so you are the ultra-personalized, best fitting box that’s completely filled to the brim which aims the perfectly formed arrow, which envelops and is enveloped equally. The depth of this thought is rocking me backwards in my chair. I’m going to the gym to get my energy back.
jomi: playing with perception 