First identify the substance of space as a single homogenous space, for example, an Ether or catchall for electromagnetic waves. Is movement impressed into this homogenous space by a continuous series of waves that are always leaving a trace, while prehending the potential of its next position? Even movement emanated from subtle bodily circulations sustain our immersion in this Ether, for these are waves we continually disturb by simply being alive. This constant impression in space maps our passage, and the waves we produce intermingle with other waves to create the most abstract of associations.
Besides the mechanisms that allow moving images to be humanly perceived, the cinematic image itself, as it moves, disturbs no waves. Or does it?
The light that emanates from the screen, (without perception, a flickering dance in the electromagnetic spectrum) is actually communicating with this Ether: an ephemeral conversation made up of waves. But the image itself is not disturbing waves in this spectrum.
What if we replace Ether with substrate?
Philosophically, a substrate is the “dark side of substance”.
If I contend that the cinematic image itself, as it moves, in relation to the electromagnetic spectrum disturbs no waves, is it void of substance as well and thus cannot be included in the nomenclature of a given substrate?
No comments:
Post a Comment