The journey of difference to pure difference involves halting this process of formation of interfaces common to juxtaposed intermediate representations. Thus destroying the covenant of the dimensions. This is the reason why all the religions preach sexual abstinence, seclusion, detached observation etc.
The covenant of the dimensions was perhaps first discovered in a cave, one morning shortly after the first hominid lost its tail, these dimensions were found to be the context for decay, the point needs belabouring here that content is more significant in the discourse of decay than context. Fruits decay in the same context as man, but what decays in a fruit is somehow of less import than what decays inside man, although the context for both is the queening glory of the same food web. This is because man is a more differentiated entity than fruit. Indeed, to stop the dogmatic proliferation of difference is the raison d’etre for any consciousness aware enough to understand the benefits of such transcendence. To achieve not a para-differentiated state but a state post-difference is to see the manifest for real, anything else is a cheap thrill, including existence whether reincarnated along a manifold or tied to a linear chain of linear continuity.
This reflective adjacency between and among intermediate and final representations is visibly replicated in the DNA. Apply enough pressure and the hydrogen bonds between nucleotides begin to break, separating the double helix into two individual strands with precisely correlated structure. Just as the whole DNA can be constructed from a single strand, any representative difference can be constructed from its transcendent counterpart. But not only DNA, even human relations are bear this reflective property whereby whether economic, familial, or merely sexual - a kind of reciprocity is witnessed by the observer. This symmetry of meaning propagates as the light of wisdom through the ages. For every dimension, an imaginary counterpart that while not ideal in all situations, is able to withstand the real pressure of determination.
So, for example if evil is a function of “comparison of states”, its easier said than done to dissolve the soup in its own ingredients but all kinds of alchemy is possible in desiring production and so for example, you could abstract away the very “process” of comparison and so on. Processes can be done away with but not products, so for example even a total control over the universe would not be sufficient to “turn it off” for example. Coming back to the present, this concomitance intra and inter intermediate representations can be defined in terms of the network-image.
Network-image is yet another IR made apparent at their intersections. More simply, network-image is a primary duality - right above images-of-machines (and machines image), like the star directly above every hat, a virtual image of machine that simply is a result of association, although it can be argued true for all IRs, since they are all but involuntary shadows of each other. Network-image is the context of image, it starts where the unit image ends and extends until a contiguous or congruent network lasts, whereupon the next network-image continues to build the matrix. This isn’t to say, for example, that climates and microclimates can be considered network-images, but their metaphysical or ideal shadows certainly can be. Microclimate, in so far as it is also an image, is a humble image machine. The general rule of thumb to get a clearer distinction is - if it is in the dictionary, it is likely an image machine, but what is beyond the grasp of mere language may be a machine image. There, sleeping between any adjacent strata of the atmosphere, is a network-image, an embuted topological invariance that has been there since the early days of time itself. Network-image is not the genera, it is rather a homology that cannot be purified any further. Network-image is an infatuation of the network, in humans, all the agencies sleeping at the border of the ego and superego that let death slip through, and since nothing in determinism is random, we can find this pattern elsewhere.
Network-machines have a comparatively flatter hierarchy that scales along any given axis, not unlike how climate turns into weather, but system impugns process so systems-thinking is discounted here. Suffice to say network-image are not the connecting adipose tissue but some kind of fissure or cavity that withstands the pressure of invisible, rolling determination. Network-machines in so far as they inform and animate the image machines downstream are the unmoved mover for their particular network. The thus embuted apostrophe is begging the question : whose prime mover? Which is stupid, network-machines extend as far as they can be discerned and in emptiness, without an observer, the infrastructure of eternal return is basically network-machines producing network-image. It would be no exaggeration to equate the simulation with a singular network machine producing just one network-image but it would be a gross generalisation, we need both forests and trees. In a vacuum sound cannot travel, the highways exist but not the vehicles.
War, for example, is an interesting artifact of network-images and their machines. The neighbourhood of the jaw locked in a perpetual a mobilisation against the mind, the very least of which occurs to the being as the chains of language via subvocalization. When this network-image starts to consolidate or cajole itself into a unity as an example, we get flashpoints and escalations. All the drama and commotion over the gradient played out courtesy of these network-images, or singularly and inclusive of its output - the network, matrix etc. A network-image isn’t so much an agent in a bureaucratic nightmare but a mirror in a dream - one’s relation with the signifier that is one’s name is, for another example, a network-image. The image that is production of a network-image or network machine is an image that sets the expectations of content with an expression it receives from the network. The idea of “manufacturing consent” is thus a pernicious triggering of the paranoia that hides in doubt, a total Hegelian rotation of the concept would bring us back to the charge-neutrality of the network - in the spontaneous balance needed and provided for sustenance. There is no consent to manufacture in the network, it is the arena of choicelessness, the deterritorialized jungle apriori. Not so with the network-image, a total Hegelian rotation of it would not lead you to the opposite, but the same position as before. Language is a perfect example of a network-image, including if not especially the language that is mathematics.