On a January evening in 2009 while reviewing some notes [in Tamil Nadu, India], I revamped a thought as concerned the adoption of a rule or code of discipline on the part of the ascetic artist in contrast to the tenets of the scientific researcher. While adopting methodologies both the ascetic and the scientific worker deliberately assumed rhetorical and procedural posturing. In primary contrast to the scientific rule, though, ascetic tradition retained recognition of its analytic agency's inexorable breach of the feigned restrictions embedded in its organisational hypothesis and clearly, if tacitly, attested thereby the excessive veneration and ultimate collapse of both its theoretical blueprint and impracticable execution. The corresponding natures of these dissimilar approaches were furthermore brought into crisp relief through the typification of their signature provisos: hypo-thesis and hyper-thesis, respectively. At the very core of religious venture resided the assumption or article of faith that discipline - practice - delivered one over to a preconceived realm of transmutative good. In contrast to this, the analytic colleague was logically committed to roll with the hunch as a formerly supplanted now superseding task to be thoroughly self-vetted for its hypothetic constancy. Inbuilt further to this technical charge was the correlate systematic obligation to formulate predictions, hypertheses if you will, and to posit notionalities conjecturally inferred exteriorly to the ordered set of freely given data. This summoned at once a modal array of "distilled order" (tertiary) activants and accelerants exemplifying (notably), discovery, invention, dispersion, and birth.
Inadvertent naturalistic calligraphic tendencies of literati colour-field non-figuration whose outcomes exemplify not the expression of the individual or its cult but serve the collective documentation, curation and advancement of ascetic-arts knowledge.