When the term ‘lived experience’ entered my lexicon, it was on the basis of a question on being(existence) via Fanon, the reply to that (if pursued) was to be wrapped in the time frame of the term ‘lived experience’. On researching, it did not follow my question, yet just used a component of it in terms of an observational trait, to be instituted.
As this did not satisfy my actual experienced research. That line of investigation ended.
The shape was not an analytical construct , yet as now having a presence it will know doubt be.
Point one, a certain program created it. The same program exported it.
Point two, a particular manufacturing process could print it. Both the creation and its subsequent learning were different to anything I knew beforehand.
The expectations of then known norms to produce it were speculations before seeing it through. Those proved it could not be done. However as it was present to view, which by default of the associated trade meant it could be manufactured.
Beyond the hand created versions that proved conceptually it was possible, no other reasonings are necessary. The properties the form possesses are consequential.
Believe it or not. The end.
Part of my lived experience? yes. Do I use it to address what was not? debatable! probably not. Did I learnt from the experience?, yes. Desire to fit into the realm that did not dream of it or know of it, is not a question for me, it might be for you. I have expressed its journey and what was before.(literally)
Once those learned readers/viewers acknowledge this, this post will not need to be here. Waiting