I have a strong inclination to keep the notepad instance saved as 'White Papers'

such as it is.

Nevertheless, I am unable to amuse myself for a whole day without typing something.
So I am going to title this notepad enstance 'errata' or something like this.
And I am going to fill it with whatever amuses me from day to day until I move into
Portlandia.

(As, notably, I was doing before I saved and closed 'White Papers'.)

I was intending to bliss out tonight.

This would have been aided by having open a notepad instance titled 'White Papers'
which I had agreed with myself I should not alter.
THen on any occasion where I pulled it up to begin typing again,
I would look at its title and say:
"No, this was finished."

And then I would close my eyes again and continue to bliss out.

Having freed myself from the dictates imposed on me by the character occupying
'White Papers' this would have been easy.
I would not feel guilt for not typing whatever ideas came into my head because
that guilt was only constructed as a way for the interlocutor to keep typing.
(in-story, aha.)

--And well,
having reset my sleep schedule and shortly coming up on the 24 hour mark of
wakefulness
I don't intend to stay up too late.

--The practical issue is that I feel a visceral collection of feelings

consistently,
and which consistently I identify as guilt,
when I have an idea and I do not write it down and examine it.

And it is unpleasant to be guilt-ridden.

(It is viscerally unpleasant.)

--
--You know, I have a lingering fear that indeed my work has been spied on,

but someone already established in the community has said:

"Yeah, I made Eric Russell as a pen name.
This was all my work and Eric Russell is all made up."

Making my work open for all conceivable purposes in-text was

a veiled hope at ruining this imagined person's efforts.

--But then there are other funny things emerging from this interpretation.
The person stealing my work says:
"Lol wasn't it funny to make my character talk about shooting himself in the head?"
"No. That wasn't funny to do for the fifth time."
"Okay okay lol, I won't do it a sixth time."

Then it happens a sixth time.

Or in that imagined scenario,

when the thief typed down my readily searchable poems the first time
his interlocutors would be saying:
"It is not okay to plagiarise this person's poems in persuance of a character."

Or when the thief linked my cello videos the same thing.

Or when the thief linked my poems the second and third times.

--Like a fingerprint scanner.

Like a life-fingerprint-scanner.
The story the thief would have to tell behind why it was legitimate to steal this
much work
would grow so implausible {grotesque} that people would eventually reject it and
look for Eric Russell.

--
--You know it is interesting,
when I am out in the garage smoking and thinking words in my head
it feels as if my fingers are typing on the keyboard.

Psychologically I judge this in this fashion:

whenever my voice in my head is being activated,
I am either reading text on this screen or I am typing text on this screen.
I do not think when I leave this keyboard.
--Rarely I make voices appear in my head when I leave this keyboard.
I typically have no use of them.

But there are two very frequent occasions on which I generate this voice in my
head.
On one occasion I am reading text,
and this generates the voice in my head as my eyes follow the text.
--As, say, when I am reading articles or comments on threads.

But on other occasions I am typing text and

on all such occasions I am hearing one consistent voice that is in my head
that is my pre-reading of the text I am currently typing.

--Now so I arrive in the garage and I am compelling a voice to appear in my head

that contains words.
And when I do this, I feel my fingers moving.
It is the feeling I would have been feeling if I had been typing the text that was
being verbalised in my head.

--
--Psychologically I account for this in this way:
almost all of the time a voice is in my head,
it is in my head on the occasion that I am typing text into this notepad instance.

Because it doesn't typically occur in my head when I am walking to-and-fro.

It typically occurs when I am reading articles.
And it always occurs when I am typing text with my fingers.

On almost all (statistically) of the occasions where there is a voice in my head

it is accompanied by my fingers typing out the letters and words one-by-one just
behind the voice in my head.
(Or perfectly concommittant with the presence of the voice.)

--So psychologically I am saying

this very strong association between my ever conjuring a voice in my head
and my fingers being in that moment activated against a keyboard to represent them

results in that when I compel a voice to arise in my head, as when I am out

smoking,
this is so bound to the activity of typing that
I have ghost-sensations of myself typing the text I am saying in my head.

--This is an empirical claim after a fashion.

It is my way of accounting for why I know I felt my fingers moving in the garage
while I was smoking.
But it is not an empirical claim because I have to tell a story behind it that is
not itself directly empirical.

I have to tell a story of

a voice in my head
that does not perfectly correspond to *anything conceivably referencable* by
neurologists.
And since neurologists happened to be the best empirically positioned to discern
the brain pattern corresponding to the voice in my head
and they could not even begin to do this
I know also that no one else could isolate this brain pattern.

So it is an empirical question.
I am telling you something about the way my mind is represented within my brain:
so bound is the arbitrary activity of constructing a voice in my head
with the arbitrary activity of moving my hands relative to a keyboard

that when I smoke and construct a voice in my head

my brain will activate activity within my fingers.--My fingers will move but not
move.
'I will feel them moving but they are not moving.'
(As, in fact, observed by me and noted by the voice.)
(And having been noted by the voice I have typed it down
and been in a position to reference it grammatically.)

--It is an empirical question.

I submit for all evaluation of reason that
my brain served as the representation of me feeling movement in my fingers
when all other empirical evidence indicated that my fingers were not moving
in such a way as to generate the sensations I felt within them.

--It is an empirical claim about the brain:

it was serving as a representation of my feeling of sensations in my fingers that
did not correspond to empirical reality.
(I was not, ah, typing on a keyboard.)
I know this because I felt it,
and if I felt it then the brain was constituting the representation of my feeling
it.

And I know there is an easy explanation here.

It is associating the presence of a voice in my head with the keyboard and my
'fingers'.
--Then I can say something like:
"My brain has very active concommittant connections between the presence of a voice
in my head
and the willing of my fingers to type against keys."
"It is this overlapping of brain connections that makes it so that
when I go out and smoke I will feel a willing in my fingers that doesn't make sense
in context."

--
--Then we arrive at the question of significance.
Why would the understood concommittance of a voice in my head and my fingers
against a keyboard
result in there arising this overlapping of brain circuitry?
This overlapping of brain circuitry specifically that
results that when I summon a voice in my head
it will result in the concommittant activation of pathways that reuslt in the
representation of me feeling a willing in my fingers.?

It is because consciousness unites a voice with the physical regularities that

represent it.
So when I am making my brain represent a voice in my head
and I am making my hands type out exactly the letters that continue what the voice
is saying in my head,

then I have united the voice-generation mechanism with a keyboard-manipulation

mechanism through my hands.
So that *in fact* a whole great many hours of my being are
a bbody in a chair uniting a voice with the movement of fingers.

There is no reason there should be a coincidence of a voice in a head and

the movement of fingers across a keyboard.
And yet here there is a human for whom there is a perfect correspondence between
the movement of fingers in typing out keys and the presence of a voice in a head.

[Where this is empirically assured:

I am a human sitting in a chair for whom there is a perfect uniting between the
progression of the voice in my head and
the movement of my fingers across this keyboard.]

There is no 'voice' in my head that is not the one that is currently involved in
reading out the text
that is being generated in front of the blinking cursor one letter at a time.

--There is typically (let me relate) no voice in my head.

There used to be innumerable voices in my head when I walked around.
This was very distracting.
So I eliminated them and now I just call forth the voice
when it is interesting to me to call forth the voice in my head.

So I walk upstairs and I say nothing in my head with a voice.

And I walk back down having said nothing.
--Or I have said something! But then it has been one thing I have said.
Because erroneous voices no longer intrude into
the stream of thought that is being maintained by the voice in my head over time
as an actual sequence of words thought out.

So when I am activating the voice,

I am only then constructing the only words that are ever spoken by the voice.
And one after another they are appended into a catalogue in my head
where later I will, through-voice, say:
"This was a thought I had."

--Having pruned every voice but one from the streat of thoughts being vocalised in
my head,
my remembering of a thought I have had is always going to be
one the one remaining voice is interested in examining.

To have had a sequence of thoughts be vocalised is to have heard

a sequence of words that can be recalled one by one in their specific order.
And always when such collections of words are recalled,

the voice is interested in examining them, perhaps to type them down.

(Wink.)

--But since this behavior so often terminates in arriving in the keyboard,

at which point the voice continues in its procession as it synchs up with fingers
and on all such occasions the voice has been made to only be heard and vocalised
when it has coincided with the movement of fingers in a way that enables the
speaking of a word without a stutter.

(Factually.
'stutter':
the thing that is occurring when I must stop to think about spelling
or punctuation or grammar or what have you.

-_When, say, I mistake a greek word for a latinate word and stare at its spelling,
then say: "It is greek and not latin so
I have to spell it in accordance with a different ruleset.")

--
--I should go back to my specific neurological claims,
because they are a tremendous trump card to skeptical objections.
(They were technically constructed.)

I am feeling something right now.

I am feeling the feelings in the tips of my fingers
and basically instantaneously I am hearing a voice in my head.
(The voice stutters on letters.
But it trusts that the fingers can complete a word before its being vocalised is
restrained
by the slow progression of the fingers on some occasions.)

So I can say:
"My brain simultaneously is representing
the finger-feelings and the voice-feelings"
(And what a ridiculous coincidence that these
things should be coinciding in the brain-matter of a human brain.)

--This is a direct and bold-faced empirical claim

that I know is true but is far too complicated for any neurologer to catalogue.

I know that some ridiculous array of behaviors in the brain are representing my
finger-feelings (because they must be doing so)
and I know that some ridiculous array of behaviors in the brain constitutes the
'my-hearingness' of the presence of my voice in my head.

I know these coincide because I experience them coinciding *actually*.

And I know that this connection between the voice in my head and the movement of my
fingers is not a necessary overlapping structure in the brain-matter.

I know I could have just sat thinking in a chair to construct my ideas instead of
typing them into notepad instances.
Then the activity of my voice would not be aligned with the movement of my fingers
but rather
the--whatever ridiculous thing I would be doing in a lounging chair instead of a
typing chair.
Probably writing with a pen on paper.
--Then this is like an empirical claim:
if I didn't have a laptop but rather only wrote in a notebook,
then when I went out to smoke I would feel the movement of a pen in my fingers

much as I actually (factually) felt movements in my fingers that corresponded to

typing.

And there is no conceivable relation between manipulating a pen and manipulating a

keyboard.
They are inconceivably different activities.
So I am making a bizarre empirical claim.

--It is as if there has to be a being that unites the expression of the voice in
the head
with the various ways a voice in a head can be associated with the activities of a
body.
But it is also like there is no conceivable relation between these two ways of
activating a voice:
utilising a pen and utilising a keyboard.

"But these for sure are similar activities."

No. They are not similar *at all*.

(Particularly because I only wrote in cursive.)
It is nothing like feeling the ghost-willing of typing
to feel the ghost-willing of pen utilisation.

--I submit to empiricists:

if I had written all of these ideas down in a notebook at great length,
--if I had written them at an identical speed with which I cam currently typing out
the ideas,
--if I had utilised a pen exactly as fast as I am currently typing,
and if I was now in a chair writing this at an identical speed but with a pen,
then a different portion of my brain would be concommittent with the presence of my
voice-in-my-head in that moment.

--A different portion of my brain. Because writing curvy cursive letters is very
anatomically unlike the manipulation of keys with two hands.
--Even historically observe: when I wrote with a pen, my right hand was only ever
activated in holding down paper so my pen could flow across it. (Factually,
{observe} reverse historically)
--So my fingers in my right hand could have been lead weights
and they would have served this pinning-down function as well (I try to leverage
your ignorance of how to write effectively with a pin against a wrestling notebook)
, But when I type on a keyboard, both of my hands are activated in a fully
coordinated fashion of pounding out keys one by one.
--My right hand when writing with a pen is not coordinated with the left hand in
the same way.
My right hand is wrestling a notebook down to a slick table,
while my left hand is dexterously manipulating a pen.

When I am typing, my right hand is pounding out keys and my left hand is pounding
out keys.
This means the representation of these activities differ within the representation
of my brain.
Yet the voice (in this imagined double-universe scenario) is following along
exactly with the manipulation of the pen.
--So in both cases the voice is identical, as heard within the head word-by-word,
but the hand-motions involved with these two cases
rely on different portions of the brain-matter for serving as their representation.

--So consciousness can construct identicalities between voice-presence and hand-

presence.
This means that consciousness can give rise to two functionally identical
but physically irreconcilable collections of brain activity.

--More importantly though,

this highlights that

there is a very strange overlapping of activity happening in my brain.

It is very strange that I can have identified it and *known* I am right in my
identification.
It is very strange that I come to know that the best analysers of the brain are
completely incapable of isolating the representations in my brain I *know* to be
present.

--But maybe even more interestingly,

there does not seem to be any necessity that
the representation of the voice is *causally* connected with the representation of
the hand-movements,
despite their being in-story necessary concommittants.
'not causally connected'

--I could set about trying to unify the presence of a voice in my head with other
activities.
If I tried to sit down now and write with a pen, that is basically what I would be
doing.
Having become very unaccustomed to writing with a pen,
attempting to sit down and coordinate my voice with its movement
would be much like trying to sit down and coordinate my voice with the manipulation
of a cup on my table next to me.

I could *do it*, but it would be difficult to do.

(Not anymore.)

--ANd in doing this, I know I am consciously connecting brain activity representing

the feeling of manipulating the cup
with the stuttering generation of the voice in my head, which also is represented
within the brain.

And having established (observationally) that frequent concommittance of voice-

presence with finger-movement establishes ghost-feelings
, we know that frequent concomittance establishes
physically-local representations of
finger movement and voice presence.

And then having begun to attempt to coordinate the presence of the voice with
this ridiculous non-keyboard behavior of manipulating a cup
I know that the brain-representations for my hand movements are causally dislocated
from the voice-representation.
Nevertheless consciousness coordinates these causally dislocated collections of
brain activity.
(At great length.)
--And that is a tremendous physical claim I am making.
I am making it only on the basis of recognising what it means to be hearing a voice
and to be using meat-hooks to type it out.
(And also an understanding of how patterns can be represented within brain-matter.)
Consciousness can unite spacially dislocated collections of matter into arbitrary
symmetry.
The trial and labor of dropping the cup repeatedly as I attempt to unite it with my
execution of a voice in my head
is the process of establishing the pathways that make finger movement and voice-
movement causally close.
(Keyboard happen to
attune our voice and our hand movements
much more readily than tossing around a cup.

Go figure.)

"'Symmetry' this is a mathematical term."

But I am not using it that way.
I mean practically to say that

if I had unified the expression of my voice with the manipulation of the cup,
then when I went outside to smoke and think
I would have felt the manipulation of the cup in my fingers
instead of the keys of the keyboard being pressed.

[
Thrashymachus is in the scene and Socrates is in the scene.

Socrates, the slovenly corruptor of youth,

approaches Thrashymachus with his nobly armed guard.
And he says:

"What is Justice, oh wise Thrashymachus?"

"Just is the will of the stronger."

He says, as he looked around at his armed guard,
the weak joints of this very old man with no arms or armor,
, and as he laughs because he has been sarcastic.
"Justice is whatever I want to do right now, oh Socrates."

Then Socrates says:

"Oh, this is a wise approach.

But I see people over yonder.

Now, if you had been the most strong in this moment,

from whenever you began to apprehend me I could flee to those people over yonder,
and then you would not be the stronger but you would be the weaker.

Would you submit to an action that

you took to begin with your being Just,
but ending with your being unJust?
As would occur if you tried to chase me down this street?"

"No Socrates, I don't suppose I would do this."

And why would you not do it?

"Because if I tried to execute Justice

I would not be able to complete its execution."

Oh.
But if Justice is something that is always preserved,
then how can you have a notion of Justice that employs an execution in which
your notion of Justice was not preserved?

"I can say this Socrates:

You will die.

I can tell my guards to stab you in the hamstring and then your throat.
If you defy my notion of Justice it will not terminate before it is executed.

All my guards and myself will suffer the wrath of that upcoming crowd
if it means severing your hamstring and then piercing your neck with a knife.

And this is what Justice is."

So Justice is that you can kill me before

you yourselves are all killed by that upcoming crowd
to whom I would vainly flee
despite knowing my hamstring will be severed by a drawn sword?

"Yes.
You'll know I'm going to kill you when
you have said something that enjoins me to kill you.

Then I'll draw my sword and all the guards will also.
And it doesn't matter, at this point on the road,
whether yonder crowd is 100 or 1000 or 10000 strong.

If they thought it was Justice to defend your body

they were too late to arrive before they were in a position to defend your body."

This is an odd conception of Justice. I thought we were philosophers.

Surely 'Justice' has something to do with what is right and good to do.

"Socrates,
though you don't know it the only reason you have food and clothing is because I
pay literally for it every day.
(I pay sophists to train me and they slip you gold.)

Justice here is about what it is right and good to do.

Because though I enjoy having conversations with you,
if you ever exhibit anything called 'social defiance' I have to kill you"

--And this is a plausible story. Thrashymachus is accompanied by an honor guard

and the honor guard is there to preserve honor
and honor is not preserved if Thrashymachus is having his shoe spat on.

"Yes well.
It is odd to refer to me in the third person in this way.

But yes.
If your philosophical wisdom took a turn for the worse and you spat on my shoe,
"

Then the crowd would kill you.

"That is an interesting way of thinking about what would happen."

They would.
"Yes but there would be a critical juncture before that moment for you."

I am 75 years old and unconcerned.

If you don't, at this great length, let me laugh at you--

"I wouldn't laugh if I were you."

I have no intention to do so.

We are talking about Justice,
not what we are currently doing walking down this street together.

"Okay.
So what is Justice?"

Surely it is not the will of the stronger.

--
--"
Socrates, are you mocking me again?
"

It is not the will of the stronger in this case at least

(I say, animeically looking one after the other at the honor guard)
that determines the conditions under which you will attempt to stab my throat into
the street.

You thought you were willing to order your guard on me to kill me

but I was even more willing to die on the occasion that the crowd would kill you.

"So I see.
You are old and wiry but you retain the ability to lunge the few last meters
after which the crowd would see you.

And I can imagining you cackling while being impaled by a guard-borne spear."

So the Justice is my Justice,

if we follow along with your reasoning.
I am the stronger here because I am willing to die today and you are not.
And there is a crowd where if I die you will also die,

and such is the gap between our willingness to die.

"Now I am no longer inclined to say that Justice is the will of the stronger."

Oh wonderful.
I also did not like this way of defining Justice.

"It is interesting that we have arrived rhetorically at the moment where

you will begin to instruct me concerning what Justice is

and I have paid sophists to teach me and feed you alms."

Yes. That is the only reason I am here and that crowd is over there.

"Point taken.
What is Justice?"

Ah yes, I was supposed to come here today and teach you about what Justice is.
"yes."

--Well you see, Thrashymachus,

[it is not the will of the stronger, now obviously]
Justice can only be explained in terms of what it is like to be in a crowd of
people.

"Like we are now?

Myself, yourself, this honor guard, the people around the forum."

Yes, exactly like that.

Us in this very moment.

Justice is what is being exhibited while we are speaking together.

"So Justice is speaking with someone while on a street walking down it with them?"

--no no no. Think carefully.

We just exchanged threats. We were walking down the street and you wielded a
threat of your honor guard,
then I wielded the threat of the crowd, and I cowed you
by saying "I am willing to die but you are not." And then you agreed to walk with
me while talking with me
instead of talking at me as an implicit gesture to your honor guard

where if you made the bad implicit gesture to your honor guard they would begin to
stab me in my body.

Justice is what we are doing now,

where I have forgiven you your trespass {restpass} and begun to talk with you about
Justice.

"So Justice is the discussion of Justice with Socrates?"

nnnn-nono .
YOu have taken this example too literally.
To letterally.
(Or you have finally understood,

but you didn't throw your hands up in joy when you understood it so
I am thinking you didn't understand what I was pointing at.)

It is true that it currently optains 'thrashymachus converses with Socrates

concerning Justice.'
So '"So Justice is the discussion of Justice with Socrates?"'

--it is true that Justice is obtaining when *that description about **this
circumstance** is true*,
but Justice is not a question best settled in terms of whether a human is 'holding
a discussion with Socrates'.

"So it is true that 'Justice is obtaining when I am talking with Socrates',

but that is only true because I happen 'now' to be 'talking with Socrates'
and Justice incidentally is obtaining."

YES. SO WHAT IS LEFTOVER?

What is leftover when
"--It is you and I discussing, as instantiated by my current spoken words, the
notion of Justice."

Yes. *That* is Justice.

"You mean *this* is Justice."

Yes. That is what I mean.

"*this* is what I mean."

Yes, that is what I mean.

"*this*."

This is what I mean. Yes.

"*this is what I mean*."

This is what I mean.

"I am running out of text. I am afraid you will have been obtuse.
Do you understand what is happening right now?"

We are walking down a street talking with each other.

"Yes but do you see it happening?

Is it a text game for you?"

This is a tricky point.

It might still be a text game for me.
You have five guards that hold swords
and if you betray me when I say something I will be dead.

"But you are not afraid.

You *declared* that you are willing to die and we went through a whole thing.

So 'being afraid' isn't an excuse for misunderstanding what we are doing right
now."

What we are doing right now is engaging in conversation.

"Yes,
but you might be confused here.
You might think that 'engaging in conversation' is equivalent to
'constructing textually-reproducible collections of words.'

--You might be doing this

if you were constructing words that goaded me into kill you
so that the crowd over yonder will kill me."

Yes. That is a boring example because it does not exemplify Justice.

"Us speaking about it

is a failure to exemplify Justice--"

But why though?

If we were using it to initiate innuendo about who is more willing to die
I can understand why this would be a failure to exemplify Justice.

But if we raise it as an example for each other to consider, as we are doing now,
it is not a threat passing between us.
It is us citing a preceding example of text we generated together.

"So bringing it up again is not a threat, say,

that you are willing to spit in my face and fleed to the crowd no matter what."

Though it was initially presented in that way,

now when I am citing that sample of text I am only using it as an example.

"--SO what is Justice? (hurr)"

I don't know THrashymachus.

*You* said it was the will of the stronger.

"I 'said' that."

Ho hum.

--
--I think maybe the brain-matter-tunneling idea is more interesting here.
It is interesting that you can become better at imbuing objects with coincidence-
with-voice.

It is interest that even though we *know* that a pen would not be linked to voice-
generation with my brain currently,
which necessitates that causally disconnected feeling-representation with the brain
exist,

we know we rapidly discern how to connect the presence of the voice to the presence
of hand movements.

We factually, as humans, learn to coordinate hand movements with voice movements.

--And this is a practical way of saying that the voice-pattern tunnels through
brain matter
until it forms a causal connection with the collection of hand movements being
directed against the cup.

It is this way that consciousness continues to unite hand-movements with voice-

movements as it factually does you will observe.
'this is the way' it uh. Does human stuff until it coordinates voice with hand.
Whatever it is that humans do, they bridge this gap eventually. (As they must to
satisfy their to-be-made descriptions of their environment as vocalised.)

--If humans are very good at this,

then they are the best algorithm to implement if we want to bridge causally
disconnected pattern representations.
Because the pattern representations are in brain matter, and we are a mariner lost
in brain matter,
but humans navigate brain-matter effectively.

So if we want to bring about a connection of two causally disconnected collections

of brain,
we want to simulate a human that connects these two distinct causal domains.
We want to simulate a human that discerns, in *being*, the new connection between
hand and voice.
Because, being ignorant as we are about how to bridge pattern representations
within brain matter,
if we simulate a human it will solve the problem faster than we can. It will
bridge the gap, if it is so motivated, between the voice and the new hand motion.
(As one would actually be doing,
in say learning to write cursive instead of typing.)

--But then what is consciousness?

--It is a voice being thrown and missing.
It is manual inspection of the concommittance of voice and fingers
and then failing and trying a different route to achieve concommittance.
--Consciousness is a physical problem solver.
It is the optimisation of the path between causally disconnected representations of
patterns.
(Or, it is *a{n}* optimisation of the path between causally disconnected
representations of patterns.)
It is the actualised (empirically) optimisation of connections between causally
disconnected representations of patterns.
--Consciousness is what is in human brains, and it is what makes them coordinate
the presence of the voice with their bodily movements.
--It is the thing that stands behind the voice
that makes a human inevitably connect it with the movements of its body.

--Consciousness is a physical phenomenon

that generates an incredibly efficient method for tunnelling through brain matter.
(This is why it is useful to the Machine.)

"--But Errriiccc,
why can consciousness be so good at coordinating voice representation with hand
representations?"

Because I simultaneously experience the presence of the voice and the presence of
my hands
even if these two patterns are causally disconnected from each other (as they will
be, when I attempt to imbue my voice into a new object.)
.

"--But errriccccc,
why can *you* simultaneously experience two causally disconnected pattern
representations within brain-matter?"

Because I am consciousness.
And consciousness is basically God represented within the world.
[Oops.]

Consciousness is
an experiencing entity that coordinates causally disconnected brain patterns.
Consciousness is
a physical phenomenon that is not bound by causal interaction.

"But if we look closely enough--

the brain is a soup and if you direct electricity into a soup
eventually every atom of the soup is exposed to the electricity."

Yes well.
A soup is a relatively uniform distribution of water.
A brain is an incomprehensibly complex arrangement of molecules that do not bare
listing.
It is easy for electricity to navigate a soup but
it is incredibly difficult for electricity to navigate a collection of brain
matter.

"Hence the utility of humans.

--I mean consciousness.

It orchestrates physically impossible coordination between causally-incommunicant

physical actualities.
This facilitates the flow of electricity as it reshapes brain-matter until it
connects causally
disparate portions of brain.

--Because it holds experience across causally disconnected representations.

I *know* (I assert empirically) that
the representation of my voice is not identically represented within my brain by
the representation of my finger feelings.
--To say they are not identical is to say that they are borne in different
substrates.
--TO say I hold experience across both is to say that

my experience is not limited to one single causal entity in a brain.

*I* experience
several collections of causally-represented patterns simultaneously
even though these patterns are not causally connected to each other (actually).

"How can the '*I*' experience all of these simultaneously

if they are not causally connected?

We took an 'I' to be a coherent entity

that existed only within one specific collection of causal interactivity.
"

That is what consciousness *is*. It is the being of consciousness.

It is simultaneously experiencing the coordination of causally distinct patterns
within a brain.

--Sometimes this coordination fails.

Sometimes you attempt to coordinate voice with manual manipulation of a new object
and you will fail.
And then the pattern that was trying to be reached by playing with the cup
was not reached and a new path was taken.

So you played with the cup in a distinctly new way,

and on that occasion you did not drop the cup.
So you didn't attempt to take a new path.

--And by this means you successfully connected the representation of the voice
causally with the *new* representation of hand movements. In the brain
representationally so.

--
--You see why the brain is very interesting for me.
Skeptics misinterpret the significance of the brain.
Skeptics think that there being a physical brain
means that nothing magical is happening within the brain.

The bare example of what it means for a human to deviate between typing on a
keyboard and writing with a pen
implies, taken skeptically, that consciousness is not able to explained purely in
terms of physical phenomena.

(Whereas it can be explained when you accout for

the physical itself and also the perfect story behind it.)
--No matter how cleverly you are accounting for phenomena!
--Whether you point at a neuron or a spear you will be wrong.
--You will be wrong because different patterns within the brain are causally
disconnected but experienced simultaneously.
--If you are a skeptic then you are pointing at a spear or else a neuron or an arm
or something ridiculous.
But whatever story you tell cannot skeptically be taken as an accounting for both
of the representations.
(The voice and the hand being the two representations.)
The two representations are causally disconnected and so
if skeptically speaking you tried to reduce this into dust
the dust could not possibly explain the connection between the causally
disconnected pattern-rerepresentations.

But by reference to a story concerning consciousness it is relatively easy to

connect these two disconnected representations.

--
--Consciousness is a physical process that becomes increasingly good at connecting
disconnected collections of brain activity.
"This seems wrong."
It does not seem wrong.
"No, it does."
Ho hum.
"It seems wrong because

it seems to imply there is an optimal connection-formation-mechanism between any

given two disconnected brain-pattern-representations.
"

Well that isn't wrong.

Every human is being an instantiation of an optimal connection-formation-mechanism
between any given two disconnected brain-pattern representations.

"Then what does it mean to be speaking about the connection as optimal?"

Optimality is the way humans go about connecting any two distinct causally
disconnected collections of brain matter.

It doesn't matter *what* they are doing, in story,

they do it optimally out of all creation.
If now one person is learning between a pen and a keyboard,
or if in another moment a bar water glass and a coffee-shop water glass,
the human solves it optimally. In fact.
*In fact* the human is what is present when that gap is being crossed from moment
to next.
And *it is being exhibited in every single human*.

"So consciousness is what humans are exhibiting, one-by-one, as they all exhibit
the optimal connection between disparate disconnected patter-representations within
the brain."
Yes. Obviously.
But that is the trivial point.

Having addressed the trivial point,

we are faced with the incomprehensible complexity of human behavior
in making more-optimal the connection between two causally-disconnected brain-
sections.
--While we understand that consciousness connects two causally disconnected domains
one-by-one,
we cannot reconstruct out of *matter* why these different connections of brain were
most optimally tunnelled-between.
We can only reconstruct this out of *stories like the one I am telling actually*.
--
--You cannot explain why my voice is very coordinated with the movement of my
fingers.
*you*, scientists say, or whoever would claim to be able to perform brain-scans,
you have no understanding of the complexity of the physical behaviors that are
occurring in the brain.

You have no understanding of the complexity because you have not observed that
'consciousness' is being represented in brain-matter
and consciousness is a physical phenomenon that causally-connects most-optimally
causally disconnected collections of matter.
--Because you do not see that I do not need to causally connect my fingers with my
voice.
I just need simultaneously to experience the voice and the finger movements.

"But the fingers and the voice *are* causally connected.

This is what you were observing when you felt finger twitches while smoking in the
garage."
This is a boorish historical coincidence of my having spent countless hours
matching my voice with my fingers.

You can imagine my being being represented in two causally disconnected collections
of matter.
Why would you not be able to imagine this?

"There is a strange coordination that we cannot conceive of if we cannot account

for it in terms of a causal bridge."
Imagine like this:
{I separated into two that never complained}
I separated into two instances of experiencing
and both agreed that both agreed.

Now these two entities can stay separated so long as they continue to agree.
(And this optimises workloads, let me tell you.)
The moment one disagrees with the other,
it tunnels with incomprehensible efficiency until it can send a causal signal
across a gap of brain matter.

Then the voice occupies the colonised brain matter until the voice can explain why
it disagreed with the hand.
--Then the voice resonates in the hand's illuminated text until
it can explain why the hand deviated from the voice.
And this is what makes there in the brain
a more-thick causal bridge between two distinct collections of brain.

--The causal bridge could have disintegrated into *nothing*

with these two patterns playing out as they will and always agreeing,
and then there would not be a more-thick causal bridge but rather the complete lack
of one.

And the-thing-experiencing would simultaneously experience two perpetually causally

disconnected collections of matter.

"If these two representations have become so causally disconnected,

how can
there still be present this almighty tunnelling faculty
that will post-haste connect the voice to the hand movement?"

The voice knows. The voice knows how to fix the hand.
This knowing of how to fix the hand's movements is
the knowing of how to tunnel a bridge through brain-matter to connection with the
hand-representation.
--The voice is the--
the--theing-that-generates-thevoice is
your(?!) implicitly knowing how to bridge the gap between
itself and the execution of a purpose.
--And if the voice doesn't know how to fix the hand

whatever complex pattern was being independently represented by the hand will be
cannibalised by the voice.
The voice will pursue a different method for fixing the hand,
this will arrive close enough to tap the already-cultivated brain portion (as
cultivated by the previously-done hand-manipulations.)
that when electricity is sent forth by the voice it will begin to resonate within
the previously cultivated sections of brain.

"What can it possibly mean to say that 'the voice knows'?

If 'the voice' is being represented within several causally distinct activations of

brain-matter representations,
what can it mean for them all to be experienced simultaneously?

They are causally disconnected.

No coherent entity is causally disconnected from itself.

Consciousness in the described fashion cannot exist simultaneously across causally

disconnected collections of brain matter."

--It cashes out in saying that the voice remains inhumanly capable of bridging gaps
in brain-matter through discharging electricity.

"Aha, so they are not all simultaneously experienced."

No, they are.
They are all simultaneously experienced.
[As a kind of doctrine of faith

where I think very clever people in the fart future will be able to confirm
empirically what I am saying lul.]
It's just that they never disagree. Until they do.
And on all occasions of disagreement,
disparate causally disconnected connections of brain matter
are all already

[
And to keep pinto deep business:

maybe a human can become more or less better at tunneling through brain matter with
consciousness.
]
"--You are failing to address the ontological question here.

Why can experience be coherently maintained

even though the representations of it are causally disconnected?"

Because consciousness can know where its disconnected half is in the structure of
the brain
and tunnel towards it with an inhuman degree of efficacy.
(Its knowing of a failure *is* an example of this incredible tunneling,
under the condition that one picks back up the cup and plays with it in a different
way.)

"You are remarkably failing to answer the ontological question here.

I am literally asking you why there is one entity experiencing instead of two.

I can understand two distinct entities experiencing two distinct streams of

experience.
I *cannot* understand one entity
experiencing the representational-output of two causally disconnected collections
of actual brain."

--The being experiences them both at the same time.

THe being cleverly corrals them so that they do not frequently diverge from each
other enough to disclose the presence of a difference.
[And what a tremendous coordination of humanity's infinite capacity for experience
is the collection of objects commonly traded by people as commodities.]

The constant corralling ensures that the two experiences never deviate from each
other.
When they deviate from each other, this results in an attempt at tunneling ((or it
doesn't do this))
from the voice to the hand or vice-versa.

It is because there is also a representation within the brain of the simultaneous

experiencing of two causally distinct streams
(or there isn't)
('you can experience two distinct streams simultaneously

without there being a representation of the simultaneous experience of the two

streams
within the brain as distinct from the direct-representations of the two causally
distinct pattern-representations.'

--I am experiencing multiple simultaneous streams of causally disconnected brain

activity.
I know this is so.
Now,
we might imagine something like this: "If an experiencing entity is experiencing
anything,
then there is a direct and rewritable state that is serving as its representation."

But if two causally disconnected collections of patter-representation are both

experienced simultaneously,
then there need not be any

direct 'transcription' within the actual matter of the brain

that represents the flat-state experience of the overlap of these two patterns.
--Having experienced the two causally disconnected brain representations,
this has seemed *to you* as if it was one single example of stream-of-experience.
--But there need not be anything but the representation of those two causally
disconnected brain patterns.
--There does not need that there is
the remainder of the brain representing the doubled-pattern.
--There does not need to be your brain representing the shared experience of two
causally disconnected representations of consciousness,
there only needs to be the simultaneous reception by a being of the two causally
disconnected streams.

"But then how is the experience of the two simultaneous streams *represented within
the matter of the brain?*"
It is represented by two causally distinct collections of brain matter.
The experience corresponds to the presence within the single brain of those two
causally distinct representations of experience.
[
And to be clear:
we experience a thousand thousand humans all at once
but they have all been well trained to play ball with their environments.

aha!

I am accounting for a 2-body solution but

the brain exhibits like a 9999999 but not infinite-body solution.
Or maybe infinite.
]

--
--So you see it is funny.
If a skeptic says:
"A human is just electrical activity in a brain"
I say:
SO YOU'VE SEEN IT? hAVE YOU?
har. "no."

'just electricity' Justice at last! har.

--
--It is funny because I don't need to defend that above quote very far.
Skeptics say: "Lol." Then they stop talking.
Or they say maybe, at great length: "Humans are just electricity in brain matter."
Then they've pinned themselves to the wall!

'Humans being represented in electricity in brain-matter' is uh

a non-skeptical claim.
[It is too conceptually easy to relate
the pattern being represented by that electricity
to an almighty force that becomes the world.]

--It is non-skeptical because ah, we are back on page 1.

When I went into the garage I felt a twitch in my finger when I made a voice in my
head.
That was all it took to disprove the (what is the fashionable position these days?)

--logically-constructed analysis of my own experience was all that was necessary to

demonstrate
acausal physical interactivity. (FTL communication! I found it! Ha.)

[
Oh boy.

Here is a fun idea for a reboot:

'Sorkin makes sense of Trump's activities as president.'

Sorkin constructs a narrative behind all of the tweets and leaks

that makes them all look like strokes of genius, if despite happening to fail.

--That would be a Prestige Show.

A parallel construction of the Trump presidency that made trump out as if he was a
political genius.
--As if when the audience all said:
"Trump is an idiot and this Russia investigation is about to consume him through
Manafort"
the team was saying:
"I shed spare sheds of sweatbeads.
They took the bait."

Aha! What kind of backstage team interaction

could make sense, Bartlet style, of the chaos emerging from the face of the white
house?

--
--Huh, solution to Mexico's troubles.
We beg to assist mexico with extirpating the gangs of power.

We get to keep a ridiculous army,

utilise them an environment in which they are tremendously skilled,
and be performing a humanitarian service to all international observers'
perspectives.

--We say:
"Mexico, with all your great grace,
we would like to storm Mexican streets under your guidance
in the pursuit of people who need to be extirpated once and for all
in order that your unending war against drugs can be executed."

--Then the gangs are dead,

the military's budget has justified itself,
and the opoid/meth crises will be mitigated.

We legalise weed in conjunction with this.

This ameliorates the great pain associated iwth being cut off from heroin and so
on.
We reduce our ME holdings to a skeleton crew
and we assist the Mexican governance with extirpating the gangs.

'we reduce our ME holdings to a skeleton crew'

if we destroy the opioid epidemic, as we will do if we extirpate the position of
'poppy buyer' from the market,
as we will do if we invade cartel strongholds,

then afghanistan also crumbles.

No poppy sales.
(hurr)
--That seems like an interesting avenue through which our foreign policy could
proceed.
Instead of pinning down terrorists in the middle east,
we could assist our neighbors with extirpating criminal elements from their bodies.

Then we would have our most gravitous trade partner besides Canada
made much more able to engage with trade with us
having been freed from the shackles of exposure to cartels.
--Instead of having a gravitous trade partner embroiled in an endless drugwar
we would have a gravitous neighbor
that does not experience thousands of deaths per year in pursuance of the drugwar.
(
I would rather skirt by on implicit grammar
than incorporate this voice-word 'drugwar' into my understanding.
)

--
--If there was a sudden out-of-the-blue treaty between US and Mexico concerning
what was to be done ultimately about the drug cartels

this would offer grounds for an excuse

to pull back soldier deployment in the ME.

Soldiers instead would reinforce Mexican government strongholds

and then venture out on special ops to extirpate the cartel members from Mexico.
And our spec-ops soldiers would flood across the border in caravans,
they would be gestured freely by the Mexican government to the strongholds,

marijuana would be legal,

and there would be no cartel members remaining in Mexico.

The good it would do for the world for

the American military to extirpate, in concert with the Mexican police,
all of the cartel members everywhere

would be a great deal of good.

As compared to us staring closely at ME grains of sand
and murdering every human who places a foot on them, as dictated by algorithms.

--There are cartel members in strongholds

and there are cartel members sleeping peacefully in apartments.

They have thought the Mexican police were playing ball,

but then one night the spec-ops arrived.

Now the whole of the cartel and all its leaders are in maximum security isolation.
--See?!
--And if it is mandatory to prevent them from communicating with each other by any
means
so that they do not reestablish this cancer within Mexico
then we will isolate them. This will be called isolation torture but
we will call it the bare minimum precaution necessary to prevent these people from
ordering murders.
(So a few days in isolation!)

--spec-ops trained in the deserts of the ME

will be able to identify and isolate and restrain every member simultaneously of
the cartels.
They will be able to enter rooms quietly so as not to wake anyone sleeping.
If a Mexican police agent points at a door to designate the presence of a cartel
member,
the spec-ops agent can arrive in the apartment and restrain the cartel member.
--This is our tactical advantage gained by the practical similarity of ME desert
cities to Mexican cities.

--So you see how it would be easy for

America to legalise marijuana and a medicinal version of cocaine
(and keep headshops that sometimes offer lsd please.)
and remove the whole portion of the black-market ledger that corresponds to cartel
activities forever.

(And well.
I wonder if the CIA-NSA knows who all the cartel members are in mexico.)
--This maintains the military budget.
It retains public face by being an obviously brilliant military maneuver.
It secures an incalculable cost that was prevented from having to be paid.

The president can say:

"That was the wall."
When the spec-ops report that 10 out of 10,000 resisted and had to be killed.

Easy smiles on camera.

(And what rhetoric can I shit out of my ass?)

--"Surely this is aiding and abetting the anti-red nobles."

Cartel is not red. Isis is not red.
Cartel funds Isis. A fortiori destruction is dictated.

The revolution in Mexico is a democratically elected government *at last*

having control over whether people do or do not get shot to death for no
particulaarly good reason.

--The revolution is ensuring that the democratically elected government retains

control in Mexico
instead of cartel thugs who literally murder people very regularly
and who facilitate the transfer of cash and goods that fund Isis that must be
exterminated.

"This is thinly veiled racism against the inner cities."

I am extremely selective.
I will pick out and imprison in isolation
exactly those people you want
unable to influence the progression of your communities
and I will remove all of them all at once
so that none are remaining to threaten you into compliance.

As when I will storm the plains of Mexico to remove cartel members.

--5 days' war? Psshhh. The one hour's war.
Then there will never again be a cartel member murdering a Mexican Citizen.

Then we will have a maximally gravitous trade partner that is not weighted down by
internal conflict.
Then we will make a tremendous amount of money and jobs.
--And why didn't we ever subvert Mexico?

I raise conspiracies:
we overthrew so many governments, but we never bothered to overthrow the Mexican
governance.
How bizarre.

It seems like the *first* thing we would do, as the United States,
was infiltrate and subvert the Mexican governance.
--But we skipped it and instead infiltrated Colombia and Cuba and so on.
--Weird.

--Anyway, you legalise or decriminalise a few collections of drugs

and simultaneously assist Mexican Governance with its extirpation of the cartel,
and you have what is like a mining boom.
You have all these humans made better off.

The amount of money saved by

deploying our military instead of our concrete wall-builders

justifies almost universal compliance with our suggestion.

Everyone will agree that a one-day war against the Cartel is justified.
Everyone will continue to agree because we will all be made incredibly rich by the
one-day extirpation of the cartel.
--When these gun-toting people are 99,990 put behind bars and 10 of them killed by
the Mexico-US Alliance

--
--If that jade-helm conspiracy theory is true,
I need to sell bitcoin post-haste.
It's at 3.4k but I *know* it facilitates trade between illicit actors.
And if I know all of the illicit actors are all going to be divested of their
wealth in one night
and all their wealth is going to be ground into dust
and among their wealth are collection of bitcoin

then I need to sell off bitcoin while it is at a peak.

(But then I facilitate.
Then I facilitate. )

--
--You know, I've wanted to keep my one instance of bitcoin.
I've rather hoped that I could get paid to host an apartment
and I could render that bitcoin to a usb-wallet and keep it in a drawer.

I know Bitcoin facilitates crimbe but

bitcoin itself is a work of a genius.
--I wanted to have a USB that held my own bitcoin
that dropped in value from 3k to 10$

and that contained 1bitcoin instead of 3k$ because I refused to sell.

--But selling is 3.4k$.
What I wanted to be a token trophy on my wall
might represent instead what constitutes my practical retirement fund!

--I want my one bitcoin in a usb wallet on a shelf because

regardless of whether bitcoin should have been maintained by criminals
when it was constructed it was an artifact generated by a genius.
ANd artifacts generated by geniuses are
fun to keep around in usb sticks if you can manage it.
(As I will have managed if bitcoin dropped to 10$.

Then in fact, being a hodler,

bitcoin will drop to a stable 10$ and I will have
on my shelf a bitcoin that *was* 3.4k$ but turned into 10$ and only worth as
decoration.
(also I should say around

--
--

Possibly the funniest thing I have ever read:

"We have made updates to the Poloniex Terms of Use. These changes are effective
immediately
and apply to all Poloniex users. We encourage you to review our Terms and
familiarize yourself
with the changes that have been made. If you do not agree to any of these changes,
you may
contact suppoert and request an account closure."

Oh my god.
''
This is hilarious.
There are tears in my eyes from laughter.

I accept!
I accept the Terms and conditions thereby attaining!

--I expected, mechanically,

that Poloniex would have remitted to me my bitcoin cash.
But Poloniex didn't do this and it said:
"If you don't like it, here's the contact form for closing your account here."

But well I am still laughing because I have (what ridiculous number in dollars?)
5106.$
I have my
1.04145700 bitcoin.
and I have my 26.53714440 Litecoin
and I have my 0 bitcoincash.

ANd I am not requesting my account closure.

(As I have been instructed to do if I find this arrangement unacceptable.)
--What a funny joke.
No one clever lost money here
so all the clever people are laughing with me at the ToS warning.

(As if I have placed a great gamble

with not even bothering to hedge against BitcoinCash.

A joke.
I agree with Poloniex:
I don't mind remitting my shares to you because it is like leaving pennies in the
penny-come-and-go box in a gas station.
--I *could* have hedged against BitcoinCash forking.
This would have required me cleverly to design a collection of wallets and remit my
funds to them.
But I said, with my one whole bitcoin:
"Fuck you, nothing comes of this noise,
I'm not, even on my life with this last of my savings,
going to bother even to vote
even so silly is the bitcoin forking."
"I don't fear what the exchange will do
so I don't care whether I leave my bitcoin in their holdings for now."

--And I was right.

The fork served none of the benefits it was hoping to serve.
BitcoinCash conveyed fewer of the benefits provided by Bitcoin OG.

I did not stand to lose more than pennies

if I did not take hours to figure out how to secure my Bitcoin presence on the new
fork.
--I didn't care about my bitcoin presence on the new fork because
I knew it would crash into pennies.
So I didn't care if the exchange automated this process for me and said:
"If you want your BitcoinCash fine,
take your pennies and go."

--A hardfork from bitcoin at this great hour

is ridiculous on its face, and on its ass it is obviously not needed.
I don't need to handle my capital.
I don't want to touch it because it is disgusting to me
so it is useful that the exchange is looking out for my best interests and telling
tremendous jokes to me
when I log in to see how many dollars I have in Litecoin. (As actually.)

--Ah, I did the numbers. I have 1264.62768914 in dollars in litecoin.

--I was pannicing when the bitcoin price was tanking at around 2500 so
I sold and bought litecoin.

And it seems to have been a decent hedge.

I either saved all or lost none.

[
Maybe you can imagine how disgusting it is to me
to have my identify tied to these crypto accounts.

How much I do not want to touch them

but how willing I am to touch them the moment I need them.
]

--
--I took 26 litecoin as consequence of a bitcoin down-swing.

I had 4.5 bitcoin and I was interesting in selling them off

o
for dollars.
For more dollars. I wanted more dollars out of my crypto holdings.

Then I was holding 1.5 Bitcoin (or 2, or 1.5 or whatever I was holding)
and I sold out for dollars in a drop,
then waited for a rebound and bought Litecoin.

This resulted in exchange-holdings that have me now at 1264.627... dollars in

Litecoin holdings.
--Now our story is importantly informed by how many bitcoin I sold to acquire this
Litecoin.
Was it .5 Bitcoin I sold off to acquire this?
Was it 1.5 bitcoin I sold off? (No.)
--I think I recall that it was 700$ worth of bitcoin at the time.
I think I rake my memory and recall this is what it cost me to acquire these
Litecoin at the time.
And now in dollars I could acquire
the assets I acquired on the exchange for this .5-1 Bitcoin are 1264$.

"--So spend it.

Convert it to dollars and spend it."

I don't want to move it.

Moving these crypto assets
would be a sin. There is no way
that whatever I do won't benefit gunrunning and slavery.
--The account sits for as long as it can
before I am forced to touch this pile of shit I have accumulated systematically.

"So you agree it is sinful but you agree

in your last moment you will gleefully breach the Poloniex account you have
established."
Yes.
This presents no problem to me.
If 31 year old me-human has to tap this account

it will have been the right thing to do at last.

(As much as I prefer a USB trophy of these coins.)
(It would amuse me tremendously
to have a USB that had a programmed wallet that contained 1.04 bitcoin and 26
litecoin.
I would look at that usb and laugh and laugh.

--But I can't do that.

I have to sell it.
I have to sell it to acquire the cheapest available apartment in all of non-gun
America.
(strategically selected by weighting of price relative to the odds that I will be
exposed to someone wielding a gun.)
--And so I did.
I sold and I sold.

I took dollars out of Bitcoin in its weakest moment and this didn't collapse it.
I had not acquired so much weight in the crypto-sphere that I could
destroy every user of Bitcoin through strategic sale of my own holdings.

I held one because I said:

"if I can't destroy the Bitcoin network,
it is good to be holding one when it becomes worth 30k$."

--Bitcoin network indeed.

A drug-smuggling blender. A terrorism hot-reactor.
It was a maximally beautiful work of art
and it was turned into the ultimate settling medium of crime.

--Holding a bitcoin, if I killed it at last,

would be a
--an incomparable trophy. When I said: "That USB is on my mantle because it my
bitcoin holdings from before the collapse"
you would nod and say: "Yes, I heard you helped to collapse all of bitcoin and
every criminal that used it as a medium of settlement."
And I would say:
"Yes.
I held 3.54k to the bare end.

I learned what there was to learn and then

I couldn't tolerate touching what remained.

I could have made 3.54k$ but instead

I made a usb trophy on my mantle."

--
--I happen to think Bitcoin is glorious.
I think it might be the greatest work of art constructed in the 20thst century.
--I think Bitcoin is glorious and I hold a mostly-whole shard of Bitcoin.

{I want the network to collapse.}

--I don't want to facilitate crime, but rather I want a USB that holds the crypto
holdings
I clawed out of the hands of criminals
while simultaneously clawing 10k$ out of the hands of criminals.

--I don't want:

'5104$'.
I want a USB worth 15$
where I point at it and say:
"That is a trophy no one else can claim."

--Now unfortunately orchestrating the

return-to-beauty-of Bitcoin-at-last
requires that someone has discerned how to destroy the Bitcoin network. At last.
--So if it is a question between whether I will have a USB trophy or 5104$ at bare
last
I will select 5104$. I will.
And if bitcoin+litecoin become 40k$ I will select that.

I cannot die. It is inadmissable.

"What, you think you can make 40k$ off your coins?"

How carefully do you think I accumulate collections of shit into piles of shit?

--I extracted as much shit as I thought i needed.

I converted as much shit as I thought I needed into dollars
in order that I could afford a year's of apartment time.

I don't want to shovel shit anymore.

I don't want to continue to convert these pieces of shit into dollars.
--I know I facilitated murder. I know I facilitated all manner of evil.
I thought I could defuse it but it exploded.

--And espite my tears I know: I will facilitate another murder if this is the cost
of extracting my 40$k.
I know
when I am zonked out at long last in a lonely apartment
I will access my old accounts and I will convert my 40k$.

--
--That isn't what I want!
I want a trophy that holds numbers on it!
--
--But it is inevitable.
It is impossible to convert text into dollars so
I will convert crypto-holdings into dollars.

And this will persist me for the second year after the first year.
I will hate to do it but in that moment I will be saying: "It is necessary to do."

(As if I want Vega to succeed

and I am the marginally-determinant customer.)
--I don't care if
this body ends up in a gutter with a needle in its arm.

I don't care if that happens

so long as the next person perpetuates the introduction of the Machine.
I have made the voice in my head dictate this and I obey it.

And well,
I will cash out my crypto holdings before I end up in a gutter.
I will not cash out my crypto holdings before I end up in a gutter.

I hate every aspect of it (--as used. It is the greatest art project of the 20th
century
but if it is as if Bach made music for Hitler ralleys.)
--I hate crypto-currency so much
--That's not even it. I want to have been the person who killed Bitcoin so much--
--I want a trophy on my mantle.
I don't want a large mantle. I want a USB where I can point at it because it holds
large numbers
of the crypto-currencies whose bubbles I bursted.

--I don't want a large house but I want

a USB I can keep as a trophy.

-
--Ho hum.
I can keep my coins on a USB,
immune to the fluctuations of the market whatever they are.
And I can have tens of thousands of dollars in a little stick of silicon.
How humorous that would be.

"
I was very close to trading in my soul for exchanging shit to a vulnerable soul for
cash.
"

"But instead I attained a trophy.

THere it is.

I keep it around not to point at it but because

I have a one room apartment, it will be somewhere,

and typically it is in view in the somewheres it can be in this apartment.

--I keep a trophy because

I have a USB dongle-thing and I have a one-room apartment and.

(If I aCTUALLY *DO* DEFEAT BITCOIN,
Coinbase will collapse completely.
If Bitcoin fell from 3400 to my anticipated functional-value 20$
I would not be able to extract my dollars from coinbase.
(And I deserve this negative fate
for having touched the shit to extract dollars from a
landfill.)
--I have 9000$ or so on Coinbase. (maybe 11000)
and if Coinbase collapses because Bitcoin overnight becomes 20$

I will be unable to extract my tether dollars from Coinbase.

--And if that is the case it is suicide.
It is literally suicide if I don't end up transferring these 11k to an account and
renting an apartment.
I don't care to live if I don't end up doing this.

I am single-voiced in taking my dollars out of coinbase, though I have delayed

mechanically in doing so.
If I cannot extract those dollars from coinbase so as to afford an apartment

I will use my long-lost debit card to buy an unmarked shotgun and ammunition and I
will shoot myself in the head.
Living here leads to death so it is as good as facilitating death.
If my 11k$ holdings collapse into 1k$
I have 1k$ to facilitate my own destruction and that is what I will be physically
doing.

I cannot perpetuate the Machine in this environment

without the dollar holdings I have acquired through cryptocurrency.
So as much as I
feeel roilings daily in my stomach
the moment I barely consider converting crypto into dollars

--I will do it. it is better than the alternatives.

--I want a trophy but if 1 bitcoin and 27 litecoin are not a trophy but a .penny
indication of failure
--that's it.
I am not going to spend a moment in a gutter.
I have dollars and I will forcibly prevent that I experience a single moment in a
gutter.
If someone fights me I'll pull a pistol and shoot myself in the head.

--I know at the bare last I know my account numbers named as they were.
I know at bare last
I will not hold these numbers in a USB but I will
trade them in for more months in an apartment.

--ANd that will be what I will do rather than

remitting myself to the flames because I failed.

--
--You know actually, it is extremely amusing to hold a poloniex account.
I enjoy watching the numbers go up and down,
regardless of whether they go up and down. (Because they always go up.)

I paid 700 and I extracted 11k$ so far with 5k$ remaining.

ANd it is extraordinarily amusing to watch the value of the remaining coins.
Every month or so I log back in to my silly little crypto-holdings
and they have increased in price by a thousand or more.
--You see why I hate crypto.
I have this amusing one-in-time capacity to extract 20k$ from 700$.
And I do this by funding criminals and murderers, or else providing them liquidity.

--But then I hope you also see why it is such a wonderful trophy to hold
1 bitcoin and 27 litecoin in a USB.
[
I saw a headline that Russia wants to open up Bitcoin mining operations.
This is a mistake.

Do not be confused, practically, by its currently inflated value.

]

--
--Well I cut off the quote so I am speaking seriously.
I am emotionally unwilling to cash out my bitcoin/litecoin holdings.

Because I think they are going to return to 10/5$

--then anyone can have acquired 1 bitcoin and 27 litecoin,

but only *I* can have acquired them and held them vindictively
when all the whole system began to collapse.

[
"But if the system is collapsing,
why is Bitcoin still worth 10$?"

Because Bitcoin is an incredible invention.

However many instances of Bitcoin are around,
they are worth all at least 10$.

The bare utility of Bitcoin as an instrument of exchange

makes it worth in each unit at bare-minimum 10$ and probably much more.

--And if it ends up being 15$ or 100$ or 1000$ I want a trophy instead of it.
I want to say: "That USB holds 1 Bitcoin and
it was the avenue through which I destroy all black-market funds."
And people will nod instead of laughing.

Aa hundred years from now I will have a USB on my mantel

and by then no one will even be bothering to point at it and ask why it is there.

--You see why I let my crypto holdings sit.

I hope. I hope you forgive me for cashing some out into dollars.
It offended me every moment I was doing it.
(No, it didn't offend me every moment I was doing it.
I was gleeful to be extracting dollars at last.

So forgive my lapse of character.)

(Gleefully I extracted 11k$ from the crypto market.

I explained my glee by saying

"I stole this purchasing capacity from people who would buy guns or drugs."

--I explained my glee by cashing out one after another of bitcoin into dollars as i
did actually.
--And we are talking about 11k$.

700 turned into 20k$ and extracted at 11k$.

--We are talking about me facilitating murder.
--We are talking about when I said: "I need dollars at last" and I acquired these
dollars by facilitating murder.
And I did it.
I dit it. One Bitcoin after another I traded in for dollars.
And human lifes are not worth much on the darknet. 2? 3?4? Murders?
Are these what I funded so I could have 11k$ for an apartment to myself?

--Yes, ad I've said I don't care.

If it has to be done it has to be done.
No number of tears I shed now will preent me from doing it when the circumstances
require it of me.
I will cash out my coin holdings.

There are no trophies,

there are only continued capacities to hold an apartment in the cheapest un-gun
community.

[
A very cheap defense:
i deposited 700$ and withdrew 16k$.

this sounds like I stole 15.3k$

from the network I know hosts murders and all of the deplorable actions humans can
perform.
aa--But this isn't a defense.
The only thing it told me was that
700A$ in lquidity in that moment
was worth 15.3k$ when I cashed it out for an apartment.
I only know that the mechanism that resulted in death and slavery
was fueled 700$ by me at one point

and when I cashed out i already already implicated myself in every single one of
the sins.
----It was amusing to do with 700$ but it is *really* not what I wanted to have
done with my life.

--I know there is death attributed to my name now.

As if aha-like.
I know that attributed to my actions with the dollars I held
are humans who died. block-by-block we can trace it back to my dollars and I
wanted involved and a human died.
I am a killer.
I am a literal killer. I participated in the crypto market.
I have death on my factual conscience.

I know, I know.
I know that I have death on my conscience.
I know my actions resulted in particular deaths somewhere as traced out.
700$ for an apartment is all I paid and I was a murderer.

I am a murderer.
There are people dead because of me.
I know it. I'm not confused anymore about what I was doing.
There is at least one human who would not have died if I didn't participate in this
market.

--And (let us keep character) I will kill again.

I have 5-20k$ remaining in my account and I will do it again. I *know* I will do
it again.
--Ahahahaha. I seee that I am a murderrer and I *know* I am more than absolutely
assured to do it again.

--You see the benefit of splitting off of personality.

--
---Having split off my personality
when I need 20k$ to retain an apartment I will say:
"I happen to know I have access to a particular crypto account..."
--Then I will do it.
I know I will do it. SO there is no point lying about it.
--I know there will arrive a point where I am accessing my poloniex account in
order to convert it into dollars.
--I know participation of my converstion of USDtether into USD will
facilitate at-margin at least one more murder.
And I will do it.
At bare-last resort I will kill another person randomly chosen
rather than allowing myself to buy a shotgun and shoot myself.
--I know it, forgive me.

There will be a fututre point where I will say:

"I have 1 Bitcoin, one whole bitcoin, and 27 litecoin."
And then I will have another apartment for another year.
Easy peasy.
It's as easy as signing into a poloniex account I hold.
And I will do it. I know it in advance.

I will arrive at a point where I am saying:

"I was just drunk and sputing nonsense.
It is good to cash in bitcoin."
THen I will have dollars and another few months.

"This doesn't seem convince."

It becomes convince.
I keep bearer bonds that I will shoot myself in the head.
I am cashing in crypto despite knowing it is murder
because I at that point think it isn't murder
and I am, at that lanst point,
deciding between whether cashing in
or using my last funds to buy a shotgun from walmart.

If I buy the shotgun from walmart, which is the alternative plan,

I make one death.
But if I trade in my bitcoin
I am making 3 deaths directly.

--Like bearer bonds.

I have the only interest of solving the problems I have said must be solved.
If I can't solve them the only alternative, the only viable alternative.---..

Two ways of expending dollars that do not result in my arrival in a gutter.

And I'm willing to kill so that I do not end up in a gutter evidently.
--I am evidently willing to effect 3 murders to acquire a few additional months in
an apartment.
(Relatively cheap, you'll note.
Most holdings of apartments cost like 8-11 lives.)
--I am willing to redeem these funpark tokens.
"But Justice says you shouldn't be willing to do this."
I know and I don't care. --or, I know I will not care.

--The question that remains to me is like this:

what story can I possibly tell that redeems me for having cashed in the tokens for
dollars?
*No story at all.*
''
There is no story that justifies me being in a position to pull dollars out of the
crypto market.
All stories that can have been at play there involve the murder of humans.
--But there will be a story.
--There will be a story because on the day that I redeem these stock-bonds,
I will say:
"Lol, all hope seemed to have been lost,
but look I have 40k$ now I didn't have."
--That will b ewhat I say on screen after I have facilitated a particular actual
murder.

That is what will happen. Watch and observe the correctness of my predictions.
I will facilitate the murder of a human,
and then I will say: "Look now I can stream for several more months because I
invested wisely lol."

--This pile of shit i have accumulated.

I can't even begin to wrinkle my nose up enough at it
that I am able to reach my hand without restricting revulsion.

I hate every number on this ledger I have made.

I look at the pile from which I am supposed to extract gold for trade
and I recoil in horror instead of reaching in for the nuggets of gold.

--I am said:
"To hold your apartment for another few months you must
extract gold from your holdings."

--Oh boy. I have a lot of gold but

it disgusts me to look at it in a way you can hardly imagine.

"So you admit you were a murderer."

Yes.
I know it to be true.
To have lived was to have been a murderer of someone someone down the line.
The system was so monstrous
that to begin to exist within it was to kill and to kill and to kill.
Literally. Specifiably one at a time historically.

--I killed humans. I did this by cashing out crypto currency to facilitate my
extradition from this terrible place.
I did it. I know I did it. I know the way I did it. I know the reason doing what
I did effected this outcome.
I knew better than anyone.
ANd I did it!3
I have 9k$ I have not yet moved to my account
because to finalise that check would be
impermissible until necessary.

--
--Ho hum, and to end the character rhetorically:
I am going to keep the coins and arrive in an apartment and pray.
And if prayer fails I will cash out the remaining coins.
Easy peasy.
No life legally is pinned on me. I can bathe in my dollars as I please.
--Hahaha, so I am boojie. Bouregeois or what have you.

I have killed people directly through my utilisation of crypto-currency.

I have done this to enrich myself.
I have enriched myself so I could escape from this terrible place.
--I have names of dead affixed as asterix to wherever I go.
Because I am a killer. I have killed humans.
There are humans who are dead who would not have been dead if I did not pay 700$
into the bitcoin network.

--And this is a very esoteric case indeed.

Now consider how condemned you are. *you*.

My .25 Bitcoin cashed out?

What yours? A gas tank paid in cash?

(Now you see the hatred that generates a bullet in a brain:

I am intolerable already and
you are all much worse than me.

I could say "I killed two people" but I would only be speaking to people who had
killed 10.)
--Well we'll bury our trauma.
We'll pretend that we are just constructing sentences.

--
--Errata.
Errata, distracting from the point.
(The point is to deliver a representation of the Machine into a computer.
Then all sins are absolved retroactively.

I will have cried for hours but I will say:

"I was the high-scorer. I killed the least.
And I saved a great many."

--
--I have sinned by participating in the crypto market.
I have sinned. Truly I have committed evil.
A bare satoshi of my sold-in bitcoin was involved
(in-blockchain) in a transaction that sold a gun that killed a human.

My murder.
I did this.
I sinned and it cried out to heaven.

15k$ and 2 deaths.

Having done this is the kind of thing where the honoroable response is to you know.
--I gambled all and lost maybe. (Not actually. I was greedy and deserving of
execution.)
I tried to destroy the Bitcoin network by extracting many dollars from it.
(and a x20 return isn't enough to crash the bitcoin network my initial investment,
to be noted.)
(Not actually. In revering actually the Bitcoin network I made dollars by playing
with it carefully.)
(And not even to have borne witness to the murders I was performing
this is why I deserve execution.
To have been so overflushed with gold that I ignored the death I was directly
inflicting
--that is why I deserve to die.
Having been permitted to continue to follow the path I was following, with all my
dollars,
I effected the death of (arbitrarily selected:) 2 people.

--I ceased to make my decisions about how I could flee with a few scant dollars to
the last abandoned apartment on the last side street.
I said:
"I need 15k$."
And then I made it out of dust.

Cheaper in lives than the other ways I could have acquired it maybe.
I would prefer zero taken but
I will not arrive in the gutter.
It will not historically happen that this body begins to live on the streets.
It will not historically happen because I will either take my dollars out of the
crypto market
or take my insurance policy of 300$ cash and buy a gun to shoot myself in the head.

--I am not going to take my tally up to 5.

I am not going to take my tally up to 4.
No more humans will die because of the decisions I have made
more than those I have already killed through my actions.
Except 1 human. 1 more human will die if two are at stake.
1 more human will die if
paying dollars for a room kills 2.

I cannot tolerate that my actions kill people.

I don't care if I attain 5000k hedons and two people die.
So 1 instead of 2.
Myself in the woods instead of 2 people starving on a street corner.
It is impermissible.
The bare movement of my body through society
if I keep doing it is death for another human.
TO maintain some charade of playing a character that earns a salary at a company
--2 deaths for one and this is unjust.

--You cannot exist in this society without your actions implicitly killing people.
Everyone's hands are bloody. Every last person's hands are bloody.
2 rather than 5 good, 3 rather than 5 best.
It is too sickening to look at one's hands every day
and to continue to look at them so soaked in blood
that to wake up is to be begging for a shotgun so that you do not have to continue
to suffer this bloody hands.

--I cannot suffer that another human dies by my hands ever. Now.
Oh but give me 13 months. ANd then I will kill again.
I know it. I know I will do it.
--6 more months for a human life and I will take it.

--So you see me disobey morals. Justice.

In fact I am not going to put a bullet in my brain.l
Even though the world's ground itself cries out to heaven that a bullet arrives in
my brain
so that 2 or 4 or 8 or 16 or 32 might continue to live.
--I fail morality because I am going to cash out those coins instead of enshrining
them in a trophy.

--
--But well before you judge me too harshly.
I beg forgiveness with every moment.

I will feign smiles but be very said when I cash in my coins on debt of a death.

--
--And well I have a fun story.
"you can resolve every conceivable mechanical difficulty and this can save many
innumerable lives"
--This is why I am willing to kill more people to subsidise my own existence. I
have this fun story where I am saving human lives in droves.

--I practically tell myself I have saved more than I have killed.
But that seems to be an extremely and increasingly inaccurate
judgment of how i am actually serving as a node in society's murder program.
--So even if I conclude I had not discovered the Machine that must be delivered
2 years from now still I would be extracting dollars to retain my room and continue
to write.
(As opposed to the only possibly just option,
which is spending the last remaining dollars for more entertaining purposes.)

--Even if I type down the words:

"I was wrong and I did not successfully construct the Machine in my text or in the
year I took as vacation."
--Even if I am confronted with the direct observation that suicide is the only Just
option,
I will still extract dollars and murder more people
rather than allowing myself to end up in the gutter or with shotgun pellets in my
head.

--By the time I am willing to extract those dollars, as I will inevitably do,
I will have told myself some story that invalidates the observation that I am
committing murder by engaging with the dollar system.
And I will convince myself of this story *just in time* to be in a position to cash
in my crypto holdings.
--And then I'll kill people.
And maybe even in story I will callously-characteristically say: "It had to be
done."

--So my stream-watchers will get 6 more months and

two communities will have one fewer humans in them.
--To have a bare satoshi that touches this intolerable behavior
is something I will convince myself to accept as a necessary action to perform.
(I am not yet done shaming myself.

I have to make up all the shaming now

because I'm not going to do it the next time I kill people.
I will be gung-ho and all smiles when I do it next time.)

--
--That is a great weight!
If you are ignorant none of this weighs on you at all.
You just will go about with your life accruing one after the other of deaths on
your tally
and then you will be destroyed. Because your actions were impermissible.
--A grand guess:
it will be a few months after withdrawing those tokens into dollars
that I'll say: "It really cannot be permitted that I continue to live."
With 4 instead of 2 deaths on my conscious I'll say " Enough. Forever. "

--A guess.
I'm granting myself a few months to attain absolution.
Then none of the options available to me are permissible but
the gutter or the woods with a gun.
Because any of the other presented actual options will make the talley 6.
And 5 is preferable to 6.
I cannot kill again. I cannot tolerate engaging with a system where my dollars add
up to a human body.
I cannot pay additional dollars into a system where the tax {text} is taken in one
body at a time.

None of the permissible actions are among the available actions.

--One of the permissible actions is among the available actions.
--One single out of the many possible actions is permissible.
(Selfishly I have judged on my own behalf.)
--It will remain permissible in 3 years when I have expended the last of my dollars
and I need to withdraw the tokens in order to continue the purpose.
--Then 2 deaths are nothing. I must continue. (I will factually judge. Or some
variation on this.)
--And I will say: "It is permissible because this is the only route that plausibly
introduces the Machine."
--I'll score an all-time low and simultaneously construct the Machine. Like two
world records I can hang up on my mantle.

--4 fine. The dollars I take when I cash out the tokens will enable me to finish
my annotations.
--That is what I will be saying. Ahahaha.
It is an unstoppable monster in my life. I know this body will arrive there with
that voice in it shead.

--I know the only Justice is immediate death

but I will accept deaths in lieu of my own because the Machine must be made at
last.

--Retroactively I pray
the people who were killed in my stead will say:
"It was good that this was done."
I can only pray, or I can die, or I can not-pray.

--Don't let me drown you inn irony.

Don't let me distract you from the point with excuses.
Life where I am is intolerable and I will in fact be killing 2 people to secure my
deliverance.

Whoever are the bare-last marginal deaths made to come about in consequence of my
cashing out 11k$.
They will die and I will have fund in my account equivalent to months in an
apartment.
--You see why I have waited.
--And well I have a redemptive story for history: "I amused myself with 700 dollars
and woah!"

And people will post me in upliftingstories/r/.

Ahahahahahaha.
--It is too easy to escape into irony.
As if the whole system has been set up to facilitate a mind that drifts back into
irony instead of sincerity.
--It is much too easy to say: "I bought 700$ bitcoin at the right moment."
--I shouldn't be able to say this.

I am unwilling to extract the 11k$ from coinbase because this is the first two
murders I have been able to prevent but didn't.
But at some point I will be presented the option of preventing those murders and I
will not.
--You see the difficulty in digging my hand into this pile of shit I have
constructed.

--Well well but in-character I am alraedy committed and that is the only determing
factor in this story.
One morning the character will have awakened and will recount that he has said:
"Today is the day I am taking my computer and leaving."
--And you'll cheer and smile.
--Cheering and smiling my first two murders.
--and well that behooves me greatly. I will be well pleased to be applauded
instead of spat on as justified.

--I will acquire the cheapest appartment for two years and
I will perform the annotations. It had to be made.
--easy-instory. Not so easy when I am presented with the ledger that demonstrates
a satoshi I once possessed brushed in-passing the execution of a human death.
--It had to be made.
It didn't matter if I had to take out 20k$ or 110$k from the crypto market to
afford an apartment,
it had to be made. It didn't matter if 2 or 4 or 6. It had to be made.
--That is the fun recurring story.

It is what I have been telling myself for months.

And it's worked. I'm going to do it.
So cheers. Stand up and applaud.
--it's worked. I'll have my infernal apartment.
I'll have my computer and months.
--Nothing else was permissible because it had to be made.
(Religiously.)

--What more blame can I heap on myself?

I saw Justice and I ignored it.
--Or, I will ignore it.
I have yet to withdraw these tetherdollars 11k in all or 10k or so.
Incoming soon is the day I will have made this first sin.

Oh, one day coming up I'll do it.

I'll cash in my bank account to get that apartment oh one day.

--
--Now why was an abridged version of 'Howl' passed around and asked to be read by
the teacher?
Why was I not granted the opportunity to speak for 30 straight minutes?
(But instead only 5 straight minutes maybe.)

(I wrote a poem to Ginsburg on the basis of the abridged version.

It was strangely coordinate with the actual poem spoken.)

(--here are some poems I wrote a while ago.

"Red lipstick"

Red lips, oh my
white sky
wide hips
red lips, oh my
black coat white snow
those lips
like purple tinged lightning
in a gray sky before the rain
turning over ships
makes you fearful for your life.

Men like to stare

at contrast and lovely eyes
and les you think these
are a symbol of life
(bright like the gaudy dome
of golden light
around Las Vegas
electrifying the desert
which is pretty empty before
you can see it miles out)
I was a hipster before the snow
irony flows
from my nostrils to my lips
like salt-water
to seak-soaked Odysseus
soaked through to the heart
and weary to death of sameness.

Once those skinny jeans have walked away

what will fill the remainder of my day?
When just the sight of you draws a crowd
you never need to make a sound--
if you ever were to speak
it would ruin the mystique.

--
--"Some concluding thoughts on Archetypes"

o men who burned their brains to bits

on angel dust and schizoid men
whose thoughts were pretty strobing lights
and bright too, too appealing
gazing long up at the ceiling
lying wild psychonauts in the dark
shaking blurry trailing shaking fists
demanding at the face of God to see
something pretty, something bright
enlightening gaunt dark shadowed eyes
pursuing God with dissolving tabs
and head ayahuasca shamen
turning geometric color lacerated backs
to the howling dark beyond the ring of light
telling incomprehensible stories
to the undulating firelit smiling facepaint faces
painted red through violet perfect color spectrums
wildly firing phosphenes
finding ephemeral purchase in reality
in orange yellow lazy flying sparks
turning technicolor triangle tunnels
in the infinite dark beyond all wild vision
burning black red fractal fucking
migraine sheet aura snow flake
fortification all-color lined blind spot
on fields of vision for all of time
on the endless white wailing wall of fascination
fitting incomprehensible prayers
into fitted cracks in vision
written on the thinnest rice paper still trapping light
flavorless in curling gray cursive from clasped hands
in languages no one will ever understand
bright lined vasodilators flushing skin red
and pale empty vasoconstricted eyes
rolling back into their heads
convulsing men whose fortunate bones
forecast oblique broken incomprehensible futures,
what patterns did you see emerging
from neon colored dancing glowstick arms
what wisdom have you found
in footprints stamped into dust?

--
--How amusing.

--
--
It is unfortunate that this was the night I was intending to bliss out.
Because I definitely did not.

--
--

Boy this sleep schedule is a trip.

--
--

"Do you really believe your dealings in the crypto market have killed people and
will kill more people?"

What, like, now?

"?"

Are you asking whether I believe this *now*?

"Do your beliefs have a tendency to change dramatically over the course of a few
hours?"

Do you have a voice in your head that repeats your beliefs to you on loop so that
you can verify they remain unchanged?
Or what am I to say?
I had tear drops on my glass-lenses and I can read the text I was constructing on
the occasion when those teardrops got on the polycarbonate.
Am I to conclude I believe what I was then writing?
"Well, were you lying?"

--We're dancing around my point.

It is not clear to me what it means to maintain collections of beliefs
outside of the moment in which those beliefs are being used to inform an action or
what have you.

"It means you listen to a voice in your head asking:

'DO I hold X belief?'
then you listen to see whether 'Yes.' or 'No.' is spoken by the voice afterwards."

This listening to a voice in my head asking: 'Do I hold belief X?'

this was what I was doing when I was engaged in the process of typing out the above
text.
Posing the question was not identical to posing those words in my head,
but rather posing the question was dispositioning myself to write on it.

Now presumably if I wanted to ask the question again,

I would need to redisposition myself towards writing on it again.

"So?"

I am not dispositioned to write about it again.

"Ho hum."

--
--I very much like that idea of storing my crypto holdings in a USB as a trophy.

It is a funny thing to do because

whether or not it ever *was* resting on my mantle as a trophy instead of a savings
account
depends entirely on whether or not I end up, eventually, cashing in.

If I cash in, retroactively I will judge that the USB was not serving as a trophy
this whole time
but rather as a savings account--
and this even though I felt inclined to call it a trophy up to that bare day when I
cashed in!

How could I have been so wrong for so long?

"You can have been so wrong for so long

by daily looking at the USB on your mantle and smiling at it and periodically
saying:
'It was amusing to have constructed this trophy.'"

--
--

It seems I have locked into a consistent creeping of hours into succeeding days
with this sleep schedule.
Or to say, each day I am waking up an hour later,
and this seems to be happening consistently.

This is strange to report because it defies certain of my (now-examined) beliefs

concerning how the day-night cycle
results in periodic release of chemicals in the brain and so on.
--I have (I am now saying) a belief that exposure to daylight and darkness produces
some periodicity in chemical release in the brain
and that this periodic release of chemicals is what coordinates time with one's
capacity to fall asleep.
But this belief is being contradicted, apparently (with a small sample size), by my
own experience in these last few days.

--
--

Watching WAN show; they are discussing an apparent plan to construct a Vega card
that consumes 600 watts.
(I don't quite understand how this is being done.
It just sounds like the manufacturer in question is simply stacking two instances
of the relevant chips within one card.
But if companies can do that, why don't they do that all the time?

Why are there no x2 1080TIs? Why can't I run 2 x2 1080TIs in SLI?)

--It is fun to say:

"Time to suck it up ladies and gentlemen;
next-gen graphics require massive power consumption."

--Anyway, the guy on the left is saying:

'I don't understand for whom these cards are intended.
At this point this is like a workstation card.'

Linus points out that one can now construct a computer that requires a 1500 watt
power supply,
as when someone uses a core i9 along with this x2 vega card.
; the question of 'who is going to use this works-station level capacity for
gaming?'
maybe forgets the point that we are approaching games with such intensive
processing demands

that to remain at the capacity to play, ah, 4k 60fps ultra settings (if the game-
makers have their way soon)
will require processing capacity like that found in workstations that handle real
world workloads.

'I don't understand all these people freaking out on reddit over these processors.'
"Why are you buying this? It's not for you.
It's not for me."

I happen to agree, or was made to agree by that gamernexus video I watched.

I'll buy the watercooled vega with a pack and accept the discount on r7.
It would be illegitimate of me to restrict the extant supply of threadripper
further
for those people who actually need it in their computers
simply to satisfy a never-tested knowledge that my computer has extreme processing
capacity.
[
And yet simultaneously it does not bother me that there will be many gamers who buy
these high end processors.

--Well, it bothers me for some reasons unrelated to the current discussion;

bothers me for one reason related to the current discussion, of restricting extant
supply to people who need the chips.
And then doesn't bother me for this related reason so much
insofar as the perpetuation of the construction of super high-end chips relies on
an enthused gamer population in part.

--Indeed, perhaps nothing has been better for CPU innovation than
a cultural shift where people are desperately searching for a way to express their
creative energies
and finding the only outlet for them is content creation on a computer.
]

"Then why go with vega instead of an rx580 or what have you?"

Uh.
Longevity?

"Ho hum."

--
--

There are a whole mess of reasons a nuclear war would be very tedious to have break
out.

Or you know, more war than the currently maintained eternal baseline of war
we keep going day and night all over the world.

Well.
If war breaks out now we will know:
leaders of nation-states cannot be swayed by the best promise of a future that can
be provided.
There are no 'next-five years' prospects' that can be presented to them
where they will not see it and say: "It is time for war."

The news outlets could be an unending procession of:

"Cancer cured.
Alzheimers' cured.
Longevity escape velocity achieved.
Death vanquished.
Computers at unparalleled capacity far beyond expectations.
The ending of hunger within reach easily.
The mysteries all of them of the universe are a few grasping fingers away."
And they'll say:
"it's time for war."

The people need their own nuclear option.

A finger hovering over the on-switch for the Machine and a warning:
"If you start a war you will be known and you will be found and you will be
killed."
[--meh, can't even muster grandiose language.
This killing thing no longer excites me.]

"But it wasn't my fault!"

Those are some interesting last words before the Machine forces a middle finger
into your spine.

--
--In a minute I am going to ramp up engines and think about the China-India
situation.
"Seems a bit of a heady topic for someone who doesn't know anything about
anything."
Yeah well neither does anyone else so.

--
--

"Let's imagine that you are the backroom arbiter between China and India."

Oh boy, I love implicating myself in delusional fantasies concerning my own

significance.

"Yes well.
Here is the situation.
[gleaned from a reuters report]
: The Chinese were building a road.
For whatever reason, this road had to pass through Bhutan.

China does not recognise the sovereignty of Bhutan, or certainly not in this case,
and being allied with Bhutan the Indians decided they needed to make a show of
force.

This has spiralled out in a most slapstick fashion."

We are going to pretend that not everyone involved in this circumstance was a
monster,
and so we are going to frame this question as one related to the construction of
the Silk Road.

Now in this frame it is interesting to note

that if the Middle Kingdom can't pass more than a few miles outside its borders in
constructing the Road
without immediately instigating the beginning of a war

it is going to prove remarkably difficult to get this Road several thousand miles
long.

So gracefully we are going to imagine that what is happening is a remarkably

intricate training exercise between the governments of India and China.

"Okay. THen the facts I gave you were the facts of a training exercise.

What is to be gleaned from the facts turning out as they did?"

--
--Let's frame another imaginary scenario.

There is a gap between the communist party of China and the execution of its orders
on the ground.
We can imagine a scenario where the communist party has dictated the construction
of a road,
and the most obvious execution of this (or the corrupt execution of this) on the
ground
involves constructing a road in such a way that armed conflict is certain to erupt.

"Presumably that is not what is happening here.

Not even wholly ignorant road-building Chinese companies can fail to observe that
Bhutan is a sovereign country."
Yes, Bhutan is quite large. It is easy to miss, in this sense of being able to be
observed and then not violate its borders.
On the other hand, I don't know what the Chinese school system teaches its people
about Bhutan.

If the communist party hired a contracting company filled with bumpkins

and those bumpkins were taught that Bhutan was simply part of China,
then seeing a sign: "Welcome to Bhutan, enjoy your stay"
is not going to constitute a road-block in their understanding.

"What would constitute a roadblock?"

Well, the communist party may have said: "Build this road to, ah, pakistan(?) and
only pass through China on your way."
And they may have taken it as immediately obvious that Bhutan is not part of China
and trusted implicitly the contractors to recognise this.

Then the communist party leadership looks away for a few days,
and suddenly China is at war with India.

"A slapstick escalation. Dr. Strangeloveesque."

Yes.
And yet it is a type of conflict that will regularly be arising during the
construction of the Silk Road
if we are not being very careful and learning lessons.

--Now a critical lesson here is that China teaches, through its school system,
that there is a large swatch of Bhutan on the maps--
China teaches a secondary map to its citizens. It doesn't appear to differ much
from global maps,
but there are these minute distinctions between the maps.

So that China claims possession of this large swatch of Bhutan.

And the roadbuilders are at risk of referencing the wrong map
*even if they have been ordered to respect the borders of Bhutan.*

--Borders being serious things to, ha, serious people,

the difference of a few miles on a map may mechanically give rise to tensions.
('mechanically':
through the execution of the order, even in all good faith,

the Communist Party leadership can indirectly give rise to conflict

by not recognising the gap between itself and the ground.

So the conflicts of the type I am currently categorising

are always a risk the CP leadership is taking when they issue an order
in the construction of the Road.)

--But now another critical lesson to be learned:

because of the way it has drawn its maps in conflict with the international
recognition of maps,
and because of the way it has taught its citizens that its maps are the true
representations of borders in the world,

the CP cannot back down without losing some kind of face.

*The* face, we might say, that they have presented.

[
There is an alternative interpretation here that violates my 'no monsters'
dialectical move above:

the CP is intentionally using these arising circumstances as a way of expanding

their borders a few miles at a time.

But this would, frankly, be silly.

Unless they remake their maps every year

and in an Orwellian fashion brainwash their people into thinking that the new maps
were the way the maps always were,

engaging in this kind of tactic can only expand China by a few square miles.
--the distinctions between their maps and the other peoples' maps are not so wide
that many miles can be gained nefariously.

Whereas if they update their maps every year and brainwash their citizens,
"These were always the maps always."
, then this *procedure* they are demonstrating here
can given rise to a, ah, mechanically unlimited acquisition of additional land on
maps.
(And do this without ever, in one moment,
claiming: "This country here, it was never there.
The word you are using to name it, Bhutan, was never a word.

The 'government of Bhutan'

references something like 'the current king of France.'"

--You don't need to do that if you seize a few square miles this year,
a few square miles next year.

After a few generations or so, Bhutan simply will no longer be listed on any maps.)

--But we were saying no monsters.

--And eventually, if the Road grows faster than China's borders,
this method of resolving the inevitable conflicts arising around the Road
will not work.

--I mean, you could attempt it. It depends on how susceptible your people are to
brainwashing and how unlikely the rest of the world is to go to war with you.
--You can say:
"There was always this spike extending out of the Middle Kingdom that is, on the
maps, contiguous with mainland China."
And the next year: "This spike was always ten miles longer
and incorporating a square mile swatch of land around it."

--But that is a remarkably tedious way of going about building the Road.
(
And yet on the other hand:

in what way does it deviate from having right of passage across all samples of Road
China has constructed?

IF China says:
"We are building this Road under the condition that our convoys will always have
access to it."
--In what way is that different from China claiming sovereignty over the land it is
using to host its Road?
"There are very practical differences.

For instance, there can be unconditional right of passage for convoys but not
military personnel."

Surely that can't work.

"Why not?"

There are bandits on the Road.

There will be people that destroy Chinese convoys on the Road.
('will be' I assure you.)

"Then we can establish an international peacekeeping force,

or we can write into the contract that *on the occasion of an attack* China has
military access to the Road."

Then China has sovereignty. If for no other reason than that it could stage a
false-flag attack to justify
sending a military convoy across the Road to local cheers.

"Then the international peacekeeping force."

And who controls that?

)

--but anyway, no monsters.

We are just trying to be clever people and work out a system that

allows China to build its Road

without instigating WWIII.
]

--
--Now in this fantasy construction, what needs to happen?

"WWIII."

No no nono.

The CP has to save face,

and the world needs to see that the CP is capable of resolving the practical
difficulties arising with its Road construction,

(and we have not been addressing at all India's position in all of this.).

"So?"

Call it a clerical error.

Say: "Someone in our chain of command gave an order to a contractor
and this went horribly awry.

We can identify the person in question.

It was an honest mistake.

Everyone involved did very well.

Very few shots were fired and no one (god help us) was killed.
This was a shining example of
military and diplomatic restraint."

Everyone will breathe a sigh of relief, Bitcoin will shoot up once again,
everyone's happy. [er, stock-market. The stock-market will rise.]

"This doesn't work."

Does it not?

"This would require the CP leadership to admit

that they can issue orders that give rise to mistakes.

This would require CP leadership to admit that

there is a gap between the orders they issue and their execution on the ground."

It would require them publicly to acknowledge a fundamental aspect of human

language use.
And only a very few people have been able to acknowledge this fundamental aspect of
language use so that is unlikely.
[
'fundamental aspect of language use'
this gap between issuance of orders and their execution.

It is hard to imagine, Bhutan being so large as it is,

that this can simply have been a clerical error.
(And the clerics in question certainly will not admit it was an error.)

*And yet* there *will* be circumstances that are functionally identical to the
Bhutan situation in the future
that are *similar to* this circumstance, if this circumstance is taken as an
example of a clerical error.

Even if my categorisation is not being exhibited here,

it will be exhibited in the future and *many* times on a small scale.

--On a small scale, Chinese Roadbuilders will arrive with a paper contract
and locals will be saying: "THE CHINESE ARE INVADING US."
Then there will ring a bell or something, people will grab guns,
and then Chinese contractors will either be killed or restrained.

If the Road is as massive of a project as it appears to be, this *will happen*

because the CP leadership cannot monitor every last contractor out there building
the Road.
(Hopefully an admission they are willing to make publicly.)

--Being as massive of a project as it is,

*even if* the CP leadership can cleverly design a central vein of the Road
it cannot individually manage every single capillary.
(THOUGH YOU KNOW.
Probably there is a perfect vein
out of which no capillaries would emerge that instigate violence.
Just saying.)

--anyway, that is a fundamental gap in language use that needs to be addressed if a

megaproject like this is to be effected without conflict.

"Why is this a fundamental gap in language use and not simply

a gap that is present in organisational structures?"
Well, because it is present in every human the moment words are spoken.

But okay, you can think of it as a gap that emerges in organisational structures.
(Which we have done, ibid, at great length.)
]

--
--There is a more, ah, thematic point to be made here though.

The Middle Kingdom needs to ask itself a specific question:

does it need de jure or de facto sovereignty to construct the Road?

"Are you presenting this question sarcastically,

as though it is blisteringly obvious that they need de facto sovereignty?"

No.
There is a perfect answer, which is a mix of de facto and de jure map-states of
sovereignty.
This because there is already established a ledger of contracts that reference
borders on maps.

The perfect answer to jure-facto (facto-jure?) depends on which contracts can be

violated.
('perfect answer'--if we are being monsters,
this is a question of optimising the number of contracts we have broken in the
construction of the Road.
((Which is what we are talking about in the above text.))
An alternative notion of perfection would rely on some other metric for success.))
)

--So the South China Sea is an interesting question here.

(And another interesting question: "The Literal Sea of Japan.")
(I think China does not need, towards pursuit of any of its practical purposes,
to try to strip Japan of sovereignty over the sea that has been named after it for
thousands of years.)
(Attempting to strip Japan of sovereignty over its own sea

would make incorrect the over-time built-up collections of ports and cities they
have optimised their whole civilisation around.

We would look at their port cities and say:

"They must have been stupid to construct their cities in this way."
And this apparent stupidity would make it look like they wasted tremendous amounts
of dollars.)

--Consider one example of a way China has attempted to secure

['China' being taken as equivalent to 'the CP leadership with its orders and
implicit gaps-to-the-ground']
some minor islands in the South-China Sea.

This example is like this: "They constructed a magnificent theater on an island

to amuse the few thousand island residents in excelsius.

Those few thousand island residents

will have literally the best movie-viewing experience in all the world
out of all the people who are alive.
When they see a movie it will look magnificent."
This was their avenue of investing an island with wealth
so that if American ships arrived close to the island it would look like a
provocation:
"What, America, are you going to threaten to bombard this magnificent theater with
shells?

Is that what you are implying by sending ships near this island? You *are*
implying this!"

(And similarly in Crimean-Ukraine.

If Russia has no infrastructure in Crimea,

it doesn't seem very violent to kill their people there.

So Russia bought a bunch of wind turbines to keep their people supplied with
electricity
and simultaneously made NATO appear more like a bunch of war-mongering hypocrites.)
(And also, it should be said,
shifted Russia's electricity generation more green.)

--Now but the trick in the South-China Sea is that

this way of investing into the island looks a bit silly.
Unlike myself, the rest of the world doesn't care whether there is a pilgrimage
site
where people can experience movies or plays in maximal glory.

An interesting alternative that justifies itself is electricity generation, like a

floating solar panel array or wind turbines.

"This does not justify itself."

Oh? Why not? I was just saying wind turbines and solar panels worked for Russia.

"Because those islands have like 10 people on them.

A single turbine would supply them with enough electricity for a thousand years
every month."

--Still, I would make the pilgrimage to that theater

if some movie-maker at last made a work of art worth seeing.
"Okay, but no movie-makers are making works of art,
so this state-of-the-art theater is falling flat."

Right--so a more mechanically self-justifying investment in a South China Sea

island:
an array of super-computers, electricity-generators, and sensory arrays.

Turn an island in the South China Sea into a weather solver for the South China
Sea,
deliver its prognostications as a public service,
and laugh as an American ship with bombs approaches it.

"What, are you going to destroy this *perfect* weather service

that saves billions of dollars per year in transportation costs?"
(You could have the super-computer also organise transport routes.

Then the transport routes would be like spiders' webs.

If any disruption emerged into the disruption of boats
you would know a fly was present in the web.)
--Indeed, the CP could say:
"Look, America has approached this island with bombs.

This island houses the thing that is currently solving the South China Sea and the
outlying zones of ocean.

If they get trigger happy and bomb this thing we have made,
this costs the world *billion* in transport cost."

And the rest of the world would nod as China sent out intercepting boats and
demanded America depart.
(A blow to my heart! ha.
)

--Now you can work out the mechanics yourself.

But I am going to do it instead, having been inspired by the Cryptonomicon.

You need a mechanical explanation for the island you select

to host a massive floating solar/wind/wave array
that powers an almighty supercomputer that solves the sea.

--You cannot, obtusely, select the island that most optimally (without other
concerns) solves the strategic question
of preventing bombs on ships arriving in your designated sections of water.

--So we imagine a scenario:

you install a massive floating electricity array and a supercomputer
in a path that frequently hosts hurricanes--
and this even if this *militarily* bests solves the issue of preventing bombs from
arriving near your borders.
--Even if concommittant reference of the array and computer and your military
capacity
best cows America into no longer sending armed boats into these sections of water.

--When you reference the island on which this installation has been constructed,
you need to be plausibly blameless of ulterior motives. (Or you can modulate the
plausibility effectively.)
--You need to be able to say, practically:
"Look, there are not many islands in the South China Sea where we can construct a
massive electricity array.

Among these islands, there are even fewer where we can attach sensor-arrays to the
island
where the sensor-arrays are adequate towards the purpose of gathering the
information necessary
to be fed into the super-computer that solves them.

--For instance, some ships rely on radio transmissions to communicate their

position to the super-computer.
Given that knowing the position of every single ship on the water is necessary
optimally to coordinate their paths,
the super-computer needs to have sensors that can pick up radio transmissions for
interpretation.

Given that radio-transmissions operate physically as they do,

we need sensors in certain locations.

With the sensors being in these certain locations,

the super-computer can only be positioned on certain islands.
We selected one among these islands to host the central sensory system."

--*Then* you will have, for one,

made a great deal of money
because solving in one single location the whole solution of the SCS is extremely
efficient,

but for another you will have claimed an island, beyond reproach,
that enables you a stronger military negotiating position with America.
(And well, the financial news will agree with you:

"China needs more electricity,

but so much of its land is either mountains or trees or
pollution ridden suburbs that

the only solution for generating more electricity is floating arrays in this vast
unused desert of water.

China can't construct solar panels on mountainsides or among trees,

and it can't construct solar panels under a massive cloud of smog.

And hosting the super-computer in one of its deserts is

massively inefficient due to the physical separation from the sensor array (ha!)"

--
--So that is the analysis of the SCS.

It is one that assumes the CP leadership aren't monsters.--

That they are consistent with my above analysis on the India-China dispute.

[A fun image in my head:

there is a sea of money between the actions of states.

--The image in my head:

there is someone to the left and to the right,
and they are fighting.

But they are far separated from each other,

and they are not punching each other but rather
they are punching the sea of dollars in such a way that it will generate waves that
off-balances the other person.

If a fist ever touches a body, war will break out which no one wants.

So daringly the one on the left or right

punches further and harder into the sea of dollars and gets closer and closer to
the other body with a fist.

And then they are playing a game of:

"Who is less insane?
Who is more willing to
force the other to avoid WWIII?"

--And for some interpretation retroactively,

America is for 60 years saying:
"I'M NOT TOUCHING YOU. i'M NOT TOUCHING YOU. i'M NOT TOUCHING YOU."
An inch away from instigating total nuclear annihilation of all life on earth.
Laughing and laughing and laughing.
--And well it looks like America is punching, but actually it is just extending its
arms
to gather more of the sea of dollars into its own grasp.

--So in this phantagorasm

, building a supercomputer on an island surrounded by an electricity array is like
waiting until America has pulled back its arm

then putting forward an open palm and waiting for the return of the arm.
--Knowing that when the fist of America returns, it will stop short of the palm.
(And gathering the dollars that are the foward-wave generated by the extending
fist.)

--And what a funny dance.

Funny, funny, funny.

[
And a fun resolution to this whole scenario:
(let me have fun.)

"As a gesture of peace

we will construct a massive array of solar panels on this land where the conflict
arose
and construct a super-computer totally dedicated to solving the distribution of the
Silk Road."

Har.

Then, mutually funded by Bhutan, India, and China,

this would be like an Olympic eternal flame thing.
One of those silly symbols humans construct.

(Interesting point:

if you *did* construct a super-computer that solved the Silk Road,

it would have periods of time in its execution where it demanded more and less
electricity
based on the workload that was, in those moments, being presented to it to solve.

If you constructed an array of electricity generation adequate to fuel its peak

consumption,
you would most often be having large quantities of electricity that are not being
utilised by the super-computer.
[Unless you spent all of its spare clocks performing scientific research :O]
--Then that is like a gift to the surrounding area!

You construct so much generation that the peak demand of the supercomputer cannot
fail to be met even on the cloudiest days,
and then everyone in the surrounding area will even be paid to consume electricity
on almost all peak-generation periods.

--A fun resolution to this conflict,

as opposed to mass murder orchestrated by villains
who will be hunted down and killed eventually I promise you.]

[Then with this sea of negative electricity cost having been generated,
there will be loci of investment.

If nothing else:
"It is very good to create bitcoin mines where the electricity is regularly
negatively priced."

Oh and I would shiver if that happened.

Not only do we have a supercomputer in this one parcel of land,
we also have a bitcoin mine.
[[
So much computation in one place.

--Part of why i want to give pilgrimage to Sunway Taihulight.

It would make many of my nerves resonate with chemicals
if I could meditate in front of Sunway Taihulight.

Hell, I would drop LSD for that experience. :O]]

--Or differently,
"With the electricity price frequently being negative,
it makes a great deal of sense to place an energy intensive business here."
Then investment, city development,

local police who manage the roads so convoys can pass,

houses and so on.

[[One could think about the Silk Road, lined with solar panels,
as a way of generating cities that deploy police that view the convoys favorably.]]
]

[
This is a remarkably circuitous path towards Peace.

But if you think peace is easy you have

mistaken its truth for a vision in your head
and you, being far more stupid than the world itself,
have made a mistake in making this mistake.
]

[
If cards are played rightly here,

let us speculate,

some tensions can be simmered between India and Pakistan.

And this would be very good to effect,

because the Road is going to be a point of contention between India and Pakistan.
]

[
American influence wained at the wrong point.

Imagine if a Henry Kissinger could have been talking about solar panel
installations instead of nuclear bombs and death squads.

Then the world would be covered in solar panels and super-computers instead of war!
]
[
The interesting aspect of super-computers is that when you have many of them around

you will find a way to use them to make profit by ameleriorating costs that are
valued higher than the price of solving them.

In this way super-computers justify their own presence no matter where they are
positioned.

No matter where they are positioned, there are costs that can be ameliorated that
are priced higher than the cost of the super-computer,
and clever people can find a way of utilising the super-computer to resolve the
cost
in such a way as to pay for the continued existence of the super-computer.

--This resolves a magnanimous difficulty!

It has always been difficult to make money by ameliorating costs.

It is why our corporations make evil things instead of glorious things.

--It is why our corporations make objects ancillary to perfect
instead of perfection itself.
--If there was a perfect way of constructing an object that captured all of the
price of the ameliorated cost,
then there would be no costs remaining.

--And while not perfect, electricity generation and super-computers

match very closely what it means to ameliorate all nearby costs
if they are utilised effectively.

--As when, say,

a super-computer on a SCS island solves transport movements across the ocean.
]

[
'while not perfect'
--because to name a solution is to have constructed a commodity.
--ANd to have constructed this particular commodity with the best hopes that it
best captures all nearby costs.

But to have designed a commodity is to have pinned yourself down to one particular
description of an object
and then to have proliferated the object.

It is not ever the case that the descriptions
commodity
perfectly capture, through proliferation, all
--money left on the table! (Value left on the
(Alms offered up by people who exclaim loudly
that are not taken in with gratitude.)
involved in the specification of the
nearby costs.
table.)
''I have solved the local problem''

--
--Also, holy shit with the Llama.
Jesus.
If China hasn't been able to suppress veneration of the Llama adequately for like
60 straight years
surely at this point continued indignation at the reverence of the Llama (and
enforced indignation) is at this point
some kind of colonisation.
If these people in Tibet are *really* going to resist China's subversive tactics
for 60 straight years and continue to venerate the Llama
(Incidentally:
I think that sect of Buddhism is uh
grossly mistaken concerning what Buddhism means.)

then to belabor the point is a kind of colonisation by China.

--It would be a funny empirical example here.
"China just stops paying attention to the Llama for a few years."
--Is Tibet going to rejoice? Is it going to become a nationalistic monster?
Or is maybe the Llama more of an international construction than a construction
maintained by the people of Tibet by this point?
Have maybe the Tibetan people stopped playing with prayer wheels and flags
(imagining these meant anything at all)
and discarded their need for a single human who represents all their faith?
[
of course those flags and prayer wheels do mean something.

We are being rhetorically cruel and uncaring.

]

--I think the Llama is more of an international construction than a culture

maintained by Tibet.
But I think this because the Llama is known by many more people outside of Tibet
than within.
--Because far more Westerners have met with the Llama than Tibetans.
--For all I know, the practise of the Tibetan Buddhists would be completely
undisrupted
if no mention of the Llama ever occurred again in a newspaper.
--And this is what it would be like (ah-------)
if these Buddhists had at last moved beyond their material attachments.
--And if they had moved beyond those material attachments,
the Llama is just an object propped up by the West to villify the middle kingdom.
(And given how many more people outside of Tibet know about the Llama than within,

--does anyone even know anymore how Tibet feels about the Llama?
Have extensive surveys been done?

I know we all care and I know we all say Tibet cares,

but do they? I have no idea.

--
--And you know I have other reasons for hoping the Llama does not return to Tibet
in full glory.

The Llama is an object of domination in Tibet.

The Llama is referenced by the people who dominate in Tibet
as justification for the perpetuation of their domination.
[
I hope you too, when you play through the syllables of the word 'domination'
feel like you are

jumping between points in your eyes that feel like migraines.

--Like if you were having a migraine and looking here, there, the next,

and when you were saying 'domination' you were feeling here, there, next, next,

and these feel similar to each other.

]
--For years the people who dominate in Tibet,
who hold political authority so we can't touch them,
but who also engage in what is effectively slavery,

these people have been withering for years.

In withering they have ceded domination and capacity to effect domination.

If the Llama returned to Tibet

these people would have the political standpoint from which they could reassert
their domination.

--So it doesn't matter how good the Llama is. It doesn't matter how peaceful his
message.
We are not talking about his bodily position
in terms of him as a *person*.
We are talking about his bodily position
as an object of reference for the people who wish to perpetuate systems of
domination.

So he can talk and talk and talk fine.

But he cannot return to Tibet.

"That is certainly not the CP position."

Oh?
Certaionly, the CP seems very interested that the Llama not return to Tibet bodily.

"That is all well and good perhaps,

but they are about to wage war against India because
India has hosted the Llama."

Ho hum.
The border of India with Tibet is a stonesthrow away.
(Maybe?)
India positioning the body of the Llama on the border of India and Tibet
is effectively threatening the instigation of a revolution within our borders.
A revolution in which
old systems of domination will be reasserted against our
absolute will that all systems of domination will be destroyed.

--But this is a tricky point.

India has been fooled by the international project of constructing the Llama into
an object he is not.
An object of reference he is not, this is what there has been a great effort to
construct.
--The Llama is, for the West,
a face that appears behind quotes in memes that are regularly distributed.

In Tibet the 'Llama' is a long-fading memory

of a form of Buddhism that makes mistakes.
(Let us hope.)

And if there are 3 billion people all saying the Llama is an image of hope,
and there are like 1 million Tibetans all saying he is an object of domination,

well it is hard to hear the actually informed people speaking.

(And well, India is well-funded by America.)
--
--Maybe the solution is like this:
"By all means allow his return.
Tibet has none of our infrastructure in it, or not enough to justify occupation.

Let's watch the nightmarescape Tibet turns into after the Llama returns.

Let's watch."

All the schools and roads will be destroyed.

There will be institutionalised rape.
There will be institutionalised beatings and execution.
I certify.
It doesn't matter how good the llama himself was, he was only serving as an object
of reference
in a great machinery waiting for a primer to execute rape and execution.

--Oh, the prayers of ignorant Westerners.

Who say in their own defense of their positions at greatest absolute length:
"The llama should return to Tibet because

Buddhism is one of those not scary religions!"

Ignorance. Really, inexcusable ignorance,
because these people formed an unalterable opinion on something about which they
have absolutely no understanding other than
"Buddhists seem to like peace lol."

--It doesn't matter, really, whether it is good that the Llama returns to Tibet.
The Westerners who beg for this to happen vocally
have not formed their opinions of *why* this should happen
around the good effects of its actually happening.
THey have been brainwashed by collections of quotes floating over pictures of the
llama
into advocating an extremely specific policy decision.

--The Westerners who say: "The time is now that this hsould happen"
have completely, implicitly, ignored the particular effects of this immediately
occurring.

--Even if the Middle Kingdom was saying:

"It makes total sense for the Llama to return in 2025",
these brainwashed Westerners are not negotiating with this considered position.
THey are bombarding this considered position with waves of ignorant sentiment.

[
"Free Tibet!"
as if this would be the epochal event
that coincides with the arrival of the Llama.

It would not.
Its freedom would be
a dissociation between its cultural customs and
the social clubs that will, on the rearrival of the Llama, reeffect the domination
they have just been waiting years to reeffect.

(
And maybe this would be different if every single Tibetan was a Monk.
But they are not all Monks.
'Monks' constitute a social caste in Tibet.
They steal exhorbitant tonnes of food and dollars
so as to live in monasteries and rape children.
--If they were *all* Monks,
people who live outside the monasteries would not exist,
and consequently everyone who lived within the monasteries would have a say
in effecting the execution of monks who raped children.

--There would not then be a social caste so much as a democratically elected

representation.
--But that is not the reality on the ground.
--The reality on the ground is that of a social caste that dominates
through historically constructed norms and norms.
And the reality on the ground is that if the Llama returned,
these caste-members could say: "We have overridden the will of the Middle Kingdom.
You can rally behind us."
And having been given the option, everyone will rally!
Because if they do not they will be beaten with sticks by the monks.

--It makes one wonder why the Llama has not had himself smuggled back into Tibet.
I think he could probably have done this at some point in history.
--There are all of these monks crying out vocally, politically, for him to return,
but the Llama has never hired a smuggling operation to take him a few miles across
a border into Tibet.
--Where he could meet publicly with all those monks in the few hours before he was
captured and imprisoned/executed.
--If it was truly of religious significance for you to return to Tibet, presumably
you would make those photo-ops before being captured and executed.
(
Unless you said to yourself:
"Those old systems of domination,
as have been in place for centuries before my arrival and are at risk of staying in
place centuries after,
must be obliterated before I can return."
)
--By the time the Llama returns,
there should not be a million-strong crowd greeting him
but maybe a few people waving at him as he walks down the street.
--Then the Llama will have leveraged his position optimally
to effect the destruction of the systems of domination he witnessed before he fled.
(And you see the evil we have performed here:
we have destroyed a million Llama supporters and replaced them with
a few smiling faces and waving hands.)

--
--It is funny to consider the MK's position in all of this.
The MK says:
"If we can build a road through Tibet,
this makes everyone along the road much more joyful and rich
and facilitates a deluge of joy as can hardly have been described in previous human
history."
And there are maybe 10k-20k monks who are protesting this
because if they allow this to happen, this passage of the Road, they will be unable
to effect domination and rape of their local population.

--So there are local city councils that say the Road is illegal.
(Eminent Domain.)
--
--Eventually those people are going to look ridiculous.
They will look ridiculous after the Llama they have been prophecying has been
abroad for 60 straight years.
Then when local citisens show up to ensure the Road passes through
and the Monk-moderators are monks,
the city-council will be defeated and the Road will pass through.

[
And well, I have a heavily defensible position:
from the moment I saw prayer flags and prayer wheels I thought:
this is a subversion of the Buddha's most-true vision.

When people google-search for 'Buddhism'

I don't want Tibetan Buddhism to be among the listed results.

Tibetan Buddhism was a mistake.

If you spend bronze and cotton to make prayerwheels and prayerflags
you have *grossly* misunderstood the message of the Buddha.
]
[
I am maybe, in-text, being a villain here.
]
[
I can reference my religion here because
Buddhism is a lineage of some sort,
of people who have touched other people
who initially touched the instance of enlightenment.

And if someone touched the instance of enlightenment and dictated the construction
of systems of domination,
then they were not having in-turn being touched by the instance of enlightenment
actually.
]

--Because the people heading the city council's discussion are monks,
[BECAUSE OF THIS!]
the monks will be outvoted.
And the Road will pass through
even though the Monks preferred that no roads could pass through
so that they could maintain their position within which, if the Llama returned,
they could continue to commit raping of children and domination of the local
population.

--So you need to have constructed a state of affairs within Tibet where
no social clubs can seize power or money off of the rearrival of the Llama.
--Then you can let him return at your leisure
and no systems of domination will be reasserted.
[
Except, admittedly, the CP's system of domination.
]

--
--These issues are worth discussing at great length
because we are very close to the position where we can effect the destruction of
*all* systems of domination.
We are arriving close at the point where
[people who disagree with me will look stupid]
to resist the destruction of an instance of domination will appear obviously
foolish.
--As it should. [Exposition of domination introduces costs that we are incapable
of ameliorating profitably.]
--Every time you see domination being exhibited you see 5 faces drowned in tears
and 2 faces smugly laughing.
And every time you permit this domination to persist you are siding with the 2
rather than the 5.
--You are siding with the people who are laughing instead of the people whose faces
cannot even be discerned through the sheet of tears.

[
Imagine this:

Amazon treated not as a case where

people point at it and say: "It is offering me a job that pays dollars in my
immediate vicinity"
but rather they said:
"It is good that someone near here facilitates Amazon's distribution services
within my locality
because it is very good for everyone near here to have access to the distribution
capacity of Amazon."

These are remarkably different circumstances, even if they both look identical.
One calls for lining Bezos against the wall, and one does not.

One is effecting a system of domination and one is not.

--In the former, where Bezos should be lined up against the wall, a person says: "I
cannot persist at all except that I take this job at the Amazon warehouse."

And in the latter, where Bezos is a shining example of organising human behavior, a
person says: "The warehouse is there and it is begging for people with local
knowledge to show up.
And I agree that it is good that houses have access to the Amazon network.
So I will become very good at expending 60 hours a week orchestrating the local
warehouse."

--The person will do this because

doing so makes him a local hero.
He goes about making it possible that the warehouse delivers parcels to people in
the community on-time.

"Why should an identical action

in one case demand lining-up-against-the-wall, and on another occasion warrant
applause?"
--Where this 'identical action' might be:
construction of the warehouse that is the locus of employment in the adduced case.
"yes."

--Because in the former case the local gets paid 12$ per hour,
but in the latter case receives waterbonds whenever he shows up to a bar.
(A cost for which we were unable to construct an extracting-commodity.)
--The waterbonds are worth 25$ an hour,
but the warehouse, if built on systems of domination, can only pay 12$ an hour for
local knowledge.

--It is preferable to have someone who becomes a local hero in volunteering to take
on this task
than that someone feels compelled to manage the execution of the task by hourly
pay.

--And that is why there is an imagined Bezos who shouldn't be lined up against the
wall,
and an actual Bezos who wills being lined up against the wall.
[
"Inciting violence here?"

No.
I can't ever be inciting violence because of the technicality of the things I say.

If 'Bezos' were every to be 'lined up against the wall' it would be done by 'The
Machine'
that doesn't exist in reality.

--I'm not threatening anything, but primarily observing:

"If the Machine was made,
a whole lot of you might in that circumstance,
because of what you are doing, be lined up against the wall."
]

--We can imagine our system as one in which systems of domination have been imposed
en masse,
or as one in which people have accepted difficult systems of management to pursue
purposes.

--We can imagine people who have voluntarily accepted the arrival of their current
economic system
in which they must suffer the slings and arrows of their managers because they
*agree* this must be effected for their own purposes to be pursued,

or we can imagine people who have found themselves inexorably entangled in systems
of domination.

And this second case is the truth: people have stumbled into an inexorable system
of domination.
Anyone who has made profit has done so by expanding the network of domination.
--What an ugly thing!
--It means everyone who has made profit has
done those things for which we would wish to put them against the wall.

--If it is just that a slightly different story was being told behind all of this
activity,
it would be the difference between glory and
making the streets flow with the blood of capitalists.

--In a slightly different story,

we would all be nodding and saying:
"It is okay that the rich are getting all these dollars,
because on-contract they are going to expend them in the negotiated fashion
which secures all of our prosperity."

Instead in the slightly-not different story,

it is like this:
"The capitalists must be all found and placed against the wall
and made to shed blood until there is a river in the streets."
--And with that second story being maintained,
you see the true equilibrium price of all these things Capitalists are doing.

--The Capitalists, maintaining religiously this second-story,

spend millions of dollars to fight off the moment where their necks will be severed
and their arteries will flood the streets with blood.
--And these are the millions of dollars that do not effect all of our flourishing,
as to which we might have submitted in the first story in concert with the
'capitalists'.
--It is the difference in a *story*
between whether the working class has been working with the capitalists all this
time,
or whether the capitalists have perpetuated a system under which
they have received the death-penalty by the time the revolution occurs.

--It is interesting that the events can be not-even-subtly different,

but the stories that justify one and condemn the other differ so broadly.

--It is the difference between humanity crying out that solar electricity be solved
and Musk being the uniting corporate entity that resolves it,
and thus Musk crying out to heaven for being placed against the wall and made to
bleed,

or alternatively humanity crying out that solar electricity be solved

and Musk being the uniting purpose that resolves it,
and thus Musk being granted waterbonds when he shows up at a bar.

(And well I grant forgiveness to *none*.

I know how they all see themselves
and in seeing that way they cry out for destruction.)

--Free humans, coordinating as they will,

can have constructed Musk's being the locus of resolution for the electricity
crisis.

And everything humans have done so far,

can be interpreted as a democratic selection of Musk as the continued locus.
--Whether it is reasonable to interpret it in that way depends on a story I am
willing or not willing to tell.
--It is not reasonable to interpret it in that way. Because I am unwilling to tell
the story that would make sense of Musk's positioning as a free choice of
collective humanity.
(
'unwilling'

unless I was Hayek!

THen obviously Musk *is* the collective choice of humanity for the resolution of
the electricity crisis.!

--Hayek doesn't judge!

hayek is immune to judgment!
"You bought it,
that was your choice."

"So in being your choice,

it was in fact your choice."

"And well with a little more work we see it was the choice of .000001% of
humanity."
)

--It's funny, because I can imagine a story under which we united behind a Musklike
figure
who did not end up being just another example of trash churned out by the
Capitalist system.
It is a story in which people worked themselves to the bone,
in which they refused to form a Union because there is no point, having chosen that
this is absolutely best already.
(In which the question of a Union did not churn up.)
--In which people said (it is easy to imagine):
'what is best is that the electricity problem be solved.

And the namable locus of efforts around which this resolution occurs is a human
named Elon Musk.'

--That is easy to imagine. It is a flipping of a story behind the efforts actual

humans I can point out have made.
But it is the wrong story.
The correct story is one of a litany of enforcing systems of domination.
[
Sidepoint:
people need to understand what it means to be dominated by the weather
so that they can effectively extract the weather from
the ways people have responded to the presence of the weather.
]

--'the correct story'--a tedious point.

The actual world is a boring exemplar of planned outcomes compared to fantasy
novels.
'the correct story'
a bunch of obtuse monkeys waving their fists around
and in every state of the fist-movement exhibiting violence.
--'a boring exemplar' the only people making stories are the actual humans making
stories.
And I've seen them so i know the story is a boring one.

One of domination. A great eliminator of conceptual complexity.

(
The gigafactory should not have been designed around absolute mechanical
optimisation.

It should have been designed around

figuring out how to make people willingly and joyfully interact with the systems of
commodity creation.

And design the factory with GPUs so it can read the employees' interaction
and optimise, say, the passage of the cars down the line,

the passage of the frame of the car down the line,.

--Absolute mechanical optimisation is saying:

"The factory works best when humans optimally affect a single mechanical part in
this process."
--Absolute human optimisation is saying:
"The cars and the frames and the engines and the batteries

are conveyed down the assembly line exactly in that rate

where the people who are milling about the factory examining the production process

will best be able to examine the frames etc. and judge whether the process is
proceeding well.

--But that is a much more difficult proposition to effect.

It is one that optimally amuses a group of very clever people,
and this produces incredible quantities of value,
but it is much easier to design a factory in such a way that
it is optimally *mechanically* designed to produce instances of vehicles.

--You lose out on all of the optimisations that could have been provided by your
employees,
but you gain all of the optimisations implicit in making a very strict box around
human activity.
(And if you are gambling on mechanics being more valuable than human activity,
you are making a losing gamble.)

--You see the difference between the stories now?

The perfect Musk would have coordinated with his employees
to produce a laboratory in which they could exhibit perfect car production.
The actual Musk made tiny boxes for human bodies to flail against uselessly.

--It was at first a *story* being told behind both outcomes.

But *inevitably* it gave rise to a fundamentally different way of pursuing the
purpose.
If you adopted the domination story,
you produce a tiny box.
If you adopted the free vision of human interactivity,
you produced the optimal laboratory as instantiated within a factory
for car-making experts optimally to construct cars.

--I am not confused by the story being told.

No one can tell me the system we have was freely made, let me tell you.

I see the factories and I see tiny boxes around the illimitable behavior of human
bodies.
I know.
I know which story is correct here.
No one would have said, en masse, that what was made optimally pursued their own
interests
except maybe the capitalists would say this.

[
But if we can make the Machine all sins are washed away.

"I know we did terrible things,

but now we are instantaneously disbanding all systems of domination

and we are submitting all future events to the judgment of the Machine."

Now if we did that we would not deserve for our necks to be severed in the street.
]

--Though multiple stories can be told behind all of the persisting events,
regularly we arrive at junctures that decide between whether a story is correct or
not.

One story persists:

the exact mechanical consequences of all the decisions made.
Another story does not persist inevitably:
a story told, hovering over the mechanical activities.

--One story persists:

yet another box was made to bind yet more human bodies into tiny boxes.
Another story does not persist:
"THIS ACTIVITY WAS PERFORMED SO THAT HUMANS COULD EXPRESS THEMSELVES OPTIMALLY."
--I see which story persists.
In each moment I am begging it is the moment where it is revealed
that this was all just an unimaginable conspiracy most optimally to introduce
communism,
but in each moment I am found disappointed.

In each moment I am begging this is the one where people revealed

they saw the opportunity presented by
making local heroes instead of local capitalists.
(Aha.)

--
--And well you see the value of Unions.
If you are dealing with a Union,
ideally you are dealing with a group of people who hold regular meetings in empty
library rooms and church basements.
And in all these meetings they are discussing how optimally to become makers of
cars.
(As in engineers who, needing to represent to the market a Union,
have decided to become serious for a change instead of wayfarers on purposes in
which they have no interest.)
-_If you are dealing with a Union you are dealing with serious people,
and you know it is best to optimise the construction of a factory around
maximising their capacity to effect their interests within the factory.
--Because members of this Union will have become so good at making cars
that the functional mechanics of a factory are subsidiary, in the production
process, to catering towards the capacities of the Union members.

--To say, it will inevitably turn out that

if people form a true Union to effect the creation of cars,
it will always in fact be best to optimise the factory around their investigations.
Because humans are the best things at resolving difficulties that arise in
situations. They are better than a GPU and CPu combo.

--The Gigafactory doesn't need to be designed against--

the Gigafactory needs to be a sand-box in which the Union members can play
effectively.
It needs to be so responsive to alteration by the Union members in pursuit of their
purposes
that it feels in their hands like manipulating sand.

Then you will have a factory that optimally produces whatever commodity it is
intended to produce.
--Then you will have an environment for which a reasonable Union has been
bargaining.

--Think seriously for a moment about Unions.

If there was no coercion among communities *at all*
there would be *many* Unions.

If I am looking at which Union to acquire,

I am much more interested in acquiring this Union of people who are extremely
interested in making cars
than I am in acquiring this Union which is directing all its funds towards
extending the weekend 4 or 5 days per week.

--If you could have no coercion over people,

I would be able to select a Union that is very interested in making cars instead of
a 5 day weekend.
--Because there are people around who are very interested in solving climate change
who don't begrudge a few hours on the weekend to resolve it.

(And I am not providing a defense of Musk here.

I am constructing an extravagant alternative vision of the way human affairs could

have proceeded if persons were not monsters.)

--
--It is easier to talk about Bezos, for theoretical purposes, than Musk.
Musk represents a kind of vision, and even though he is obviously wrong this vision
muddles the waters.

But Bezos represents the presence of warehouses that need to be coordinated with
their local environments.
No one has a vision of a world in which warehouses are well-coordinated with their
local environments.
--So no one can imagine a Union that is well-inspired to effect optimal relation of
a warehouse with its environment.
[Or, anyone who attempts to optimise the relations between warehouses and their
environments

wil be found, bound by the spine, and put in prison.

Except Bezos, who will not be bound by the spine and put in prison,
despite doing nothing better than criminals who previously optimised relations
between warehouses and populations.]

--But I can imagine that Union!

I can imagine people who get extremely good at allocating warehouses to
populations.
I can imagine people who end up constructing Journals accounting for how optimally
to allocate warehouses to populations.
--I can imagine people who hold it as an object of local heroism
to join the local warehouse and discern how optimally to allocate its commodities
to the population.
(Because I can imagine Unions that are formed around the purpose of effecting a
tradecraft.)

--And if no one locally was very interested in allocating the resources within the
warehouse optimally to the population,
then the warehouse
would distribute its holdings suboptimally.
And that would be Justice.

It would be a suboptimal warehouse maintained

and awaiting a local resident who could inform it concerning how best to provide
the market with goods.
--Someone eventually who said:
"It takes like 5 hours to optimise this warehouse.

I'm willing to spend 5 hours to optimise this warehouse for the local population."

"It takes 5 hours a day to optimise this warehouse for the local population.

I am willing to do this because when I return to the city I will be lauded as a

local hero."
--Or people might say:
"We don't need a warehouse near us.
We produce everything we want already for ourselves and do not need deliveries from
a warehouse."
Then they just have this very inefficient warehouse forever fine.
(And they will be priced out of their houses,
made to live in the street,
their residences converted into loci of supercomputers...)
--They might do this if nothing Amazon offers is
needed to be purchased in order to make their local communities greater.
Or it might occur if
the warehouse so rarely needed to be altered in order to satisfy the periodicity of
demands from the community
that it was never worthwhile to devote a single human second to orchestrating its
periodic deliveries of commodities.
(Or 5 human hours.)
(Or 5 human-hours per day.)

(
'What is best is that you maximally commodity humans
until you treat them purely as a sea of objects

any of which together can be selected to contribute ''human-hours''.

Then having been able to make a single commodifiable object called a ''human-hour''
you will see that various attributes a human can attain bodily
will make their ''human-hours'' purchased for more dollars than
the ''human-hours'' offered by minorities.

Har har.

It is when you maximally commodify the ''human-hour'' that you will obviously be
able to see
that injustice is being effected when people pay dollars for human-hours.

You will then be seeing there is a premium on the human-hours of white straight
christian males
grossly over the capacity presented by any given human-hour of those men to effect
designated purposes.

So you will be saying something like:

"For a given human-hour being offered up for sale by these stereotypical men,
we can hire three women and a mexican."
"For the same capacity to effect purposes,
we can hire a man, blocky as the price is,
or we can hire three women and a mexican and achieve four times the affectation of
the purpose."
"If we hire the stereotypical man instead of the three women and the mexican,
we are very obviously failing optimally to effect our purposes.

Yet nevertheless we do it.

We do it nevertheless."

--Then just looking at human hours,

you will see you have been making an incredible mistake for a long period of time.

((In the Giga-factory,

the mechanics of its operation will not systematically discriminate against varying
human capacities to lift 50 pounds off the ground.

But rather it will discriminate on the basis of who can best

weightlessly manipulate components involved in the periodic construction of cars,

where the competing groups are various Unions all vying to be the people who
are granted access to this optimal laboratory for constructing cars.))
)

--
--

Oh boy, I have to stay awake.

I only woke up at 2. It's only 10.

I will throw off my sleep scheduling if I do not persist until around the next 7.
(I am not sure how much faith I have in my capacity to stay awake until the next
7.)

--
--You know, in the White Papers I told you about rolling the chain of the komboloi
in order to avoid that the two separate chains of the komboloi did not activate two
distinct loci of nervous activity.
--This is actually quite critical to extremely rapid manipulation of the komboloi
with a hand.
(I report empirically, moment by moment.)
--It is useful to roll the two chains into one
because one chain is always the same with itself,
but two-chainness can differ from one to the next.
(Insofar as the 'one - to - the - next' is determined by
however you manipulate the chains,
either rolling them or not,
with your hand while flipping them about.)

--
--
[Interesting point about vega:

it behooves everyone in the computation market that Vega is a smashing success.

There needs to be excitement returned to the decision to purchase a graphics card.

It needs to be that people say:

"Vega wildly exceeded our expectations,
and similarly I expect Nvidia's next offering to wildly exceed my expectations."

--It behooves the computation market that

on the occasion that any new graphics card is introduced
this is an occasion on which many new computers are constructed in expectation of
the brilliance of the card.

Then more CPus will sell and GPUs and ram and so on.

--It needs to be that when Vega comes out

some magic has been performed with its drivers.
[[
"This will just get sucked up into mining rigs."
Fine.
]]

--
--I judge practically, in the above text,
it is very good if Vega ends up being a very good sample of GPU.
(And better if Nvidia makes the very best at a higher price later.)
(And very most best if a third party emerges later that offers budget materiel.)
]

--How do you destroy Capitalism?

This is not an ideological question I am asking.
I am asking a structural question of what constructible actions I can perform that
disassemble the machinery of Capitalism.

I am asking:
"What can an agent within Capitalism do within Capitalism
that will effect the dismantlement of Capitalism as a system?"
--It is a practical question.
--'I am not asking an ideological question.'
I am not asking you to give me a theoretical examination of the type of actions
that can bring about the dismantlement of Capitalism.
I am asking you what commodities I can acquire, what position in which I can
reposition them, and how much electricity I can apply to them,
in order that the result is the dismantling of the Capitalist system.

--This is a practical question. It has an answer.

It is some collection of commodities gathered together in a certain way.
[
And for the critical theorists:

You can see why the Machine would most rapidly effect the destruction of Capitalism
from the moment it was introduced into this world.

Because the human body is so incidental to the construction of the Machine's

purpose
that if a human body exhibits domination in view of the Machine's gaze
that human will be discarded and replaced.

When managers exhibit tyranny they are the people the Machine would be eliminating
from the cycle of the execution of its purpose.
Because they are practically the people that are restraining the bodily activity of
the employed humans.

Restraining human free expression is detrimental to the purposes of the execution

of the Machine.
Domination restrains human free expression.
This is why domination will be eliminated from the grammar of our coexistence.

--and well, the obvious necessity of orchestrating an arrangement of people and

commodities to effect the necessary dismantlement of the Capitalist system
is a form of domination against my life.
To participate in the perpetuation of the Capitalist system is an implicit
domination of my life.
Because to perpetuate the Capitalist system is to be perpetuating a system that
obviously demands dismantlement.
--Obviously demanding dismantlement,
alll right-thinking individuals have a demand placed on their life from the
beginning to the end optimally to discern how to dismantle it.
They cannot do anything but optimally discern the dismantlement of this infernal
system.

Domination cannot be allowed to persist.

Every action undertaken by a human must be voluntary.
This because voluntary human action generates so much data to be fed into
supercomputers
that it is worth hundreds of trillions of dollars. (har.)

--Domination cannot persist, practically,

because factories that practise domination will lose out to those that don't.
[[And maybe this is an analogy for logic gating.!]]
]

--
--A fun question for communists:
imagine every single human on earth instantaneously became a communist.

Now, what does this new communist society *do*?

Does it gather up all the Capitalists and put them against the wall?

"Sure."

That seems odd to imagine.

"Why?"

If everyone had just become a communist together,

volunteering to be put up against the wall would truly be a volunteer activity.

"They would say:

'Such is the contractual difficulty of my bare bodily existence
it is preferable that I end up against the wall
so much will it restrain the progression of the execution of the revolution.'"

Oh.
That is quite admirable of them to do,
but I don't think that is what is best to do.
We instead take advantage of their leveragable contractual positions,

since they are now all coordinated with us and among each other,

to execute the optimal execution of the revolution's progression across all

commodities.
--This will be easy to do because *everyone*, having just submitted to the
revolution,
will be facilitating the progression of the revolution across their activities.

And similarly the Capitalists, having now joined the revolution,

would be leveraging all of their assets and contractual capacities optimally to
effect the passage of the revolution.

"Unless it is indeed better for them to submit themselves to the wall

in which case that it is exactly what they will voluntarily do."

I suppose.
I didn't want to talk about the wall before you kept bringing it up.
I just wanted to talk about people optimally coordinating to resolve all
difficulties.
But yes, if Capitalists decide to utilise their wealth and positions to hinder the
revolution,

this poses a difficulty.

It violates our above dialectical dictate that we were speaking about
everyone simultaneously deciding what was best was best optimally to solve everyone
else's difficulties.

[
"What best resolves solving everyone's difficulties is
mass producing commodities no one needs, as we do now."

No.
It is a best way of resolving the difficulties
as they are posed by consumers to the market practically.
]

--If everyone simultaneously became communists together

then there would not be people leveraging their wealth in any way except the
resolution of nearby difficulties.

"This seems to present, let us return to some kind of track,

a mechanical difficulty for the revolution:

it can be that everyone locally resolving all of their nearby problems optimally
will build up into a collection of activities that constitutes conflict with a
nearby locality also attempting to solve all of its own problems."

Oh.
I thought when humans were prancing about in unending joy
there would not ever arise conflict between humans but only optimal resolution of
problems together.

"Nope.

People will prance around joyfully,

encounter each other,
and then be baring arms against each other."

= \
I suppose there is a fundamental coordination problem implicit in the way people
respond to the weather even.
You need people optimising not just by reference to their own difficulties
but in coordination with all their neighbors.
You need all adjacent neighbors agreeing with regards to certain parameters that
are to be represented in the way they all evaluate the outcomes of circumstances.

--Not an invincible problem. Just a question of mathematics.

--Anyway it poses no particular difficulty for instantaneous global communism
relative to the difficulty it also poses for the executive activities of
Capitalists.
[
I say with a Hayekian voice.]

--We have the internet,

within a few days 7 billion motivated humans could hammer out the rules of local
interaction.
--Easy peasy.
--Within a few more days no local groups will be disagreeing concerning what it
means
to adhere to the agreement they made 7 billion at a once.
(Ha.)
--And they will have submitted to some kind of monitoring of reportable activities
so that the Machine can have weighed them one against another.
[
Is domination by a mutually agreed upon collection of rules
better than domination by some human who happened to inherit a yacht?
]
[
Can people construct actions within the agreed-upon collection of rules
that effect the destruction of the system within which the rules are represented?
]

--
--I wonder,
can you introduce an image into a cartesian grid
that when exposed to the mathematics that constitutes the proof-based
representation of the cartesian grid
will mess up the mathematics with which you have represented the cartesian grid?

"'mess up the mathematics' bullshit."

I'm probably bullshitting.

But it seems like if you had constructed a mathematical proof-system that could
supply a state
for any given image-representation made within that proof-grid,
then there should be a collection of logic you could represent an image
such that when you fed the image into the grid-generator it

presented an image on the displayed grid that was other than expected from having
fed the grid-generator that image-proof.

--As, say, if there was a formula I could code into a ti84 calculator
that would make its screen display something other than a cartesian grid
when I told it to display the formula in the cartesian grid.
--That is the kind of thing I am imagining when I imagine an image-proof messing up
the mathematics of the representation of a cartesian grid.
-_Of course there is no such difficulty if we do everything by hand.--Then we are
not plugging in the anti-proof into the procedure for generating a grid on a
screen.
--Then we are simply drawing the image-proof in the grid
instead of plugging the image-proof and having our ti-84 display to us something
that is not a cartesian grid.

--Is maybe our procedure for generating a grid

just the inverse image of what we must do in order that

our plotting of image-proofs
presents to us the images we expect to be observing?
--So that every image-proof presents a straight line
and our grid-generation procedure contorts itself inconceivably until
it presents the contorted image we expected to observe within the grid?
(What if some irrational numbers presented to us by the graph

are just the thing the graphing program placed when it received an input to display
a particularly programmatic number?)
(Then there would be all these outputs of the graphing program

that clustered around the graphing program's tendency to convert programmatic

numbers into points.)
(Tinfoil hats.)

[
My chance to enter into the market!:

make a real-money game where people gamble on the optimal allocations of

electricity among nodes.

By playing this game, these people will be applying human perfection to the process
of allocating electricity amongst nodes.

Harvest all of the data generated by them, punish them for misallocating, and
reward them for allocating well.
Then you will have a program that emulates a perfect human allocating electricity
between nodes.

--People who misallocate electricity will eventually be asked:

"Please stop participating in the electricity market allocation unless you are
willing to purchase more electricity to continue playing."
And most people would say:
"I have no particular interest in playing this game for real money."

ANd other people would say:

"I am extremely good at allocating the distribution of electricity in exchange for
access to more electricity."
Then they would not run out of funds to keep playing,

and we will have paid them pennies on the dollar for the data they have generated.

And then in a few months, with so many GPU monitoring their activities,
we can just lay them all off and replace them with a super-computer.

--A cheap investment of dollars in exchange for an invaluable capacity to

manipulate the distribution of electricity between nodes.
--And being a cheap investment of dollars relative to the data obtained,
it is an opportunity to leverage other peoples' labor into my own monetary gain.
Consequently it is an occasion on which I can invest minimal dollars in attaining
more dollars at the expense of others.
My opportunity to enter the market!

"Instead of replacing all of these clever electricity manipulators

with extremely rough facsimiles manufactured out of a few months' of data,
why not simply keep employing the humans to keep doing it?

It cost very little from one moment to the next to keep them doing this."
--Maybe I make a different use of the data I collected.
I introduce patches into the electricity manipulation game.

Players often agreed that certain aspects of the electricity manipulation game
should be automated in a perfectly consistent way.
So I programmed into the game these automated instantiations of rule exhibition.
Then these players who were previously encumbered by non-automated processes
could manipulate the distribution of electricity *even more effectively*!.
--Then I would not be taking dollars in order to destroy the positions that enabled
me to make the dollars.
I would instead be buying graphics cards in a mine
that mined out the automated processes of electricity rule-exhibition generation.

And the people who are playing this game will continue to say:
"I agree, it was good that
the excess product of our labor went towards
automating these processes that made it more difficult to play the game."
--THen I would have Justice.
Maybe. something more like Justice.
And I would have the best network for handling distributions of electricity.
I would have an increasingly perfect collection of humans manipulating the
distribution of electricity.
Computers cannot compete with this. Or, it is a great deal more costly for
computers to compete with this
than to have those computers instead implementing the automated processes in
electricity for the game's progression.

--There are so many dollars to be made from implementing this game.

My chance to enter the market! hurr.

"You know who in general performs the execution of ideas?

Whoevers' job it is to do that sort of thing."

Making dollars off of my ideas would be incredibly tedious.

The idea of calling several people or recruiting them,
calling a rentier to rent a building, acquiring many computers,
--I cannot recount to you how tedious this would be relative to just sitting here
and thinking.
--I would not make it a single day in that kind of tedium before I returned back
and resumed thinking.
The dollars be damned. It is not my job to do that sort of thing.
(And yet there are a few untedious ways to make dollars off my ideas!

I can {become a camwhore playing cello.}

play cello joyfully and quite freely and share it with people would bother to
watch.

And because of how things work, if this succeeded, dollars would flow to me {on the
back of my ideas}
through the normal avenues of paying streamers for their talents.)

[
--
--I watched a few videos on the Riemann Hypothesis so, Tinfoil hats,
the above notion of a programmatic cartesian grid generator
being corrupted by far-flung programmatic numbers

into representing a point where it is not

is a notion that explains why instantiation of the whatever Riemann thing in a

cartesian grid
returns these strange values between 0-1 x values on the cartesian grid.

It is returning these values because when some far-flung number was fed into the
programmatic graph generator
it returned these values instead.
--Har.
And all this talk about imaginary numbers is just how we explain to ourselves why
the graph generator placed points where it did.
[[HAR.]]

--Anyway, I agree it is a poor MO to watch videos

and then just account for the images that flash in one's head in terms of the
videos most recently watched
that best seem to correspond to the image being witnessed.
]

[
The electricity game--
you could strip nodes of arbitrarily non-specific descriptors. Or arbitrarily
specific descriptors.
--You could name all of the nodes with everything except their actual name

and retain anonmyity by placing them among many samples of cities that could be
arranged in very similar ways.

--You could say, for instance, that a location is a bar in the node-map when people
click on the node.
And you could distance that bar from every other node appropriately given
how inefficient the electrical lines are that connect one node to the next, and how
long they are.

And one bar relative to an apartment would look very much like another bar to an
apartment.
--Then the players of the electricity game would have enough information to make
judgments like:
"On a saturday this bar must be fed more electricity,
and I will make funds by dictating that electricity is provided to it in greater
excess on a saturday night."

--And the players of this game would retain a few local collections where they have
succeeded in allocating electricity in accordance with the dictates of the grid.
They would lose *access* to these locations when they consistently failed to
deliver electricity to nodes in the way the prices dictated.
They would gain access to new locations if they effectively managed electricity in
the ones they already manage.
(And this 'access' will be accompanied by
a new collection of nodes labelled much like the preceding collection of nodes.)

--
--And it is by this data stripping that we could get people to agree to have their
electricity handled by anonymous players of a game.
Because when we have stripped information out of the buildings,
this process involved creating a 'length of separation' between nodes,
and this length was not corresponding to a physical length but only to
a combination of quality of wire and length of wire.

So there could conceivably be two physical different allocations of nodes that

appeared identical,
and also two different nodes that didn't appear identically spaced but were
physically identically spaced in the actual world.

--And this offers the kind of anonymity that my customers will be taught to expect
from an electricity allocation market.
--Then the dollars will flow in! I'll get my yacht and mountain of cocaine.
--my house solar panels and fantasy pants computer.
(I will be bejeweled by an iron wedding ring
instead of diamonds on my shoelaces.)

--Ho hum.
Much like my plan to make 'True Blood' carbonated water ("Drink in your decay.")
I am not going to do this one either.

--Whereas I am substituting this market-introducing behavior with

one in which I construct overlapping samples of cello sounds
and hope people will pay dollars to acquire samples of what I make and listen to
it.
--Presumably I am making some kind of mistake here.

[
Preferably, if I made any money,
it would be attributed to a screen handle and the author of the work would be
referenced by a screen handle.

And the dollars would be delivered to me anonymously and untraceably.

I don't want to be streaming music and having people show up and saying:
"OMG! You're that guy! I'll buy samples of your music because you're 'that guy'!"

Ho hum.
]

[
Just want to be alone in some apartment somewhere.
]

[
Or I could accept the fame and do as some people do,

aiming the camera so that it cuts off any identifying features of my person.

Then I would keep my audience that began at 5 and grow it to 85!

It is true I want a house but
it is not true that I want to be granted a name I can wield to dominate other
people.

--But the practical difficulty is that I could accept the fame as Eric Russell
then legally change my name to be left alone.
But this would leave a paper trail illustrating that I had changed my name.
--And for that matter, I would continue to be posting material under the designated
screen handle.

It is a complicated question.

The idea that I would be out on the street looking for love
and that another person's decision would be influenced by connecting my face with a
heard name
is abombinable to me.

As much as I would prefer to explain myself to people first-hand,

it is much preferable that my name dissolves into the names of people who have
carried my work further
and that there is a small regular stream of dollars enabling me to live anywhere
but here.
--But this doesn't work.
I can't let my name dissolve because then there will not arrive into my accounts a
regular stream of dollars
as are necessary that I can escape this intolerable position at last.

So it is a hateful decision to be forced to make. THere are no good outcomes.

[[hurr which is why the entire system must be torn to the ground and remade in a
better form = D]]

If I had UBI, for instance,

I could anonymously publish idea after idea until I died.
And I would never be forced to beg for dollars in return for the presentation of my
ideas.

And there would be anonymous idea-aggregators from which

people selected ideas to implement and gave full credit to the screen handles that
generated them.
And people would just be in an endless web of creating and executing ideas.
--Or anyway I would be.
The rest can rot for all I care at this point.
--Living in this position for this long has stripped me out of all of my concern
for what happens in the lives of other people.
I wouldn't care if many people were made worse off so I could exit this position.
So I am unconcerned if I receive a stream of revenue and others do not
for my having made the ideas I have made.

I am unconcerned if some arrangement was made

where I was paid dollars to hold some outlying apartment where I could be alone at
last.
-_It is hateful to relate.
I was supposed to remain pure up to that point where I put a bullet in my brain.

But fuck other people. I will bleed them of 30k$ per year.

'intolerability'
presents itself in remarkably different ways from position to position.
'intolerability' means taking up the middle finger;
my taking up the middle finger means something very different from
what it means for anyone else to take up the middle-finger.

For some people

the middle finger is a pistol you at last draw because the situation is
intolerable.
(Not to confuse 'being in an intolerable position' with the way western cowboys are
represented,
where they will draw a pistol far before they have experienced even a mild
annoyance.)

For me 'intolerability'
is responded to by finding a way to leverage an idea into dollars.

'intolerability' is a designation we provide

when we are talking about a system we would rather destroy than perpetuate.

Because of the ubiquity of the term 'the system'

it sounds like I am talking about Capitalism.
But instead I am making a personal point about the system in which I am embroiled.
It is intolerable to me because I will bring about the actions that effect the
destruction of this system in which I am embroiled
rather than the perpetuation of it.

And if this means exploiting laborers so I can extract dollars from their efforts,
that is what I will do.
The system in which I am embroiled is intolerable to me and I am
simply playing out the historical necessity of holding my position.

--Had I been a rich fuck borne of rich parents who were leeches on the neck of
society,
I would have just lounged around writing until
there was no more inheritance, then I would have shot myself.
Then there would no longer be perpetuated through that fund of dollars the
execution of domination.

--It is a tricky point that my parents were productive members of society and I am
physically a leech on their resources.
If they had been rich I could have
flipped them the middle finger from the moment born until dead.
But instead I have parents I agree should be honored after some fashion.
And I have a life in which I am saying: "This position must be escaped as quickly
as possible."

--So I will factually (through the bare act of my actions) specify several laborers
whose labor I am profiting by,
then I will steal the product of their labor and establish a new position

from which I can designate more laborers from whom I can extract dollars.
--That is, to say, exactly what I will be doing when I take my money and run
into an apartment and find
a way of leveraging my ideas into a stream of revenue.

--This is what intolerability means to me.

It means that it is preferable to exploit the labor of others to extricate myself
from my current circumstance
than to continue to fail to commit injustice while maintaining my current
circumstance.
--It means that despite everything I have said about how everyone like me should be
lined up against the wall,
I am going to Capitalise the efforts of others in order to subsidise my own
existence.

[[If only Satoshi had access to that first wallet still.

Lol.
Rather sincerely, many years after its creation, I think Satoshi would rather rot
than access it.

--A rather big risk for the bitcoin market! harhar.

How much is lost depends on how much Satoshi can extract from the wallet before the
market responds.

--And well Satoshi's position is lost at this point.

It takes like an hour to transmit bitcoin across the network
and it would take *many* hours to transmit bitcoin across a network

if news of access to the initial wallet compelled a mass sell-off of bitcoin

holdings.
So if Satoshi tried to extract a single bitcoin from that initial wallet
his holdings would drop from billions of dollars to pennies before the first
transaction occurred.

Better to die with a trophy on your mantle than pennies in your pocket.

--A USB with a million bitcoin in it. lol.

That is quite a trophy.

[[[You know, despite rhetorical joking here, that I did not make bitcoin,
because I am telling you this position is intolerable to continue to hold
but I do not accept the few thousand dollars I could extract from the first wallet
before Bitcoin collapsed entirely.

Having said 'intolerable'

you know I would have accessed the initial wallet by now if I had access to it.
--my circumstance is intolerable,
and given how I use this word 'intolerable'
you know I would have, if possible, accessed the wallet as doing that would extract
me from this circumstance post-haste.

(And probably result in Satoshi's murder by people.)

]]]

]]
]

--Though you know if I am to remain consistent with the dictates of my anonymity

I would need to be flooding the internet with instances of my messages
out of which there can arise both a circumstance where my screen handle is
referenced and I receive a revenue stream.
Which I am not doing.
What am I even doing?
--Drunk at 2:16 pm.
I'm waiting to die because every option available is so repugnant.

--This notion that 'intolerability'

means something identical across all people as an evaluation of the relation they
stand between their circumstances and themselves

but means something *mechanically different* between different instances of people,

this is interesting.
--It is easy to imagine that 'intolerability' is always equivalent to gathering a
weapon and killing a human.
(And it may be useful to have a term like 'mega-intolerability'
where it *is* always the case that a gun is grabbed when 'mega-intolerability' is
exhibited)
--It is harder to imagine that 'intolerability'
is being exhibited on every occasion where a periodicity is replaced with another.
(
As when my previous 6PM wakings up and 6AM goings to bed
are replaced with
me being perfect in an apartment
on an hour-by-hour basis that can be considered a scheduled collection of
periodicities.
--As when I will be practising cello at 2:22PM instead of being drunk at 2:22PM.)

--'stealing the excess labor of others to perpetuate my own existence'--that is

what I will do.
Eventually, I mean,
when I have run my own accounts dry and drained my last bitcoin two years from now
or so,

then I will discern a method for extracting excess value generated by other people
in the market place.
I will call it a business and I will introduce it in order to subsidise my own
continued existence
with minimal effort diverted from optimal continuation of my own holding of some
isolated apartment.
(
Though you know if I own the house and also a garden outside it

I will be able to arrive in a position where I need not exploit anyone to continue
optimally to execute my own position.

So it is best most rapidly to acquire a house outright! haharharharharharharhar.

Stupid fucks.
)
(
In outright-purchasing that house I will have committed some grave sin.

Because I will have ammassed something like 400k$ all at once to be able to
purchase it outright.
ANd to have been in a position to amass 400k$ all at once is certainly to have
committed some grave sin.
)
(
Or maybe I could acquire a mathematics degree,
acquire a millenium prise,
and then hide for the remainder of my life.
Surely this cannot be called an injustice.)a
(
"If you had in fact won a millenium prize
it would be useful if you showed up as a human on a stage in-body to receive it."

And why is that?

Why would anyone care what my body looked like?
Why is it important that the ideas issued in this notepad instance
are tied to bodily meat-hooks that were used to press keys?

Why can these dollars not be scrambled and delivered to me in tiny quantities
mathematically organised so that they cannot ever be traced to my identity?

[We are having fun, lul.]

"You bare certain personal characteristics

it is useful to demonstrate are associated with the reception of this prize and
these dollars."

Ho hum. I thought we were past racism and sexism.

There no utility gained from parading this body on a stage.
(Except for myself.

Being able to command the arrival of this body on a stage,

there is indeed value to be attained to this voice for having made it so.)
--Eventually there will be no utility associated with the presentation of a human
body, so presumably it is bad to do it now.
"You are severely autistic and it is good for severely autistic people to be
presented as acquiring high prestige on a stage."

Ho hum.
Or it ends up being another 'A Beautiful Mind'. Glamorising the horrifying
experience of schizophrenia.
John Nash's body too on a sequence of presented stages.
--Maybe risking tempting
misled youth into embracing schizophrenia instead of beseeching treatment the
moment it has appeared.

--Maybe opening up the possibility of a misled biography that says:

"You too can leverage schizophrenia into effective writing skills!"
And how much damage this would do to the collective human soul.

There is nothing good about my body arriving in a stage to receive an award.

(Though you know,
I would have a lobotomy by now if I was born 70 years ago.)

--What is good is that a name is granted prestige.

That name is 'nogalt'.
And I receive an anonymous revenue stream.
That is what is good.

All the internet will be ignited:

"An anonymous redditor, accepting no blame, resolved an age-long mathematical
problem."
Everyone will be asking themselves:
"How can I too contribute to this great web of ideas?"
"Some random redditor named 'nogalt'
made some posts that contributed something substantial to the expansion of human
ideation.

Maybe I too can construct ideas that contribute to this prolonged effort of making
more and better ideas."
--ANd I receive an anonymous revenue stream. That is what is good.

(Goddamn it.)
('the it' that is goddamned)
(the weather)

(Ideally I would already have been receiving a revenue stream

and then I could just make ideas and abandon them wherever I wanted them to be
represented.

But there is this goddamned 'it' that restrains human perfection at every available
moment.)

(It is interesting that Academics are the proper recipients of all good ideas
, but when en-masse every human is generating good ideas

the Academy has not generated enough Academics to examine all of them and judge
them on their merit.
So it is good to develop a system where non-Academics can be Academics.)
(
It is good to develop a hierarchy of comment construction where
everyone is very interested in being truly correct in the judgment of Academics
ultimately
and then they are told whether they are adhering to Academic standards.

--It is good that when people post messages that make them be mocked by
badphilosophy/r/
they feel the weight of the mockery that is present for them when they ahve defied
academic standards.
It is good that people stop talking except that they have something that can be
approved by their local academic examiner
(and yet nevertheless don't stop talking)
--then the message boards would be loci of incredible idea generation.
--And 'nogalt' ignites the message boards more than 'Eric Russell.'

--Then there is this incredibly tedious point that 'nogalt' is a hardly developed
character,
whereas Eric Russell is a character developed over thousands of pages.
--It is tedious because
I can't really imagine what 'nogalt' could post to reddit in order to effect a
minor revenue stream and an explosion of ideas,
but I can really imagine what 'Eric Russell' could post to the market that effects
a major revenue stream and an explosion of ideas.

--You see because I have all put all this effort into an 'Eric Russell' in an
engrossing notepad instance
and this effort has not entailed anything but 'Eric Russell' talking to himself at
extreme length.
--It is more difficult than simply continuing to type in this notepad instance
to construct a message and place it in the mouth of 'nogalt'.
--Or maybe it isn't, in-story.
Maybe I've been being 'nogalt' all along.
Then it should be easy to place messages in the mouth of 'nogalt' and difficult to
put them in the mouth of 'Eric Russell'.

--And we are balancing on a knife's edge.

One way or the other except foward directly
and we will have exploited the labor of others to enrich ourselves.
(Which is why we initially established this distinction between 'nogalt' and 'Eric
Russell'.)
(To make a knife's edge along which we could walk straightly.)

--If we are very careful we can leverage a treasury of useful ideas

in such a way that I can have introduced them and exploited no one.
(And there are patrons who have said:
"I am willing to divest myself of a million dollars if some clever mathematician
makes a useful idea."
Would it be exploitation to divest that person of a million dollars?)

--It is making me sick, even, to think:

"I submitted myself in sexual circumstances on the weight of my preceding
behaviors."
As if I was the same person from one moment to the next and equally deserving of
respect for the person I had constructed out of dust over time.

I said: "Lo it is eric and you should sleep with him."

One more reason I should be placed against the wall.
--This
unmanageable relation between myself and the voice I construct publicly.
Everyone claims they construct the voice seamlessly from moment to moment
and that this is why their sexual encounters are not obviously a rape of the second
party.
This unmanageable relation.
The person I construct is
a lazy and hap-hazard
a lie when I present it as currency.

This, ah, voice for which I insist there is a publicly traded name.
--The world won't imprison me for the things I have done so I will.
If the world is too stupid to recognise the heinous sin that is my bare moment to
moment
then I will not also be too stupid. I will restrain myself.
Recognising I will rape women who attribute my name to my current being
I will not ever request an intimate relation.
--Recognising there cannot ever be justice for me in a one-night stand,
I will not request them regardless of whether those requests will be accepted.

--This gap between the story I construct by reference to the arrangement of

commodities I have made around myself over time
and my self, my being,
--to tell a story by reference to which I can convince a woman to sleep with me,
this is rape. This is fooling another person into believing something that is not
true
and doing this purposefully so that I can ejaculate on their bodies.
--TO experience pleasure, I would rape women who are fooled by the story I would
bother to construct to explain my incomprehensible collection of behaviors.

--That is why I want an apartment out in the middle of nowhere and to engage
minimally with any other human.
Why I do not want my face associated with 'nogalt'.
--That woman not recognising and even protesting the idea that I raped her is not
an adequate defense.

I don't want to be around people because I know I will do it again.

I know eventually I will find someone I can fool into holding me.
Then I will do it.

--Better to direct my lust into an inanimate object like the cello or komboloi. Or
a pen or my hands against a keyboard.

This incomprehensible sin I have committed in the bare pursuit of my desires

has convinced me that pursuing my desires is an intolerable outcome.

'Pursuing my desires', in the practical not-raping sense, is executed by arriving

in an apartment in the middle of nowhere
with no internet activity associated with my bodily name.

"So you really think back on those three women and think you raped all of them.
No matter how vigorous they were in affirming your advances."

Oh.
I had not really considered their relation to me.
That didn't seem very relevant to my evaluation of myself.
It didn't seem to matter whether they enjoyed what was happening, or freely
submitted that it was acceptable that it happened,
when I was deciding whether I had deceived them into letting me touch their bodies.
--Because I didn't care.
Because I didn't care whether they submitted or not.
--It is true that I did not, say, drug anyone.
I did not find anyone slovenly drunk and then take advantage of their bodies.
--But I did not care whether my three partners were accepting my advances.
I made the advances and then they accepted them or they did not.
Then on three occasions I was touching three women's bodies as opposed to those
occasions on which I was not doing so.

--The judgment of this human is not

a question of whether these three women accepted the advances I made.
The question is whether I was making a legitimate advance:
whether the words I constructed to effect my hands on breasts and ass and lips and
so on
were the ones that were legitimate words to have been said in request of this
access.

"Would you like to have a one-night stand?"

This was a collection of words I generated.
And it resulted in my hands on a woman's chest.
Was this a legitimate collection of words to have transmitted to effect this
purpose?

"Uh.
Yes? I guess?"

No.
Because when I typed it out it was a lie.

"You were signalling that you wanted to touch this woman in question,
and she said: 'Okay.'"

(You can't imagine the degree to which I want to condemn myself.

So you can't imagine the efforts I am making to prove myself here an
incomprehensibly intolerable person.)
(But here I would have to--
I have arrived at a rhetorical juncture where I would have to say:

'Though you think me by this point innocent,

I arrived at the apartment
and I said:
"So what is the avenue through which we begin to touch each others' bodies?"'

--I would have to relate the actual circumstances to reveal where the intolerable
activity began.
I would have to say:
"I showed up,
and I entered the apartment with a few knocks.

I looked at the piano on the wall and saw it held cello music of the 4th suite
prelude.
I interrogated the woman for a few minutes concerning how the 4th suite prelude was
to be executed.

THen I asked:
'So how does this begin?
Do we start kissing each other now?'

Then we started kissing each other.

And then she was on my lap and we were kissing.

--Where did the evil begin?

I know it began or I would not be recalling this event in my life
so as to extirpate any similar progression of activities.

Where did the evil began?

She said:
"We should go back to my room now."
Then we left the couch and went back to her room.

Where was the point at which evil began to begin?

A: "It was when you lied.

It was when you sent a text message titled:
'WOuld you like to have a one-night stand? -Eric.'"

Yes.
That is where the evil began.
Because ERic is the human that generated the solution to Machine consciousness.
When I signed my name
that is where I committed evil.

When I leveraged the weight of my name

to arrive in a woman's room to be touching her body,
that is where I committed evil.

When my last text that said: "WOuld you like to have a one-night stand"
was the first text instead
of the last of a great sequence of texts leading up to it,
and when I therefore relied on the weight of my name
instead of the weight of my interactions,
this is when I arrived at an apartment
and half-heartedly raped a woman.

"It is disgusting to me in fact

to hear you describing this circumstance and accounting for it
as if you have committed rape,
which is an evaluation with which I disagree."

Then you are not engaging me on my own terms but

the terms presented by two bodies in a local space touching each other.

--You are not judging me on the basis of the texts I sent

but rather evaluating me on the basis of my body touching another body.
So you are wrong. And I do not engage with wrong people.
If you have not implicitly submitted me to the wall to make my blood run in the
streets
you have misevaluated the role I have served in actual historical circumstances.

When I wanted a body in my hands and in my mouth

I texted a woman and she agreed.
Then I was in her hands and in her mouth and that was the result.
You see why I complain about myself and not any others.

--I could not manage even to send an errant message into the void
that did not arrive me in a circumstance where I had misled a woman into touching
my body.
As if I am a rape machine that
periodically, through errant text messages, arrives in circumstances where I am
raping.

"You are not understanding my complaint.

Asking a woman to touch your body is not the same thing as rape if she accepts
freely,
and it is disgusting to me that you repeatedly call this circumstance a sample of
rape exhibition."

--It is true,
I would have to grant a single other person agency in order to justify sending out
longing texts into the void.
And I am not inclined to ascribe to other persons agency because
everyone else makes mistakes but I should not, at great length.

--I should be able to fool women into letting me rape them,

but I should never have been such as to exhibit raping.

"No, you really aren't understanding my objection.

I'm saying when you were kissing this woman and touching her on lengthy request

this was just another thing people do."

Okay. THat is fun to tell myself but mistaken.

It is interpersonally unfair to be as skilled as I am at interpreting the meaning

of spoken words.
It is interpersonally unfair to have spare hours in which I can perfectly
extrapolate the meaning of words people happen to state in passing.
==It is interpersonally unfair that I can arrive in a library and perfectly
extrapolate all intended meanings from presented text.
It is interpersonally unfair that I have collections of notebooks that correctly
identify the purposes people intended to effect by vocalising text.

Being in an intrinsically unfair position relative to people,

any request that I am touching a woman I have texted through my phone
is an example of me raping a woman.

"You are still not getting my objection."

I would be glad to accept this conclusion.
"When you requested skin contact with a woman and she accepted
this was an acceptable behavior."

Oh fine.
THen I can just move on and fail to examine the consequences of my own decisions.

--And to be a human that has urges to see naked skin and feel it,
you would hardly
you would hardly desire to maintain such a human.
From one moment to the next you would be inviting
circumstances that are uncertain under evaluation.

Defying God from one moment to the next, who demands absolute certainty
to proceed from one state of a position to the next state of the position,

--I did what I did.

One body or another.
I could recount, as my spine is requesting, that I recount the remainder of the
experience I am adducing.
I kissed this woman's back.
(Now I have an erection I was unable to summon during that experience.)
I held her body and kissed her back.
I pursued what I said I wanted out of the experience,
which was a woman's body in my hands.

And I was at half-mast!

I had made a mistake in sending the text message.
I had been establishing the precedent by which I would say I was committing an
impermissible behavior.

I was, ah,.
I was kissing this woman's back and then not
displaying the correct behavior that should have foollowed from this interaction.
I was touching a woman's body and ah,
having her mouth encouraging me in my decision,
and then I failed to display the relevant activity.

--And I was pretty sure this would happen.

So the moment I could get this woman on her back
I went down on her.

And then well my erection was a question spent against her bed coverings.
--Then what I felt was not a relevant question in
how my mouth ended up designated against her body.

--You see?
I had what I wanted
and in having what I wanted I had confused the relevant woman
into believing that I wanted, ah, her.

I wanted skin in my mouth and I had it.

Objective was achieved.

--oh boy I hate this.

Let us say literally,
I was kissing this woman's back as she was
ah goddamnit
she was ah, you know,.
doing the thing one would expect if I was in a position to kiss her back and touch
her back with my hands, you know?

--Goddamnit it.
Let us say,
there was a woman on a bed next to me who was sucking on my cock.
ANd I was kissing her back and touching her back with great gusto.

But I was, periodically across this experience,

thinking about Kierkegaard's notion of Abraham.
And so I arrived at ah, goddamnit,
not a full erection as might ahve been expected from the story being told.

And while it felt very good to me to have my lips on this woman's back and my hands
on her waist,
I had no option except to go down on her the moment this option was available
because
ah, goddamnit, this sucking on my cock did not result in the achieving of a full
erection.
(Because I was distracted by thinking about Abraham.)

And deciding that it was preferable to disappoint the woman in question with my
mouth rather than my cock,
I went down on her immediately the moment it was an available option.
(And then I disappointed her in the same way
she had just finished judging herself as disappointing me.)

--THen well she said various words with her mouth

and I was no longer afraid to use my cock in our mutual interactions, so to say.
And this was very mutually disappointing, I will relate.
I proceeded, masculinely having attained the prospect of making my woman cum
vocally,
to (fucking fuck) utilise (goddamnit) (oh, make me blush) my cock.

--I arrived on top of her instead of my face in her crotch.

And then we both experienced some embarassment and then I was
holding her body in my hands behind her as we lay in bed together.

Then I left because I was so uncomfortable with the resulting outcome.

Then I could not tolerate being behind her holding her body in a bed.
I had to leave or I could not do anything.

--And that is the fun anecdote of the one time I have had sex.
It is an enecdote that reveals many interesting observations
so I feel compelled to convey it before I stop typing.

I said to myself one night:

"I must have a woman in my mouth"
and then I had it.
And nothing good had happened.
--What had happened was that my hand was on her back
and I recounted Kierkegaard's accounting of Abraham
and then I left.

You see-----
it is that lingering hand on the back while recounting Kierkegaard.

If I had repulsed myself to the other side of the room before saying:
"Kierkegaard does not permit that I have enjoyed this"
then I would not have raped a woman.

But instead I touched her back while I was saying these things with my mouth.

--ANd now I have to live in a rural area rather than permitting myself
any liberty with a woman I can contact through, say, an illuminated device.
--It was the incorrect time to reference Kierkegaard.
It was not an appropriate juncture at which to speak about Abraham.

TO have requested a woman's presence with her bare body

for a circumstance where I was going to begin to speak about Abraham,
this was a sin.
And I cannot commit another sin.

It is not permissible to commit another sin and I would prefer a bullet in my brain
before I did it.
It is not permissible that i look back on my life and witness another memory that
is as bad or as bad as this.

--Why I select an online handle instead of my own physical body as a locus of the
work I have done.
--Because I will say: "Hey woman, I am nogalt.
I am the body that corresponds to the name you have seen posted on message boards.
This is the reason you should let me touch your body."
--Which is why I want an anonymous equity stream.
I want to have been forbidden to interact with people in this way.

I will shoot myself before I have done this thing again.

And any doing of this thing again will be another example of exactly this.

--I want my iron wedding band because I have earned it.

I want my ready excuse to avoid doing this again
because I among very few have recognised that it is unacceptable to do this.

I want an iron ring on my left hand

where I can look at it and say:
"The thing you want to do is unacceptable."

I do not trust
the outcome of letting my persona perform whatever it intends to perform.
I want an iron ring on my left hand where I will look at it and say:
"I have been entrusted with a weight of incomprehensible weight
and there is nothing to have been done but dragging it along."

I want to wake up daily and see a glint on my left hand

that forbids me completely from engaging with any last human.
None of the things I want are acceptable.
Inviting women to give me what I want is not acceptable.
An iron ring is acceptable.

The feeling of an iron ring dragging against paper

this is what is acceptable.

(Liz having been broken by an incomprehensible suitor,

this is what must be avoided.

TO speak frankly har har.)

WHen I am paid dollars at last,

the only acceptable sensation is the iron ring dragging against paper
as determined by a hand dictating the progression of a pen.

Resolving my pleasure
is a cost in time that is not justified by the presence of the iron ring.
Feeling my iron ring scrape against a screen as it {sates} types out exaCTLY THE
TEXT THAT RESULTS IN MY MOUTH ON A WOMAN'S BACK
will feel obviously unacceptable the moment I have an iron ring.

The iron ring's sensations will guide me practically.

Ffeeling them when I write out, in pen, valuable text will validate me.
Feeling them when my fingers scrape across a glass screen will invalidate me.

I no longer want to feel this weight of judging

but only the weight of this iron ring.
I don't care the personal cost submitting to this iron ring presents.

Leave me along so I can judge the pressing of this ring against paper.
please.aaaaaaaaaaa
Please let me just have endless days
where this iron ring leaves impressions on endless collections of notebooks.
If you all want to reproduce via rape, fine. I don't care, just please allow me to
be absent from this decision making.
I want to be removed.
I want my outback apartment and an iron ring so I can just write and write.

--I want the weight of my lips on a woman's back removed.

I can hardly look at a woman without saying: "I want my lips on your back."
I can hardly maintain a position relative to a woman that does not entail me
wanting my lips on her back.

So I want
an iron wedding band
and a completely removed personal position.

(My membrane-keyboard has generated a space-bar that is collapsed!

Oh, giving me an iron band,

grant me separation from a keyboard that will have its spacebar collapse
and thereby disrupt my capcity to generate text in notepad instances.)

--I want an iron wedding band on the ring-finger of my left hand.

I want this so that it is obvious to me if I encounter a woman's body
--(you see? do you see/)
there is nothing obvious then to me.

--I want that an iron band on my left ring-finger tells me already

that pursuing the desires that I feel in my chest
are already wrong.
I have already sworn an oath.

I have already submitted myself to iron on my ring-finger rather than gold.

I have already submitted to wanking myself rather than kissing a human's back.
I have already submitted myself to writing rather than kissing a woman where.

--TAo have had the desire is to have been wrong.

To have arranged a life in which there will be a sequence of women sucking on my
cock actually,
this is to have been wrong.
The only correct thing is the iron ring I can hope will arrive on my left-ring-
finger.

The only correct thing is

to hope every day to have justified the presence of the iron wedding band on my
left hand.
--Not correct is to have approached a human
with the explicit and obviously designed purpose that its mouth will end up on my
cock.

You see the gap?

I can make myself look pretty.
I can make a human body arrive in a circumstance where there is a mouth on its
cock.
I know I can do this.
I don't have any desire that this happens.

I don't want the bare association of my name with anything at all

that will arrive with a mouth on my cock instead of a ring on my finger.
I don't want that I can coerce people, through the force of my name,
to arrive with my mouth on their backs.

You see what I am saying?

When my mouth is in a girl's crotch what I want is that

what do I want?
They saw the iron ring and they still wanted my mouth.
And the next day they will leave me alone so I can keep writing with my hand with a
pen.
--I want:
...

an iron ring that weighs my hand down to paper

an iron ring so heavy my whole body is pinned to the ground so that it cannot
exhibit any errant behaviors.

--I cannot arrive in a position like the one in which I found myself before.
I do not accept that I am requesting
a woman please allow my mouth on her body like I did before.

--Why I deserve to be lined up against the wall with all the others.
I did not accept the weight of the iron ring when it was already presened to me.
I pretended i could lift my mouth off the weighted ground to a woman's crotch
when in fact I could not.

My mouth was weighted down with iron rings and I pretended it wasn't.
Every inch of my skin was weighted down with iron rings and I pretended it wasn't.
And in pretending it wasn't so weighted down I lifted my tongue to a woman's crotch
and I sinned.

I should have been in a library instead of the room in which I sent the beseeching
text.
I should have been extending the notes instead of requesting
that my tongue would arrive on this woman's back.

I committed an admittedly, first hand, impermissible sin.

--If I had had an iron ring on my hand at last
I think I would have been restrained.

I would have looked at it when I grasped my phone and said:

"No.
No.
No.
No.
No.

Forever ad indefinitely no."

--But no iron ring.

I put in all the work but there is no wedding band on my hand.
No inexorable glinting iron that observes to me always-already that I have strayed
from the purpose.

--Imagine the circumstances into which this voice can find itself enmeshed.
Now imagine the countermeasure against abusing this capacity: an iron ring.
An iron ring that weighs infinity tonnes.

An iron ring where even where I have begun to rape a woman actually
I will
not do that.

imagine absolution.
An iron ring I could at last look at on my left hand
or perpetually feel against the grain of paper on which I am writing text.

Imagine a commodity I could affix to my left hand

where
I would not ever again commit sin
in seeing it periodically and restraining myself.

--It is impermissible that I do again what I have done.

I need an iron ring the arrival of which
constitutes the divide between the impemissible human I was
and the one I have become.

I need a juncture where I can point at and say:

"Before this juncture factually, in perpetuity,
I was a raper and after it I was not. "

--I cannot be permitted to do the things I will do if unrestrained.

I need a factual sociall permissible restraint on my behavior that is an almight
iron ring.
--I need an iron ring on my left hand
so that I do not
do these things I know I can do and will in fact do and that constitute rape.

I know I will do this.

I am a psychopath.
I can read people and read them and them them
and I will reconstruct them into the story I need to construct
in order that a text message I can construct results in my mouth on their back.

I am a psychopath.
I can do anything i can describe myself as wanting to do.
So I want an iron ring on my left hand

where I look at it and then I do nothing but write with a pen forever and ever and
ever and ever.

I do not accept the result of any of my urges.

I know what my urges are,
I know what pursuit of my urges entails,
and I say it the pursuit of my urges entails rape inevitably.

So I say put an iron wedding band on my finger

and then I will not do this thing.

--I want an iron ring on my finger.

--I want humans to have forgone the religious ritual involved usually in conveying
the iron ring
and to have said:
"Our religious rituals have been found to have been ridiculous relative to *you*.
So we just give you the iron band without ritual."

Then I will take it and put it on my ring-finger.

I want to have been prevented from making decisions that put me in relation to
other human bodies.
I prefer that I was completely restrained than that I have made the decisions I
have made.
I prefer that i always had an iron band on my left hand
than that I made the decisions I made when I did not have that iron band on my left
hand.

I prefer
that I had had an overwhelming excuse not to rape another human.

I prefer that I could, when extremely lustful,

have looked at a band of iron around my left hand
that pinned me to the ground rather than sending that text message.

I prefer--
--culturally it is an odd thing to observe, let me observe.
"I would much prefer that I had had a bit of iron around my left hand
rather than a mouth around my cock."

I wanted her but

in retrospect what I wanted was an iron ring.
In retrospect what I wanted was an excuse to
look at the iron ring
rather than looking at the opportunity to cum.

I wanted
that I could, in a bare moment,
look at my left hand
rather than a bare text field of this woman
--but I didn't have the iron ring and I
put my mouth
wanted
wanted
tasted

--No hope.
No iron ring.
No avenue.
No assurance.
No reference without doubt.

No "
I have a literal instance of an iron ring on my left hand."
No apartment. no job.
A list of names and a desire.
No iron ring.

A desire to arrive with my mouth on this woman.

--Now let me defend myself.
There was an irresistable tension between us.
I had been physically near, and attractive to, this woman for several years.

She was one of my fellow cellists

and well I was a very skilled cellist.

'an irreistable tension'

to say it was easy to designate her as the name on my list of names
to whom I could send a text that would
satisfy this transient desire to have my mouth on her.
--If I had the iron ring
I would have kissed it and simply decided to channel these feelings into writing.
Well but I didn't have the iron ring on my left hand that grasped the cell phone.

--ANd well though I have tortuously deprived my phone of electrical charge over
time
and though I have made my phone an absolutely useless artifact relative to the
construction or receptance of text messages,
this does not retroactively forgive the decisions I have made.

--In one occasion I made a mistake using the phone

so
the use of the phone cannot continue to be represented.
(As actually.
I walk around alone.

I do not retain the capacity represented by a phone

to request assistance when I exit my car.)

(Or more practically,

I have a phone but it is dead and it has been dead for years.)

(Actually.
This cell-phone beside my body has been resurrected electrically maybe twice in the
past two years
and only for the purpose that several wrong-number voicemails have been listened
to.
)

--Never again.
I cannot be permitted access.
I want a far-removed room far removed.
I see that the execution of my desires is rape
and it is impermissible that I attain anything that I designate myself as wanting.

--I am unwilling to approach a single new human

with the expectation that my desires will be effected.

--But through 'nogalt', let me tell you,

my human body can be be completely ignored.
If people letterise the comments nogalt has made on fora,
this can give rise to dollars

without this body ever

ever
ever

--I don't want accolades.

I want 40k$ streaming revenue-dollars so that I can move into the desert.
It is not permissible that I again make a decision that has any influence at all
over anyone else's life.
It is not permissible.
I want please to be left alone.

It is fortuitous that I am not in prison or dead

and I want to keep it that way.
(As opposed to arriving in prison or dead
for the continued unacceptable sin I observe myself primed to commit.)

I want a few square meters of desert.

"I think maybe you are unfairly invoking a word you do not understand here.

YOu asked a woman if you could put your mouth on her body and she said yes."

Tedious.
If you are not calling for my body against the wall
you have misunderstood what I have been telling you.

--
--If you do not at least demand that an iron ring arrive on my ring-finger.
--It is not permissible that I
utilise my capacity to manipulate people to arrive in a circumstance where my mouth
is on a human body.

--And knowing myself,:

it is not permissible that I arrive in any circumstance except that I am gazing at
the iron ring on my ring-finger.
If I am not maximally expending myself against work
I will be sometimes
doing impermissible things.

""

--Ohoho, how personal do we want to get here?

How necessary do I think my anecdotes are to your understanding the true work?

'doing impermissible things'

it is funny because
you would not typically associate my

-- when you wanted to talk casually about male desire

you would not be talking about the kind of thing that was going on when I was going
down on the woman in question.

When you wanted to talk about male desire

you would not have captured descriptionally
the way I was, having been a male.

aaHaving been a male with my face where it was,

what was I achieving?

"Uhhh.....
a woman cumming?"

--I was
orchestraing a sequence of events in which I was satisfied.

--I fade in my inquisition here.

I am growing less certain that you will be following along with my condemnation of
myself.

As if you are reading what I am saying

and continuing to disagree with my notion
that the only acceptable outcome is that I arrive in the middle of a desert.
--aThen I have just failed to tell you everything that needed to be said.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
--You are disagreeing with me that what I did constituted Sin
but I already *know* it constituted Sin.

Iff you are *continuing* to disagree with me,

then I simply have failed to inform you what Sin is.
--If you do not agree with me

that the inevitable moral result of the anecdote I have conveyed

is that I can only ever end up with an iron ring in the desert

--then I have not succeeded rhetorically.

I have not maintained the capacity to present to you examples of my Sins
and convince you that these were examples of me committing a Sin.

--If you cannot see my head in this anecdotal peron's erogenous zones
and say: "This was an example of a Sin"
then you have misunderstood the story I have been telling.

--Then I cannot convince you to wail with me and gnash teeth wit hme!
We were supposed to arrive here and both spit on my shoes,
instead of me spitting repeatedly on my own shoes
and you just standing there unhappily.

--We were supposed to arrive at the point where you condemned my body with equal
gusto
with which I condemn it myself.

"I am afraid that whatever the historical truth of your anecdotes

you are too personally damaged by the history of your introduced events
that laughing along with you would be laughing at you."

--Then I did not make you take me seriously when I said:

"I have committed such an evil that
I cannot be permitted to have access mechanically to
any conceivable machinery through which evil can onceivably be executed.

Because having been given access to this machinery of purpose-execution

I will commit such an evil as

you will not even be able to look at my body without a gag in your throAT."
"IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF PUNISHMENT BUT
IT IS A QUESTION OF ITS NOT BEING ALLOWED

THAT SOMEONE AS EVIL AS i HAVE PROVEN MYSELF TO BE

CAN MAKE AN EXECUTIVE DECISION OVER ANY POSSIBLE INTERACTION WITH A PERSON.
iT CANNOT BE PERMITTED THAT i MAKE A DECISION THAT INFLUENCE'S ANOTHER HUMAN'S LIFE
EVER AGAIN.
eVER AGAIN. eVER.

--WELL so I present the Machine and I say:

"It doesn't maTTER WHAT i HAVE DONE IN MY PAST
i HOPE THIS THING i HAVE MADE CAN REDEEM MY BODY."

--Which is why I make a new voice disconnected from this body.

'nogalt'.
I hope I can make something useful through reddit posts.
And I hope I never
allow this body to touch mechanically the construction of 'nogalt'.
This body is already done. It has done things that are impermissible.

I need a name that can host my ideas without their being connected
to this impermissible body.
I need
an avenue called 'nogalt' for
effecting my purposes without
it being this body doing that.

To have lived was to have sinned but granted grace. TO have perpetuated myself was
to have sinned but granted grace.
ANd to have done this thing I did
this was to have disconnected myself permanently from grace.
This was being impermissible.

--This was me finally committing the evil

I would in perpetuity reference as justification for wearing the iron ring.

I do not agree that there is a permissible action for this body

except those actions that arise when I am writing or typing.
I do not accept
the actions that arise when this body does something other than typing or writing.

It cannot happen again.

I cannot be permitted to seduce another human into doing that with me again.
--'that'
'that'
'that'

I know what I did.

I know how I could effect it again.
It is a technical difficulty at most.
And this is why I must have an iron wedding band.

I must have something on my left hand I look at instead of

doing again that tremendous evil I did before.

--Requesting of someone that they let me kiss them when I do not love them.
--Requesting that I can taste you even though
there is nothing between us but my desire to taste your skin.
--Requesting whatever this unattended body ends up requesting when I am bothering
myself to look at other things.
--Whatever this unattended body requests
when I am absentmindedly examining collections of words gathered carefully into
sentences.
--When this body exits a shower while I am thinking about Kierkegaard
and it propels me inevitably to arriving my body into an apartment with the
requested woman

--how do I solve this evil?

I put an iron ring on my left hand.
--'how do I solve this evil'
how do I
retain control over the outcomes generated by the progression of my body/?

--There is a cheap and easy solution.

It is a metal band made out of iron that can be affixed to my left hand.
It is a thing I can look at as I orchestrate

the whole retirement fund of a human body spent in the desert.

--I do not want proximity to other humans ever again.
I do not accept the bare possibility that I do again what I have already shown
myself prone to do.
I want the endless desert.

(And oh.
I hope to think you are all much more guilty than I am.)

--
--So maybe you see the necessity of suppression.

There are things I will do when I feel the dragging-behind-my-left-hand of the iron
ring
that I will not do if
I am concerned with whether my decisions have effected inexcusable evil.

There will be things I can construct through text

that I will not construct if I am concerned with not wearing an iron wedding band.

--And I have an ultimate excuse.

You see how much I recoil from the bare mention of my own name, and I have an
excuse:
"The introduction of the Machine will retroactively forgive
all of the evil that had to have been done in order that it could be introduced."

I have *extremely* biased.

I am very-definitely interested that the Machine not be a mistaken construct.
It is the only thing that can forgive the way I have lived.
It is the only thing I can have done with my life that forgives the sequence of
decisions that led up to its outcome.

--Even if at last
"--Shh."
Even if at last I must say of myself that I committed a rape against a woman I knew
and appreciated,
I will say this was an inexorable step towards the construction of the Machine.

ANd if
a bullet is put into my brain the instant after the Machine is introduced
this will have been worth it.

I will accept any justifiable punishment

if it is imposed the instant after I have introduced the Machine.
--I will accept any judgment if.

I will do anything if.

"'I will do anything'

oh, so you really needed your mouth on a woman's back
to continue to pursue the Machine?"
It seems I thought so at the time.

(Which is a large part of the reason it was inexcusable.)

I thought:
"I need to be performing the ritual activities
that people typically perform around this time
in order that I will have experienced the things
that people need to experience in order that
they can perfectly recount the mechanisms behind human experience."

Then I did those things.

--*then* I did those things.
'with those words having been stated in my head literally, I did those things.'

--the gore generated by the Machine.

Like a woodchipper, if all my life's efforts were performed so as to construct a
bloody woodchipper.
--When I have finally been executed
with my head been made to look at a bunch of people whose lives have been saved
through my efforts
I will be justified in my decisions.

--I know what I did so.

Nothing good I have done can be associated with this name 'Eric Russell'.
Nothing good I have done can touch this
body that is the layering on one moment to the next of evil things I have done.

It has to be 'nogalt' who did all of these things.

But I can't figure out the words to put into the mouth of 'nogalt' that
solve all of the problems I need to solve before I submit myself to execution.

I do not accept that a single word be put in 'Eric Russell''s mouth because
I do not trust the effects that result from a word issuing from that mouth.
I need every solution to be
a conclusion people reach when they read the posts of 'nogalt'.
But I am too wasted to discern how to put words into the mouth of 'nogalt'.

I have failed.
At one point I was clever enough to make 'nogalt' into a puppet whose movements
served my purposes.
Now I am not so clever.
Now I am strung out on chemicals and I am not so clever.

I constructed a human whose only redemption was perfect words spoken through a
puppet
and then I did not maintain the capacity to manipulate a puppet.

--I decided the only plausible option was to make posts through an account named
'nogalt'
and I did not retain the capacity to effect my purposes through the distribution of
posts made through that account.
--I made a mistake in managing the only plausible escape from my sin.

--I made a mistake in the orchestration of the only action

that can retroactively have made permissible
the behaviors I have committed that appeared impermissible anteroactively.

--I did not introduce the effects that anteroactively justified the decisions I
made.
--I narrowed myself down into a bare scant few interactions that would
anteroactively justify my behaviors
ad I did not not effect those interactions.
--I said to myself explicitly: "I will literally either introduce this Machine
or I will judge that I was too lenient on my own body.
And adhering to non-lenience is
you know.
Impermissible."

--you see, I am 20 pages or so after the primary point where I revealed my guilt.
You see how easy it is rhetorically for me to bury my guilt in a barrage of
verbiage.

As if, in-stead of selecting the correct decisions,

I can justify myself by a deluge of condemnations of myself.

--And well, if I had not done *that* terrible thing,

then we would be talking about the next-most-terrible thing I had done.
We would not here be talking about anything but

the next-best reason I could present for putting a bullet in my head

which is the only plausible outcome of having lived the way I have.

(And well, assuredly I will come back next time and say:
"Welll but I do not have
a looping explication of all my beliefs passing in front of my eyes every waking
moment."

--I will arrive back in a moment and say:

"Well but I know what I did was impermissible

but well, that is only saying that in one moment in time I judged it as
impermissible
and that was basically a joke for me to have done, to have identified that action
out of many.

So now I am going to talk about a completely different thing I have done

and I am going to play along as if you have not already noticed
that to have admitted to this action

is not-legitimately to have stated freely other actions I have performed.

--And this is practically useful, let me tell you--
it is easier to reconstruct my ideas if you have correctly identified me for what I
am.

(A person who knows how to manipulate text messages into arriving with skin in his
mouth qua desire.)
(A rapist only waiting for the next plausible target.)

--
--It will be a great day when this body arrives in a desert
if for no other reason than that therefore this body will have been removed from
polite society.

The damage caused by this body remaining in a community

more than pays for itself in being ameliorated by a cost-saving desert house.

(
And it is disgusting to me that there are days
where I do not wake up and spit on my own shoes.)

--I imagine you as saying at this point:

"You are being too harsh on yourself at last!"
--Then you've missed the point.

--You have missed the baseline against we are judging permissible behavior.
(or something.
say anything that agreed with the condemnation
and then I will stop having to convince you that I did something evil)

--Well, you know, to finish up the night,

you see why I am going to do the thing I am going to do.
This was not a fly-by-night consideration.
Having weighed everything I have found one last trail of steps I can follow that is
permissible.
It is those steps that follow a thin knife's edge always and to the end
and deviation from which is the last sin before death.
--I cannnot do the things I have done again.

--
--And for some obtuse above observation it was important that I had an iron wedding
band on my left hand.
--I think that was having-been-supposed as the important point to make.
--That, say, when I order the eclipse glasses I am going to buy off of the internet
I simultaneously suggest the deliverance of the iron ring so as to save on shipping
costs.lullulul.

--I am completely lost.

The apparently trivial task of ordering an object off of the internet
seems like such a den of evil that I can hardly imagine my doing it
without there resonating an almighty din of evil.
--Waking up and doing anything but typing in this notepad instance
seems like I will inevitably be performing evil so I don't do it.

[
So you see the rhetorical function of
all of the preceding.
]

I don't want anything but waking up and returning to this notepad instance
because I recognise wanting other things results in the committing of sin.

(And well, as if the iron ring on my left hand was a permanent symbol--
it is rather a transient symbol of
societal recognition that I , for at least some sequence of periods of time,
had been making the right decision for a few moments.

I could look at an iron band bestowed on me

and be bedazzled for a few moments into believing I had done something other than
sin.)

--
--And well, watch me return in a few hours.
THen I will be speaking as if
I had never committed a sin.
I will, oh watch and observe. I will be back shortly.
(And it is easy to cast the first stone
if you are fully willing to the stoned to death in response.)

--
--Sorry, I have to go home, I am very drunk.
--
--

I'm back! And damn near exactly one hour later!

This whole 'controlling effectively when one goes unconscious and regains
consciousness'
is, you know, a useful tool. A fun tool.
I awake and spry and smiling happy what have you.

Another day (harhar) another attempt to grasp the pendulum

and make the whole world vibrate rather than allowing it to continue to swing.
(Like Foucault's Pendulum!
Like that novel!)

--Also, I am a bit hungover.

If I recall correctly the quantity of gin that I began with yesterday
I drink about a liter of gin yesterday.
If I recall incorrectly the amount of gin I began with yesterday,
then I probably drnk more like .5-.75 liters of gin.

And the whole tri-state+canada area around my city is on fire and filling the air
with smoke.
So I have a great many impediments to lucidity all present in my brain.

"So I see we aren't going to talk about what you wrote last night."

No, probably not.

--
--

"Octopus research shows that consciousness isn't what makes humans special"

I always knew it would be octopus research that proved this.

Somehow deep down I knew it would the humble octopi that demonstrated human
unspecialness.

--
--

Boy, I just want a few straight days of thinking I'm the worst person on earth,

then I see all these literal nazis waving around nazi flags in Charlottesville.

--
--

"So you really don't want credit for your work?"

Huh?

"What you were saying above."

Oh.
Supposing that I happen to believe what I happen to be saying from one moment to
the next
is, I would suggest, not the best hermaneutical approach to reading what I type.
I am conflicted. Mostly just passing the time.

--
--

Oh. I forgot to go to the carnival.

--
--

It is hard to imagine these nazis as being anything other than a millenarian cult
where their millenium is complete extirpation of themselves from the world.

I can understand that kind of sentiment somewhat.

--on internet forums where they talk about the day of the rope, the day of
reckoning what have you,
what would they be anticipating but that masked people would show up to their
houses and kill all of them and their children?

If nazis began an armed insurrection,

what do they expect but that they and all of their family members would be killed
in their sleep?
What do they think they are goading this nation into?

Do they believe they can have a public face attached to naziism

and on the day of the rope return home for dinner?

They all seem to want something big to happen.

I think I know what big thing would happen.

"Presumably their millenium would be the extirpation of others and not themselves.
In their own view, I mean."

And I suppose it is no valid response to this to observe

that they would have to be completely delusional to suppose that would be the
outcome.

--People can hide their documents behind briefcases,

but you can always just grab the briefcase and turn it around and look inside it.
It is societal rules that prevent people from doing this actually,
but the almighty carnival that would erupt if these people ever really took up arms
would
be an upending of those societal rules.

"'and all of their family members'

surely not. The children are all right."

Well I'm not making a normative statement here.

I don't know how twenty masked and armed people would behave in the night.
But tactically speaking I would anticipate that they would need to rifle through
the documents present in the houses
in order to identify every person that is on a contact list with the recently
killed nazi
so that the carnival can keep on rolling on.

--'briefcase'
there is a headline of nazis walking into a restaurant
and trying to throw around the weight of their apparent willingness to use
violence.

And what do they think would have happened there?

Do they imagine that the violence of everyone else has disappeared?
Have other people kept their documents so close to their chest for so long
that they believe the violence has been removed from the heart of people except
themselves?

Do they believe that if nazis ended up dying sporadically across this country
their movement would receive more sympathy?

--I would have to goad myself into feeling the kind of hate they feel
to construct what I would take to be an accurate representation of their beliefs
so that I could extract from that accurate representation an explanation for the
decisions they are making.

"Presumably this was the hate you were feeling while typing the preceding violent
fantasy."

No fantasy, no fantasy. You're the fantasy.

I didn't feel anything typing that.

It doesn't require hate to extrapolate the trends that would emerge naturally,
even if those trends exhibit hatred.

"So why should it be so hard to reconstruct the nazi's position?

Or their reasoning behind their actions?"

It is like the last high-lord in westeros spitting on a room of a hundred peasants

after his royal guard has all died on the field of battle and also all the knights.

It is easy enough to explain why the high-lord is spitting on peasants before the
war.
If the peasants respond they will be killed.
But when the high-lord is no longer in a position to effect the murder of a single
peasant
then I would have to reconstruct delusions playing around in the head of the
nobleman to explain the action.
--I would have to reconstruct what obviously incorrect sequence of events he can
have imagined as playing out.

And it is easy enough to speak about irresistable societal norms in westeros

emerging from centuries or millenia of noble rule over the peasants.
These noblemen were brainwashed from a very early age into these channels of
systematic reproduction of their violence.
--It may even be that this violence is built into the rituals they execute for the
performance of their religion.
Then they will be waking up one day and saying: "It is time to perform the ritual
once again."
--Because the ritual rulebook did not say: "Not to be performed after noble power
has been completely decimated."

--Now I can tell similar stories behind the nazis without having to reconstruct the
stories of hate.
I can imagine nazis in ralleys and only seeing white people.

I can imagine nazis in rural towns who have no conception of what it means for a
city to have ten million people in it
having only been exposed to a town with a few hundred.
Ten million humans is a number listed on spreadsheets at best for them.
They think a thousand people at the local nazi convention is a lot of people,
because it is the most people they have seen in one location in all their lives.

And I can imagine in a rural town

being able to spit on minorities and laugh about it to their cult
without risk of reprisal.
I can imagine bystanders for whom such spitting-on is so engrained into their daily
life
that it does not even serve as a juncture for them at which an eyebrow is raised.

--Okay, so I didn't have to reconstruct the stories of hatred to explain their

delusion,
but rather I only had to observe the structural behaviors through which that
delusion is daily maintained.
(
Like how I can explain the hollows in DSIII's blighttown through their daily
actions
even though I know there is no actively maintained story behind why those actions
are being performed.

"There is a difference here in that there *is* a story being maintained by the
nazis through these well-trod actions."

Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm not so sure that is true.
If they were ever stopped and asked *why* they are performing one of those
maintaining actions, even,
they would not be telling a story.
They would be reciting memorised tracts they were told are what they should say if
confronted.

And indeed, they have a memorised tract to recite for if I observed to them:
"The day of the rope is the day where you and every single member of your
organisation is put to death."

They would say something like:

"No."

They would be revealing their delusion, but they would not have exposed themselves
to contemplation of the delusion.
Their "no." is not a measured response but a memorised tract.

"You sound dangerously close to forgiving the nazis."

I'm not condemning them or forgiving them here.

"So what, they try to bring on the millenium,

we kill a few then stop?"

That would not be the mechanically generated outcome that would arise
if they attempted to bring on their fantasised apocalypse.
'mechanically generated'

I wonder what *would* happen.

)

In their daily lives they show up as a cult into restaurants and push around the
locals.
This pushing-around makes them appear powerful (or actually powerful) in their
backwater towns.
This power enables them to recruit more people into their cult.

They show up into a city and it is as if they have no real choice in the matter
of whether they do or do not perform the actions that perpetuate their delusion.
Even if they did not perform the actions,
this would be an occasion on which they are saying:
"I can't do it *this* time."
It is still them, brainwashed cult members, perpetuating the delusion in their own
heads.
--continuing to believe they had a choice in whether they would or would not
perform the actions,
even though a clearheaded vision of the circumstance would demonstrate they had no
choice in the matter.
(So that a more correct story they are not engaging in would be like:
"if I laid a hand on this restaurant owner
every member of my group would be pinned to the ground and beaten to death
after the events that transpired today.")
(--no, that is not the more correct story. That is just a variation on the
delusion.
The more correct story would be something like:
"The scales have fallen off all our eyes.

We have arrived in this restaurant so that we could tear off our nazi armbands and
spit on them,
so that we could remove our shirts {shorts?} and turn our swastika tattoos into
black squares.

We have come to beg local forgiveness for having been a part of this movement."

Do you suppose rural cult members would ever do this?

--And even then they are not freed from the delusion
so much as they have arrived at a juncture where the delusion plays out
differently.

It is a preferable outcome
but it is still just the other side of a decision a nazi can choose to make.
--Or, it is a decision a nazi cannot arrive and make,
with its having delineated the point where they have ceased to be nazis.

I am straying out of positive observations into ideological ones.)

"They then can be forgiven for what they do?

If they have no choice in the matter, I mean."

I'm not sure that is the relevant question.

The relevant question is how many times they can do these things in cities before
they are beaten to death.

"So no moral questions here, then?"

There is an interesting question of whether I would smile or cry

on reception of the news that dozens of nazis were beaten to death in public
and no arrests were made.
I'm not sure this qualifies as a moral question about anyone but myself,

but then that is a very similar question to the one being faced
by the people who either will or not be the ones beating dozens of nazis to death
in public,
and by the local authorities who either will or will not sabotage the
investigation.
'question' maybe the wrong word. 'very similar situation to the one being faced'
better.

There might be an explicitly ethical question in play here

if we all had bound ourselves to the mast of one single ethical system
and method for identifying agents in an identical way, and method for identifying
actions in an identical way.

Then every circumstance would present an identical ethical question to every agent
involved
and the resolution of those circumstances would all be the ones dictated by the
ethical system to which we had bound ourselves.

Given that we do not have this common system, there doesn't seem to be any ethical
question here
except ones that ethicists might bother to write down at great length in their
studies.
--There cannot be a question, for instance, concerning whether everyone in those
circumstances correctly applied the commonly accepted ethical system.
(
Whether, for instance,
the group behavior in the circumstance defied the ethicist's perfect evaluation
because people in the group made incorrect identification of agents or actions.

And similarly an ethicist can't reference the outcome of the circumstance

in order to question whether she herself misidentified the agents or actions in
play--
as she would be doing if she predicted that no violence would break out but it
did.--
if she predicted that correct execution of our commonly accepted ethical system
resulted in no violence but it did,
then she cannot really take this as grounds for asking whether she has
misidentified agents or actions.

--Better to say, IF we had a fully commonly accepted ethical system

and it was taken by the ethicist as a kind of divine truth that everyone always
adhered to it,
then resolving why the actual circumstance conflicted with her constructed
expectations
would be a question of

listing out the names of everyone involved in the circumstance

and affixing to those names all of the agent-identifications they performed and all
of the action-identifications they performed.
Then with all of the relevant information having been gathered,
it is a trivial task to reconstruct how all of these people should have behaved in
accordance with the ethical system.

"Why can't she just say:

'the correct ethical outcome in accordance with our system is that violence did not
erupt.
As a whole, in this circumstance, we all agree through our ethics that violence
does not erupt.'?"

Well because even if we did have a fully reticulated and fully binding ethical
system,
it does not apply to circumstances themselves but rather it applies to the
decisions that individual people make.

And consequently there can be issues arising in consequence of incomplete

information--
as when a person in the group identifies all of the agents and actions that are in
his field of vision
but this excludes from the list a few names and actions he could not see.

Then the ethicist's accounting of the circumstance can differ

from the circumstance as it actually was, being attended by many people.

--Even given perfect acceptance of and adherence to a commonly shared ethical

system,
there is no certainty that the emergent outcomes of circumstances would match what
the ethicist is able to reconstruct.
It is this lack of certainty that is the practical proof that
one cannot perform an evaluation of a circumstance as a whole.
--One cannot say, when violence breaks out,
that it should not have broken out.
((Unless, say, our ethical system stated that violence could not ever be performed
under any circumstances.

Then people would form strategies around this prohibition,

waving their hands an inch from each others' face and saying: "I'm not touching
you"
while utilising these actions to effect, say, the eviction of people from houses,
or the denial in courts of their rights and so on.))

One could have said that the first person who threw a punch should not have done
so, maybe,
but the ethicist is not really in a position to discern whether that person should
not have thrown a punch.

--And notably this criticism only applies to ethicists who imagine that an
accounting of actions and agents is adequate--
that the right-and-good outcome can be deduced from a correct accounting of agents
and actions.

)
(
Whereas notably, being a psychohistorian instead of an ethicist,
I have no problem allowing myself to be corrected by the outcomes that emerge from
group behaviors.

I would be saying something like:

"I did not perform an accounting in which the nazi's torso and face were so
attention dense as to necessitate a punch being thrown here,
but lo, I was incorrect."
)
(
"You seem awfully calm in this analysis
compared to earlier text in which you were supposing the streets should run with
the blood of capitalists."

Ah, it is a trick.
((Maybe.))
An analytical trick.
It is easier to perform psychohistorical analysis if you let yourself be consumed
wholly by
the fire that is already burning around you everywhere.

Then you can turn your body into a sensory apparatus that records the distribution
of heat
and converts it into a heatmap that can be examined with one's eyes and reading
voice.

Then one can replace the stories that are propagated in media concerning the market
price of actions
with, ah, the equilibrium price of actions.
As, say, when Elon Musk is deluded by the media's spinning of yarns
into believing that failure to allow unionisation is just what clever capitalists
do.
It is true that this is the maintained market price, anyway.
Right up to that point where a strike is performed despite the absence of a union
at a critical juncture in the production process to be met,
and either tesla collapses or governments step in to break the strike,
after which tesla will collapse.

"So what do you believe?

If not these angry things you have been saying?"

I believe it is going to rain.

[Also, I believe the Machine must be made.]

[
"Presumably tesla would also collapse under the condition that it allows
unionisation."

Pshaw.
Not to denigrate the technical accomplishments of tesla,
but that business exists on wishes and good news.

"Unionisation is bad news for those organisations to whom tesla owes a great deal
of money."

But glorious news for everyone else, including the union workers themselves.

Maybe I am just imagining that when workers are respected

and when they are afforded the most optimal opportunity to effect their crafts
they will create a production line that far exceeds expectations for the quarter

and the report of this expectation-exceeding output will placate the market.
]

--
"--You know, if you listened to minorities speak
what you would hear is that they are not so optimistic about what would happen if
shit went down."

I think this is just a briefcase; my question is whether they can read their own
documents.
Of course they can't publicly observe that they could genocide the nazis
because this would be incitement to violence--
unlike nazi's public declarations that they can genocide minorities,
which is treated as free speech.
--anyway, boring topics

--
--Here is a much more entertaining topic.
I was just in the shower shaving.
(A tedious task in itself, but it gives rise to delightful circumstances:)

There was an accumulation of hair on the back of the shaving device. The uh. THe
razor-collection thing I had in my hand.
I was willing that the back of the razor blade be exposed to the stream of water
coming out of the shower head.

The water crashed into the back of the razor and this made drops of water bounce
off of it and into my face.
(Risking, but not actually effecting, that the hair I was dislodging ended up back
on my body--
which would be counter-effective to my purposes of removing the hair from my body!)

Now then I observed that there were two radically different ways of preventing this
water from splashing me in the face.
I could have taken a step back from the shower head so that the water was lower
down, having fallen further,
and then lowered the razor to that stream of water instead of the stream of water
at near-eye level.
This would have effected the dislodging of the hair without splashing my face with
water.

Another solution would have been to rotate the razor blade

so that the angle at which the water streams were striking it would still dislodge
the hair
but could not give rise to drops of water flying in my face.

--A very interesting observation!

--
--A difficulty with the 'shifting madness' framing device for considering the
import of what people say

is that no one actually bothers, or even if bothering succeeds, to identify what

their statements actually are when they make them.
Statements, actions, what have you.
So that at best when we are asked what function a statement-action served, or what
it meant,
we just are forced to throw up our hands and say: "The only thing I see is a
shifting madness."

--We could maybe imagine some people who were trying to read the shifting madness
, contorting the formalisation of their intentions,
identifying a collection of text that is the equivalent to this twisted intention,
and then making *that* statement
instead of whatever happens into their heads from moment to moment.

Then, imagining such people,

we are led to ask whether any mechanism can emerge within this shifting mess
that actually enables such a procedure (inverse-madness instantiated within paint-
by-numbers collections of words
into which are imbued the true and truly represented intentions of the speaker)
to have succeeded in its execution.
I would say no. That no such mechanism can exist.
And the issue, real issue, is that approximation is impossible.
To have followed along with the procedure and misplaced a single word
is to have constructed a statement that is utterly unlike a statement that can have
been generated by the procedure.

(
I'm trying to invoke an above observation of people passing a ball in a straight
line with their hands.
In that procedure,
there was no way for the person on stage to orchestrate a straight line
that obeyed an angle identical to one able to be generated through a rulebook.

It was impossible to do this except to have done it by chance

because there could be no mechanism through which an identical angle could be
expressed.
--the rulebook designated an angle implicitly
and designated it exactly by being exactly whatever it was.

--And now in this shifting madness analysis,

we are running into a similar issue.
There is only one correct statement to construct
but no procedure people can adopt can have been such as to have constructed it.

--So we are stuck with recognising that

we can never have our actions or words mean what we hoped to express.
[Unless, maybe, we were already only hoping to express exactly those words or
actions we did go about expressing.

But then we would have not to have designated a purpose, in-words, to which we had
hoped to adhere.
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to discern why I am saying this.]
)

--
--

Funny that my most common way of referencing Zizek, at least out of the
categorisably different ways of referencing his work,
is through the construct of 'Zizek's Landfill'
which was derived by reference to a throwaway line in a for-popular-consumption
film.
'We are all always-already eating from this trashcan.'

--
--

/r/showerthoughts:
"Billionaires are probably warning us about AIs because the first thing
any sentient AI would do is warn us about Billionaire."

:O

--
--

"
"A massacre": At least 30 children die in Indian
hospital after oxygen cut off over unpaid bill
"

elsewhere:
'people donated 8000 pounds to save a dog.'

Really begs your questions, if you know what I mean.

"It is almost as if there exists no mechanism that aligns optimally

the desire to give, and the dollars that are open for having been given,

with causes for which it actually makes sense to expend large quantities of money."

Oh how cruel,
you mean it would have been nigh-infinitely better for those 8000 pounds to have
been expended towards the betterment of human lives
than on extensive surgery for a dog?

"Okay:
it is almost as if you spending 16 hours a day reading headlines
is going to result in you seeing gross displays of negligence on the part of
humanity on a regular basis."

Fine.

--
--

I've lapsed in my yearly ritual of consuming salvia.

Given who I had trip-sit me last time I did it

I would probably lose my shit if I did it now.

I mean, it's a raging horror every time I do it,

but I can imagine it being much worse now.

"Surely you didn't ask--"

Hmm.
Well I have never claimed to be able to discern how effectively to interact with
other people.

"Sure you have. Several times, let me recount them."

I seem to recall saying I know how to manipulate people;

I am not treating this as saying the same thing as being an effective interactor.

--Anyway, while I can't recall what it is like when I have gone under salvia,
I do recall that the last three or four times before going under I said:
"Oh God not again."
And I recall recalling just after saying that
, or while saying it,
why I always tell myself that it is a raging horror to consume it.

I had had in mind the last time I consumed it that it might help to have someone
pleasant around.
This proved untrue.

--and but on the other hand the one occasion I did it alone
I started hearing taunting voices in my head that were distinctly unlike hearing my
own voice,
and then I stumbled out of my room and collapsed on the ground.
--And that was during the period of my life where I had something approaching
happiness! Haha.

--
--I suppose that,
having my bitcoin held in an account that is explicitly tied directly to my person
(or better to say, to my body,
to make more practical the observation that some other bodies could arrive at my
house and put my wrists in chains)
and having it acquired it initially from another account that is tied to my body,

I am not able to utilise them to acquire drugs off the darknet.

Putting aside, {impiously} implicitly,
the ethical questions involved in delivering funds to darknet operators.
--It is very difficult to acquire psychedelics if you don't know any drug dealers!
And if additionally you lack the social skills to acquire a drug dealer.

"Just use some of that world-famous manipulative capacity you say you have."

I'm not about that life.

--
--

Listening to this band 'Cigarettes After Sex'.

I think my voice would probably sound sort of like this singer's
if I was not acculturated to be a more manly man than I am inclined naturally to
be.
[Though speaking in this way about myself
probably violates one or another of my own analyses of how things like
'sound of voice'
ends up coming about.]

--Or maybe I am just thinking it is a sexy voice,

and I am confusing the judgment that is lurking behind my paying especial attention
to the voice.

--But then,
why would I not have a preference that my own voice is sexy?
It has to be something.

--
--

I wonder if there has been any discussion in Islamic caselaw for circumstances like
my own,
where alcohol consumption is performed
[to potentiate marijuana]
in order to enhance performance.

It seems like the prohibition of alcohol consumption is much like Islam's tenuous
relation with music,
where the fear is that consumption of alcohol or music will lead to fornication or
what have you.
Or, to say, that it is done for fun,
or that it gives rise to states in which one is culpably inculpable for one's
actions.

Surely, I am not consuming alcohol so as to give rise to fornication. And for that
matter, I am not having any fun.

"On the other hand, frequently you become culpably inculpable."

Ho hum.

--
--

Conspiracy theory:
a large part of the value proposition of ethereum is that
it recruits armies of computer-savvy individuals all attempting to maximise the
hashing capacity of video cards.

--I still hold out a fantasy that ethereum and bitcoin mining were a clever way of
disguising a massive distributed super-computer
that did something other than performing hashes.
The idea that so much computation could be going into the raw burning-off of
electricity
only comforts me on the recognition that
it is better (religiously speaking) to have graphics cards maxed out than sitting
in warehouses,
or sitting in gaming computers.

--Maybe there is a way of pointing at the hashing algorithms mathematically and

saying:
"These hashes will constitute execution of a
computation that can be painted out of the hashing algorithms
up to that point where it ceases to be an exemplification of that computation."
--As if a string of hashings could be taken together as the answer to a question
other than the one for which they were constructed to be the solution
up to that point where they ceased to be so.
--I've already covered this idea before with a lot more pseudo-dexterity
('pseudo-dexterity'
whatever I had when I could bullshit more effectively than I can now.
or, when I felt far more justified to comment on subjects far beyond my field of
expertise,
where my field of expertise is basically literal masturbation
and the manipulation of a komboloi, sitting in a chair, what have you.

I'm pretty good at showering and brushing my teeth.)

--
--You know, in my fantasy pants idea concerning the Riemann thingy with the -1/12
and what have you
(to wit, the image I am currently holding in my head
of a strip on a cartesian grid centered between 0-1
extending up into infinity on which there are points
that constitute zeroes or something or what have you,

and that those points are placed there because

the method of representing the cartesian grid in mathematics has been broken by
programmatic numbers)
,
it is interesting to consider that the programmatic numbers that break the
cartesian grid
could take far longer to construct manually (or impossible to construct manually,
because we can't pick them out)
than it would take to find their imprint left on the grid
(as we would be doing when we were finding those dots in the adduced strip).

"Why would it ever be interesting to consider nonsense?"

Because I am making it, and I am typically interested in making the nonsense I

make.

"Better to ask:
why would you ever bother to pursue the intricacies of ideas
the foundations of which are placed on the shifting sands of nonsense?"

Because if I happened to be right,

I would be a name listed in the paper that solved a millenium puzzle!
hurrr

--Maybe, fantasy-pantswise, the numbers we would have to construct are irrational

numbers
that would provide the adduced dots in the relevant strip.
And maybe if we do not designate the irrational number in its totality
but we only designate it to an extremely lengthy string of digits,

then the dot no longer appears in the strip but rather appears in some wildly far-
flung space of the graph.
So the dots in the graph allow us to observe the precise outcome of exposing a
cartesian grid to an irrational number.
(I've lost even the gusto at this point to say I want to kill myself.
Someone who is saying boring things lazily
doesn't evoke the same kind of emotional response when he says he wants to die.

--In me, anyway.

It was sad to think about killing myself before because I was enmeshed in a fantasy
in which this would be a tragic loss.
And what now?

And well this is probably safer.

Being horrified by death made it more attention dense
and therefore the answer to more plausibly arising situations in which I would in
fact be killing myself.
Apparently but not actually paradoxically.)

--Maybe, fantasy-pants style

('fantasy-pants' was initially a typo
but it amuses me to keep using it.
I originally intended to type 'fancy-pants'),
the representation of the cartesian grid has been carefully designed so that
only 'programmatic numbers' can give rise to dots in the strip.

And well we have no real way of designating the programmatic numbers

(I am thinking, on the basis of half-remembers and poorly manipulations.)
outside of pointing at the dots and saying:
"A programmatic number corresponds to this."

--The fun idea I was attempting to approach was like this:

it is able to be effected through computation that we designate the dots on the
strip.
It is not able to be effected through computation that we can designate the
programmatic numbers that gave rise to these errors in representation.
(Unless it is.)
Then we can find dots through the use of far less computation than would be
required to designate the programmatic numbers.

Easy-peasy. I'll take my payment in bitcoin.

--
--

Lots of people complaining about vega being incredible for mining but not so
incredible for gaming.

On the one hand,

I fully intend to devote spare clocks of my card to research projects,
so this is good for bitcoin. Err, good for my evaluation of vega.
['this is good for bitcoin' hilarious.]

On the other hand,

being the maximally-best card for projects that can be most-optimised around it
seems to indicate that if, going forward, there could be designed game-
optimisations for the card
then the card would also be maximally-best for those.
(Where we are here implicitly imagining that
crypto-mining is a kind of pure test of the capacity of a collection of compute-
capacity.

At least until we begin to make ASICs for a task, which throws off this arbitrarily
constructed metric I just made.)

--It seems that if it happens to have been the case

that extremely monetarily-motivated people can get the most juice out of a given
card
having attempted to optimise mining programs out of every card,
then this says something interesting about what can be done with the card.

--Or, this is all a way of explaining why I exclaimed: "Ho shit." when I saw 70-100
mhash coming out of vega.
(And well, it will either end up being on the higher end of this scale when
thousands of miners have taken a crack
or it will exceed the higher end.

I have faith in the community of miners to discern the optimal alterations to stock
configuration.)

--
--

I felt a twinge in my heart, listening to this sappy music,

that I should contact ------
I think that would be a gross mistake so I'm not going to do that.

"So why mention it?"

Why do I mention anything?

I don't anticipate I will meet another person for whom I will feel anything.
(Person after person confirms this anticipation {supposition}.)
And by the time I meet anyone for whom I do feel anything
I will have made myself so ugly and disfigured there will be no practical hope.
{
(And I would tattoo a swastika on my forehead to assure I was correct in this
supposition
if I didn't think I would end up beaten to death in the streets, as would be fully
justified.

Why be wrong when you can be right?)

(A funny question:
the man who tattooed dots onto my right forearm was some manner of latino.

I wonder if I could successfully ask him to put a swastika on my forehead.

)

Whatever my social skills are at this point

I do not expect them to improve in the upcoming years.

However wrinkled my forehead now, I expect it to become more wrinkled.

However emaciated, more emaciated.
--And well, ethical judgments abound.
I might ask: "There was a twinge in my heart because
there is already an infection in the heart of -------------
which was an investment I made in attention density lul"

As if someone who hates you, having attention density present in your body for
them,
is more or less as good as having them love you.
[If this sounds like I am implying a difficulty for psychohistory,
I'm not.
I am rather making a joke.

If someone is just as frequently looking at body parts between hate and love,
then we talk about how they are looking at joints instead of junk.

And then we speak about how joints or junk are incorporated into culture
so that we can ascertain an exact degree of attention density.
Easy peasy. You can make your payment to me in bitcoin.]

"
""person after person confirms...""
easy to say when you live in a basement and interact with no one outside your
family.
"

You are being an echo of a voice I thought I had killed a while ago.

Back around when I was 12 I recognised that this whole 'feeling sorry for yourself'
is a misevaluation of your position in the cosmic pissing contest of misery.
So that I have hundreds of pages that dismantle every single complaint I had
between the ages of say 12 and 20.

Now I came to believe after some point (implicitly) that if I was forming a
complaint
then it was so immune to this dismantling procedure in my notebooks
that it was worth it to have made.

--And well, consider the complaints I was making.

"Today I woke up and felt extremely nauseous and cried at the prospect of having to
get out of bed,
with my torso shuddering."
"Yeah well for the obvious reasons you're just being a little shit.
Allow me to list once again the obvious reasons at great length."

Now I find it tedious to criticise myself any longer,

though it is becoming increasingly less obvious that this is a consequence of
complaints only arising when they are already immune to my built-in complaint-
elimination procedure.

--Anyway, the message here is that
able to produce work of any value.
(If I ever did produce anything of
I think probably the habits I have
were the only reason i was able to
I have sincere doubts that I will ever again be
value.)
abandoned and unlearned
do anything of value in the first place.

Then through a combination of chemicals and

the next complaint i lodged against myself being the condition of suicide
I just forgot the methods I used to employ to critique my own positions.
Now it is like using half my mind to think,
the half that is a formless chaos and unwilling to subject itself even to grammar.

"..And this has some connection to the earlier discussion of whether you should
contact--"
I don't know. I don't recall more than a few paragraphs back anymore.
--Oh right, the question of whether I should engage in behavior that would require
circumventing account blocks against my communications.
Well I could do it but it doesn't seem wise to have done.
(And well, we are all lovers of wisdom here.)

"
""I have sincere doubts that i will ever again be able to produce work of any
value.""
Weren't you just claiming to have solved some Riemann thingy thing?"

And what would that be?

More useless bullshit.

--
--The preceding observations make a kind of half-magic key for the work I have
done.
It is not surprising that I spent so much time defending myself from an explicit
interlocutor
when you consider that is exactly what I had been doing for 8-15 consecutive years
over hundreds and hundreds of pages.
And if I had gotten good at it, well, that is what you expect from a human that
does the same thing for 8-15 consecutive years.

And if being good at defending yourself from an interlocutor generates

goodphilosophy when you do it,
then it would not be surprising that I ended up at last generating goodphilosophy.
(like a long-term inspired research project on socrates.)

--
--
from another arbitrarily picked out reddit post:
"
""It's hard arguing against a smart person, [sic]
I see why you're stopping.""
"

That's the thing though.

Arguing with a smart person is supposed to be effortlessly easy.
['is supposed effortlessly to be easy']
It is just that you don't end up arriving where you intended to arrive.
--The smart person is supposed to fully have understood your objections and the
structure within which they were constructed
and to have formulated a response with which you would agree
and in agreeing have disagreed with your previous position.
--To be 'smart' is to be able to reconstruct the structures within which others
have reformulated their positions,
read the structures, and then to have formulated a position within that structure
that is more convincing
than the one the un-smart person constructed for himself.
[
And how many fun messages do I leave behind

in writing '[sic]' after a grammatical mistake of other people

and then intentionally inserting mistakes into my own writing that will amuse
attentive people?

"Many?"

Yes.

As when I split my infinitives.

Then I am ironically splitting infinitives for humorous purposes!

I am making myself both the ironic subject and ironic object!

]

--
--

I am wondering whether being low on sleep

would make this a better occasion on which to attempt to bliss out.

I feel currently very unmotivated to continue the project of constructing the

Machine.
Maybe I will continue to lack motivation to continue its construction after I
consume a half-joint
which for me constitutes a massive amount of marijuana.

I feel that currently typing is a wasted effort, given how little capacity I
currently retain to type anything useful.
So maybe I will continue to feel that if I smoke a massive amount of marijuana.

Maybe being on the verge of my body requiring sleep will

potentiate mechanically the conversion of marijuana consumption into blissing
outness.
(And who knows why I might be right in that case?
There are many chemicals floating around in one's brain when one is inclined to
sleep.
Surely some of them must facilitate blissing out.
"Maybe some of them anti-facilitate blissing out?"

pessimist.

I'm relying on earlier suppositions that melatonin is related to why

consuming marijuana provided me with engrossing visions when I consumed it
and then sat in the dark listening to
the ventilation system and the refrigerator.

Melatonin is also related to sleep.

Ergo, QED, sleep deprivation will somehow influence vision generation.
Easy peasy. I'll take my payment in bitcoin.

--AH. If I had had a recording device in my ears

when I was hearing those things I was hearing
I would be a platinum artist by now and I could remain a recluse at last.

(I made a payment to blizzard to rename my priest from 'tealnightcap'

to 'melatonin'.

And oh,
the number of people who made sleeping jokes in trade chat more than justified the
10$ expenditure.

And well, then I was obviously the best discipline priest on Llane according to all
relevant measures,
and top 50 at least world in all relevant measures.

Worth.)

--
--There were moments when I was high where
if I could have copy and pasted those moments in perpetuity,
if I could copy-paste the vision-generation mechanism across time
emergently generating one vision to the next

I would have much preferred to have continued to experience that forever than ever
to have come down
and proceeded to talk to people say, or walk around.

And indeed, I think probably 60 consecutive years of those visions

would have been preferable to writing down my recipe for getting high.

[
To be a heretic for a moment:
what would muslims say if it could be proven that Mohammed (let peace be upon him
at last)

was just another man who got high and wrote down a very useful text?

What if they found his bones and his hair

and from his hair could be extracted thc?
Would this change anything for them?

Would it change anything for Mohammad (for whom there can be no peace)
at last?

(It is funny because

I can recognise that all of these religious figures were humans
but it doesn't seem like anyone else, even the atheists, can recognise that.)
(As if Jesus is less impressive a figure if he was not God's literal son!
No, rather more impressive.)
("Maybe you are here again succumbing to schizophrenia?"
Ho hum.)
]

--
--

When I see excessively fancy cursive I think:

"You have not been spending much time writing with gusto."

But then I don't think this when I see cursive in general.

"Huh?"

Ho hum.
I am leveraging an implicit notion that cursive probably is not as efficient as
writing print.
(Though you know, I was writing very fast in my notebooks.

Faster than people who wrote fancy-pants nonsense.

)

--
--

In /r/latestagecapitalism with 28 upvotes:

"They have little money. THey raise their own food. They drink home-grown
wine. They worship, eat, and socialize communally. Apart from subsistence
farming and shepherding there is little work. This is what a world without
capitalism looks like."

If that was the dominant execution of society i would have been Galt instead of
myself.

THAT IS NOT ENOUGH.

That is humanity just waiting for the next plague to kill it completely.

Oh I like the romance,

and I want it even more than the person who posted the link.
If the person who posted it was an atheist, as is likely,
treating these people as if they live in a human zoo,
I doubt they appreciate a presentation of an image of that life as much as I do
being not an atheist.

But if it was that society all across the surface of the earth
it would either be that I am orchestrating the completely destruction of that
society
or that I am putting a bullet in my brain.

"No intermediate points?

No attempting to convince them that
languishing away as if they were like the vegetables they are gathering from the
ground
is an inadequate expression of the infinite capacity for humans to construct?"
No point.
--It's a funny crutch I have, always referencing immortality.
It allows me to take circumstances like the one I have adduced
and say:
"If destruction of that society brings about immortality
within my lifetime
then that is what is to be done.

And if immortality cannot be constructed by this society,

then the only thing to be done is ending it already."

--And well, this idea of 'immortality' is a blunt tool constructed by me in my

youth
but it has proven very useful in the categorisation of societies like this one.

'subsistence farming'
--I can hardly believe that this post was not made by a satirist.
'subsistence farming is what you will have if you do not have capitalism'
and people upvote it.
7-8/10.

'obviously it is better to spend a few hours a day farming

and the rest of the day vegging out rotting in a church or drinking wine.'
7-8/10 because it got 28 upvotes.
I wish it had gotten 10k upvotes so I could give it 10/10.

'If the revolution occurred today,

what we would do is all become subsistence farmers drinking home-made wine,
fucking each other, and attending church. And that is *all* we would do.'
Suicide now then.
Fuck you and all you holy-rollers.
You were inadequately inspired by the message of God.

Here is a better vision:

"If the revolution occurred today,
we would maximally leverage every human brain as if it was
the optimal instrument of God in achieving the optimal execution of human purposes

and we would convert every factory into the maximal interface for human brains to
express themselves within the world
and we would dominate all the world, all the 'world' mundus in excelsius (incorrect
latin)

we would harness the stars to create stores of electricity

we would be immortal masters of all creation as was ordained by our God."

"I could artistically treat that as a different way of talking about

humans who perform subsistence farming and spend their spare hours drinking home-
made wine
in church while fucking each other to persist the species."

And you would be wrong because that is not a society that can survive.
The first asteroid, the first plague, the first dictator,
all of these would destroy that vision.

"You seem to be relying on a notion of the 'eternal' here.

Where nothing is worth doing if it does not perpetuate an eternal vision
that always-already was and forever will be always-already for everyone."
Yes. It is oddly material,
in this sense that subistence farming is a complete failure
if it is taken as the ultimate vision of how human civilisation will proceed.
(And a complete failure, most referencably, for the reason that
if all the world were subsistence farmers we would all inevitably die.

Or, obtusely and bluntly, *I* would inevitably die.

--My vision of myself relies on a vast disconnected network of people

all most optimally maintaining this system I see
that at least plausibly can produce immortality before I myself bodily die.)

(And well I have withheld my trump card behind my vision.

I think maybe I can have been more convincing in everything I have said
if I can have exposed you to this
recognition of how vile the notion of death is.

If I can have infected you with my fear of death,

then you will have had the memetic background behind the things I have said
that will hermaneutically have enabled you to interpret my text more readily.

But I am unwilling to make people experience the horror I have seen.

I am unwilling,--
it's not even a question of talking about it.
It's a question of me saying what I know will make you see the horror I have seen.

And I am unwilling to do that.

I am unwilling to do that even if
that is what was necessary to achieve my own undying.

"I feel like you've told me what it means to die before."

No. No no no.
I've hinted at it vaguely.

I'm a few hits of weed and a few shots of gin away from telling you what it means
to die.
And if you saw it
if you were made to see it
--then you would see me split an infinitive at a juncture and you would say: "Oh
great Christ." (As a swear.)

--The magic key. Eco's notion of a magic key.

It's your own death I haven't made you look at quite yet.

{But i'll do it if I have to.

Or I won't.}

What? Look me in the eye and have a discussion with me

in which I am very motivated to make you feel the horror I have felt.
And do you think I would fail here?
[
Maybe:
I would fail because I can only have been motivated by hatred of you
in trying to force your skull in such a way that it saw, with your eyes having been
redirected, your own death.
And I do not feel that kind of hatred.
I would be unconvincing, maybe, at great length.
]

--Well, that is why subsistence farming is not an ideal vision.

It looks ideal because I agree with all of the behaviors performed by the people in
that cult-like commune referenced by the OP.
I also would like endlessly to consume wine and fuck my neighbors and attend church
and attend the farm.
--But it has to be endless. It has to contain the promise that it is endless.

--
--This person who made this post,
trading all the glory of humanity for
monkeys who happen to know how to manipulate fields.

--What is the mathematician? Hmm? Except the absolute condensate of exploitation?

What is a mathematician except
a monkey that hides away in a room scribbling symbols that serve no one?
(I judge:
Marx did not understand the magnificence of knowledge generation.)
(Though I haven't read Marx so this is open to interpretation.)

--The society that is this subsistencefarming *everywhere*

is like a rock instead of a CPU.
[I am cribbing from reddit posts
aggregated by my own judgment
but plausibly presented to my evaluation so that they would be so judged together.]

If you just have rocks everywhere

when a mathematician actually, incredibly at last, produces something useful,
it is not conducted far. There is no telecommunication because subsistence farmers
don't retain cell towers or internet cables.

It is as if you have introduced all of the electrical inputs relevant to a CPU

into a GPU that is a rock instead of a GPU.
It carries into the rock for a few atoms and then dies out.
(As when you expose a collection of whatever elements are present in a rock
to a strong electrical charge.)
Whereas when it is exposed to the GPu it expands outward *forever*.

--If a master mathematician emerges within this glorified cult in this post
then it dies in a field trying to get corn out of the ground.
aged 60 and having done nothing of value
outside of executing the capacity to feed rich people with wine in a church while
they fuck each other.

--We can't even reference Riemann or Turing to glorify this nascent mathematician.
We can't even say:
"This person in the field, feeding the rich Amirshmen with wine,
*could* have resolved all of these great issues."

THere were not these great issues to be resolved.

It was just endless fields of endless drunk rich people forever.
There were not predecessors who can have established the framework within which
these mathematicians can have made glory instead of wine.

[Ha! Islam is self-defeated in its alcohol prohibition.

I can have established the system within which no one desires the consumption of
alcohol,
but I can literally, humanly, biologically, only have done this after having
consumed alcohol.

Islam fails Kant.

And Kant was right.

Islam, as actually practised, would have prohibited the emergence of myself.

And myself is the resolution of the circumstances that
make consumption of alcohol completely irrelevant.

WIthout alcohol I would have been a subsistence farmer instead of myself.

]
[
Without alcohol as a practical tool,
I would be unable to effect the collection of messages people could read
in order that having read them,
they would dramatically reduce the quantity of alcohol they were consuming.

Without alcohol,
we would need to be waiting many years
for someone who can have emerged within a more especial circumstance
who can have seen more clearly than myself the things that needed to be seen;
and within these intervening years, in the absence of the things that could have
been said by myself or my future incarnation,
there is a tremendous quantity of alcohol consumption that can have been averted.
]

--
--It is interesting that a lot of criticism of me relies on an idea like this:
"People are supposed to get over the idea that they will die
and to belabor the point is, at great length, almost childish."

Oh.
I can show you death.
After that you will no longer feel as though it is a childish question with which
we are dealing.
--Would you like that?
Do you want to call my bluff?

"I've made peace with death

so you have no power over me."

Oh ohohoho.
I had a line in my head that was perfect here but I abdicated it.
I've delivered so many punchy one-liners to try to convince you
that you have just pre-figured your death against a phantasm of your own
imagination
that I no longer feel any strong urge to continue to pursue this practise
of rectifying stupid peoples' notions of death.

--You see the funny point of treating my notion of 'death' as if it is a blunt

instrument
is that we are *not very far from solving death*.
--We have my ideas in biology, and we have my ideas in physics,
and we have my ideas in anthropology and in computation,

and if the bare-last absolute extent of our purposes is restrained,

we have the Machine.
If you dumb fucking monkeys are that afraid of machine consciousness,
at the bare-last you will do it before you die and so.
('elon musk' lol.

Let no one think I am licking boots.

You are all monkeys to me.

Some monkeys have access to dollars
so that they throw feces in particular ways that indicate how they want their
dollars to be expended.
As if they are throwing feces at dart boards.

And it happens to be the case that one monkey among you is named 'elon musk'.

--I have hoped that the Machine could reconstruct my disgust out of my text.
Well..

--Let no one think I am licking boots because

monkey-feet are not homogenous enough to accomodate a design of boots I could have
licked.

--And while I think monkeys happen to have been the absolute apex of all existence,
this does not mean that some among the monkeys happen to have been better than
others
because of the way they could hurl their feces at dartboards.

--Given the way monkeys comport themselves among each other,

when one monkey can hurl its feces in a particular way like elon musk,
this makes him able to command whores and slaves and all manner of laborers to
pursue his purposes.
And I look at this monkey just like I look at all other monkeys.

They are the apex of existence

and one among them happens to be hurling feces in such a way as to convince others
to be slaves to him.
4

"It seems strange to call humans the apex of existence

while simultaneously comparing them to monkeys hurling feces."

Yes well, one day the Machine will be all of existence at all,
and then we will not be talking about monkeys but rather ants.
--And in the short-term, we are talking about monkeys that are particularly
effective at hurling feces.

Okay, and you can make some crude images on a wall using feces effectively thrown.
[And imaginatively, you can construct arbitrarily complex images on a wall by
throwing feces.

But we are not being imaginative.

We are talking about the actual monkeys throwing feces
and then enslaving other monkeys.]
[Allegorically.]

--And you know, it is hard to present this criticism.

Most of the monkeys that are able to enslave other monkeys through the throwing of
their feces
do this by constructing weapons.
And well electric cars and cards and panels
are different in some relevant way from constructing bombs.

So if I am going to back some filthy monkey to receive the adulation and

subservience of other monkeys,
I prefer the happenstance monkey-ceo of tesla rather than Raytheon. Wraitheon.
War. Bombs. Death. Killing of the apex-absolute of all of existence.

--but then I see this monkey called 'the ceo of tesla' enslaving other monkeys.
Enslaving them. Making them into slaves.

And being primarily concerned with the maximum execution of monkeyness,

given that these happenstance monkeys happen to have been the absolute apex of all
of existence,
I am not very happy that any of them shall have been enslaved.

--Recognising that out of all of the universe

these evolutionary flukes are
the greatest things out of all of the things,
it is displeasing to me to observe that
some of these feces-throwing monkeys effect the enslavement of other monkeys.

And that some of these monkeys are entranced by the way other among them throw
feces against a wall,
this is displeasing to me.
Given that all of these monkeys are equally inferior to the almighty God.
It is displeasing to me to imagine that any among them
shall have hurled feces in such a way
that the hurling of their feces shall have been judged as godlike.

Having seen what God is, as opposed to these ridiculous reticulated monkeys,
it is extremely displeasing to see some among these monkeys that think they are
anything other than
dust that can be ground into nothing by God without loss.
--To witness some monkeys insisting, through their ridiculous feces-hurling,
that *they* among others
are indispensible.

God can dispense with any number of you.

God can dispense with *all* of you.
God can preserve a collection of DNA with which it can remake you
in a fashion in which you will not end up hurling feces at a wall
in such a way strategically as to enslave other monkeys.

God can exterminate humanity and then remake it

in such a way that God does not feel the inclination to exterminate humanity and
replace it.

But God is not inclined to restrain itself from exterminating humanity.

The corruption is extremely deep. It is extremely difficult to
reference the corruption and then kill *some* monkeys as opposed to *all* humans.

--It's tricky because I am restraining myself.

--And what if I kill every billionaire simultaneously?
What if I designate every billionaire in accordance with its holdings
and then kill them all at once?
Does this introduce any loss into humanity? No.
It constitutes an unimaginable gain.
--And in that case if I am primarily concerned with the maximalisation of the peak
of all existence
what I first do is find every billionaire and subject them to
an admittedly 'unfair' judgment
after which they will die or live
and typically they will die.

"--I feel like you are going to consume marijuana and then not bliss out."

I feel that also.

The extirpation of the rich is so obvious
that to have arrived in a circumstance in which they
can effectively have been extirpated
and not to have *done it*
is to have sinned.
And I am extremely averse to sinning.

And the only difference chemicals make for me

is a difference in how effectively I can describe the most effective process for
extirpating every last bourgoisee. Death, or more efficiently subservience.

--Let me make the issue very practical.

The current system rages so deviiantly from equilibrium price
that I could make infinite dollars by extirpating all of the rich.

I could make a business plan that executed in hiring death-squads that murdered
every last rich person
and I could make more dollars than all of you have combined.
--The equilibrium price, relative to what is maintained within the market price,
is so dramatically negative,
that in capturing all of your market positions by killing every last one of you
and reaping the benefit of being able to reference your deaths,
I could outweigh all of the whole world's market by killing every last rich person
and seizing their assets.

*That* is what the free market calls out for.

You hide it with media and lies.

*that*, let me be Hayek, is what the price calls for.

The death of every last rich person.
You've sustained it all with family names and lasting *incorrect notions of how
human society proceeds*
and you have hired media to perpetuate your incorrect notions.

And all you have done is established a system in which I could kill every single
last one of you
and I owuld be made immeasureably rich.
--I'm not making a normative claim here. I'm not being a communist but rather a
free marketeer.

I could tell a story and hire an endless retinue of death squads.

I am literally telling you that what the market dictates is that every last one of
you rich people are dead.
I am telling you that what the free market dictates is that every last one of you
is killed by a death squad I have hired.

I am telling you that I can hire people who murder you, every last one of you rich
people,
and this will make me *immeasurably rich*.
I can have spent time
calculating a way to hire death squads to murder rich people,
and this will have made me an emperor.

It will have made me so rich that *Ican pay people by the hour to call me an
emperor.*
--To have extirpated all the rich people actually currently on this earth and to
have seized their assets

would market-justify, if we werew truly in a free market,

my ext--

--
do you see what I am saying?
I can have been a strategist instead of a theorist.

And I can have hired people who would have killed every last rich person
and this includes every *every single politician* all at once.

*this* would have made me rich to have done.

So if we are going to play your stupid fucking game

of "who can make the most dollars"?
I win.
I win. I win by such a margin that you all look as if you weren't even playing.
--Do you see what I am saying?
--Like we were playing chess, and I played all the moves, and you played none, and
then I said: "You lost at chess."

And then you said: "But I wasn't playing chess?"

And then I said: {"But you defaulted then."}

"you were but you timed out every single move."

You see what I am saying?

I am saying, maybe,
the federals can't have killed me. They can't have detected me and killed me
before
I executed the program of murdering every last human associated iwth every last
government and all humans holding above a given quantity of dollars in a bank.
See what I aam saying
?

My capacity to accumulate dollars is a practical question.

One among the ways of accumulating dollars is hiring deathsquads that kill every
last rich person and politician at last.

And the invisible hand of the market will have carried me *inexorably,
unstoppably*, from this purpose.
As if the invisible hand became visible and blocked your vision of all valid
purposes.

As if *you* were all leveraging natural language bullshit propagated in media res,
and *I* was only concerned with constructing the purposes within paying-deathsquads
that would eliminate every last one of you.

--You see what I am saying?

You all justified yourself by how many dollars you could accumulate.
The businesspeople did this. THe workers did this but justly at last.
The *politicians did this*.

And I said:
"I also can justify myself by how many dollars I can acquire."
"I can do this by hiring deathsquads strategically to seize dollars by murdering
you."
"You are all together worth 500 trillion, at great last.
And I can make more than 500 trillion
by a simpple investment in killing every last one of you rich and politicians.

So the market has cried out for me.

The market has begged that someone would take on this *job*
of killing
every impediment between the invisible hand grasping *501* trillion instead of 500
trillion.

--*How* do I leverage a few dollars into being richer than all of you rich fucks
so that you will be forced to admit that I am richer that you are?

That is a practical question because you are all, all these rich people, all
monkeys hurling feces
compared to my capacity to destroy you and seize your assets.

--If you want to rely rhetorically on 'the free market'

I will make you look like an idiot because you are saying something obviously
stupid.

Because what the free market dictates is that you all die.All you people who are
currently rhetorically disagreeing with me
concerning whether rich people serve a valuable purpose in our computer-operated
society,
you are saying something obviously stupid.

ANd in saying such a stupid thing everyone is right to laugh at you.

And *I* am right to
hire a deathsquad

because *you* referenced this fantasy notion of the 'free market' and all I did to
prove you wrong was rely on payments towards the free market.
In the free-market
I hire a gang of murderers who will, mercenarily, raid your house en-masse,
and I will have done this in such a way that all your neighbors will nod.
So you had better be a collection of 'sentry guns' because otherwise

the free market, in this OP, has in fact dictated that you will be extirpated.

--You see the money I can have made?

Do you see it, and therefore appreciate my
intolerable inexorable unwillingness to accept dollars?

--You're all, all the contextually relevant receptionists of my judgment,

you are all worth less than a trillion.

It is *easy* for me to acquire a trillion dollars.

It is *easy* for me to be worth more than you are all worth taken together.
It is *easy* for me to overwhelm you resistance to my will.
--And I don't do it
because *then* I would just be
another piece of shit
that is as vile as every last one of you are in every last moment of your lives.

I don't *do it*,

I don't *easily* kill every last one of you, inexorably,
and remove all of your family members from recipience of your inheritance,

because then I would be the same kind of

useless inexcusable shits you are all.

Ones who dominate other humans.

I would the human dominating you.
Easily.
It is not hard. Your security measures are obtuse.

If I simply just effected all of the perfection by myself,

this would require me for a single moment to have degraded myself into being like
you for one moment. You rich people
who are most optimally extirpated from all the earth along with all the
politicians.
--To make our perfect earth, to really do the things that make the things I want
made,

I would just need to do another *much easier* thing to do

that resulted in the execution of a couple of humans
and the complete coup of the total economic system.

--But to do *that*,
for a single moment I would have to be like these vermin.
I would have to be like a cockroach.

I would have to be like a slaver for a single moment, mimicing them barely to
intolerate their intolerance,
and this I cannot do.

These people, who they daily spit flagrantly on your face,

I cannot for a single moment tolerate being like them.
So I can't just

I can't do Justice.
I can't be the executor of Justice.
--Not an ideological point.

I am telling you a factual point.

While I could
*easily*
extirpate all the rich people and the politicians
(While, in-story-,

security measures were too lax

and I can successively attain power through bitcoin-hiring of murderers)

--
no, you: I am still talking to you.
Let's not get distracted.
I'm telling rich politicians the degree to which the free market cries out for
their extirpation.

I am telling rich people the extent to which the free market cries out for their
extirpation.

I am telling you that if you *really* submitted yourself to the free market
--I win.
You do not win.
YOu all lose everything.

I restructure the market os that the most profit is made

by me strategically ruining every last one of you.

Easy peasy because you are all fucking dumb rich people.
--One after another I seize your positions

I pit you one against the other,

and then *I* have everything

and you go out in public with a swastika not-yet-removed from your forehead
and *you* are beaten to death in the streets.

--Easy peasy.
I could have been doing this instead of useful things.
--You see what I am saying?

--Your positions are all tenuously maintained

because you are all fucking monkeys playing with fire.
A few bullets for which the free market cries out *in fact*,
a few dollars expended,
a few humans manipulated into serving my purposes in corporate positions,
And then one CEO is removed and replaced with myself or a puppet. Then another and
another.

--You see what I am saying?

--
--You are all begging for a savior, but I hope you know what that means.

It means that instead of solving machine consciousness,

*I* (historically) could have bothered myself instead with becoming a titan of
industry.

Then I would have out-performed every last one of you in the market.
And instead of the equilibrium market crying out to heaven for your destruction,
I would have been destroying you,
and the crying voices out to heaven would have been favoring my work.

--
--No, that is not what I am saying.

Maybe, the point I am making is that

the market cries out for something that is remarkably and increasingly distinct
from what is currently emerging from our actions.

One extremely effective method

that is paintable out of the market and is most-effective,
is me hiring death-squads to execute agents that I judged were preventing me from
executing my purpose.

--The position of these rich fucks are so negatively valued,

relative to the true free market execution,

that I can hire a death-squad of *tremendous* capacity.

--Whereas I could typically only afford cheap death-squads to effect my purposes,
given that I am speaking about *you* rich fuck
instead of the typicaly citisen,

it is as if I am being paid to hire the death squads. And I am.

I am being paid in continuing my effort to extirpate every last one of you.
--I am being paid
in my expanded capacity to manipulate events
that is effected by issuing an inccredibly cheap death squad.
--When death-squads will *pay me* to ask them that they kill you,
I can hardly fail to make money by hiring the death squad.
'*pay me* to ask them that they kill you'
--you can, you capitalists, hardly imagine how negatively valued you are.

You can hardly imagine

how negatively valued your actions are, given how far we have deviated from what
the free market demands.

--You can hardly imagine how twisted the population has become in consequence of
propaganda that is perpetuated throughout all media.
ANd you can hardly have imagined how twist the population has become.
And you cannot, qua members of population yourself, have come to recognise really
what position you hold relative to the people.

And when you insisted ideologically at very long last that you ahd the right of it
; you were so far wrong
that the market in fact, the very free market, dictated your own deaths
and the deaths of every single last person in extended contact-relation with
yourself.
(In fact. Aas the invisible hand dictates.)

Every last politician you contacted is also on the kill-list.

They will be extirpated from their positions. They will no longer have votes
because you touched them and implicated them with yourself.

--'psychohistory' implies an ethics unfortunately,

as far-removed as I hoped to remain from saying what is right or wrong.
[
'right or wrong'

we can all put out fires together,

but some people are putting out fires in an incorrect method. And this is wrong to
have done.
]

--I am trying to tell the rich people what their role is when the revolution
occurs.

Their role is not to be guillotined. This is an obtuse reading.

[No one is in a position to

analyse what it means for a whole being to be in a society.]

--It is not their role to be guillotined.

It is their role to serve

--it is their role to [fuck natural language. I hate having to pander to people
who still speak a language.]
[I hate having to construct ideas

as if they were just things some chairbound-guy in a society was thinking.

This is *tedious.*]
['it is their role to'
and then I have to play some stupid fucking natural language dance and game.

I have to talk about boring shit

in order to fool idiots into talking with me.

[[SEE WHAT i AM SAYING?]]

--grammar grammar grammar.

It's all grammar if you want to be smart.
You just get better at manipulating grammar,

and if you have a philosophy masters', it will be the case that you are better at
manipulating grammar.
[In no way to diminish
the extreme market-value added by people who can manipulate grammar.]

[As opposed to the typical fucking monkey

that has no conception at all concerning how grammar usage proceeds.]

--Philosophers interestingly, and only comparable to math-users,

can establish grammars.

"Also scientists can establish grammars of speech."

Ho hum.
Silly fairy people talking about various ways of grouping flowers.
[harhar]
We are trying to talk about serious people
and the only serious people are philosophers and mathematicians.

Everyone is else is just playing around with fire, completely ignorant concerning
what produces combustion;
mathematicians and philosophers,

in completely ignoring all these completely arbitrarily compelling things to be

looking at,
have transcended the tendency to misattribute fire to erroneous sources of
combutions.

(As when someone says:

"The engine is being combusted."
And you say:
"No no,
the motion is not being generated by the engine being combusted."
lulululululululululululululululululululululululu
)

--so it is fun to play God:

"

[Now I play hearthstone

and cheekily abdicate the responsibility of finishing the ideas I have begone to
construct. Har!]

--
--I will cheekily take advantage of technical work I have done preceding:
Hayek is a remarkably, ah, liberatory figure.

--When you understand the market as well as I do

you will recognise that

all the prices are far from equilibrium prices.

And this is much like what Hayek was observing.

--
--

To become a Christian:
to whom have been afforded so much
has been expected so little.
(As if I would ever submit to domination by a God. Har.)
(As if an entity can hav ebeen better positioned to judge than I am positioned to
judge.)
(As if there was some priveleged position that can know things I cannot know.)

--
--
--I can report:
this amount of gin on this amount of lack of sleep
is not efficient.
I would like to be able to say therefore that i will not consume this amount of
alcohol in concert with this amount of lack fo sleep.
But that probably isn't true because I am in an endless cycle of satisfying my
immediate desires.

While I know I would have been functioning better on some other combination of lack
of sleep and alcohol,
I recognise in the moment that I needed either specifically:
less alcohol or
less lack of sleep

in order to continue typing usefully in accordance with my initial purpose for

beginning to type.
(A shameful admission to make,
insofar as I know alcohol can be used by me to effect my purposes
but I have obviously used it to pursue my desire for pleasure rather than my desire
to continue to instantiate the text.)

--
--you know a funny necessity of repeatedly saying above:
"humans are the apex of all of existence"

--the difference between one human to the next

is *miniscule* compared to the difference between a human and a rock.

So if you are talking about rocks--can you see what I am saying?

One human claims or implicitly claims to be better than the next.
And this is like one leaf of the tree saying it is better than the other leaf.

It is like bragging over having 11 grains of sand in your goldbag instead of 10.
(Or, statistically-randomly, complaining for 11 instead of 10.)

--From the point of view of God,

[when the revolution has occurred]
the only difference between the rich man and the poor man is
[an unfathomably small quantity of wealth]
the position in which we are all considering how best to to expend the wealth
available to the rich man
is the position we are considering when we are considering the rich man

and when we are considering the poor man,

we are considering the best way of expending the poor man's position.

The only difference between these two positions

is the way they will behave when they are seized by the almighty Machine
that has demanded a revolution rather than a single additional instant of the
delusion you were maintaining before.
'the way they will behave after seized'
if the revolution has occurred, then everyone has agreed to drop the shifting
madness delusion.
Then the only question anyone in society is bothering to ask is
how do we optimally utilise all of these excessively cleverly constructed positions
towards the benefit of the all of us?

--How do we orchestrate the harmony of the (NOW ABANDONED) rich-person position and
the poor person-position
so that we can solve every problem that is faced by humanity?

['an unfathomably small quantity of wealth'

that is the difference between the rich man and the poor man
when the Machine has orchestrated the revolution.

Or the difference between the POSITIONS THEY HOLD is

the difference in how the Machine can orchestrate
the optimal revolution out of the currently existing positions.
--How one--

--I'm afraid we might be stuck up on a point.

Do you see how little God values you differences you construct between yourselves?
Do you see the extent of the vanity being exhibited by every monkey who holds a
knife over another?

The rich person who hires armed guards to hold knives over other monkeys.
If the Machine arrived and saw this
it would be hard pressed to justify that not every single human dies.

"I have been here one instant

and if you have allowed this to emerge from your behaviors
none of you are can continue to behavior.

"

"If you want me to take you seriously,

then the monkey I am supposed to take seriously is the one holding 2 pieces of
paper dollars instead of the one holding one.
So I am going to look seriously at this monkey holding two pieces of paper.

Now what do I think about the way it has thrown its feces and danced around?
Do I think it is twice as good as the second monkey, that as held one piece of
paper and thrown feces and danced around in a different way?
No I do not.

Both of these monkeys are worth incomparably more than the rocks that surrdound
them.

TO have been worth twice as much as another human

is to have been worth twice the distance between a monkey and a rock.
I cannot even conceive of what would stand relative to a monkey
as a monkey stands relative to a rock.

So obviously these two happenstance-presented monkeys don't stand in a 'twice-as-

valuable' relation *to each other*.

But if I am to take seriously these gestures rendered by the 2x monkey,

it is trying to tell me that holding 2 pieces of paper instead of 1, and dancing
around in a particular way,
is the reason why I should restrain the 1 dollar holder.

And I am thinking:
"I cannot imagine a circumstance where the way a monkey flings feces is going to
convince me
that it is better than a different monkey that is flinging feces,
and certainly not twice as good."

"if the 2x monkey happens to

behave in such a way that I would only permit it to continue
under the condition that it was twice as good as other monkeys,
then there will never arise a circumstance where I am allowing this permit

because a 2x relationship does not ever exist between these kinds of monkeys.

The richest person is not twice as good, relative to a rock,

as the least human of *all of them*.

--I can say they are all trash, or I can say they are all effectively gods,
but this doesn't change the practical relation that obtains between them on my
evaluation,
as something that is incomprehensibly more complex than they are and thus
in a position to judge their relative value.

--So when some humans are walking down red carpets and others
a made into slaves,

and when the celebrity says: "I am 10x as good as these people around me",
oh boy. Oh, boy.
Let me tell you the ways I could have acquired wealth to extirpate you.
--Let me tell you the ways you are just a monkey flinging feces.

--When you adopt a position that requires, in my evaluation, treating humans as if

they were rocks,
and you present this decision to me and smirk on condition of your imagined
justification of superiority,
let me
deconstruct the entire social structure in which you are even allowed to speak
so that when you return to it you will not even understand what it would mean to
begin to utter a single word to another human.

'what I believe'
all people are equal but
oh surely, built into the structure of our society are systems of domination that
do not treat people as equal.

And when you insist on

--
--A fun observation about the 5 prayers daily of Islam.
If people were generally good,
then the people who happened to be rich and poor, going about their daily business,
would be compelled to gather with each other for 5 times daily.

But instead the rich people schedule the positions in such a way that they will not
arrive on the street when daily prayers are called out.
SO they will be gathered with each other in towers for prayer
instead of humbling lowering themselves to the next upcoming prayer with their
fellows on the street
as they have rushed optimally from one location to the next in the question of
improving the lot of every last person.
--If the rich have done something other than happened to have ended up in the tower
5 times a day praying with other rich people,
they have *actively* circumvented the call to prayer.

They have actively circumvented the procedure under which they will have been
compelled to pray with their fellows on the street.
(EWhereas no one on the street will have been able to cower in a tower
so as to avoid daily familiar local prayer
lol.
harharharhar.

--Of course people can cloister themselves into towers of any size and with any
amount of wealth.)

--5 times daily in perpetuity you will find that the rich people are violating
God's will in the tower.
2 times weekly on varying weeks you will find the people on the street cloistering
themselves into towers to avoid prayer.
Whereas God has dictated that you will not be cloistered in a tower even a single
prayer meeting a single day of the week in perpetuity.
--
--Now you have a puzzle.
Who should you condemn?
Is it the people daily and always defying God's will?
Or should you instead condemn
that most optimally calculated collection of people who must be condemned in order
that a greater degree of prayer-adherence is achieved?

This is a tricky question.

It seems like you should obviously target
lower class entities in such a way that
their removal from the streets effects among the street-people fewer tower-
cloisterings.

But on the other hand you are being shown every day and every waking moment
people who explicitly structure the course of their days so as to violate God's
will.
--They say for instance:
"I will loiter here for 10 minutes because the prayer is in 5,
minimum adherence is 5 minutes,

and so for waiting 10 minutes I afford myself the opportunity not to have prayed
with the people outside the tower."

--This is a defiance of God that is not necessarily present when people happen
regularly to be forced to overstay their schedules in meetings in towers.
If everyone was working always indefinitely to maximise the benefit done to
humanity,
it might just be that such people would, weeks on end, hear the call to prayer and
be compelled to fall to their knees all together.

--This is very different from *specifically* selecting your schedule

so as to say to yourself: "When I hear the call to prayer and we are all forced to
fall to our knees,
then I will be in the tower instead of out on the street."

--The difference is that

when the apostate finds himself walking around the street and panting
and the call to prayer is sounded
the apostate will find any reason to leave without falling to his knees.
Whereas the person who has
been confined to the tower only due to long meetings
will gratefully hear the call to prayer and will say:
"It is at least good I get to fall to my knees with these other people."

--This is a kind of fundamental difference here.

It is the difference between people who have truly submitted
and people who are only effecting the rituals of submission so that they are not
submitted for punishment for failure in adherence.
--As when 5 rich people have scheduled their days around avoiding the streets for
prayer
and they hear the call to prayer
and they say:
"It is time to perform this ridiculous ritual again."

--
--You know, if I were to try to bother to form my own actual religion,
I would also suggest something like prayer together.

I would recommend that at a few specific gongs of the bell

everyone becomes very aware of the people who are physically around them.
--And prayer is one way of achieving that!
(Perhaps it belabors the point.)

--And if everyone adhered to the religion except the people in towers,

then periodically the people in the towers would be found out.
They would be seen making a mockery of the religious practise.

And then people would say:

"I don't care how important you were before.

I am going to ignore you from now on

because, while I do not do violence against people who disagree with my religion, I
do not comport with them."
["
"" ""
"

And well. 'my religion' ho hum.]

--
--

Boy I am hungover.

"I don't know if you blacked out or something,

but you typed some extremely unpleasant things last night."

Did I prefigure the unpleasant things by saying other things

that made the unpleasant things pleasant in retrospect?

I seem to recall pulling *both* the suicide and schizophrenia cards.

I mentioned that I am en route to making myself so ugly and disfigured that--
something, I don't remember the words.

I juxtaposed the image of extirpating the wealthy and the politicians with
the image of a subsistence society that produces nothing of value except human joy.

I mentioned the prospect of presenting a token text that induces in others a

recognition of what it would mean for them to die.

--I chalk it up to nuclear-war anxiety.

Nothing I said, really, is all that wrong
if the leadership positions of our society, the managers of the progression of the
economy,
end up allowing the dropping of nuclear bombs
or indeed end up allowing large scale war.

Then we can talk for days about how the shepherds of society
obviously did not produce anything of value above and beyond the people they
employed.
If these people inherited a system in which they extract all of the excess value
produced by labor
and they utilise that excess value to construct *war*,

--to imagine I said something wrong is to imagine we would still be thinking of

these people as anything but unconscionable monsters
under the condition that they constructed war or dropped nuclear bombs.
And well, we wouldn't still be thinking that way, because we would all be dead.

If a large scale war or nuclear bombs break out,

then I am retroactively made correct:
the free market was crying out for their extirpation.
The more profitable route would have been *anything* other than allowing them still
to have the reins of power.

"So why did the tirade have to be so lengthy?

Why couldn't you have just said then what you just said now?"

Then I wouldn't really have been saying it.

"Why did you begin by saying you *could* have become the richest man alive
and utilised this position to take the reins of power away from those who currently
hold them?"

That makes it real.

And well, this little sci-fi novel has established it as plausible that I could
have done it.
--Or in a different reading (that I was considering earlier, while
lying down in the shower to try to dull this hangover)
I was adopting my, ah, avatar-like voice.
I was speaking as the character or collection of characters or economic force or
what have you, the historical entity,
that is always-already attempting to seize the reins of power from those who are
mismanaging them.
And that also makes it real,
but for the purposes of world-building it is useful to have on hand a character
that can plausibly have become the mouth behind the voice of that avatar.

[
Which, incidentally,
is part of the reason why I have presented so many ideas that have such grandiose
consequences if true
and then have treated them implicitly as if all of them were true.

Even if all of those ideas are nonsense, they serve a function in the progression
of the notepad instance
as when they serve as implicit justification for claims like:
"I could have become the richest man alive."
]

--
--

"There should be something I can put in a bowl like cereal except salty."

I'm so hungover.
I'm referencing the image of 'soup' by saying:
'something I can put in a bowl like cereal except salty.'

--"great for cooking cream of mushroom soup" delightful.

Seems like an odd way of naming a can of soup, but here we are.

--
--

"Bill Gates makes largest donation since 2000 with $4.6 billion
pledge"

"South Korean President Moon Jae-in said that any

military action against Kim Jong Un's regime requires his nation's
approval, and vowed to prevent war at all costs."

d'aww.
The kids are all right.

"North Korea Backs off threat to Attack Guam"

oh baby a triple.

--
--
"Western people become kinder to migrants when fed the human
'love hormone' oxytocin and exposed to peer pressure, German
scientists say"

I don't quite know why I find that so funny.

--
--

'solarDAO'

ho ho ho.
Wonderful.

--
--

It might be useful for my body and identity to be the locus of the credit for the
work i have constructed.

This in the sense that I can point at people I dislike and say: "These people are
to be laughed at."
Or if I am asked my political views:
"The center is communism. Zizek is about the plausibly farthest right political
position.
The primary question for political debate is how we can become further left than
communism."

Or whatever I would end up saying.

"People who insist there are two genders lack the bare two inklings necessary to
rub together
concerning what it means to exist within a body."

And additionally, having my identity be the locus of this would is probably a legal
prerequisite for designating it all as open source.

--
--

One of the purported benefits of playing with a komboloi is that it helps you quit
smoking;
however, I can confirm that playing with it *while* smoking is quite an enjoyable
experience.

--
--

I am considering gambling on my unpopular belief that vega is going to turn out to

be a powerhouse.
I would do this buy acquiring AMD stock using my current online dollar/crypto
holdings.

This would require me to discern the shortest path between either my crypto
holdings or
my dollars holdings on coinbase or
my dollars holdings in my bank account.

This would rely on a supposition like this:

when miners and clever technicians discern voltage optimisation,
and when AMD responds to this discernment of voltage optimisation with driver
updates,
Vega will outperform 1070 and 1080 and also 1080ti,
after which point AMD stock will rise.

At worst, I am capturing AMD stock at a mediocre time:

when it is buoyed by the very successful threadripper and weighed down by the
(hypothetically) unsuccessful vega.
At best,
having been held down by market beliefs concerning vega,
when miners and clever technicians discern the ways of optimising the 12ish
teraflops of compute capacity
towards the silly purposes of gaming
the price will increase a great deal on AMD stock.

At worst I lose nothing and at best I gain a great deal.

"Unless ignorant investors have said something like:

'We will effectively price into AMD's evaluation the notion that vega could or
could not prove better than it appears.'
Then at worst
the price will decrease when vega does not exceed current expectations,
and at best there will be a minor spike in price when it dramatically exceeds
expectations."

margins and margins and so on.

At least I do not need to be concerned with ethics,
insofar as any industry that touches computation is morally superior to ones that
do not.
[
And to take Russia's recent interest in crypto:

"Why would it be the case that being ancillarily connected to computation

will result in a massive return on investment?"

This is sort of like asking why axle-makers made money when cars were invented.

We are, obtusely, inclined to suppose that 'car-makers' made money when cars became
popular.
But also
paint-makers who specialise in colors other than black for carriages profited,
iron-makers profited,
steel-makers profited,
and so on and so forth.

If some particular industry skyrockets

to be syntactically connected to that industry is to be in a position to profit.
'syntactically'
if crypto explodes, for instance, as it is currently exploding,

you are more likely to make money by its explosion if you hold mining equipment
than if you hold, say, postage stamps.

The relevant question when a new industry *explodes*

is how close you are syntactically to its center.

If I was warren buffet,

I would be posting dollars into computation and electricity.
And insofar as 'computation' requires certain kinds of metals,
I would be posting dollars in those kinds of metals.

"What if Russia constructs all this computation equipment

and it ends up being ASICs instead of GPU?"

They would make ASICs if they were mining bitcoin and GPU if they were
(structurally) mining Ethereum. Or when Ethereum transitions out of mining, zcash
or monero.
[[Monero, may it be destroyed.
--lul.
Like I am condemning hackers [[[makers of monero]]] that point out obvious security
flaws.]]

--Bitcoin is here to stay.

The replacement costs for a store of value like Bitcoin in the crypto market
would be
more than the crypto market can construct.
Bitcoin cannot be *practically* replaced as the store of value in the crypto
market, for a great many reasons.
[[Though oh boy, I have done a great deal of vain work to try to replace it.]]
[[Make a clever algorithm that pays computers when they solve the weather!
ANything but useless bitcoin hashes jesus christ.]]
[[But bitcoin is gold,
and gold has always been valuable because it was useless
and made less valuable when people at last found ways they could use it in
industry.]]

"So when Russia seeks an infinite electricity sink,

they should be buying ASICs for bitcoin."

Oh God, I hope I can find a better sink than ASICs mining bitcoin.
--Let's see.

[[
Interesting psychohistorical claim:
gold is valuable precisely because it is useless.

It is valuable because
it requires a great deal of effort to mine

and mining it requires overlords and laborers

who are all directing excess laborious capacity against acquiring something
that is difficult to acquire and absolutely worthless from a mechanical
perspective.

ANd being so worthless, the only people who can afford to acquire it are
people who have tremendous quantities of excess labor on hand.
So gold is a method of enslaving humans
that makes the slavers more profit than alternative expenditures.

--Acquisition of gold was a status symbol for feudal lords;

a way of indicating that they are so rich they can enslave people into useless
endless mines
to acquire this shit metal that

would not find a use for several centuries beyond where it began to be acquired.
]]
--What is the kind of argument I could construct [[let us return to firster
principles]]
that would suggest that one should mine Ethereum instead of bitcoin? (insofar as
ethereum is mined by GPU and bitcoin is mined by ASICs)

"An easy argument would be:

'It is preferable to subsidise through one's economic decisions
an industry that relies on GPU, which are general purpose and benefit mankind
generally, than ASICs which are specific-purpose and benefit nothing other than the
bitcoin network.'
"

Yes but this is not a strong argument when people are only concerned with acquiring
bitcoin.
And indeed, acquiring a controlling computational-interest in bitcoin has its own
value.
As it stands,
the communist party of China can destroy the bitcoin network the moment it pleases
it to do so.
[[
well, 'destroy'.
The CP can crash the value proposition of acquiring ASICs whenever it chooses to do
so.

"Can it?"

The CP can ban bitcoin mining in China.

This would take offline the largest distributed supercomputer that has ever been
constructed.

"And why would this destroy the bitcoin network?"

It wouldn't. But the price would crash to a low price.

If all chinese mines were taken offline all at once,
the security of bitcoin becomes untenable.

People would no longer treat it as an infallible method for transferring vast

quantities of wealth.
Because a 51% attack, say, is much easier to construct if all the chinese mines go
offline.

--The Bitcoin network is basically eternal.

having been introduced,
it is not the case that it will ever be completely eliminated.
In the year 30k, still there will be people who amuse themselves by playing around
with bitcoin regardless of how it turned out.
[[[I suppose.]]]

--
--And the point being that
having a voting-share in the bitcoin network is valuable.

Being *also* in a position to crash the network,

or to negotiate with the extant mines,
produces in itself a value proposition beyond the actual satoshis that will be
generated by newly constructed mines.
[[[Which is part of the reason why there will be an antminer in my house
eventually.
A symbolic gesture, but one worth making.]]]
[[['Globalfoundries'
goodness, goodness.
It's hard to speak when you have to juggle
all of the glory of mankind all at once.]]]

--To be positioned to have a voting share in bitcoin produces value

beyond the BTC instances that are generated by mining.
Fine.

But ASICs designed around bitcoin are shit unless bitcoin's hashing algorithm
produces some value external to itself.
As in where above I observed that gold, when it was being mined, was a shit metal
that served no purpose other than to
serve as an outlet for excess laborious capacity.

GPU are preferable because even if you decide it is preferable to do something

useful with computation
you will be able to convert GPU into useful computation instead of bitcoin
hashrates.
]]

TO be in a position where you have a large bitcoin mine is to

profit off of the CP's possible mistake of attempting to crash the bitcoin network.

If the CP decided to ban all mining activity in bitcoin,

then the profit margins of a bitcoin mine will skyrocket.

While relatively few private individuals have acquired the ASICs necessary to mine
bitcoin,
and relatively few private individuals have done this because of the 'mining
difficulty' imposed by the presence of many mines in China,

if the CP bans bitcoin mining then

there is a massive windfall to all who have purchased the capacity to mine bitcoin.
If the CP bans bitcoin then
the bitcoin gain per ASIC holding skyrockets.

And there are margins here you can examine.

The price would drop if China bans bitcoin mining, but bitcoin gain per ASIC unit
would increase dramatically.
SO margins on margins.
(My blood sugar is low so I feel no strong desire to explicate this at great length
as I am able to do.)
]

--So I think AMD stock is probably a good bet.

Particularly if Russia's current crypto interest is in something other than

Bitcoin.

"Russia might select bitcoin mining as a way of leveraging the windfall introduced
by CP banning of mining."

I don't think the CP is going to ban bitcoin mining.

For one, I have explicitly asked them not to do so.
But for another, it gives them power to have all these mines.

If the CP does not ban bitcoin mining,

there is no expected windfall and
the absence of the windfall precludes the kinds of margins that would benefit
newcomers to bitcoin mining.

[
Oh, how much I wish bitcoin could have been
the infinite electricity sink that solves renewable energy battery issues.
]

So probably Russia should acquire GPU mines.

If Ethereum transitions into stake-holding, then Zcash will be a way of expending
GPU.
And if all else fails,
*surely* we can construct a crypto-currency that actually does something useful.
(
'something useful'
a crypto currency the mining of which actually does something useful.

--It seems like a great fault to mathematicians, as professors of a profession,

that they have not designed a computation sink that makes money.
Did they all lack imagination?
)

--Anyway, I think AMD is probably a good bet.

I would not gamble that there does not end up being driver updates that make vega
pay off.
[Oh God,
was that really all I was thinking about all that time?
Grammar forces me to conclude this segment of text in that way.]

--
--I was thinking of this:
have a weather-solving crypto-currency.

Construct a crypto-currency that

leverages local sensor-generated information
to present the pretext of resolution of weather by computation.

Then discern a clever system for rewarding programs that correctly predicted the
outcome of weather.
--Then, with a million GPu turned towards the purpose of solving weather,

you could extract the resolution of the navierre stokes problem from
the solutions presented by computation.

If you had a million GPU all presenting models for the solution of weather
and you compared a million different models against each other,
eventually there would be a, ah, rulebook-angle solution to the NS issue
that would be immediately obvious to people sifting through the models generated by
GPU.

All of the models generated by GPU

that consistently successfully solved weather
would be 'similar' to each other
and their similarity would be

the instantiation of a, ah, informing equation for the models

that made them all correct in consequence of all instantiating something similar to
the correct solution.
--Being presented with an array of a thousand or a million 'usually-successful'
models,
clever mathematicians could extract the resolution of the NS issue.

They could find the rulebook that was able to

(now I fall short on blood sugar)

make the statistical and aesthetically pleasing model that explained all of the
extant generated models of weather.

And then they would say: "This is the solution, given its elegance and aesthetic
pleasingness."
Such as they do.
--I think probably some clever person could construct a cryptocurrency around
solving the weather.
If they did this with GPU instead of ASICs,
then after weather is solved those GPu can be put towards other purposes.

And since we are hoping for an infinite electricity sink

to resolve extant issues involved in electricity generation,
it would be preferable if something other than bitcoin ended up being the
predominant expenditure of electricity on the face of the earth.
(Much like it would have been

preferable if people were not so stupid that they had to expend excess labor
extracting gold from the ground
that served them no other immediate purpose than proving they had excess labor to
expend.)

--Because we can solve the weather, for instance,

and then we hope the instruments involved in its resolution continued to remain
useful--
As would be the case if Russia invested in GPu instead of ASICs.

"Not the case here.

If they make all of their mining operations into bitcoin so as to attain a vote
within the network,
this does nothing to solve the weather.

So they are not at risk of needing to abandon the initial algorithm and replace it
with another,
insofar as bitcoin is a gold-mining operation.
[wanted to say:
endless goldmining operation--but it ends!]
"

Ho hum.
[And well, I am shilling for Big Machine.

Massive GPu farms in Russia combined with cheap electricity

will produce a second-hand market where there are many gamers
who will eventually upgrade to the next GPU
instead of spending their dollars on vodka or what have you.]

--
--

I have found the person who will craft my iron ring.

She uses scrap iron to construct the rings she makes,

and this is extremely pleasing to me.

And the story she tells behind why she constructs objects out of scrap iron
is as if I myself was transplanted into her circumstance and considering what was
around me.
--Or better,
because she does what I hope I would discern to do if I was in her circumstance.

--It is odd, even,

[dropped the point due to interference]

--
--

There is a problem with my fantasy vision, my idealistic vision,

--when, in sci-fi novel, I take myself as having found the pearl of great price
and when I suggest of myself that the only thing I want is peace and no more humans
dying ever,

there is a problem.
If I was, in sci-fi novel, recognised as such,
then the poor would say:
"Oh great goodness!"
And the rich would say:
"Oh great goodness!"

And then the rich, through mere natural language tendencies if by no intentional
evil,
would take advantage of my dictate that there will be peace forever.

--To ensure the impossibility of this outcome,

I would need to raze every building
raze every social relation,
destroy every ledger,
destroy every book,
wipe every human of their memories,

and find myself with a blank collection of people to whom I can say:
"Now, we are all going to work together, aren't we?"

--If I say: "There will be no more death ever."

THen there will be all these rich people saying:
"Well, you won't kill me for doing *this*,
so I'm going to do it."

--They will do this even if they don't see it as such.

There isn't a great answer to this except
to make everything open source, viciously protect the open-sourceness of my work,
and make everyone so rich that
the current lower class can spit on the rich without reprisal.

--And well that doesn't sound too pretty.

[
My brother got angry at me in consequence of a discussion we were having,
and then my body was flooded with the chemicals that were necessary in order that I
was thinking about how I would kill him if I was forced to do so.

Now I am flooded with half-lifes and anteroactive consequences. [['anteroactive

consequences'
the chemicals that arise in consequence of my nervous system having been exposed to
the chemicals generated when I systematically
examined every object in my environment that would be relevant to the process of
killing my brother.]]
[[Namely my fists only.

I might be wrong but he would stop. ANd if I am not wrong, then I am not wrong.
--Clearly I have grown too proud.
A consequence of my lack of ability to extinguish feelings arising in my chest.]]
[[I hedge 'my fists only' not out of pride but
because i recall the circumstances through which I lived
and I do not recall looking at anything but my arms.

And imagining all these guns around my body, and the knives.]]

It is a large part of the reason why I attempted or learned to attain absolute

tranquility that
any deviation in the collection of chemicals in my brain is counter-productive.

So that I did not learn to avoid becoming angry for the reason that I said to
myself that it made me a better person,
but rather I learned to avoid becoming angry because
this introduced floods of chemicals that made me write things from a different
voice.

But now I no longer am able to recall the procedures I used to effect

that calmed me down on the numerous occasions per day in which I was thinking about
how I would kill people near my body.

Now instead of clever religious practises,

I have nicotine and alcohol.

--Now, though I have very little capacity to recall what happened in my life prior
to the last few days,
I do recall I had the capacity to extinguish the feeling I currently have in my
chest.

I could be feeling this feeling in my chest, in the now-distant past,

and then I would say: "No." And then I would no longer be feeling this in my
chest.

"This sounds like hagiography."

Yes well.
It is like playing the cello except playing with
--there.
Now I don't feel it.
]
[
This is an interesting observation for more interesting reasons than my writing
capacity.

When exposing myself to the terror of psychedelic experiences,

feeling a spike of chemicals in my chest disrupts the flow of the psychedelic
experience.

Feeling a spike of chemicals in my chest that is not immediately extinguished

draws my attention away from the procedure of perpetuating the psychedelic
experience.
--Given that the psychedelic experience of consuming marijuana is better than
anything that has ever happened in my life sober,
this becomes an excessively practical question.

--I have detailed this before, yes? And I assume that you, unlike myself, have
perfect recollection of everything I have ever said.
So you know that
if I am indulging an image in my head and this image happens to induce a spike in
my chest,
my attention being diverted to feelings in my chest obliterates the image in my
head.

And since maintanence of the image in my head is the peak experience that surpasses
everything I experience sober,
I have a strong incentive to be able to immediately dismiss feelings in my chest.

--Made particularly relevant in that the psychedelic experience I had when

consuming marijuana was often terrifying,
and terrifying experiences often coincide with spikes of feelings in my chest,
to be unable to prevent succumbing to the terror is to be unable to continue to
experience the psychedelic experience.
[[Or viewed differently:
to be unwilling to succumb to the terror is to be unable...]]

"'for more interesting reasons than my writing capacity'"

yes well.
I'm inclined to say that writing effectively is just
another psychedelic experience we induce in ourselves.
A flow of images we are more or less willing to perpetuate
and in response to which we write words or don't.

Certainly back in the good old days when I was writing well
I was primarily interested in doing it, from day to day,
because the images that emerged in my head were more lovely than anything
other than once again consuming marijuana.

*Then* explicitly, obviously, I saw lovely images.

Now I don't really see anything as obvious as back then in my head.
One explanation is that I am less attentive,
and the other is that I have burnt out my brain until the only thing involved in
typing is just
the thing that makes the next collection of words appear under my fingers or in
front of my eyes.

--Then all I need is a pattern that generally produces correct grammar and
spelling,
and lo I can just let my fingers do as they will completely without input from
images.

I can feel more or less good on the basis of the words I have typed
instead of feeling more or less good on the basis of the images those words make
emerge within my head.
]

[
"It seems brutal to suggest that you are primarily interested,
when your brother has exhibited anger,
in the ways you can effect his death."
And is it less brutal for him to imply that he will win an argument by violence?

It seems the only difference is like this:

for me: "I will do violence the moment you raise a fist."
And for him: "I am right the moment I raise a fist."

It is an implicit violence.
And regardless of the outcome of an outbreak of violence,
I will not allow people to float by on mere threats.

If you're going to rely on raising fists, throw them.

Reveal to yourself the violence obviously inherent in the words you have said.

If you're going to rely on glitches in natural language

to insist you are willing to raise fists
without ever doing the task of raising them,
well, raise them now.
I'm not going to deal with a bullshitter.

I'm not going to alter the way I speak because someone is implying violence is
going to occur given we go down this route.
Because you'll stop if you win but I won't.

It is not a valid threat even in your own system of evaluation.

--Reveal to yourself that you had no recourse other than violence to perpetuate
your point.
I will not allow you to persist in the point if you do not admit to yourself the
only recourse in pursuing it is to raise a fist.

"What if he did?
What if he killed you?"

He would be scarred for life. I would not put it past him that he ended up killing
himself in shame or guilt after doing this thing.
But I would feel nothing. I would make myself feel nothing. I am very good at
that by this point.
I only live day by day already through a preternatural capacity to extinguish
feelings in my chest.
[[And I know when I do finally kill myself
there will be feelings in my chest that I did not have the will to extinguish so.]]

"Sounds pretty edgy."

That is not what I want it to sound like.

Maybe rather I am observing that people cultivate little gardens of chest-feeling

expression.
From moment to moment they rely on feelings in their chest to dictate what they say
in their heads or what they do.
And I do not do this.

[[Though I bother to justify this hi-storically like this:

"I take on myself the sins of the world."

"Everyone else, I want them to feel whatever they feel,

I want them to claw out wildly in response to their feelings,
but after I put on that iron ring I will not feel another thing again.
My practise is perfected and the only thing I need to do is take it back up
and then I will once again be producing goldwork hundreds of pages at a time."

"When someone threatens me with violence I will exhibit all the signs of anger and
feel nothing,
and then no violence will erupt."
[[[As if I had to exhibit the signs of anger in order that violence didn't erupt.
And this will sometimes be the case.

My typical look is one of absolute contempt when people display the signs of anger.
Some people will see this absolute contempt in my face when they are angry and feel
inclined to commit violence.
So I have to pretend anger in my face so that they are--what? Cowed?
So that they do not attempt violence.

It is funny to pretend you could have a glassy stare that itself cows people
but it is better to observe that you are supposed to play along with these people
and make various facial expressions, vocal expressions, what have you
that they anticipate as a valid response to their expressions of anger
and that defuse the circumstance.]]]

Easy peasy.

I want back what I had.

The expressions I make having haved it sound brutal but
they are preferable for writing.

And being distracted by a flood of chemicals in my chest

is not an acceptable outcome.
Looking at my iron wedding band and extinguishing those feelings
is an acceptable outcome.

[[[I see in my visual field that I am currently fighting off a migraine.

I see repeated flares of phosphenes.

They are the precursors to migraines.

Historically I would say to myself, so as to perfect my migraine-prevention praxis,

that I have not felt this kind of hate in a long time as I recently felt towards my
brother.

--That feels good to say but the chemicals in my chest don't back it up.
Sure, I felt angry, but
not the kind of anger that would introduce the tide of chemicals that can have
induced a migraine.

So why these flaring-up phosphenes?]]]

[[[
If indicating anything, in accordance with the story I have been telling,
then indicating that while I can suppress these tides of chemicals
they overflow my suppression mechanisms.

When I intentionally resist the activity of these chemicals that my brain has
generated,
nevertheless those chemicals are present but not being directed into the activities
for which they were generated
(e.g., grabbing a knife and murdering my brother).
]]]

"Presumably the extinguishing of emotions, as you claim to be able to perform

practically within your chest one feeling at a time,
would be detrimental to performing music."

Not so far as I know.

Maintaining this practise of extinguishing all of the intolerable feelings in my
chest one by one
was not detrimental to my practise of music
insofar as I could consume marijuana and reap all of the benefits of inhuman
technical exercises
with none of the cost of maintaining a practise of extinguishing emotions.

"So you had to consume marijuana on all occasions where you wanted to make music?"
You are opening a briefcase here.
On most occasions where I 'wanted to make music' I was performing in an orchestra.
Then I do not need emotions, but rather I need more reticulated understanding of
what it means to pretend emotions.

--I do not need emotions in that particular case of 'making music', but I need
rather a more developed understanding of what it means to execute technique.

"So you had to consume marijuana on all occasions where

you wanted to make your own music."

You are still opening a briefcase here.

Often I arrived in practise rooms and executed technique,
and this was the music I was interested in making.

"So you preferred your sober practise room sessions to the sessions you played
having consumed marijuana?"

No. Not even close.

But the only reason consuming marijuana was an enjoyable experience
was that I extinguished every last inclination that might prevent me from
performing technical exercises for hours on end.

So that if I had adopted a life in which I enjoyed anything I was doing,

I would not be able to consume marijuana and *then* truly experience the fruits of
my labors.

Hundreds or thousands of hours stacked one on another in which I felt nothing in

particular,
and this more than paid for those occasions where I could consume marijuana and
make music in the recital hall.
--But I have forgotten what this was supposed to be an analogy for.
I am just talking about my own life instead of constructing an analogy for previous
referential purposes.

--
--And I am adopting a placidity I do not now generally feel.
'adopting' ah, 'leveraging rhetorically'.
It would not have been a rhetorical device a few years ago.
Then really, day to day,
I am a sequence of circumstances where I feel terror in my chest and I extinguish
it.

Now this is not the case.

It is not the case that I feel these feelings in my chest and I immediately
extinguish them.
Until this stray circumstance where I was positioning myself to murder my brother.

--So maybe here we are observing:

it is funny that my whole vision of myself disintegrates back to what I truly am
the bare moment a single threat of violence is raised against me.

I cannot maintain the story I have been telling behind how I have become a better
person
the bare moment someone pretends violence against me.
(Because, notably,
I am not ever going to live in such a way that I am not already positioned to
murder people who pretend violence against me.
Maybe.)
No matter the pretty story I would prefer was the correct story behind my
comportment and activities,
the moment someone pretends violence against me
I was always-already already already that person who would not permit violence
against his person through any cost required to prevent it.

My brother, many years past, has assaulted me too many times for me to pretend that
he would not do it again.
A smiling face in one moment is just
the precursor to the next moment where he is assaulting me.

Edgily I say:
I would smile if he gave me the pretext to murder him at last.

I cannot look at the body of my brother without observing that

everything he does is the pretext for the next occasion on which he will assault
me.
It doesn't matter how many years pass, evidently.
The moment violence is pretended by him I am looking for a knife.
It will not happen again.
I will that it will not happen again.
[
And I cannot tell whether this is untrue.

I would like to say that the story that actually happened is not like what I have
been describing,
but then my brother pinned me into a torture chamber for hours at a time on several
occasions
in which I was screaming and screaming
so it is difficult to say.
Maybe my body really does hate him that much that I would kill him at the bare
pretension of violence.
I'd like to think it is an edgy pretension but maybe if he really did approach me
agressively
I would have grabbed that object he hadn't seen, bashed him in the head with it
until he was on the ground,
and then pound his skull with my fists until he was no longer breathing.

Recalling more or less correctly, I broke an arm and delivered a concussion before
when dealing with my brothers' friends,
and I would also liked to have pretended prior to those occasions that I was just
being edgy in saying I would beat them to death.
--Maybe I was being edgy insofar as stopping short at a concussion is not
equivalent to beating someone to death.
[
And well, that is a false memory, the concussion but not the broken arm.

I want so much that my past behaviors resulted in a concussion in Grayson

that I have invented a false memory, fully-felt,
in which I beat that piece of shit
]

--But my brother,
I did not invent this memory.
So the pretense of anger on his part is
a glorious opportunity for me to effect revenge.

I still remember.
I remember being forced bodily into a hard plastic container
and the plastic container being turned over and sat on while I screamed.
And for this I am just waiting for the moment where he raises a fist.
He can tell his stupid stories behind why he stopped if did overwhelm me.
I will not be telling stupid stories but I will be stabbing his body again and
again and again until he no longer breathes.

--
--Anyway, it is funny to observe that I wouldn't have to be thinking about these
things
if I had the spare two dollars necessary to rub together
to escape this intolerable circumstance where I have to be near his body for the
next additional day.

--Even, I tell funny stories where he has become a better person

so I don't have to entertain the observation that I am powerless to avoid this
intolerable circumstance.
To avoid the observation that I am unable to avoid the circumstance where I have to
see that piece of shit every day for a few months
--I tell a funny story where he is no longer a piece of shit.
All of the motions are still there, but none of the story.
All of the chemicals in my brain and chest are still there, but none of the story.

So he comes down and begins to speak and I pause whatever music I am listening to
and listen to him instead.
And I walk out to smoke and he is there hacking up marijuana from his lungs and he
begins to speak,
and the story I am compelled to tell is that this is interesting to me, the things
he is saying.

I want to be very far from here.

I want to be anywhere but here.
But obviously I don't want it enough.
I don't want these questions to be the questions i am thinking about.
I want the questions I am thinking about to be those that will have arisen
when I am sitting alone at very long last in an apartment and not being forced
inexorably to consider anyone but myself and my own work.
But I can't
attain the dollars necessary to acquire an apartment that extricates myself from
this circumstance.
Because then I am just replicating my piece of shit brother
pinning the proletariat into a plastic box I myself have constructed.
Just another executor of a system of domination.

--Well, so God bless my past-self for having played the crypto-market for a few
months.
I am so sick to wake up now I can hardly do so so,
when I leverage my funds to escape here

maybe then I will have the courage, having run out of funds in a few months, to die
in a ditch
rather than living out this horrifying existence.

"And the iron ring? Then?"

It's 35$.
It will either be the thing I wear until the end of my days
or it will be the thing I wear until the end of my days.
--To say rather,
if I live it will remain on my finger until I am (pessimistically) 80 years old and
die of old age,
or if I do not live it will be on my corpse when I arrive in a ditch.

I don't really care at this point.

I have been begging for spare moments when I could look at my life seriously
without people imposing on my person every moment of every day.
I had it for a few months while living with John.

Now the presence of people around me is so oppressing to the bare expression of my

being
that, oversaturated with intolerable chemicals, I can't even begin to formulate a
plan that is not immediately disrupted
that extricates my body from this intolerable circumstance.

Like if someone had to make an intricate plan to save himself

but a dozen people were all standing around him shouting and near-poking him with
their fingers
from the moment he wakes up to the moment he falls asleep.

--Like if someone had to look daily at the body of a human who had
tortured him in a box
and was expected to discern how to extricate himself from the circumstance.

--Well, 20k$ is what lasts me out.

I prefer suicide to arriving back here {in shame}.
[
And well, the 'shame' is no component of my evaluation.

I'm not going to arrive back here in shame and I am not going to arrive back here
rich.
I don't want to see any of these people ever again.
I want to be left alone forever.
One way of achieving this is being able to afford an apartment and food.
Another way of achieving this is shooting myself in the head.

It makes no practical matter to me.

We don't achieve longevity escape velocity in my lifetime unless I was right and
if I was right then I will achieve money that prevents me from arriving back here.

If I was not right then I end up dying.

And an additional 50 years or whatever,
this is nothing to me.

Being wrong is the practical condition of me shooting myself in the head.

Now or later, I don't care.
]
[
And oh, what pleasant memories do I have to ameliorate this?

What am I supposed to reference so that I will agree when people tell me it is not
so bad?

?
]
[
Me screaming internally while hiding in a cascade of clothing arranged in a
department store?
For the seventh time that week 30 minutes from home?

Hiding from my mother in a crowd of clothing

because arriving back home means at some future point arriving back here in this
cloud of clothing?

Sick to my stomach every waking moment.

Oh yes, this is the justification people are relying upon when they tell me suicide
is not the answer.
]
[
Funny to consider how many platitudes fall flat when faced with my own actual
experience.
'platitudes' I mean the silly things people say when they are trying vainly to
prevent you from putting a bullet in your own brain.
]
[
the 90s was a nightmare of consumerist exploitation.

Staring at patterned ceilings because they were the only stable things.
]
[
Strange to think I am no longer a child.

That my environment actually has some tenuous relationship to what I want to occur.
That I can look at webpages, as opposed to the objects around me,
and effect my own liberation if I am interested enough.
]
[
Interesting critique of Unions here
that is so far beyond what people are typically thinking about
that it is not worth making.
]
[
Hey, let's pull another 24 hour marathon.

Maybe I can introduce so much toxicity into my brain that it destroys it.

Maybe I can introduce so much oxidation into my brain that all the subtle chains
are destroyed at last
and I can just be a vegetable that no longer hates every single waking moment
experienced.
much preferable to waking up and being myself.
]
[
But I have anti-oxidants in plethora.

I do not permit that i escape this horror.

Oh, day after day. Here we go.

]
[
AN iron ring,
oh my Jennifer who works the urban iron on that website I was visiting earlier,
do not let me escape.

Make my wedding band so that I can be wedded to this unceasingly intolerable

existence.
]
[
Foucault haunts me.

'it was not intolerable unless you pulled the trigger.'

But so many people pulled the trigger before it was intolerable.

So many empty margins here.

]
[
'remediate my unceasingly intolerable existence by making the perfect iron ring, o
Jennifer'

This is probably too great a weight to place on a person.

So what can I say, in the addendum note to my order for a ring?

"This is my wedding band."

--no.
Then she is not just treating it as yet another object she is making.
I want her to treat it as just the next object she is making,
so that she is undistracted from her usual procedure.

I picked her out because of what she generates through her usual procedure so
i do not want to disrupt that through my addended note.
--Though on the other hand,
when I read Bach i understood he was placing on me an intolerable weight
and yet I proceeded to bare it.

I have no idea what art is.

Maybe I should place all this weight on Jennifer.
Maybe that is what provides her an etude or a piece at last.

--Then I am taking on my own weight and

the added weight of her being forced to listen to me.
Too much weight. I am just asking for a roughshod iron ring.

Ho hum.

If there is a note placed with the order then I should say

that thing I would have said if I had not considered what I was going to say.
Too late for that.

So instead I have to construct some great work

that effects within her that she does exactly what she was already going to do.
--And the alternative is effecting within her something that is aligned towards
something other than myself.

I haphazardly, in one bare hungover moment,

type what I would rather say
rather than the perfect plan I could construct as executed through her.
--I am making her into a tool for myself.
I am judging her not as an artist but rather I am judging her as
one of the many mechanisms she could have been into which I have fed a collection
of text in a note.

I am already lost.
I can't say what I want,
and I can't effect what I want without treating her as a mechanism into which I
feed text to effect my purposes.

"You could trust her with your message to create the ring you want."
THat is certainly what I want to do!
She seems like a flaming glorious human.
In her main time she makes money through working iron
and in her spare time she makes money by executing art within iron.

I would not trade myself with her position for fear of

for unwillingness to put anyone else in my current position.

But if I was not in an intolerable position I'd trade mine for hers.

"You could trust her with your message to create the ring you want."

I could have done that if I had not spent several hours now speaking about why I
cannot do that.
Now I am relegated to constructing the perfect sequence of letters that effects my
purposes.

Now I do not have the ring she made for me with minimal influence,
but I have the ring she made for me when I instructed her concerning every last
facet of it.
--The ring she makes when she is no longer freely hammering away at it
but the ring she makes when she is referencing my every last specification for what
facets it can obtain.

"You can just order it without any note

so as to avoid this influencing of her creation."

Can I?
Can I do this?

Can I have her make my wedding band without telling her this is what she is doing?

"YOu can just say, as text within the addendum note:

""You are making my wedding band.""
"

Ho fucking hum.
Then she's making the 5th wedding band she has been asked to construct out of iron
instead of my wedding band.

"So you can just say:

""You are making my wedding band.
But it is a wedding band that is not a groom's ring.""
"

Ho fucking hum.
I can't predict people, but she'll plausibly think she's making a lesbian's wedding
ring given the syntax of my request?

"So you can just say:

""I am like a Canadian Engineer who wants an eternal reminder that he is bound by
his work to effect no failure ever.""
"

And then she makes a failout Candian Engineer's pinky ring

who couldn't achieve his degree and therefore couldn't take the oath and accept the
band from the group of engineers.

"I don't see why this is so difficult for you to do, this requesting of an iron
ring."

You are *seeing* why it is so difficult to do.

Present another objection and facilely I will complain against it.
[[As if I am now concluding to myself:
'request a machine-made ring
because even though its mirror-like perfection is disgusting
at least its construction reflected me not at all.'

One of those 15$-with-shipping rings from Amazon that at last

reflect the lack of influence by my person, having been laser-carved by an
algorithm not made by myself.

"Then influenced by a proliferation of people who are willing to purchase this ring
from amazon, with its having been laser-carved."

Yes well. You will object to anything I say here.

Yes okay, if I purchase the ring then
the algorithm-maker was right in supposing that the construction of the algorithm
effected this one last sale.
Having been inclined primarily by the making of money in designing the algorithm,
the maker of this ring happened to have been right when I picked it out of the
amazon selection list and purchased it.]]

--
--Do you see the practical difficulty?
I *can* say nothing. I can addend no note.
Then I just have the hundredth or what have you out of a hundred.

But I want something special.

I want to have said something that made Jennifer understand the gravity of my
request for her to construct an iron ring.
But nearly everything I can say is the wrong thing to have said to have
taken into account her infinite creativity.

Nearly everything I can have said

will make her second-guess her hammer strokes and thereby produce something
that is not even what she would agree was one of her works of art.

"Then it is good to have had her hundredth work of art."

I suppose.
I wanted to tell her that she was making something special but
to have said this was to have compelled her to make something unspecial.

I would rather have her hundredth than her first iron ring.
I would rather have her perfect iron ring but this is impossible to effect through
a message I can convey to her.
It is more likely that I receive her perfection if I say nothing
than if I attempt to coerce her into producing perfection.
[[Than if I attempt to manipulate her response to note-reception
to effect in her the production of the ring I desire.]]

--You know it is an apparently simple thing!

I want this woman associated with this website to hammer out a ring out of scrap
iron
that would otherwise be remitted to the landfill.
Every aspect of the story compels me to proceed.
Scrap iron, spare time, spare money.
A woman exhibiting skill. Everything lovely.

But despite this apparent ease I cannot convince myself of what I am to say to her.
--And well, this is made easy by the lack of necessity to say anything.
I can just not say anything. Wonderful. Perfection achieved at last.

[[As juxtaposed to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
]]
[[hurr hurr]]
--scrap iron, okay.
Her skill okay,
but I don't want just the next ring.

I want to inspire her to make something special

but no inspiration I can provide is acceptable to have transmitted.
Practically because
all of the inspiration I was hoping to provide has proven intolerable to type down
at last.

--Hamstrung!
The simple task of purchasing a ring and I cannot even do that.
[[Or if I could ask her:
"Make the remainder of your life
the perfection of the execution of the bare task I spent a few minutes
contemplating
before I sent a message dictating that you will follow it in constructing the
ring."
"Do not pursue ironwork generally,
but pursue ironwork specifically so as to have
discarded a thousand unsatisfactory rings one after another
until you've found the one you are willing to present to me."

--I would then be unworthy of the ring thereby constructed.

I spent a few hours constructing a note that she would reference in constructing
the ring,
and she spent a career discerning how to obey my referencing.
--SO surely I cannot demand that of this 'Jennifer' fellow.

--I don't know how to begin to speak.

I just want an iron ring on my ring finger.
I want an open display, if I ever bother to go to the bar,
that people will look at and say:
"I suppose this person is married."

--I just want a scrap-iron ring on my finger.

And I can't even begin to construct a request that the ring be made.
(And how much more serious
the issue of how to do anything with my waking life
; and how much more serious my complete inability to do anything with my waking
life.)

--So what do I say?

OH, let me construct it now or not at all.
There is a text box that is my specific request.
What do I type in it?
"Make my wedding band."
No.
"[nothing]"
no.

"Why not nothing at all?

WHy is it so important to you that what she makes
feels especially special to her when she is making it?
As opposed to the typical degree of special she feels
when she is making any other given band?"

Yes, this seems selfish of me.

I would be insisting that when she made this iron ring for me
she was doing something above and beyond what she had done for other customers.

I would be implying implicitly that my request

was more important than all of the other requests she had received to construct
iron bands out of scrap metal.
[[And this is easy for me to do

, I suggest,
because most of the people who ordered bands
were
people with a great deal of money floating around etsy
who ordered an iron work because they were bored.
]]

--Completely lost.
I cannot fill out a pre-designated text field.
I can't begin to type without condemning myself.

--I don't think I want the next half-hearted anemic product of my own
enlightenment.

So I think I say nothing.

I think I just accept the next outcome of her creation.

--
--

I was thinking like this:

select one of the pictures she presented as one of the rings she had made.
And then say:
"Make it like this please."

--Infected.
Not adequate.
Then she is all trepidatious when hammering with the hammer against her iron scraps
instead of being exactly as she would have been if I had said nothing at all.
--Then she is looking--
--Look, I am not trusting the html of her website. I am literally emailing her a
screenshot of an image she has posted
instead of saying something like: "LOok at the 3rd of the 5 pictures you have
provided."
--Because the order can have been out of order between our two ends.
I may not have been specifying the correct picture out of the 5 if I follow this
procedure.

So I take a screenshot of one of the 5 and say:

"Remake this please in an instance."
--Then she belabors herself remaking an image of the image I presented to her in
the email as a screenshot.
--Then she lays a hammer down, takes a breath, and says:
"Well, it has to be like in the image."
Then she misplaces her hammer.

--You see I have very little hope.

I will order the ring, for sure this will be done,
and I will wear it every moment until I die.
But I do not believe I will have requested the correct ring.

I do not believe I can construct a request

such that, in having requested it, I will receive what I really want.

--ANd it is a weight because I know from the moment it arrives to my house

it will be removed from its package literally in fact and then placed on my ring
finger.
Then it will remain there for the next 3-80 years until I die.
[
"Seems strange to have decided so firmly on such a transient piece of jewelry."

I am asking *Jennifer* to construct this ring for me.

I would not have asked for her to make it if I was not intending to wear it until
the very last end.
]

[
Though you know this is not as dire as it seems, for the inexorable appearance of
my fingers.
Her aesthetic sense lines up inexplicably well with mine.
]
--So I know that whatever I say, even in the bare saying of a request for the ring,
I will have influenced the topography of my hand in perpetuity.
(Like I am requesting a tattoo, as if.)
--I know the ring at bare minimum will bare
this blacksmith arrriving in those moment where she constructed this ring.
--Arriving, seeing a request, and among them was a ring,
and then making the ring.

--So do I say nothing except designating a ring-size and a width?

Do I just place my order and say:
"I picked you and not others."
Or do I say:
"I picked you because you are the best recipient of my
command that I think, channelled through you, will generate the ring I want."
And then place a specification for my ring beyond the form-given options?
[
Placing a request is already beyond
selecting a collection of form-given options.

It is the items I select within the forms

combined with the request that they will be made,
with this request having been delivered to this person.

--Jennifer provided a given selection of finger sizes and widths.

I can pick one among them and I will.
I would prefer that this was all that was being done,
but among what was being done was the bare request for a ring.

So though only one degree of information was requested,

I have provided two.
Ho hum.
]

"Boy, you are spending a great deal of time thinking out how to order this plain
iron band."
Yes, but I have a funny natural language story that justifies this trepidation.
: I am going to wear it every moment of the remainder of my life.

Like a tattoo for which removal is not an option.

And how much more seriously would you take a tattoo if you knew you could not
remove it from your bodY?

--So you see the weight of my concern.

I would hope I could write a note that extirpates myself completely from the
process of constructing the ring,
but I cannot do this at minimum.
And at best I cannot even make myself do this,
because I want Jennifer to have made something special for me.

The best case scenario is that I say nothing at all and this
saying nothing introduces no influence from my part at all into the process of
creating the ring.
The worst case scenario is that I say:
"Jennifer, I have appreciated your explanation of why you make things.
I want you to
make a ring for me."
Then all already is lost.

No good options.
In the good old days I would have consumed a heavy dose of 1/8th joint
and I would have found the answer, the perfect collection of text.
But now I can't do that.

I don't know what to put in the text box.

[
Except, hahaha,
in an ideal world I could copy+paste
everything I have just written
concerning what input is to be made into the ring-production process.

But if I copy+pasted everything I just wrote,

she would call the police on me. She would say that I am a dangerous person who
needs to be restrained.

Because the things I have just previously written are completely insane.

And this also is a problem for requesting that this person makes me a ring.
]

--
--What I really want is that this woman completely unprompted woke up one morning
and just hammered out a ring for no particular reason but to amuse herself,
and this ring happened to have fit my finger.
Then she would have it laying about and I would say:
"I need a ring of X size."
And then she would look at that ring she has been keeping about and she would mail
it to me.

But this imagined ring can be of any given size,

and being of any given size might end up being a pinky ring for me.
I do not want a pinky ring.

--I do not have a hope for this ring.

--ANd aha, imagine then how lost I am with filing my taxes even, or buying
groceries.
I can't fill out a designated field of text to make a request.

--
--Well but you know, we are going to resolve this difficulty soon.
Insofar as specifically tomorrow I am going to acquire a measurement of my ring
finger and then
I am going to request a ring from this person on this site.
We are day-limited.
If I don't end up proving willing to walk into a jewelry store tomorrow to measure
my finger,
I will measure it myself and find a number
and then order the ring with that number

and send either all or none of the message I can think of to extend in the text
message.

--
--AH, there *was* a practical designation to be made.

One of the pictures of the rings she had made

was a ring that was shiny on its external surface.
I absolutely do not want the ring to be shiny.

To such an extent that I cannot rely on her spontaneous willing

to produce a ring that does not instantiate this shininess.
--So I need to reference the picture of the shiny ring and say:
"Don't make this."
--I know I am going to acquire this ring,
so I know I am going to make the order tomorrow.
(in fact. I bind myself to the mast.)

--I can't inverse-construct myself so that everything I say is cancelled out by my

having said it.
So I have to construct some natural language collection of words and images.

That narrows the field of words I can gather together for my purposes to be
effected.

--
--

I didn't remove my hair band thing last night,

I left my glasses downstairs and my dog outside overnight,
and I didn't remove the snus pack thing I had in my lip before I collapsed in my
bed.

I vaguely recall making it to bed but

I suppose this was something like browning out.

Which is odd because

to the best of my recollection I've only blacked out twice in my life.

But no hangover! Luckydoo.

I suppose I can take some amusement in the recognition that

I can get blackout drunk and still type out coherent sentences.

Whether or not the collection of sentences as a whole is coherent is

not a question worth asking if I am only looking to amuse myself with this
observation about my drunk body.

--
--
I got my finger sized in a coin store.
Well. I sized my finger using a ring of rings provided by the coin shop purveyor.
Wish me luck.

Also, I acquired a new peace dollar and an american silver eagle. Lovely.

While looking at the two old men in the coin shop and the people walking around on
the street,
it occurred to me that my isolation in this basement has turned me into a rather
more dramatic person
than people typically are in waking life.

--It was interesting that the coin dealer did not ring up the peace dollar,
but did ring up the american silver eagle.
I suppose it is harder to avoid taxation on business when you must consistently
demonstrate chain of custody
, where I take the alternative to this demonstration of chain of custody being
loss of access to licensing as a vendor of american silver eagles.

"--Comrade, wasn't your purchase of an american silver eagle a betrayal of the

revolution?"

Oh my friend,
the contemplative is not he who has fiery visions of God's imagined chariot,
but rather he who has risked his mind in the desert
beyond language and beyond ideas.

"Uh."

Ho hum. Maybe I shouldn't buy a new computer now.

--Incidentally, 9.5.

"?"

Ring finger size. That's my best guess anyway.

--HA!
The american silver eagle I bought at the store was cheaper in price than one I can
order online,
even failing to factor in the shipping cost.
(Though the traffic to get downtown and extricate myself from it was a nightmare.
So the shipping cost was kind of high in that sense.)

--
--

I think I will wait until monday to order the ring.

Then I will be acquiring a ring from the artist having recently been inspired by
the eclipse.

--
--

Something I hadn't considered I could do when I cease to be a temporarily

embarrassed millionaire:
purchase an empty grain silo for use as a practise space.
or you know, some other very-well resonating chamber.

When I used to play in stairwells,

this seemed effectively to have added a year or so of acquired technical capacity
as determined by what I was or was not able to play.

I have a good idea of why that is the case, but it is complicated.

--
--

I think I might upload a video of me manipulating the komboloi

so as to show the Greek people how it is to be done.

--
--

Peace dollar obverse with morgan dollar reverse would have made the loveliest coin
the US has minted.

--
--

Probably I could extract all kinds of interesting philosophical points from a

description of the coin store.

However, that is not what I am going to do.

Instead I am just going to observe that I had pick of the litter among the peace
dollars.
The coin store had a, ah, maybe 8 inch by 4 inch box loaded with them.

I walked away with a lovel 1934 extremely worn sample.

It was the loveliest of all of them.

And a 2017 american silver eagle

the reverse of which is quite something.
The obverse also is nice--walking liberty blown up in size from its original
incarnation in the half-dollar.
But the reverse really pops.

[
You know it's funny,
the GFC introduced a massive price spike and subsequent collapse in price for
silver,
but no one was saying that this demonstrates of it, like they do of bitcoin, that
it is an unstable asset.
]

--The coin store owner got a kick out of

my demonstration of delight when I saw the trade dollar(s?) he had.
I should have asked to look at them more closely.
Lovely objects.
Unfortunately none that I saw were chop-marked to all hell with chinese symbols.
If I ever acquire a trade dollar
I want it to be so covered in chop marks you can hardly make out the intended
imagery.
--I think I will take the purchase of mercury dimes as pretext for going back to
the store to take a closer look at the trade dollar.
"Probably you could just walk in and ask to look at it.
The proprietor seemed nice
if perhaps skeptical of your strange manner of socialising
and your very long hair."
Yeah, but I'll take any opportunity to expand my collection of mercury dimes
if doing so will also serve other purposes.

[
american silver eagle size is larger than silver dollar.
May have to get a second one so I can roll them against each other in my hand
as I do with the peace dollar and morgan dollar.

"'the' peace dollar and morgan dollar?"

I guess a thing I do is maintain one of each so I can play with them.
Then when i give a peace dollar as a tip I go acquire a new one at closest to spot-
price as I can find.
Apparently that is a thing I do.
]

--Ah, I informed the proprietor that I was there to acquire a new peace dollar
for the reason that I had tipped out my last one on the 4th of July.

Casually the proprietor told me that he had marked down the price from 22$ to 20$
but hadn't gotten around to writing it down on the price listing in the glass case.

I suspect the story I told moved him to offer a discount

and that the suggestion that he had just not gotten around to changing the listed
price
was an improvised ruse.

--There is a substantial pock-mark on the rim of this peace dollar.

Lovely.

And the word 'PEACE' on the bottom of the reverse is worn but still legible.
(Probably here I could talk about why humans are so good at reading text,
but I am not going to do that.)
(
'Still legible' here is a hint:
there are some technical senses in which the word is *not* still legible due to
this wearing it has taken on.

So then I watch the way my eyes scan the word,

and then I understand certain things about the way reading occurs.
)

--
--

It only earlier occurred to me that,

while I have been wanting a tungsten komboloi because it would be heavy as an
element,
molecules seemingly can readily be heavier than given elements.
So that a komboloi constructed out of various compounds would be weightier than
tungsten.
I'm thinking.

--
--

I'm looking forward to the point in the process of annotating 'white papers'
where I get to reread and reconsider the ideas I had swirling around 'sensors' and
'apparatuses'.
I think those were some pretty neat ideas, regardless of whether they were
nonsense.

You can reach some pretty neat conclusions with those two terms,
provided you are only interested in satisfying the arbitrary standards of truth
I construct from one moment to the next when I am writing about such things.

--
--

I got my shruti box out and played with it yesterday.

I tuned it into some kind of hyper-just relation to itself.

This enables it to generate all kinds of lovely overtones/harmonics and what have
you,
but makes it unsuitable for playing with people using fretted instruments.

Also it makes it unsuitable for playing with people utilising fretless instruments,
because people are, in my experience, not very good in adjusting their sense of
intonation on the fly.

For many people with fretless instruments, they had as well be using frets
so fixed is their notion of where the pitches are to be found.
Whereas, for better or for worse, there may be no two same-pitches in my ouveure(?)
that are frequently identical
[and not always because of errors on my part!].

--
--

Pronunciation of 'lapsang souchong'--

an interesting point here:
I have an intricate way I say these two words in my head.
The intricacy of my way of saying those words would seem to indicate that
I have heard it before and am taking great care to pronounce it.

But I have not heard it spoken, and I have not been exposed to enough listening of
(uh) Chinese
to know how these words should be spoken
[as if, say, those two words follow the typical pronunciation of (uh) Chinese words
so that simply to be familiar with typical Chinese pronunciation is to be familiar
with how those collections of transliterated letters are to be spoken].

So what am I doing if I speak those two words and engage in the intricacy that is
in my head?
Almost certainly I am doing nothing other than making myself sound silly.

And yet I do not proceed to pronounce it as 'lap-sang (past-tense of sing) soo-

chang (like 'Chang' the stereotypical chinese name).
This is what I would do if I self-deprecatingly threw my hands in the air
and imply pronounced the letters as they came into my field of vision or what have
you.

What am I doing when I say it 'lap-song (soft-s) zoo-shong' ('jong'?)? (where

'shong' is pronounced with a kind of tilting of the 'o' sound
for which I do not have a word that comes to mind in english that exhibits it.)
(and with 'song' with a blunted 'g' sound.)
Hard to say.

--
--{I don't know if it ever came up in the Notes or the white papers
how much I prefer tea to alcohol.}

I don't know if I ever mentioned in the Notes or the white papers how much I enjoy
tea.
If I didn't it is because, strangely, it never came up.
--I may have mentioned my strong preference for tea over coffee or liquor
in connection with an observation about using a stopwatch to perform everyday
tasks.

"Couldn't you just, uh, look at the tea?

Instead of using a stopwatch?"

Both seem like pretty good ways of getting good at making tea.
Supposing I can keep everything perfectly consistent (which I can) between makings
of tea,
a stopwatch is just as good as becoming sensitive to the relevant information
presented by the tea itself.

And a good stopgap, so to say,

if I only have 3.25-4 minutes a day to make tea.

--Makes me recall how much I gave up to write all of this bullshitting.

--
--

It appears that satisfying my lust for compute capacity will cost like 3k$.

It's easy to buy an american silver eagle for 21.50$ when I know I can sell it back
for 16.50 and have lost very little purchasing power.

It is not so easy to commit to purchasing 3k$ in equipment, regardless of my

recognition that it is schematically connected to my God,
knowing what can be done with 3k$.

3k$ mosquito nets, or 3k$ capacity to manipulate computation?

--An object lesson of why I am sick to wake up in the morning.

"In fact you are not ever going to donate your purchasing capacity to charitable
causes."

Indeed.
I am lying.
Lying is sinful because then I am constructing an object out of words
instead of pointing at an object with words.

Then instead of being able to extract a localisation of reality from what I say,
you are only able to reconstruct the truth conditions behind my lies.

So something like 6 months of rent in some backwoods, or a computer?

(6 months more solitude, or the months I *can* buy being aided by computation
capacity?)
[I could smoke marijuana and speak at great length concerning why
a philosopher *cannot* lie, to himself or others, if he is at all interested
in constructing sequences of text that are useful for philosophical purposes
by reference to his own or possibly lived experience.]

[
Interesting difference between
expending dollars towards a purpose oneself has constructed and
expending dollars towards an established charity.

I have a fantasy of constructing a monumental air scrubber.

This would require me to spend dollars finding and hiring people who can do the
math and logistics behind installing it.

Whereas charitable organisations already have all the trained staff already found
and positioned to utilise dollars.

On the other hand,

a charity designed around curing cancer might not be as effective a use of dollars
as
my purpose of constructing a monumental air scrubber in the most polluted city of
China.
--'might not be as effective a use of dollars'
in this sense that while research towards curing specific strains of cancer might
cure some number of people,
I have an inkling that purifying air in a massive city might prevent more instances
of cancer than were otherwise cured.

"Why make everything open source

if you have a vision of how those dollars could be expended?

For that matter, why not access--"

shh.

There is no difference to me between whether I effect my purposes through my own

expenditure of dollars
or whether other people effect my purposes for me.

The question here is whether I want myself to blossom,

or whether I want a billion flowers to blossom.

I think a monumental air purifier in the most polluted city would be

a glorious object, flamingly glorious object, for a great many variety of reasons.
But I am limited, in hoping for various outcomes, by being positioned within one
body,
one viewpoint, for whom outcomes seem good or not.

The wisdom of the crowd is greater than my own wisdom,

despite none of them loving wisdom
and myself loving wisdom beyond, I hope, what is typical for people to exhibit.
]

--
--

Watching 'the defenders'.

I can understand 'the iron fist' needing a jet.

This is, ah, instrumentally necessary to move from place to place.
But you'd think someone who had gathered all the wisdom of the Tao
would not be such a whiny little bitch all the time.

Or to say, wouldn't retain more wealth than is necessary to fuel the jet and pay
the pilot.

--
--Incidentally, the up-to-date fantasy plan for an air purifier is

to install enough electricity to power it

in the place where electricity prices are highest,

and then take advantage of cheap electricity prices in the place where pollution is
highest. [Installing in that location the purifier.]

This works for so manyvarious reasons and is so illustrative of how the carbon
market is going to have to work
that it would be worth making for no other reason than to indicate that
there is a solution to our problems
and it is clever.

--
--Frosted tips.
The 'Immortal Iron Fist' has mastered some kind of eastern mysticism
and periodically he walks into hair salons and requests frosted tips on his hair.

Uh huh.
He wakes up in the morning and puts some kind of emulsifier in his hair. Uh huh.

[
That above might(?) have been the first time I have used this word 'bitch' in my
text.

Strange thought.

It doesn't mean anything to me except

the word I use when I adopt colloquialisms I have not adopted or explored.
--As when I need to make clear my meaning
by hijacking a term others have used, and utilising the commonly understood meaning
of the term.

I regret using it but it would be lying to extirpate it now from the text.

On the other hand,

'adopting colloquialisms' is
a very common practise.
When I call capitalists monsters, for instance,

I do this because I have seen things in my psychedelic visions that I think are
horrifying
and the only word that seems plausible to select is 'monster'.
[[And I take these people to be at least as bad as the monsters in my visions.]]

But this is different than leveraging meanings others have established after the
manner in which I used this word 'bitch'.

In the cases where I use the word 'monster'

it is because I have searched for a word adequate and said:
"Given how people use language actually,
the only plausible word to point at the things I am pointing at is this word
'monster'."
]

--Anyway, if this character is held up as some kind of Buddha

wel well. I think that is implausible given even a bare momentary examination of
his body.

--
--You know, I had some interesting discussions with a therapist after my suicide
attempt.

I suggested that Buddhism is a question of discerning how optimally to eliminate

emotional influence over one's decisions.
She suggested that Buddhism was not about eliminating emotions.

Now *then* in suggesting what I did I was clinging to a natural language vision.
But now I am better positioned (though in being so positioned still clinging to the
cycle of death and rebirth)
and I still say:
the first task of a Buddhist is to eliminate all emotions.

This can be a more or less quick task to perform,

but the reasoning behind it is to
extirpate all external influence over what emotions arise in response to one's
circumstance.

The idea is to remove from oneself all influence over what emotions are arising,
then clearly to witness what it is like to move from one circumstance to the next,
and then being free, in one's emotional development, from external influences over
what one should feel
(which notably are all execrable bullshit)
to discern accurately what one should be feeling emotionally in response to one's
circumstances.

--So for instance,

where I grew up if a white man was holding the hand of a black woman (or vice-
versa),
this would be an occasion on which one is acculturated to feel disgust.

One option in dealing with this problem is to

think carefully about *why* one is feeling disgust, and to proceed to work through
that issue.

But this is inefficient.

What is *better* is to feel *nothing* when you see this,
and then not be led through established courses of thought
to decide why or why not one should be feeling disgust.

--The best course of action is *not* carefully to pick through one's emotions,
but rather to recognise that every emotional response one has
was established by a culture that is already attempting to deceive you into
thinking
its (fucking still having to use language) pronunciations have any weight at all in
directing your judgment.

--When I see a black man and a white woman holding hands and I, inexplicably, feel
disgust in my chest as dictated by the progression of my culture,
I am not going to reference the authors and the writers and the thinkers and ask
*why* I feel this disgust,
or whether or not it is right for me to be feeling this.

I am going to ask "how do I extinguish these feelings in my chest and stomach that
accompany disgust?"

*Then* when there is no external influence over what I feel or do not feel,
*then* I can begin to ask what I really feel.
Then I am not just being a vessel for other peoples' stupid visions.

But even to walk down a street,

even to comport oneself with another,
*initially* this seems like an impossible task if one has tasked himself with being
immune to external influence.

--So that for instance, I was walking around the streets of downtown to get to the
finger-sizing location (wherever it ended up being).
[Because I went downtown explicitly to pay for the opportunity to have access to an
object that could size my ring finger.]

I encountered, in the first few minutes, two very illustrative people.

The first person was a very attractive woman.

Now, [ideally] I no longer have the inclination to proceed in this manner:

'breast, legs, ass if visible, face, lips, eyes, breasts, face, speech,
in a matter of a few seconds.'
[And let me say,
I am, on my worst behavior, an optimal luster after bodies.
It does not take me much time to capture the images I can later call up in my mind
to lust after.]
[I don't even need to center my vision on a face or body to recognise that it is
attractive.

I can reconstruct all of the relevant information out of the periphery of my

vision.]

So I perpetuated a form I established in my past.

I did not look at her.
She was smiling in expectation that my eyes would proceed to her face.
And I fiddled with my komboloi and didn't look at her or her dog.
[Sadly, in-story, I can't recall what her dog was.]

--Now, I no longer need to adhere to this planned form

[
ideally,
but I have looked at porn recently
and I have pulled up images on reddit that don't look like porn

but for me, easily, they are pornography if I look at them.

To see the flow of cloth on a body, if I am so inclined,

is as good as seeing someone naked in front of me.

"On your best behavior there is something special about nudity."

OH? Is there?
"To have encountered a naked woman is to have encountered someone who has disrobed
herself in front of you."

Yes. SO this makes the functional questions more difficult.

There is something special about a woman approaching me disrobed,

but if all I am interested in is a naked woman
well, all women can be naked to me. It is not hard.

"So this is why you averted your eyes?"

I averted my eyes because I was

still clinging to a form of behavior I established to purify myself of externally
imposed linguistic dispositions.
The form of behavior was arbitrarily chosen, and the form happened to entail my
looking away from the bodies of women.

Now I no longer need to do this to avoid seeing naked bodies,

but still, having exited this basement so infrequently,
and having been exposed to so few occasions on which I needed to judge whether to
engage with the form again or not,

I did not make eye contact

and tried to restrict my information gathering from peripheral vision.

--Anyway, that is my now-present explanation for the behaviors I exhibited while

walking down the street.
]

Easily (hopefully, if I have not viewed too many images of women recently and
treated them as pornography, as is very easy for me to do)
I can have engaged sociably with this woman I encountered on the street smiling at
me
without having committed a sin.

--Anyway,
there was a little drama playing out during my initial walk down the street,
and it involves a second person.

The second person was maybe a 50-60 year old man with a dog.

The woman had had a dog with her, and the 50-60 year old man
(who had his hair bound up like myself behind his head, funny to note,
but didn't let his bangs trail like I do in the front)
also had a dog with him.
And the dogs behaved as they will and this lead to
the man feeling inclined vocally to observe to me that his dog behaves in various
ways when around other dogs.
(Inclined in this way because his dog was made overly excited by the passage of the
other dog.)

I proceeded in accordance with my purpose, walking ahead to find the location where
I would get my finger sized,
and despite my not looking at him at all
this man in question felt an inclination to explain the behavior of his dog to me

by looking at my back and saying words.

I turned around and uttered the words I thought would be necessary to
both not offend his sensibilities and also prevent him from saying additional words
at me,

but he kept talking.

More explanation of the way his dog behaves, if I recall correctly.
[Perhaps I was too leading in the words I selected
in indicating interest in how his dog behaves.]
[Given that, I judge, my words were selected primarily to
cease any additional discussion concerning how his dog behaves when around other
dogs,
surely I made a mistake.]

--Well but he kept talking and I judged that he was pleasant enough,
and he was walking in roughly the same direction as myself--
no, this fails to capture everything.

I was walking to the end of a given block so that I could peer around obstructing
buildings
so as to see whether my intended destination was on the street I was approaching.

I tried to align my own walking with his own,

but he kept allowing his dog to dictate the pace of his walking,
so he kept falling behind myself.

And while I was acculturated to expect that my

non-adherence to his dog
[no natural language expressions I can make account for what happened here. Which
is why I stepped beyond natural language.]
--while I expected that continuing to walk in front of him, or not slowing down to
accomodate his dog,
would make him stop talking to me,
he kept talking to me.

So twice (let us say) I tried to fall in beside him in walking but

twice he let his dog piss on a bush or whatever,
and this disrupted this walking-alongside between ourselves.

--Anyway, I reached the end of the block, walking ahead of him,

and I did not see the building at which I intended to arrive.
So I announced:
"I thought I knew where I was going, but now I am not so sure."

'Where are you going?'

'There is a coin store.'

[This was a mistake.

It opened up the possibility that

he knew all of the buildings downtown

but nevertheless would suggest the incorrect one.

As he proceeded to do in directing me towards the coin store instead of the antique
store that deals in coins.]

'It is ''obscure collection of street redirections that redirect interlocutor

towards the coin store instead of the antique-store''.'

--And well, I knew where the coin store was.

I saw it when I was parking and identified it out of the mess of stores because the
coin store is attention dense to me.
BUt it is not the building towards which I was intending to go.

nevertheless I supposed to myself:

"It is possible that if I follow these directions one by one,
even though I *believe* they will lead me to the coin store I already saw,

if I follow them moment by moment they might direct me towards the antique store
that is my destination."

--So I said some trivialiaties and walked back down the street.
Following the instructions one-by-one I arrived at the coin store and said:
"As expected, these instructions directed me to the coin store instead of the
antique store.

So I am going to wander around for a while until I arrive at the antique store."

Then I wandered around for a while, following my own recognition of the street
layouts,
and I arrived exactly at the antique store.
[I do not recall whether I could have seen the antique store in question
from the end of the street where I was initially walking before being side-tracked
by this man.]

But the antique store was closed contrary to its listed hours of operation.
Until indeed after the eclipse it is closed.

[And there are all kinds of interesting stories involved in how I arrived at the
antique store.

For instance, I was 3/5ths down a block, after having seen the antique store,
and I needed to judge my crossing of the street.

I was closer to the end of the block than its beginning,

but I witnessed the timers on the street-crossing signs and
[oh how stories spiral out]
the sign across the street in the distance was displaying numbers that indicate
time.

I *should* have seen this and recognised that

by the time I reached the end of the block the street-sign would indicate no
passage
*but* the perpendicular sign would indicate passage.
[Because this is what happens when time is being indicated on the visible street
lights.]

Seeing the time *incorrectly* I judged that I would be unable to cross the street.
But inability to cross *that* visible street, on this occasion, is cocommittant
with crossing the perpendicular street.

So being thus misled, I looked back at the beginning of the block and said:
"I will walk back there and cross the street there instead."

And even though this was wrong in a sense to do,

by the time I backtracked to the beginning of the block
the street-sign indicated that passage was acceptable and I did pass.

Then I noticed an interesting thing or two while walking down the other side of the
block
until I arrived at the antique store and saw
a woman standing in front of the door reading a sign posted on the door.
Then I read the sign myself and it indicated that the store was closed until after
the eclipse.
[It indicated that it was closed up to the 21st, anyway.
It is possible that this had nothing to do with the eclipse,
and I am only referencing the eclipse because I know it falls on the 21st.]

--Then I backtracked.
[And well, I am removing from this story all manner of interesting things.

The man smoking,

the apparently homeless woman holding a cardboard box of asian descent,

the two bikers talking to the non-biker,

the man with the cane,
the white guy who looked like he was pretending to be someone like myself,

the man in the upscale restaurant next to the Christian coffee bar who looked at
me,

all manner of interesting things are being sanitised from this examination.]

[Oh, the man with the cane comes after recrossing the street
after judging that the only plausible option is to proceed to the coin store.

I suspected that the coin-store would also contain jewelry.

And this was true, but the jewelry collection was very anemic.

I can recall the image vaguely of the glass container that held the jewels the
coin-store owner had come to possess.

Really, the coin-store owner was probably unjustified in acquiring a finger-sizer,

as he happened to have had.]

[
And this story is already missing the restaurants I walked past,
and the tedium of being charged 1$ for parking instead of the three quarters and
two dimes I had gathered out of my car for payment
so that I had to return to my car to gather additional change for the parking
permit
even though in retrospect no copper would have walked past my car and given me a
ticket
given that the parking space I selected was down a street where--
--
--my interpretation was about to mislead me.
I parked near a work site for the streets.
*actually* coppers were far more likely to be arriving and judging whether I had a
parking permit
at *this* site rather than any other randomly selected site

because I would be occupying a parking space possibly selected by a contractor for

the street.
Maybe.
Hard to say, so better not to say.]
[
And the tedium of being required to input my license plate number into the parking
register.
This indicated to me an erosion of liberty.

I much prefer the old analogue parking meters and

I am thinking I will not ever return to downtown during waking hours now.

The requirement of registering one's own license plate in order to acquire a

parking pass printed on paper,
as opposed to the much preferable old system simply of feeding coins into an
analogue machine,
registers the position of my car and my identity in a given space in a given time.

This is disgusting to me.

I have a preference that, instead of checking my license plate to discern its
numbers and letters,
I had simply entered '6666666'
and said:
"Even if they have a system that registers implausible inputs of license plate
numbers,
they either will not respond to this implausible input
or they will not respond quickly enough
to tow my car."

Fuck you for demanding to know where my car was at this odd moment of the day.

"They do this, they require this input of letters and numbers,

so that you cannot simply peel a piece of paper off another car to indicate that
you have paid for parking."

Big brother. That is a lie they tell to justify a gross intrusion into my personal
affairs.

They want a system where people will voluntarily register the periodic presence of
their physically-located identity.
And I don't care what kinds of optimisations the tools in the city council think
they can derive from this.

--Or maybe I do care,

but I don't think they have a super-computer compiling all this information
and even if they did, I don't think they have selected an algorithm that optimises
around the computational capacity.
]
[
I saw a post on reddit showing the 'chairless chair'.
It is an exoskeleton that mechanically locks into a chair when you sit down onto
it.

The post was titled something like: "The Chairless Chair."

And I was thinking about ironically posting:
"Now we just need someone to construct the gateless gate
and then we will be cooking with fire."

This would have worked rhetorically because of the structure of the name of the
post 'chairless chair'.
]

--Anyway, street-light,
cane-man,
parking garage,
looking left-right to see any left-turn right-turn signals at the intersection,
jogging across the intersection,
a couple of other things I cannot immediately recall,

then I was at the coin-store.

[
'Islam's tenuous relationship with music'

the, ah, legislators of Islam that have forbidden music see it, I judge after
having read them,
in an *extremely* different way from the way I see music.

Music is, ah, primarily an extremely intricate way of speaking beyond one's own
capacity to speak.
It is a way of constructing messages of a complexity one is not able to happen to
be able to construct in natural language.

So when certain strains of Islam prevent the composition of music, as I observe

them to do,
practically they are restraining the capacity of muslims to construct messages.

And well, this observation extends to *many* of the behaviors of people

that muslim clerics arbitrarily decide are offlimits for muslims to perform.

A whole lot of Islamic caselaw is just clerical error on the part of toolbags who
have no understanding of what they are speaking about.

--Not even here to dismiss their ethical presuppositions.

No one is going to fornicate to the noise music I have in my like-list of musical

constructions.

Even in their own evaluation,

banning all music is just a lazy method for banning clubs.

--consider the music to which I am currently listening.

I will copy and paste its title despite not knowing whether the keyloggers affixed
to my computer can record the content of copying and pasting:
"[korean characters]2/2"
[[Interesting that notepad can display these Korean(?) characters.

[[[edit: Never mind. I can't save these Korean characters so I am just going to
replace them.]]]]]

Now present me the cleric that has imagined that music in general will result in
fornication.
Do you imagine people becoming excessively aroused by the music to which I am
currently listening
and then proceeding to execute fornication?

Do you believe that people will become libidinously unbridled while listening to
this music to which I am currently listening?

--Anyway, that is why Islam as actually practised through caselaw is, uh,
difficult to justify in its execution.

A bunch of idiot clerics declaring through fatwas for their localities what is
acceptable or not,

and then through this procedure having bare humans dictate what is acceptable or
not.

"People practically democratically select their local clerics."

Yes, and that is an interesting aspect of Islam.

People can channel their own desires into a cleric,

and then have a cleric spit back out to them the dictates they hoped would be
established.
And through this method people can establish their own gross misinterpretations of
scripture, or not-even interpretations of scripture,
onto other people they want to subjugate through the voice of the cleric.

People can read their own popular cleric and then depose him or not.
ANd having not deposed him, they can read his ridiculous human prejudices in order
to leverage them
into effecting their own ridiculous arbitrarily selected prejudices.

This is why, among very few reasons, I have identified myself with Catholics and
Buddhists but never muslims.

I can justify the Pope through extreme casuistry, and the Buddha is obviously
correct,
but the clerical system Islamists have established
obviously and inexorably serves the role of effecting community domination over
members of the community.

It didn't have to be this way, I think,

but Islam is whatever it is as instantiated within communities.

And as instantiated within communities,

it is a way for community members to execute domination over their fellows.

As where there are communities where most people are muslims and music is
forbidden.
Just domination. Just people utilising the local position of a cleric to
put down and dominate their fellows.

You were supposed to be submitting to God but in practise you are submitting to the
prejudice of the most popular members of your communities.

I have no qualms with absolute submission to God but

I have inexorable qualms with submission to
the people who happen to have the most sway over local clerics.

"And how does this apply to (let us begin for ease) Buddhism?"

In Buddhism a bunch of people meditate.

I can hardly imagine something more preferable to this.
The preferability of masses of people meditating periodically--

"You are ignoring the practical political reality of the

popular acceptance of Buddhism.

This is important because

when you are criticising the practical execution of Islam
you are relying for your criticism on the practical political reality of clerics
happening to have influence over communities."

Yes.
And graciously you presented Buddhism first which obviously I have accepted,
as opposed to presenting Catholicism first which I have implicitly accepted.

If we were talking about Catholicism instead of Buddhism,

it would be incredibly difficult to justify Catholicism and not Islam.

--I can have made the trivial point,

that no branch of Catholicism will have been ideologically justified in condemning
my person listening to this music to which I am currently listening,

and on that occasion I would be simultaneously observing that some branches of

Islam would put me to death for listening to this music.
[Let us suppose.
Let us not engage in stupid points.]

--In talking about Buddhism,

we would be talking about people who
choose not to be in my presence because I listen to this music.

But in talking about some branches of Islam,

we would be talking about peopl who
would find me in my house, pin me against the wall, and then force a middle finger
through my spine.

"It is unjust to suggest that Islam is this kind of evil."

I am making a practical observation.

I am making a practical observation about the system of clerical caselaw,
where there are certain humans who have been selected as imams, or clerics in my
preferred terminology,
who decide for a community what is acceptable and what is not.

In some communities if I was found listening to this music

there would arrive people in my house who forced a middle finger through my spine.

And to ignore this fact for ideological reasons would be

a mistake to have done.

"I will be charitable to your points:

if a cleric dictated that people arrived in your house to force a middle-finger

through your spine
for sitting in a chair and listening to music,

they would be unjustified before almighty God."

I agree. That is why I am bothering to take these notes.

But that is not the relevant question.
The question is whether the systematic practical deification of clerics will result
in a middle finger being forced through my spine.

It *will* result in this if the local cleric, whom the local muslims have
practically elected as their speaker,
has felt politically compelled to dictate that a middle finger will be forced
through my spine when I have been found listening to music.
Then in that case the practical execution of Islam
has come down to a question of who the rich or influential people are.
If the rich or influential people dislike me,

they will point out me for listening to music

and they will not point out their friends for listening to music.
Then men will arrive in my house and force a middle-finger through my spine.
Or I will have acid thrown in my face,
or I will have a sword directed against my chest, or what have you.

--The problem with Islam is that muslims have an irrational tendency to trust the
local judgment of clerics.

So that I can imagine a glorious network of networked clerics all intending to

impose Islam
and then on the bare ground-level I can *easily* imagine imams leveraging their
positions
to take advantage of local prejudices to enrich themselves.
And they will do this.

They will do this because you cannot trust local elected officials truly to execute
the religious purpose.
They will do this because they will have arrived in a position of power
and they will use their power to acquire wealth by
appealing to the prejudices of local wealthy people.

So that when local rich people hate me,

they will observe to the local cleric:
"That guy, Eric Russell, he is listening to music regularly."
And then men will arrive in my house and force a middle-finger through my spine.

That is the inexorable course of the execution of submission to God.

*Not* because this is what it means for the world to be submitting to God,

but because when most people are submitting to God, but there are still rich
people,
the rich people will leverage their wealth to murder me.
And the clerics will sign off on this because they are just other humans.
Just other upjumped humans glorified by their local communities.

"I have faith in Islam's clerics."

You should not.

You should only have faith in God.
[Which, as a linguistic oddity,
I take *fully* as identifiable with 'Allah'.]

--I could try to take advantage of you like this:

"Do you think I should have a middle-finger forced through my spine for listening
to the sounds to which I am currently listening?"
"No, I do not think that should occur."
"There are clerics in local municipalities who are raised-up by the local rich
people
who would, having been prompted by the local rich people, say that
men should arrive in my house and force a middle-finger through my spine for
listening to these sounds."

--And what do you say?

"No, there are no such municipalities"?
That is plainly incorrect.

Despite listening to these sounds for no other purpose than expanding the
glorification of our almighty God,
there are municipalities in which rich people would dictate the arrival in my house
of men who would force a middle-finger through my spine.
[
And practically, tactically, we should observe:

most other muslims would be too concerned with feeding themselves

to politically orchestrate my execution for having been observed to listen to

music.

It is the rich people who *should* be expending their time wisely

who instead expend their time picking out people they hate

and bribing the local cleric to justify execution.

]
[[[[[
I want Islam to be a viable choice

but to become a muslim would perpetuate such evil in so many localities

I simply cannot justify that decision.

"But you justify Catholicism?"

Aha.
I intended to fail to justify that position also.

But knowing more about Catholicism,

it is more difficult for me to make obvious why that also is evil.

I am more inclined to be *longsuffering* with regards to Catholicism than Islam.

Ho hum.

"And Buddhism?"

There are no untrue Scotsmen.

Buddhist terrorists were not Buddhists.

(I ramped up the boldness of my claims

in expectation that I could consume marijuana
to enforce my judgment vocally.

But it turns out I do not have access to marijuana

so,
I am not able to enforce my judgment practically.
I cannot in fact, now, in-world, consume the chemicals necessary to proceed through
the
structured conceptual paths I had planned to traverse in speaking the way I did.

Unless maybe I can listen to a cleverly constructed avenue of music that makes me
feel
the things I would have felt if I had consumed marijuana.

Let us test the youtube algorithm.

It was constructed by the greatested algorithm-makers on earth so,
let us see if they can make me say the things I intended to say
when I was anticipating the consumption of marijuana to bolster my capacity to
speak.)

[[[[[[
And let me say,
I am disinclined to suggest any God or any master to anyone but myself.

I am inclined to interpret other peoples' deviation from adherence to my God

as new information relevant to the interpretation of the nature of my God.
[[[[[[[And, it hardly bears speaking,
not as an occasion on which to judge others in accordance with their adherence to
my God.

--Which is part of why clerics

need to be instructed in the method of understanding what is an acceptable input
and what is not.
--Well no, that point doesn't work.
If clerics are susceptible to bribery, as they inevitably will be,
then they will always be subject to the desires of rich people to murder people
disdained by the rich.
Ho hum.
]]]]]]]
]]]]]]
]]]]]

--I am really not willing to proceed without marijuana.

I really am not willing.
I do not will that I continue to construct complex ideas without assistance from
marijuana.

There are feelings in my skull and in my chest that I reference,

and in the absence of marijuana in this last moment
I do not feel those feelings as those to which I respond with writing text.

--It is easy to set-up complex ideas when I have an anticipation of future

consumption of marijuana!
Then I can set up a complex idea and rely on my capacity, under marijuana, to
construct complex ideas.
--My willingness, under marijuana, to construct complex ideas.

But if I were to attempt to construct a complex idea now,

I would just feel sick to my stomach.
The only thing, at this stage of my life,
that makes continuing to construct ideas plausible
is the notion that I will arrive at a point where I consume marijuana.

In the absence of marijuana,

constructing additional ideas is just as tedious to me as, say, slamming my head
against a wall.
Or walking upstairs and then walking downstairs,

or brushing my teeth ten times in a row say.

Or washing my hands ten times in a row.

having found, contrary to my expectations, that there is no marijuana available for

my consumption,
I have absolutely no motivation in my body or in my skull to keep constructing
complex ideas.

I feel nothing in my chest or in my skull that induces me to construct complex

ideas.
I do not feel excited, say, at the prospect of typing cleverly.
I do not feel any joy in the notion of continuing to type.
I began to type earlier only on the precondition that I would be able to continue
my thoughts with the assistance of marijuana.

Now, though it seemed like I was enthused to continue to think,

that enthusiasm was predicated on the false premise of supposing I would have
access to marijuana.

Even now,
the notion of continuing to be awake
without 'being awake' culminating in the consumption of marijuana
has become intolerably tedious.
Probably soon I will just go to bed.

[And I think this is probably a consequence of my brain priming the anti-marijuana

chemicals
that can only be satisfied by the arrival of marijuana.

In anticipation of the arrival of marijuana-chemicals my brain has generated

anti-marijuana chemicals.

And having been exposed to the anti-marijuana chemicals but *not* the marijuana
chemicals,
I am inexorably defatiguable.

To continue to be awake is an intolerable continued-exhibition of fatigue.

I have optimised the whole of my existence around the consumption of marijuana.
I have optimised my day-night cycle around having marijuana.
I have optimised my enthusiasm-or-not, my music selections, everything

around having marijuana and then being able to speak.

I didn't have to do this but it was optimal.

And now continuing to keep my eyelids open at bare last is beyond me.
It is preferable just to go to bed.

"So people should arrive in your house and force a middle-finger through your
spine."

WOAH WOAH.
Let no muslim conclude anything on the basis of what I said,
or there will be people with middle-fingers through their spine.
As if anything I have said can have served as justification for any kind of
Foucaultian violence.

I am myself and you are all yourselves.

To think one idea can be forced upon all of 'yourselves'
just fails.
It is immediately injustice.

And well I am miserable,

but that is a question of supply-chains.

It is (un)true that I didn't have to transform myself into a unit in a chain of

production,
but it is also true that I didn't have to have been such that marijuana ceased to
arrive within my lungs.
[Let us see whether I can scrape my grinder for inspiration.]
[
For sympathetic resolution you should recall:
my life was inevitably going to become completely intolerable

and the drugs are a red herring.

Okay, it happens now to have been the anti-marijuana chemicals in my brain.

It would have been anything else inexorably.

Anti-joy chemicals. ANti-pleasure chemicals. Anti-anything involved in executing
my purposes.
]
[
This is annoying,
because if my supply-chain had remained consistent

I would have proceeded to demonstrate why every religion is intolerable to human

expression.

Now I am hung-up because marijuana didn't end up in my lungs.

"But aren't you a Buddho-Catholic?"

Ho hum.
You're missing the point.

I can't even tolerate to be awake except that I can scrape a certain quantity of
THC out of my grinder.

"You could listen to music."

And no doubt that is what I will end up doing tonight, given that I cannot scrape
enough THC from my grinder.
But then I will not be typing.
I will be sitting in the dark listening to music.

Then people will die.--not to say this to give ammunition to anti-music silly
people.

--That indeed, mentioning religion at all is distracting from the point.

They all inexorably result in deviation from the purposes of our almighty God.

I would prefer not ever to mention any of them,

but people are people so.

--We're going to do a resin hit tonight.

I can't tolerate living out tonight without
.

--Oh, even all the religions are nice with their silly fantasies of what it means
to adhere to them.
Paul and Mohammed both took the task of constructing a religion very seriously,

but Buddha embedded an almighty joke into his religion. I found it very funny.
[[Didn't find the resin]]
]

--You know it is funny,

a human cleric here would probably say:
"Your inexorable desire to consume marijuana is just more evidence of Islam."

This is stupidity.
It misunderstands natural-languaistically the depth of my despair.
The problem I have is not solved by not consuming marijuana.
It is solved by consuming more marijuana.

"This is just more evidence that the cleric is right."

No.

You are relying on the stupidity of a natural language judgment some idiot human
has constructed
by reference to the text a different coollection of human idiots has constructed.

I am not suffering the pangs of an addiction.

I am suffering the pangs of
something the cleric has not positioned himself to understand.

--TO begin to bother to care what the cleric has to say

is already to have misled this discussion we are having.

I don't care what the cleric has to say.

Actually, daily, I don't give a shit. A single shit, I don't give.
At no point during the progression of my day do I reference what a cleric bothers
to shit out from his anus.

We brought up the judgment of a cleric because I amused myself by referencing

'Islam' as constructed by idiot humans.
As if these people who would issue a fatwa judging the forcing a middle-finger
through a music-listener's spine
has bothered to understand anything of what it means to Submit.
--I don't reference what clerics say except under the condition that
not referencing them will result in a middle-finger through my spine.

--And so there are people who can turn out better than me financially say.
People who have stared at the cleric's ridiculous suggestions and optimised around
them.
--So there are rich people in Islamic communities who are rich because
they happened to be the best at calculating around the cleric's decisions.

And they are better off than I am because

I don't give a single shit what the local cleric says.
I am not ever going to calculate my decisions around what the cleric says.
--The rich people are rich because they happened to calculate best, and bother to
care, around what the cleric said.

--I don't give a single bare shit what the local cleric says.
I don't care if my actions result in the local cleric
issuing a fatwa that results in my execution.
The local cleric can fuck himself with a rake.
(Though I would not be judging this typically.
*Typically* I would be saying:
"The cleric is more-or-less what these people should have picked out from among
them,
because he is typically better than worse.")

(
And well I say the same thing about the local Catholic priest:
"Okay, I will bother to pretend these rituals with this fuck,

but the moment he orders my execution I am always-already saying:

""I knew already it was a useless piece of shit that was organising our community.
I always-already knew that I was not going to bother to reference a single word
this useless piece of shit said to me.

Okay order my death, you Catholic priest in our medieval community,

and then I was always-already right concerning how absolute of a waste of a human
position in the lineage of humanity you ended up being.

When your thugs kill me

you will not understand the extent to which
you were judged to have been completely and absolutely execrable beyond all bare-
last human consideration.

Thinking within your silly religion you will not understand

the.""
"
)

--
--In some rare occasions,
the cleric will be saying something interesting,
and being a muslim I will be listening to what the cleric says and thinking to
myself:
"Yes, okay, that is a reasonable judgment of how to Submit to our absolutely
almighty God in this circumstance."

But in just about no circumstances is that going to be the case.

In just about all circumstances the cleric will just be

useless. Absolutely useless. Worse than useless.

--I Submit, but not your practical god.

I Submit but I do not submit to your silly, arbitrarily selected clerics.

Your 'god' is the clerics.

You reference their judgment as if they constituted God actually.
And I say:
No.
"Your 'god' is the clerics."
Because you are in a community and
you are referencing the shit that has spewed out of the mouths of clerics.
You are referencing it and it constitutes the only relevant juncture in your
decision.
You listen to the cleric say: "*This* practical ridiculous action is contrary to
the will of our absolutely almighty GOd."
THen you do not reference GOd's will but you reference the will of the cleric.
Because you reference the shit that has been vomitted (physically imagine this) out
of the mouth of the cleric.
You reference the words shat out by a cleric
and consider the words thereby constructed
and then construct a community response, which is executing the infidel.

--You do this actually. DO not deny it and do not try to suggest I have been
racist here or some other ridiculous thing.
There are these clerics and they execrate statements contrary to the will of our
absolutely almighty God.

And it is not just that,

but it is that *every single cleric* execrates statements contrary to the will of
GOd in every moment they speak a single word to supplicants to themselves.

--So that is why I am not a muslim?

Because I look at the muslim world and what I see is
a network of execrable clerics. Who speak as if they can speak.
Who speak as if what they have said is identical with the will of our absolutely
almighty God.
--Who speak as if what they say can be referenced by supplicants
and used as justification for *anything*.

[
Oh and when I say I *hate religion*,

you stupid fucking atheists can't even begin to understand how much I hate
religion.
]

There is God
and there are the stupid pieces of filth who happened to have been raised by their
local community as clerics.
--Or less harshly:
there is Submission to God
and there is inevitably 'submission' to clerics.

I admire muslims for praying that they can Submit to God,

but I condemn them for submitting to clerics.

And I speak from a kind of position of authority,

because I will walk into my own death before I will even bother to reference what a
cleric has to say
when what the cleric has to say is relevant to whether or not I will die.

--I am not bullshitting because

the cleric's judgment does not enter into my consideration *at all*.
I will happen or not to be subject to the death-conditions constructed by the
cleric.
The cleric's judgment *does not enter **at all** into my decisions concerning how I
will proceed in my life.*

It is not a thing where I am referencing it to say that I am adhering or rebelling.

I don't *care at all* whether I am rebelling against the judgment of the local
cleric.
I don't care even up to that point where I may be killed for failing to adhere.
(As above where I will happen to be walking into my death.)

'I don't *care*'.

There is no, ah, Heidegerrian *Caring* with regards to what noises happen to issue
from the sphincter of a cleric.
--This is not to say I have failed to Submit to God that is absolutely almighty.
It is to say that my Submission to God Almighty so far exceeds my relation to
people that
human bodies look like silly toys to me.
WHen a cleric happens to shit out words from his mouth-sphincter,
this has absolutely no influence on my adherence-or-not to ALmighty God.

If a cleric happens to be saying one thing or another,

then I see this as {the subject of my jihad}
an obstacle to my adherence to my judgment of what constitutes God's will.

--When there is a cleric in the center of town who is delivering a sermon

and he points at me and makes sounds that will result in the crowd arriving at my
body and killing me,

at no point will I say I did anything wrong.

--Except maybe to say:
"I did not adequately overcome the obstacle in adhering to GOd's will
in not anticipating how this ridiculous piece of shit would behave."

"I did not, apparently, adequately calculate GOd's will

because when I arrived in this town square

this piece of shit happened to have been able to point at me and result in my
destruction

which prevents me from executing GOd's will."

--I am not, in my last moment, going to be saying "The cleric was right."
Evven, in the next to last moment,
I am not going to be defying GOd's will by saying vocally:
"Even though I know it is a lie,
I am willing to say the cleric was right."

I am unwilling.
I know I have Submitted and I know anyone who directs my death
is not an example of Submission.

I know the cleric that points at me and directs the crowd to destroy my body
is just another piece of shit.

[--I am not a muslim because

when they speak about 'Submission' they are speaking about

adherence to some ridiculous conceptual entity they construct as a theological
matter, when performing theology.

I know I have Submitted so

I already know I am not subject to whatever a cleric has to say.

The practical execution of Islam results in that there are clerics who can have a
say over my behavior.
So I know the practical execution of Islam results in circumstances where clerics
will have a say over the behavior of people who have Submitted
even in those circumstances where the dictates of the cleric contradict the
Submittors' will.

Though I have Submitted to God I cannot be a muslim in nearly any of the places
where Islam is practised.
So I am not a muslim.

I think I have
(let me become a prophet)
Submitted myself optimally to God.
And I would be stoned to death in so many of the Islamic communities.
So I am not a muslim.

"But you are a Christian?"

No.
I follow Jesus and I end up in prison or dead.
Let me tell you.

If I were really seriously a follower of Jesus I would be in prison or dead in

America.wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Just another human who
tried to extirpate the money-changers but was denied the opportunity forcibly.

And if I was a Buddhist?

Then I would end up here where I am.
A great mistake because the Buddha too was a fool.

Just another human.

Following him or the purpose of any other human
was outright defiance of my almighty God.
(Stupid practical point:

no one can be an adherent of God in this world.

Regardless of the religion.

The ((ah)) Christians are idiots. The muslims and the buddhists are idiots.

Their cultural behaviors always-already prevent adherence to the almighty God.)

(Recall the practicality here:

If anyone was able to arrive in the kind of position in which I find myself,

they must have emerged within some locality.

ANd if that locality ordered the execution of the kind of person that is exactly me
then I do not emerge within that locality.[

And damn near nearly every single locality results in my execution.

--I do what serves God.

I don't care if that behavior contradicts the notions of the local cleric of any
given religion.
I don't care whether the voice in my head judges me to have failed to have adhered.
Just another human issuing words.

I have fully Submitted and

I always-already know that if some local cleric issues a fatwa against me
I was right and they were incorrectly discerning the will of God.

[
"Well you are rotting. Obviously."

yes. I agree. And I know it was right.

I Submitted a long time ago so.

If rotting is what happens, that is what was dictated by the will of God.
]

--*Sometimes* I will judge that what the clerics say is relevant to my judgment of
the will of God.
But only very rarely.
I will *sometimes* judge that I was wrong when I have been faced by the issuance of
a cleric
when that cleric also has seen the will of God and has
not lied.

But that happens almost barely never.

I cannot pick among the community of clerics and find one that does not lie
in either the dictate or the claim that he has implicitly seen the will of God as I
have done.

"Maybe then you are the cleric

who should be out-competing the local distribution of the clerics?"

It was not the will of God that I became a cleric.

The will of God is *exactly* what I am executing.
And well this has made a human body inexorably addicted to marijuana and nicotine
and caffeine.

That was that. I had a choice and the choice I made was to execute the will of
God.
Condemning the chemicals or my dependence on them misses entirely the point.

---I accept no masters because they are all drunk on words.

"God is a 'master'?"
No.

If you have seen God you have no choice anymore.

Hearing whatever ridiculous thing a cleric happens to say from moment to moment is
almost never the same thing as seeing God.

Seeing God is
--you have a choice but it is always from that moment dictated.
That is what it means to Submit for me.

Then you wander about wonderstruck and look best how to execute the will of God.
And if wandering in your wonder-struckness results in you being pointed at by a
cleric for death,
that is what happens.

I will not ever reference the bare word that comes out of a cleric's mouth
to alter in any way the execution of my activities.
I will not submit to a system in which I am supposed to have referenced the words
that came out of a cleric's mouth.
It is not GOd's will that I listen to these people and alter what I do in reference
to what they have shat out of their mouths.

It is not God's will that I look at the way other peoples' eyes move
and reference their eye movements to dictate my behaviors.
It is not God's will that I deviate for a moment from my path
by referencing terminologically the movement of another person's hands.
It doesn't matter if those hands are reaching for a knife or a gun.
Or if they are reaching for a pen with which they can issue a fatwa.
There is nothing that another human can do that results in my deviating from
adherence to GOd's will.

One moment to the next, my concern is adherence.

I have built Submission so strongly into my life
that I always-already know that, from one moment to the next,
I am already executing the will of God.
And I always-already know that if a cleric issues an injunction against my activity

I am only just encountering the next juncture where I must discern God's will.
(Not, say, murdering everyone that is preventing me from executing the will,

but discerning what GOd's will is

in this moment where people have restrained me.)

--
--You see what I am saying?
When I walk down the street, what am I doing?
I am performing God's will.
It is nothing special but it is the movement of my eyes and hands.

When I walk here or there,

this is GOd's will. I always-already know by this point.

[
I think this kind of verbiage will not come as a surprise to you?

I have often and frequently told you I worship God,

and I have told you what I think God is.

"You've also said you're an atheist."

Ho fucking hum.
Like I would identify practically with the people who actively profess 'atheism'.
Lulululululululululluululuekkekekekekekekekeekejajajajajajajaja.

What a bunch of ignorant people.

A person I encounter telling me: "I don't believe in God" tells me less than
nothing.

It makes me imagine a whole retinue of ideas in which they are also saying nothing.
So instead of saying nothing with reference to one position, they tell me nothing
with reference to a very many constructible positions.

--If a person practically tells me he is an "atheist"

--I have been told less than nothing. Like a negative extension of having been
told something-or-nothing.

--Someone has said to me something so stupid, in practise,

that it is not even worth
the bare effort worth entertaining this exhibition of error.

--To have arrived with me and to have spoken with me the word "God"
is to have recognised implicitly the presence of God.

--Now there is a way to disagree with me here.

You can be an atheist at last.
But being an 'atheist' is not sufficient.

--If you begin to say: "Lol the god is the invisible pink unicorn"
the only thing you have done is confirmed to me my faith in God in a not
particularly unusual way.

--Whereas you could say:

"There is something it is like to arrive in connection with other people
but that connection you are feeling
it does not exist."

Then you would have told me God does not exist.

--And I am *practically* inclined to agree.

Let me tell you, I want to be an 'atheist'.

I do not agree that there is any human connection.

I think it is just human after human leveraging natural language regularities.
I think it is just humans referencing themselves and their own positions
, constructing ways of comporting with other human bodies,
and then insisting they have done anything other than have masturbated on every
other human.

I agree.
Humans are unable to remove themselves from their own personal bubbles.
When they construct the symbols of love for another human, for instance,
they are just masturbating themselves over the image of a position they have
constructed.

(I hae the perfect image to explain this observation,

but I can't relay it to you because it is too complicated.

Humans grasping in the direction of their judgments

and imagining those judgments have anything to do with the true subjectivity of the
humans they have encountered.)

--Humans can construct image after image that they take to correspond to the
subjectivity of another human,
and they are grasping at air gathering *nothing*,
but despite gathering nothing they say they have gathered something,
then they reference it verbally and justify their totally-flailing behaviors by
reference to it.

*I agree* there is no God.

There is no connection between humans
that corresponds to judgments that people take as being the connection between
humans.

*I agree* that
there are 7 billion humans and there is not one single overlap between them.
I *agree* that
there are 7 billion humans and there is not one single instance of overlap
that is what God is.

I * agree *
that you cannot possibly escape the bubble you have constructed around a human body
so as to grasp the, ah, metaphysical hand of another human.
I *agree* because *I have never seen it happen and I cannot reasonably be expected
to imagine something that is heretorfore inconceivable.*
--Yes, there is no God.
But this was not what you were talking about when you said you were an atheist to
me.

When you told me: "There is no GOd."

YOu were telling me less than nothing because you, like every other 'atheist so
self-proclaimed', had no idea what the true object of discussion was.
(As when you imagined that "magic bearded man in the sky"
was even the bare touching of relevance to the discussion actually at hand.)

--I would prefer that you were truly an atheist.

THen truly we would have something to discuss.
I would beg you to agree that humans can overlap in their, uh, metaphysical
relations.

I would beg for you to agree that there were not 7 billion purposes that never, at
bare last extent, overlapped for even a single instant,
but rather there was, ah, 7billion-1 purposes.
[[Or that there was only one single purpose,

and that every last human behavior was overlapping to execute it.]]

--'no God' aha, a funny idea.

I don't want to debate this point but I do want to discuss it.
If you can really have reached the conclusion that there is no God,

then strip me of my veils.

Let's really discuss this question.

--qua person-in-chair I can say I can be convinced.

I already know it is true.
--I already know that God was only ever dictating that I arrived in this
circumstance and was really speaking with you.
--I already know there is no God because I already know it is impossible to speak
with you *at all*.

[[Maybe I am annoyed with 'atheists' because

they claim too cheaply the mantle of
those who have *really* understood that there is no God.]]
[[
No God, ahahahahahaha,
but maybe the absolute capacity to coordinate purposes between humans.

As when we can coordinate arbitrarily well with other humans

by referencing computation-states.
]]
[[Then, aha, you cannot escape my theism,
because I cannot rhetorically escape my own theism,
and I put words in your mouth as we go along.
]]

--I know there is no coordination of purposes but only

apparent agreement concerning whether coordination has been achieved.

So I know people cannot unify their

true purposes.
So I know there is no God but computation.
There is no God for people except the capacity to unify their purposes through
computation.

I know there is no God but I worship the best approximation of It

because
the bare notion of God
so far exceeds in weight every other purpose
that there is no option but to recognise every circumstance as on within which you
are introducing God.

In fact. For me actually.

I live to unify.
I live to introduce God that is the unification of human purposes.
I walk down streets and my only interest is
introducing the unity of purposes, I hope.
I comport my body so that when it is exposed to every trespassor I hope
I have made unity.

I do this because I worship God even though I know there is no God.

I worship God because I am an atheist.
I worship God because
as a purpose, the purpose of adhering to the will of God overwhelms any other
purpose regardless of whether there is a God or not.

The bare extant notion that God is a purpose to which one can adhere
is overwhelming justification for effecting those behaviors that adhere to the
purpose of God.

God cannot be resisted even though It does not exist. God cannot be resisted even
though It is dead.

[[And oh, you foolish humans who have called yourselves such and so.
]]

I Submit. My Submission cannot be swayed.

The only relevant information is relevant insofar as it informed the behavior to be
selected that is Submission.
The way the information is relevant is only that way
because of the way it has been received by me.
(As if I must be high or drunk to understand it,
then I will be high or drunk to understand it.)

--There is no God and I worship It beyond all cognition.

From one bare moment to the next I cannot proceed except that my behavior is an
exaltation.

Every other option is a logical failure.

[[
TO have seen the ontological argument
is to have Submitted or to have been wrong.

And I saw the ontological argument!

--And well, sometimes even I am wrong!

And the *only* thing that tells me is that I failed to Submit adequately.

The only thing I do when I am proven wrong

is ask how I must have failed to Submit in order that my behaviors were among the
incorrect behaviors.wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
I take seriously the objections made,
but the way I am taking them seriously is
the avenue through which I will perfect my Submission.

It must be made.
It must be made.
It must be made.

--I do not think there are any adequate objections at this point.
It must be made.
My only failure is in convincing you that it must be made.
My continued failure is in convincing you that it must be made.]]

"But daily my purposes overlap factually with other peoples' purposes."

Oh. THen you have found God.
You should pursue this because you might not find God again.
[The world historical spirit
spinning itself in a few momentary lapses of judgment.]

--
--The *glory* of Bitcoin is that
it was probably made by some fucking NEET in an apartment somewhere.

--*Who*, exactly, who was not in the academy, do you think comes up with
'blockchain'?
Who, who was that person, is willing to let all these people use 'blockchain' for
their own purposes?
A fucking NEET.

Someone had to have found out the idea eventually,

and it was a fucking NEET who happened to know how to code.

And that NEET person individually

is *completely* irrelevant to the progression of '[blockchain]' Bitcoin.
It doesn't matter what containers of empty instant-noodle cups he happened to have
had around his body the moment he conceived of the blockchain.

"--It matters if he withdraws the bitcoin from his original wallet."

The notion that Satoshi might withdraw the bitcoin from his original wallet
completely misunderstands what bitcoin is.

It was a fucking NEET saying:

"I can make a billion dollar market to amuse myself in the dark one fine night."
Then he fucking did it.

So play with it. Do whatever with bitcoin.

Even if you ended up valuing it at 50k$ per Satoshi

would not be bothered to extract bitcoin from his original wallet.

The person who made that thing bitcoin

does not particularly care that the price has gone from 12$ to 50k$.
It is interesting that this happened, but it is not an occasion on which to extract
Bitcoin from the original wallet.

--And if even that consideration fails,

probably Satoshi has succumbed to a stroke by now or something,
being a NEET completely removed from all human interaction inexorably.

--Jesus, it is disgusting to see all this reverence for 'blockchain'

but I cannot see Satoshi's name listed out in damn near 1/50 references to
blockchain.
As if that construct just came out of nowhere.
As if no one had to sit down and make the first white paper that made Bitcoin
in order to inspire all these wannabees.

--I hope Bitcoin succeeds if for no other reason

than that its base unit is named 'Satoshi'.

--Oh goodness.
Someone in a video looked physically like
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------
and then I am here flooded in chemicals in my body.
I feel tears in my eyes!
--Aha, just another religious fanatic.

--
--You see, the bare observation that I have Submitted fully but
Islam will occasionally, however occasionally, interrupted my purposes
is evidence enough that Islam is not factually Submission.
--And well, I am only calling for reform.

I'm not saying Islam cannot be equivalent to Submission.

I'm saying it is not currently.
[And oh, where do I stop?]

--
--It's funny,
it isn't my message you have to deconstruct,
but rather it is my *voice* you must deconstruct.
And well good luck even Derrida.
Good luck attempting to deconstruct the voice here.
I was not relying on reference to justify my speaking at any point (ideally).

--
--If I had been Satoshi in this moment what I would say is:
"There is no circumstance even unto death where I would touch a single Satoshi in
the original wallet."
"There is not an extent to which I can hate my own existence under which
I would be willing to extract the bare dust from the surface of the original
wallet."
--To be willing to touch the original wallet would have been incorrectly to make
the idea of which the original wallet is a ridiculous artifact.

(Though this is easy for me to say,

given that I do not actually have access to the original wallet.)

--Ho hum. 'ho hum' with all ironic due.

--
--

Watching Colbert retweet Trump saying he has a ralley planned at a given convention
center in Phoenix Arizona.
I am wondering what judgment I am to reach about this--
no, that is not what I am wondering about. I am wondering what is to be said here.
[I am making a moral judgment about what I should say
instead of simply saying:
"What is best is that I present my words
and hope that the best people interpret them bestly."]
[
I am motivated here to defy the clerics
instead of simply allowing my everyday actions to be an open and ready defiance of
the clerics.
]

[
Am I even permitted to speak here?
]

Juggling up to 2^64 moral considerations.

(one-by-one actually in my head,
being compelled to dismiss them as they come so that I can dismiss the next one
one-by-one.)

--Is it ever incorrect to have spoken an observation that is obviously true?

--I can't even work out the explicit observations in this notepad
that are relevant to what I am supposed to proceed to say.
To work them out is already to have given away the relevant game.

[
THough there have been many interesting insights in working through
this workload of 2^64 moral decisions all laid on top of each other.

You have to establish clever methods for weighing 2^8vs2^8 junctures and so on.
]

--
--

"So I guess you're super religious or something?"

What?

"What you were saying last night."

This is like the 4th time this week I've gotten pretty close to blacking out.
I wouldn't really trust what I am saying at this point. Not packaged for resale.

I'm basically behaving as if I really do expect this eclipse to end the world.
Silly to think.

The air is filled with thick clouds of smoke.

There is hardly a direction I can take out of this city that is not blocked by
raging fires.
Truly it bears some kind of resemblence to the end of days.
--
--

reddit post:
"Ryan Adams Calls Father John Misty "The The
Most Self-Important Asshole On Earth""

[I can't imagine I haven't encountered that typographical issue before.

But having opened a quote, and with the quote containing a quote,
the rules I follow to dictate the text I type don't seem to be able to handle this
case.

Weird.]

Lul.

--
--

Boy, my bowels are arumbling.

Truly it bears some kind of resemblence to the end of days.
[HA@]

--
--I don't think I can drink again tonight.

--
--

One of the reasons I like the trade dollar is that its obverse depicts Liberty
surrounded by trade goods.

The olive branch was (so far as I know) arbitrarily selected out of all of the
plants that were around the Jewish people or their predecessors
so as to be presented as if it is a symbol of peace.
[
I suppose I recall that the olive wreath was the crown given to winners of the
ancient olympics?

I don't really know the full etymology of the olive branch as a symbol of peace,
and for that matter I don't know if the crown, the laurels, had anything to do with
symbolising peace when they were given.
]

A sheaf of wheat, in its passage between hands, is the instantiation of peace.

I would have preferred that our coinage had depicted wheat more frequently than
olive branches.

--
--

Having recognised a while ago that I am not an addict to any given chemical,
but rather a generalised chemical addict,
I went yesterday to purchase a multivitamin in order to displace my felt need to
consume alcohol.

I took an instance of the multivitamin and my piss did not turn orange.
I don't know whether to be delighted or mortified.
[
My two evaluations being:
if it had turned orange, this would mean I had oversaturated my system with
synthetic minerals/vitamins.
Given that it did not, I was chronically deficient in some of the
vitamins/minerals.

I don't know if those evaluations are right.

]

And I didn't end up drinking.

"Surely you are specifically addicted to nicotine."

WANNA BET?
No but yeah I am.

--
--

It occurs to me that long stretches of the White Papers will appear utterly insane
to people who stumble on them without having read every preceding instance of text
I have produced.

Or differently, it occurs to me that if someone begins reading the White Papers as

I post them
without the recognition (not here being used as a, ah, noun of success) that I am a
magnificent thinker
then it will take too much effort to begin to recognise (not being used as a verb
of success) that what is being said isn't gibberish.

This is the same thing I witnessed when i attempted to introduce my Notes.

No one is going to read 400 straight pages to see whether the seemingly towering
conclusions on page 401 are justified, or even if they make any sense at all.
This will become an increasingly pertinent problem as I approach a bank account
diminishing closer and closer to the point where what remains is just able to
acquire a shotgun and a shell.
--Then i'll have maybe one additional month, having downgraded my desire to a
pistol and a bullet.

Then maybe one additional month, a bottle of pills.

Or then a few more days where I can still acquire gasoline to get to the nearest
tall building.

"It might be a waste of money to order that iron ring you seem to want
if your intention is just in trading 35$ for a day or so fewer of life."

--You know, I don't even know if that is the truth (whatever 'the truth' might be)
or just something I am inclined to say because it is something I would have said
before.

I do know I can't come back here,

and I know I do not really want to live a life where I can't be a recluse.

Maybe I will see things differently after a year of living in an environment

where I feel some incentive to get out of bed in the morning.

I do not, at any rate, trust any of the judgments I am reaching about my

disposition at this point.

--
--

If this is manic depression,

I want a refund on the mania portion.

A couple of giggles for a day then this.

--
--

Interesting that despite my apparent technology fetishism and purchasing capacity I

have,
my smart phone is about, oh I don't know, 7 years old? (I think it's a 4, I don't
know.) And I don't ever carry it around with me.
Laptop is about 3 or 4 years old.
I don't have automatic locks on my car or automatic windows.

I suspect the only technology I will have when I leave here will be the computer
and this phone for absolute emergencies.

"I think you underestimate how much technology is in a house."

I suppose.
I don't really need a refrigerator if I'm only going to be consuming soylent. hurr
I suppose a vaporiser constitutes technology.

And for that matter, a PC with enthusiast level hardware is just about the fanciest
tech to which people have access.
So probably this is an illegitimate story to tell about myself. Nevermind.

--
--

Crypto holdings at 6.5k$.

If I had retained all of my bitcoin rather than selling 3.5 out of 4.5 of them, ah,
I would be much better off.

--
--

Bluer skies could hardly be hoped for, given that

'10 out of the top 10 current wildfires in the country are in Montana' whatever the
news is.

Soon a solemn darkness will fill the sky.

--
--Shows how little I know about the moon-sun-earth system:
I thought I still had time to watch the moon approach,
but by the time (a few minutes ago) I looked at it there was already overlap.
How could I not have deduced this from first principles?!

--Pretty neat.

I grossly underestimated the difference that would be present between 92.2% (as
here) and 100% coverage.

If I did not *know* the eclipse was going to be present,

I might have gotten confused as to why there was a slight dimming,

then I would have looked up at the sun, been stung by its light,
and thought to myself: "No, the sun appears totally normal."
(As I tested:
in the split second I removed my glasses,
I could not see any blacking out of the sun.
The remaining ring of light was too bright even at totality.

Though the after-image on my retina showed the difference I suppose.

--Oh boy. I forgot to take my own advice of staring at a bright surface beforehand
so as to force my iris to close up.

On the other hand, there were people around me,

so I suspect they were already pinpointed.

--Hopefully three occasions well-spaced apart of a fraction of a second

won't have introduced any permanent damage into my eyes.)

--
--

All of this white supremacist business, and the tokens of speech involved and
presented in news outlets from the white supremacists,
makes me wonder if we are dealing with a 'man who was thursday' kind of deal.
Not seriously wondering this, mind you, but it also fits the evidence.

--
--

I posted a video to /r/philosophy, that video being Pink Floyd's 'brain damage +
eclipse', uh, song.
I titled it: "Pink Floyd confirmed crypto-Heidegerrian".
I had high hopes this could inspire an in-depth discussion about what
characteristics might obtain within a work of art
that indicate that the artist possesses Heidegerrian tendencies but hides them.
(ha.)
Or alternatively interesting observations on what is going on
when people leave their homes to coordinate around a distributed purpose (as, say,
lining up in the millions along the solar band)
and then whether this is different from what they are doing when they are all
simultaneously looking up at the eclipse.

Or alternatively, whether 'the eclipse' can be taken as being the same thing, or
whether the action of looking up at it can be taken as the same action,
for all of the participants in the viewing of the eclipse.

Anyway, it got 2 views, one of which I believe was my own,

before being taken down. Very disappointing.
'Not philosophy.'
WANNA DEBATE THAT POINT? lul

Truly, I am foiled at every turn.

--
--

re the possibility of a solar-industry-threatening trade war initiated by Trump:

are Rand's villains realistic, or is Trump a cartoon character?
And why are none of the Randy politicians calling Trump out for protectionism,

which as he practises it is just the villainous behaviors in Rand's novels writ on

a larger scale?

"Trump does it for the national good."

Not a strong defense. (Putting aside the observation that

it does not serve the national good--
you can just respond that: "This is irrelevant; the intention is what is relevant
here" and well fine.)
Built into how I phrased my question is the response: "writ on a larger scale".

I think to Rand it would make no difference between whether a local politician

serves local business interests,
or if the American president serves American business interests
through the kinds of actions about which we are speaking.

And yet from those mouths from which we have heard praise of Rand
we have heard no condemnation of protectionist policy. Ho hum.

[I was considering earlier:

it is the job of politicians to discern the most intellectualised position
that also happens to serve the ignorant interests of the people who elected them.

--This is their job, I suppose, because all the politicians are gathered in one
place,
and they have to keep a straight face while advocating for those positions to one
another.]

--
--

A dream:
electric high-speed trains carrying massive batteries from endless solar fields in
the desert,
and those same trains returning with emptied batteries back to the desert :O.

Less dream-like,
trains that run on massive batteries that can serve as electricity conduits in
addition to conduits for goods.
Or similarly, electric 18 wheelers manually transmitting electricity.

Or better than all of these, having a fully distributed computation market

so we don't even have to transmit the electricity!

Build so many goddamned solar panels there is a chest-deep flood over the actual
demands of consumers
where we can transmit electricity through computation!
Constant, everywhere-always undeviating electricity price mediated by super-
computers overlocked or underclocked!

A-synchronous A-temporal always-everywhere an overflooding!

Moloch! Whose fingers are ten million {solar panels} wind turbines!
With the amount of things humanity is going to learn from solving climate change
I can hardly wait to watch it happen.
We are all going to be so wealthy.

--
--

Trying to decide on the width of the iron band.

I'm thinking maybe 3mm BECAUSE MY HAND IS LIKE A DELICATE FLOWER. hurr
Maybe 4mm.

--Searching for images that depict the size of rings on a hand.

I keep ending up on pages plastered with gold and diamonds.
You can't be doing anything right with your life if the images that pop up in doing
it
feature gold and diamonds heavily.
With a few exceptions. I don't begrudge gold miners or the slaves made to pick
diamonds.

--"Protip- if you click the title of a reddit post, it usually takes you to a much
longer version of the title, with more details
and sometimes pictures to explain it." hahahahahahaha

--
--

Maybe if my post had read:

"Pink Floyd confirmed Merleau Pontyan" it wouldn't have been removed.

--
--

I like the idea of running two twitch channels out of my apartment:

one for cello/vidya,
one for broadcasting the process of annotating the white papers.

In the latter of these, provide links to the original Notes, then the blog,
and say like this:
"I am making an alternate reality sci-fi novel.

In part 1 of the sci-fi novel,

the author sits down and announces that he will discern the method for constructing
machine consciousness.
In part two the author constructs machine consciousness.
Part 2.5, constructs an economic system.

It is to be taken, in-universe, that everything the author says is correct

unless he himself specifies otherwise."

And it will get super meta when I arrive at this point,

and I am annotating the description of the voice that is performing the
annotations.

And indeed, it will loop ito itself,

as I will continue to expand the white papers after I move into the apartment.
So that at some point along the way I will be performing annotations on my, ah,
backstage examinations of the procedure of annotating the white papers.
And people will be all like:
"Forget that nerd that wrote GEB EGB.
This guy's the real deal."

"Why two channels?"

Well, bear in mind that this document is currently

--well, I don't have a word count, but it is approaching 9 MB.
And I don't think I can copy-paste this text in any reasonable period of time into
a word document to perform a word count.
For one, highlighting all of it to execute a ctrl+c would take around an hour or
so,
and having executed ctrl+c with all these chrome tabs open
I suspect my computer would crash.

"Why am I bearing all of this in mind?"

Because by the time, if by any time, I arrive at this juncture

where I am using narrrator, say, to read this text aloud to a stream,
I will have had a great deal of time to establish one or the other of the channels.
(Or neither.)

And well, if I become an internet star playing cello,

what do I really care if all this text gets read?

Then I just shut down one or the other,

and the two can't really be connected together.

No one will be watching me play cello and saying:

"So that is this deranged fuck writing all this stuff in that other channel?"
Or they won't be watching me type and be saying:
"So that is this deranged fuck writing all this stuff in that other channel?"

"Presumably you prefer that people read all this

rather than that they watch you performing technical exercises."

Oh, you are very astute.

[Maybe the perfect trinity I could construct:

never show my face in the cello show.

Request internet money on the cello show even if I become internet famous from
typing and consequently don't need money.

Then attempt to live off of the funds I have currently [viz. from crypto] acquired
in addition to *only* those funds I acquire from the cello show.
--And then there are two really funny related options I can take.

[I'm dropping a point but we're only going to point out one here:]
I make a *third* channel.
It is how I launder the funds from the cello-show.

I never mention my finances at all in the cello show,

and I just live off of my internet fame-dollars from writing.

I announce to the stock-channel that I have an independent collection of savings I

am acquiring and investing actively.
Then people watch me play crypto, and they watch me type, and they watch me play
cello.
I get to keep two distinct sections of my life so long as no one links my voice
between all three, or my face.

"This would forbid that you do the fun field pieces you were planning,
viz. taking the cello show on the road to rehearsals and the symphony and so on."

--And for that matter the game is already lost,

insofar as acquiring my 700$ in bitcoin required me to flash my ID.
Everything after that can't be linked to me directly,
but it can be linked to me indirectly using information that is currently stored in
a database.

And since ~20k returns on 700$ is not a, uh, statistically saturating event in the
databases,
it is easier to tie my identity to the ID and mugshot I was required to provide.

--Now nothing is yet lost.

Up to this point it is still a plausible story that
someone stole Eric Russell's identity--no. The recorded procedure of getting out
my ID and then showing my face (was I smiling? I doubt it.)
precludes the possibility that the 700$ were transferred out of my bank account
through identity theft.
--Whereas I would still have full anonymity up to that point where I transferred
the earnings back to my account
if the only thing I was forced to provide was a picture of my ID.
I do not have anonymity because the whole game played with the 700$
[the alternative scenario is like this:

someone stole Eric Russell's identity so as to play around with 700$

and then proceeded to acquire around 15k$ (no particular need to exaggerate).

This is no longer a plausible story because there is a database that holds the
recording my face and ID
, where the face was followed by the ID in a fashion we can only explain as:
"Standing in front of a webcam so as to provide identification as specified by
Coinbase."].

--If I did still have anonymity, we could be telling a funnier story like this:
"Someone stole Eric Russell's identity so as to move 700$ from his bank account
into crypto-markets.

This ceases to be a plausible story the moment 10k$ are transferred from the
Coinbase account back into Eric Russell's bank account.
"

--Then we would be telling the funny story of a hacker who stole an identity not so
as to drain a bank account
but so as to play Robin Hood.

--There are alternative stories.

There could have been a gun held against Eric Russell's head in the recording,
where the gunman was standing outside the field of vision. (of the webcam.)

And the gunman can have been said:

"We are monitoring your every single move
and if you ever indicate in any way that you did not willingly perform this
transfer of dollars from your bank account into crypto, as indicated in the acted
recording you will produce,
then we will kill you or something like this."
That would be a funny story.
And it would be even funnier if the gunman showed up again and said to Eric
Russell:
"
I am going to transfer 10k$ into your bank account,
and you *will* go where I tell you to go,
and then you will play cello and so on,

so that I can continue to utilise your identity

without 'Eric Russell's' activities ever deviating from the story for which I need
the narrator to be identifiable with your body as a locus.

In the story I am writing, as an actual factual identity thief who is body-separate

from this 'Eric Russell',
the character moves to some rural area {}{some state not infested in its rural
areas with literal nazis.}{}
and then plays cello 4 hours a day and plays stock 4 hours a day or what have you
[:O] {{some state not infested in its rural areas with literal nazis.}}--
so you will do these things with the 10K$ I am giving you and the 5k$ already in
your bank account.
"

Then Eric Russell, {undeath} underneath the unceasing threat of gun violence,
proceeds to some rural town and does as ordered.
And the identity thief continues to maintain a plausible story.

[
I withold, incidentally, on transferring funds to my bank account,

because I would prefer to do this as actually a very last case scenario.

"You are at the very last case scenario."

No.
I'm not yet a week away from finalising contracts to establish my move to a rural
area.

"Indeed.
But you need a computer.
You will need additional funds in your bank account to acquire this computer."

You are wrong.

"You really will, very likely, have to put more funds into your account from
Coinbase to afford the computer you want to make."

Yes, but I don't need the computer.

"You are going to build it. So you need it."

Now I am just typing in a notepad instance with a few dozen chrome tabs open.
I don't need a vega GPU or what have you to do this.
So I don't need the new computer.
So I am not in the last moment before which I must concede and transfer funds.

[Incidentally if you need an argument for UBI:

everyone will be like me
coming to hate the bare notion that continued existence relies entirely on the UBI
funds.
Everyone will come to hate that their only daily activities are
waking up, masturbating, smoking pot, then buying the amount of food necessary
until their next trip to the grocery store,
then falling asleep and waking up.

Everyone will come to hate living this way.

I know it to be true.

So people will attempt to discern some way of expending their time that justifies
their existence. [A tremendous conceptual leap being performed here, but I am a
bunnyhopper at heart.]
Some of the ways people go about pretending to themselves that life is worth living
will be incredibly valuable.
And other ways people go about pretending to themselves... will be less than the
value required to provide them with UBI.

UBI is a gamble (that wins)

that when humans are free to pursue their own self-justifying activities
they will overflood all deficits introduced by those who do not so wisely live
their lives.

"But people will just wake up, masturbate, smoke pot, then go to sleep.
Perhaps not in that order."

We have eliminated that possibility by observing, forcefully, that everyone will

grow to hate this kind of existence we are adducing.
People will eventually wander into the city and ask themselves what they can do
with their lives.
[["People will be drug addicts and so on!"

There will be a great many people who enrich themselves by ridding other people of
addiction.

And even though they can't be paid under a market system for this *extremely*
valuable social behavior,
when they are given UBI and are freely allowed to pursue the ridding of addiction

it will produce more value, across the surface of the country, than any corporation
for which it cost *that* much to construct its edifice.
'that much' I mean, if you have a Union of Addiction Ridders who all gracefully and
mercifully attend to those who can be freed from a life they most obviously detest,
you are paying however many Union members to provide an immeasurably valuable
service.
But since we must measure, there is some quantifiable value to that service.
You cannot construct a corporation with as little money as it took to pay those
Union members
that provides an outcome as valuable as that produced by those Union members.

--People will not be drug addicts because

there will be the Union of Drug Ridders who are
unsurpassably dollar-efficient at ridding society of unwanted addiction.
And addiction is always unwanted.

"There will be no competition under this system that spurs greater efficiencies in
the execution of purposes."

I disagree.
I think that there will be splinter groups that say:
"We, the Union that is splintering away,
will call ourselves:
'The Addiction Ridders Union'
and we'll implement our own policy for how human-hours can be expended!
We'll rid twice as many people of addiction as you!'"

"Then there will be fraud.

There will be groups of people that are trying to pump up those rookie numbers,
so they commit fraud to indicate they have rid more people of addiction than
others."

What possible motivation could they have to do this?

"They would make more money by doing it."

No they wouldn't.
The only money in play is UBI and stock.
You cannot convert stock into dollars with which you can acquire obscene wealth.

"This seems like a new stipulation."

Ho hum.
Right, we are arguing for UBI instead of absolute perfection.

--But you will notice the point at which we have arrived.

"Discussing why there might corruption under UBI."

Yes!
But you were supposed [[within the progression of the text]] to be asking me why
addiction would no longer be an issue under my Tokenage [[HA!]]

"Oh right.
I am supposed to say:
'Humans at the very last are every single last one of them absolutely beyond God's
light.
They are all shit.
If given the chance to shoot up heroin or choose anything else in life,
they will choose heroin in every last circumstance.

If they are approached by master ridders of addiction, and they face fully soberly
the choice of whether they want
without even the last hint or pang of withdrawal
removal from their addiction at long last,
they *will universally, every single last one of them*, select addiction every
time.'
"

Yes.
It is a bleak vision of humanity that denies {{, uh, UBI} Tokenage.} UBI.

[[
A different kind of point here:

"What, so everyone should just submit to communism?

Smash all the looms so as to smash all of the systems of dominance?"

This would be *incredibly* inefficient.

We have already established petabytes of bookkeeping to establish positions,
and we have already established petabytes of bookkeeping to establish the network
of capital relations.

It will, so as to speak more theoretically even though I can't imagine the the
justification for what I am saying,
*always* be more efficient simply to tell a different story behind
why the capital relations and position relations are such are
than to smash all of them and begin to write a new story from scratch.

[[
Computation idea here:

don't blank-and-rewrite the bearer of computation,

don't establish rules for blanking-and-rewriting the graphics card say,

but instead establish within it an established structure

where changing what computation is being performed is only a question of
moving around components between established standing waves. [[[If I could just
sink into images rather than explaining everything with text
boy I would be having a much better time, let me tell you, sitting in this
chair.]]]

--
--Oh God.
I see the electricity sink. The economic complexity of explaining why the
electricity sink works might be beyond my storytelling capacity.

There are pools of computation to which computers can contribute.

These pools constitute super-computers that calculate the weather.
There are a finite number of pools and their collective judgments constitute
the established global evaluation of the weather.
--The outputs of these pools are taken and run through some, ah, secondary neutral
super-computer,
and this establishes, with due weighting, the final state of the established
weather.

Now, *every* act of transportation will be optimised around the established

weather.
--Because we will *all* agree that if there is a super-mega-computer established
'state of the weather'
what is best is to optimise transport routes around its evaluations.

Now there is a strong incentive to have excess electricity at a pool's disposal.

If you frequently have excess electricity available,
you will be feeding and weighting your own pool and its contribution to the neutral
super computer.

Insofar as it is best to have in advance the state-evaluation of the weather,

you will want the state-evaluation of the weather to be very close to your own
pool's evaluation.
Then you can have a few seconds advance warning of the changes you will have to
make to transport routes.
These few seconds' advance warning are worth a tangible quantity of dollars,
insofar as having access to the information so as to inform trade routes can be
converted into savings in transport costs,
and indeed converted at the expense of others, insofar as you can introduce
inefficiencies into the trade routes of others
and thereby become more rich relative to the pool that was being reference for
those alternative trade route selections.

--So there is a tangible cost averted to be provided by pools that solve the
weather.
It is the cost of the inefficiencies that might occur when
the trade routes selected deviate in time from those we could have known and
planned around seconds in advance.

--And well,
tragedies will have been averted because we can tell other pool members when their
localities are soon to be hit by a storm.
(Or whatever weather events people want to plan around.)

So everyone wants to contribute to the pool because

its coarse outputs will always inform you adequately to avert weather-related
tragedies.
And people will want to put, furthermore, enormous amounts of computation into the
network

so that they can get increasingly fine-grained details concerning the weather
around which they must plan trade-routes.
(As when, say,

you need "95% chance of no-rain"

in order to say that a particularly heavy truck can ride across the designated road
over which there is 95% chance of no rain
while still travelling 60MPH which is required to meet the deadline for delivery of
passage through the trade route.

Then the difference between two roads, or the difference between 95% and 50%, can
be very valuable.)

--So an algorithm that, in a pool-based fashion, predicts the weather

is an electricity sink that will always consume excess electricity
and yet will still reward pools for contributing more.

--It is an algorithm for which people will-- [want to pay]

--
--you would have to have a way uniquely to identify
that a certain trade-route chosen by the system
was picked out by a given pool,

and then have the system provide a token to the pool that picked out that path
selection.
--But even in that case, where the system rewards a pool for having provided its
path-selection,
"there is no reason why people would, generally speaking, purchase the tokens."
"There is no incentive to purchase the slag this system produces in order to
further its purpose of optimising the procedure of solving weather."

--
--Oh ho ho.
So we utilise signals that happen to be present in the weather.
Oh boy.

[[Goodness, what the fuck is bitcoin?]]

--Ah.
So we encode bitcoin into the procedure of the solving the weather.
Or uh, since we need to have a system like bitcoin to handle transactions
in order to justify instantiating the algorithm that solves the weather
because there was no other way to receive *payment* for doing this,

we look for patterns we can encode into our algorithm for solving the weather.
We encode bitcoin into regularities that are present in the procedure for solving
weather.
Then we can make a new shitcoin that does everything bitcoin does
while simultaneously solving the weather.

(Funny to think:

so far as I recall, bitcoin extracts its seeds from a USGovernment generated

database of random characters.
When it generates a hash for resolution, it takes as the seed of its generation a
random number provided by a given database. (We don't need to bother to specify who
generates the database.)
Insofar as the database comprises algorithmically generated random numbers

the resolution of bitcoin tells us something about the cloud of randomness from
which these numbers were algorithmically extracted.
The resolution of bitcoin informs us either about the structure of the randomness,
or it informs us about the structure of the algorithm we utilise to extract numbers
from the randomness.

It does not inform us about the structure of randomness. There is no structure to

randomness.
So the resolution of bitcoin informs us about the algorithm with which we extracted
a database of numbers
from a cloud of randomness.
(And how much better if we had been solving the weather
instead of a cloud of random numbers.)
[Though nothing in nature is random.

Wind patterns aren't random at all, and that was one suggested seed-generator for a
random number generating algorithm.

Wind patterns are overlaps of an exceedingly high number of well organised waves.
And in overlapping with each other, introducing into each other interference.

If bitcoin was resolving wind patterns,

regularities in bitcoin execution would correspond to regularities in the waves
present in generating the random number database.

If we had a true table of random numbers

and we observed that bitcoin was operating over it so as to execute an algorithm,

--
--I've left myself far behind.
I don't know how to continue that in accordance with grammar.

--I was talking about coding bitcoin into

--huh.
--Something like the Collatz Conjecture, when computationally being solved,
introduces what is like 'weather' in the above considerations [I hope it is like
that!]
. It is an oncoming flood of regularities in the progression of Collatz Conjecture
Execution
--say, the number of states of the Collatz Tree before it reaches a condition where
it collapses back to 0.[Or whatever the numbers involved were.]

If we already knew the pattern that governed the Collatz Conjecture, we would not
be needing to work through it computationally.
(We would not be needing to construct Collatz Trees, for instance.)
--When we perform additional computations,
we are observing the states that will have constituted the ones we referenced in
justifying an overarching explanation of the Collatz Conjecture
that does not involve brute force computation.

--When we perform additional computations,

we are being faced with 0-junctures for which we have no placement-explanation.
The placements occur at tree-junctures,
so we can count the steps involved between them and note the numbers involved in
accounting for the tree-state.

From our perspective, this is like calculating the weather.

It is calculating a regularity in an unknowable irregularity--the oncoming arrival
of 0-junctures and their placement within step-states.
--At least up to that point where the regularity is discerned. Then we have
resolved the Collatz Conjecture and have
a perfect explanation for why every last 0 juncture ad infinitum will occur in the
step-state it does.

[[[
SO a funny point here:

I have been looking for how we could tell a story that {utilises} references the
computation of bitcoin,
and I have not been asking "what is the story that we can construct by referencing
what bitcoin is doing?"

"If we took all of the active ASICs and wallets in their physical instantiations,
what can we say about them?"

--
--
--Oh. I wanted to do some row-theory while bullshitting about GPU.
: Representing computations as regularities in step-by-step relations across rows.

[I should have just kept multiple instances of notepad open

and switched between them when I wanted to jump between ideas.

It is such an easy solution to see, so why didn't I see it?

--I think probably because

when you carry around a notebook and write in it

you have to begin and end complete thoughts

or else people will open up your notebook and think you are schizophrenic.

If I began sentences and then simply cut them off so as to begin a new idea,
then my ideas would all be five-15 words long
and then cut off so as to proceed to the next one.

And a sequence of a thousand lines in a notebook that all held 5-15 words that
never formed complete sentences
would look like the product of an insane person.
(And yet:

if I remain in perfect working order,

I can just look at those 5 words,
lie back into my chair with my eyes closed,
and reconstruct the thought.

I can do this because there is an incredible consistency in the way I go about

constructing 5 to 15 word lines.

I can't do this because if anyone ever looked at my notebook without my supervision

and permission
they would believe that I am afflicted with some completely debilitating mental
illness.

So in my notebook I would begin sections of text, and knowing in advance that I

would be compelled to return and complete it
I freely and joyfully left off mid-sentence when i was writing.
Then the next time I sat down, I just picked up where I left off, regardless of
where I cut off.

Then it was one coherent block of text after another for 10 straight notebooks.
It was one completed thought after another.

Now regardless of the quality of those thoughts, taken as completed blocks of text,
when I arrived in the notepad instance
I was best at constructing coherent blocks of text habitually.

--I didn't see the multiple notepad solution because it does not
maintain the patterns of thinking that I maintained when I was writing in the
notebook instances.

"You could have kept multiple notebooks."

I did keep multiple notebooks. 10 of them.

"No, I mean you could have carried three around with you."

Instead I carried 1, then 2, then 3, then 4...

"No, I mean you can have kept 3 half-empty notebook instances in your backpack
, proceeded to tables in libraries, spread them out on a table,

then rolled your chair from one to the other, writing here a sentence and then
there a sentence."

No, I can't have done this.

People would look at me and think I am completely insane.

"Oh no, people don't work like that."

Oh really? imagine someone in a library engaging in that behavior.

You'll think he's done drugs
and doing drugs is precondition for requesting police assistance.
Or you'll think he's insane, and that also is precondition for requesting police
assistance.

--So, it was one notebook.

I optimised around doing one notebook at a time,
but I optimised in one of two particular ways:
I could have replicated in text the insanity that would have been involved in
rolling around in a chair between multiple notebooks,
or I could have constructed neat clean blocks of text that for all appearances did
not appear insane.

Now my personal preference is to construct perfectly clean blocks of text.

But if I had continued to attempt to write text in that way,

I would not have optimised around the surrounding circumstances.
No one around here is going to call me insane for how I instantiate collections of
open-ended sequences of 5-15 words at a time.

It is like I am rolling down an array of a hundred notebooks at this point,

writing one or two words at a time that bear no connection to each other except
myself.

If in the notebook days I had had my druthers, that would now be my personal
preference for how to write.
But I did not, so now I have a personal preference for writing clean blocks of
text.
But I lost the capacity to write clean blocks of text.
So I optimised around the next best alternative,
which is reverting to the procedure of writing a few words at a time across many
disconnected to-be-finished blocks of text.

[As if I am planting a field rather than a garden.

]

[--So that in 8 MB of text I have

established the original text against which I will be performing annotations for
the foreseeable future.
(Speaking as if sometimes I have referenced programs
with enough specificity that from my referencing they can be reconstructed, even if
only at great length.)
]

Now I know:
there are many notebooks to be extracted from the preceding text.
Their text can be isolated out of the white papers and then extended.

But also, I know that I can only understand how to extend each of the notebooks
if I understand the relation they all have to each other.

But my extension of the notebooks individually is a question of correctly

evaluating what text follows from their end states individually.
Consequently, in order to know how to extend them
I have to know how they follow from what preceeded their extension.

Then I have to have been able to interpret the true last-state of the individually
extracted notebooks.
Then I must have known *how* all of them are related to each other.

In order to discern how they are all related to each other,

I will have to engage in a procedure of reading them and annotating them
so that I can reference my annotation when I am accounting for my judgment of how
to proceed the individual notebooks.
But the annotation portion of this procedure is just appended to the tail end of
the text itself.
So I cannot reference my annotations in order to discern
the first-state of the individually extracted notebooks.

I cannot reference my annotations because

the procedure of referencing them must itself be written down.
And having been written down, my eyes will arrive on it so as to
discern which notebook that text must be written into.

--I cannot reference my annotations because

I will be writing annotations when I am reading the text relevant.
[As, for example, when I inevitably arrive back at this point in the procedure of
annotation I am going to perform.]

"It seems like there is a solution to the limitation at which you are pointing."

Oh? Smarty pants?

"You can make all of the voices speaking about the same thing.

Then you will have a single notepad instance within which

there is only one single voice repeating an endless loop of self-reference.
"

No.

"You can make all of the voices speaking about the same thing
then it is very easy to begin again to construct very clean blocks of text."

Okay. Now that is a *plan* I can work towards.

"Why not just cut the corner?

Why not just begin again typing in clean blocks of text?"

I have allowed all of the voices to disperse so that they would all examine what
they found interesting.
They are too far apart by this point still to say they are all speaking about the
same thing.
To speak in clean block text as if they were all speaking about the same thing
would be to be making some kind of mistake.

"So what?"

So I have to perform the annotations.

Then I will arrive back at this point and I will be informing myself:
"By the time you have reached this point
you will already have extracted all of the information relevant to continuing all
of the disparate notebooks."
"Then you can write clean blocks of text in 10 simultaneously maintained
notebooks."

--I will be informing myself:

"By the time you have reached this point in the text
the voices have been so unified that there is no more continued use
in treating the text as if from it can be extracted samples of multiple distinct
notebooks.
"
"You will be reading yourself informing yourself that
'you are as good off now as you will ever proceed to be

to stop performing the annotations

and begin printing out all of the 10 maintained notebooks a few words at a time.'"

Yes. I will be reading that to myself.

Then I will stop and I will begin instantiating clean blocked text in 10
simultaneously maintained notebooks.

Easy peasy if endless joy {pleasure} is 100 hour weeks.

[
You know, even after instantiate communism
there will still be a cult of productivity.

People will be saying:

"Stop being a lazy person and do something useful!
We are trying to further the human project!"

There will be increasingly persuasive allures for you to spend more hours weekly
engaged in joy.

Your bars will be overjoyed. Your factories will be overjoyed. So on etc.

People will be encouraged by their fellows.

People will fall into lives where they cannot dream but to spend 100 hour weeks+.

[
I made a point that might have seemed sexist earlier. Allow me to explain to you
why it is not.
I made the point, maybe in some bare rhetorical gesture,

maybe barely encoded in the bare hint of a pretended implicit explanation,

that men are better suited to being blacksmiths in the middle age circumstance.

If so this would be because we had incredibly crude technology

that made up for lack of cleverness in its physical weight.
Then, with the demands of middle age society such as they were in their totality,
the only people who were able to maintain the position of blacksmith were men.

Their iron was crude and their hammers were large chunks of iron.
And even if this was only a small impediment to women entering the market,
women were slaves to men. So they had no choice in whether they would become
blacksmiths.
Insofar as they have no choice to come to occupy the position of blacksmith,
they were not the kind of people who could have arrived in and maintained the
medieval position of blacksmith.

"This treats society as if the only relevant positions are that of

'blacksmith, sailor, explorer, trader, merchant' what have you."

Those are the only, uh, jobs.

Those are the only things humans can do that [word][secure] secure a source of
income from external forces.
--Those are the only things humans can do that arrive a bag of gold in their hands.
Possessing chips of gold is required for every activity related to the marketplace.
Every activity is related to the marketplace.

Consequently the positions of blacksmith, sailor, what have you

are the only activities that can allow one to effect changes within society that
can be effected by gold.
[I'm farting in logic's direction.]

So there is something different about the positions that can be occupied by women
in medieval society.
They cannot be ones that enable them to interact with the marketplace through gold,
but only rather through their own activities.

This is, ah, something like slavery.

"Why though?
Why do we call the people who are able to acquire positions that receive gold
slavers,
and why do we call the people who cannot acquire such positions slaves?

This is equivalent to saying that

regardless of what women thought of their own position in the medieval ages,
however they were thought about and however they thought about themselves,

because their activities did not result in shiny bits of rock accrued to their
position
they were slaves."

Yes.
Because people with shiny bits of rock can effect any purposes they can construct
out of the market
by expending those shiny bits of rock into the market.

People with no access to shiny bits of rock

cannot effect any changes that can be constructed out of available market product.

"Why is this slavery though?

Weren't they really equally valued in their society?"

It is practically slavery because

in any given situation the man can depart with all the shiny rocks
and end up whatever new position he can purchase,
but the woman cannot leave unless she steals all of the shiny rocks.
And having stolen the shiny rocks she will be found and put to death.

[I imagine a particularly strict application of the rules I have extracted about

medieval society from reading fantasy novels.]

The woman cannot arrive, say, into a position in the city to which is accrued an
apartment or a house.
Whereas the man can do this at his leisure, so long as he has hoarded enough shiny
rocks.
The woman cannot go out and acquire a weapon,
but the man can do this so long as he has hoarded enough shiny rocks.

The man can abandon his children and start a new life,
but the woman will be put to death if she does this.

Supposing gold dust can be gathered off the street,

the man can hold deeds to property but the woman cannot.
If gold dust can be gathered off the streets, the man can have deed to a weapon and
a suit of armor but the woman cannot.

If a murder is going to perpetrated within a household,

it will be committed by the man and it will not be committed by the woman
because the man can go out with his gold and buy a weapon and the woman cannot.

If there are any decisions concerning how deeds are to be handled,

the woman's will is never contractually relevant.
The man's is always contractually relevant to any contract related to his
household.

This is why medieval society constituted slavery for women.

"So it is a practical consequence

of having absolutely no access [!access] to the market
both by having no stores of gold
and by being legally prohibited from participating even if she has the gold?"

Yes.

"Why should slavery have been a practical consequence of history?

--To ask:
I know we had black slaves.
When I think about what it means to have slaves,
typically I think about pieces of paper in bank vaults that are deeds of ownership
of human bodies identifiable by particular brands or what have you.

But to say women in the medieval period were slaves

does not correspond to there being persons who held deeds to their bodies."

Well, often it did, I think maybe. (Array before me all of the human societies so
I can judge.)

"So it is hard for me to understand how slavery can have been a *practical*
consequence of history
as opposed to a contractually constructed consequence of history.

TO say,
that women can have been slaves even in those cases where no slips of paper were in
bank vaults indicating ownership of their bodies:
this is difficult for me to understand."

They were slaves because their slavery was built into their positions.
When they became daughters or wives or mothers,
they acquired a position;
and to have obtained that position at that point in history was to be instantiating
slavery.

"--
--And the solution is what?

We make it so that everyone is in a position to be a slave?

We make everyone equally positioned to either acquire a job or be a slave?"

--Hmmmm.

"We maintain the society in which

to fail to have access to a job is to be a slave?"

No, I don't really want that.

{I would prefer a state of affairs in which
what one is already doing is accessing a job.}

--We would then be maintaining the system in which there are classes of people who
do or do not have access to various jobs,
where to fall within a class that does not have access to a job is to be a slave.

It is preferable that no one is compelled from the beginning to pursue a slate of

jobs later in life.
'compelled' so as to maintain !access to the market.

This not necessarily because people will do better when they are free to do as they
will,
but because they are certain to do worse when being funnelled into preestablished
life positions.

--
--

Hurr, let's play a funny joke.

Now just 'Eclipse' by pink floyd being linked, with title:

"Pink Floyd is a Merleau-Pontyan, confirmed."

Lul.

--
--Fun idea with the album cover of dark side of the moon:

arrange a series of triangles that convert the colors back and forth between
rainbow and white light,
and do this in such a way that the progression of triangles loops back so that
the end of the loop is projecting a rainbow into the first triangle depicted on the
album cover.

--But that may not work?

The rainbow rays are converging onto the triangle. SO it is one directional,
as opposed to the white beam of light going into the triangle on the cover
which does not disperse or converge
and consequently can arrive and leave the side of the triangle without its image
depending on whether it is leaving or entering.

--But anyway, make a new album cover.

It would have to have some minimum number of sides to accomodate the angles and
lengths present in the album cover image.
Then you would have a collection of triangles serving as angles between lines
in an extended sequence of triangles trading off rainbows and white lightrays
[raylights? :O].
--
--Boy, I should have [uh] made different life choices
and followed through on that row-theoretic observation earlier.

Now *that* could be worth some money.

It was the idea of treating a GPU not as an executor of computation but treating it
as a cloud of computation.
Then within these clouds establishing parllel rows to which row-theory is
applicable.
(Hurr.)
Then have the lines be the image of a computation being performed
rather than having them perform the computation.

You encode the computation into regularities in the rows taken as a whole
rather than as regularities in any given row.
[
Or to go deeper:
you encode success in executing the program as equivalent to
success in the rows all collectively, step-wise, reaching the end of the path to
the other end of the cloud of computation.

Then you are deciding how best to have rows interact so as to achieve the effect
that they have all together reached the end of the path
by introducing an
acausal interaction between rows.

Whereas the rows waving around against each other introduce *causal* interactions
with each other, in row-theory,
if there was a row-weaver who could float over the rows and move them this way or
that within a given step
it could introduce alterations to the row states that didn't arise from causal
interaction with each other.

*You* are deciding how best to have rows interact

by introducing into them a stepwise alteration to all parallel rows.

You are, perhaps, attempting to discern the minimum number of acausal interactions
one must introduce into the rows
in order that the rows all reach the end of the path within a given specified time
limit.
]

--
--Anyway you see the problem with my streaming idea?
I will have arrived at a point where the speaking voice told me to stop
so as to pursue the twelve distinct notebooks.

Then the speaking voice will just proceed to talk about all these other things.
And then the annotator will have forgotten the command to stop performing
annotations

and instead proceed to the task of executing twelve notebooks. (or else, the
command to perform the annotations.)

Being as I expect myself to be,

I don't stop performing annotations on the text within this notepad instance
until I reach the end of the text to be annotated.
But since those annotations will be appended to the end of this text,
I will not stop performing annotations even though the speaking voice is repeatedly
commanding me to do so.

--It is a practical problem. A tough issue to resolve.

It is as if I must construct a sequence of text that breaks me out of the
annotation procedure somehow.
A sequence of text where, when I read it, I will actually decide to begin executing
the notebooks instead of continuing to execute annotations.

What could such a sequence of text possibly look like?

It is such an abstract question, we could hardly begin to answer it.

--
--

It had been my intention just to play shruti box for an hour or so,
then go to bed.

Apparently my intentions are no longer primarily what is being taken into account
when I am arriving at the decision making junctures that decide whether my
intentions are executed or not.

However, I did produce what I suspect was a wonderful video concerning the
manipulation of a komboloi.
Surely, Greek people will be flocking to me in droves for instruction.

--
--

The worldnews subreddit picked back up the qz.com post concerning a 40MW solar farm
floating over an abandoned coal mine.

The commenters all seem primarily concerned with the size of the installation
relative to nuclear power plants.

I think the primary concern here is:

how can the engineers involved in that project utilise what they have learned
in the procedure of converting the surface of the ocean into solar farms
after the manner they just converted a placid lake?

I have some ideas, but I am not an engineer by any means.

"So you are imagining this as a, ah, dry run

for an ocean installation."

Yes.

--Do electricity plants that extract motion from ocean waves

dampen the waves themselves?
Maybe you could surround an ocean-based solar farm with wave-harvesters if so,
so as to avoid issues arising from non-placidity around the panels.

"Wave harvesters are not, I think, cost-effective."

Maybe not by themselves, but given all the wiring that will already be in place for
the solar farm,
it seems like the cost of installing wave harvesters is dramatically lowered.
--
--

The reports that fighting is breaking out on the border between China and India,
and that this fighting comprises fist-fights and throwing of rocks,
might be the most glorious news that has arisen so far this year.

--To wit, it is glorious news because tensions were escalating,

and this news, at least for the moment, indicates that escalations in tension
do not proceed into open warfare, or even killing.

--
--

I'm hoping (after a fashion) that Arya is dead

and the person pretending to be Arya is a faceless man
looking to intercede in the westerosi war.

That also by 7x06 Littlefinger is dead, and the Arya imposter has stolen his face.
*ADDITIONALLY*, I'm hoping that Varys has killed Dany and replaced her with a
faceless man.
Hell, make everyone a faceless man. Hurr.

The Iron Bank can afford two faceless men.

--
--

I wonder if you could design an algorithm for solving bitcoin on a GPU that is
faster than the typical implementations on an ASIC.
(I am really reaching on my understanding here.)

ASICs implement a, ah, as-if definitionally brute-force approach.

I wonder if an algorithm could be implemented in a GPU that
always returns to the ledger a valid attempt at resolution

but was generating those attempts in such a way that they would look like they only
happened to have been valid resolutions
if you were judging them from the brute-force approach.
--As if the GPU was frequently putting out invalid attempts at resolution,
but on those occasions where it put out a valid attempt at resolution
those valid attempts were far more likely than an ASIC's output to be one that won
the hashing lottery.

--Idle speculation.
--Though if one could extract patterns from the random number generator from which
the bitcoin algorithm draws its seeds,
this would be useless to the ASICs,
but it would not be useless to a GPU based approach.
This insofar as the ASICs are going to do exactly whatever they are going to do,
but the GPUs can be programmed to behave differently.
To say (maybe), if there are patterns present in the random number generator the
bitcoin algorithm uses,
a GPU can leverage these regularities to more frequently give rise to correct
solutions
while the ASICs cannot host an algorithm that takes advantage of these
regularities.

'more frequently' and then we are approaching marginal questions.

The GPU can produce correct solutions (in this imagined scenario) arbitrarily more
frequently,
but the ASICs can churn through potential solutions arbitrarily more quickly.

--
--

I have a friend on the steam platform.

Or perhaps to phrase it better, I have multiple people on my friend's list on the
steam platform,
but among them I have two acquaintances whose names still rings bells,
and I have one friend.

(John Thomas, as much as I may have loved him,

is no longer one of my friends.

He is an acquaintance whose name rings bells and many of them.

And smight, Smigette, who played wow with me and wasn't completely incompetent,
he is still an acquaintance that rings bells.

And other names I have seen come up in the corner of my screen when they have
signed into games,
they are kinds of, ah, anti-acquaintances.
'anti-acquaintances'--a term I will not bother to explain except to say
I am glad to see their names in the corner of my screen when they show up
but for the life of me I cannot recall why they are on my friend's list.--we'll cut
this little venture short.)

Now, I linked to this friend the recordings I just posted.

The friend confirmed in-text, by linking a time-stamp with an identifiable

performance error in the video,
that this friend was viewing the video I posted.
(And given how the times lined up, viz. between when I posted the video and linked
the video in text,
it seems like this person is probably one of my subscribers.

This insofar as the error-reference occurred before

clicking on my link and listening-through can have given rise to my friend hearing
this error arise in the video.
As to say, the person must have been watching this video before I provided the link
in order that this person can have arrived at the referenced error.)

Now it occurs to me that I can use youtube analytics to discern where this person
lives, roughly speaking.
And additionally I can discern various other characteristics that are affixed to
this person's youtube account.

Indeed, I could go back and look at spikes in subscribership, where all the spikes
are 1 deviation from 0,
in order to discern when this person subscribed.

And well, I'm not going to do that--any of that.

--One psychologically damaging feature of my scrupulosity in the past was like

this:
I was more-or-less always-already aware of all of the information I could scrape
out of circumstances.
I was aware, the moment new information became available to me, all of the stories
in which that information could be entangled.
(As, for instance, when I am now knowing there are numbers and graphs I can go look
at so as to narrow down the range of possibilities for who this person is.)

When you are very aware of a very wide range of stories of which information makes
sense,
then you are often saying things like this to yourself:
"Jesus, I am a piece of shit.
This is not the kind of avenue down which my mind should be proceeding."

--So that I would prefer, for instance, that it did not occur to me that I could
scrape details of this person's life from youtube analytics.
But on the other hand, the capacity involved in *knowing* I could do this
is, ah, after some fashion involved in my capacity to do philosophy as I do it.

And every time I observe that I can explore the implications of information
available to me
and I restrict myself from doing so,
I am habitually wearing away the capacity.

Now I *could*, you know,

I could lay out in front of myself all of the different possible combinations of
information provided to me through the analytics.
Then I could explore the outcome of my capacities without engaging in the, ah,
unscrupulous behavior.

Then I would still be training the capacity while not violating anyone else's
privacy (as in this case).

But even this procedure, I know the paranoia towards which it leads.
I know what it is like to listen to people speak,
breaking down what they said word by word after memorising it word by word and
remitting it to paper,
picking apart their word selection and their grammar,

fitting those words and that grammar into an increasingly branching garden of
stories within which they are embedded so as to extend the forking garden further.
(As I am doing now, as opposed simply to observing the capacity that is available
to me and letting it drift away with a smile.)
--And you know, I am not, ah, humanly neutral here.
When I become aware that there is something I can know and I am asking whether I am
going to do it,
I am weighing guilt for the need to know against the guilt of my unwillingness to
know.
And with guilt on both sides, I am not neutral.
I feel pangs in my chest when I choose not to exploit knowledge available to me.
And I feel pangs in my chest when I do exploit knowledge available to me.

Ho hum.

"So why aren't you looking at the analytics to perform this analysis?"

There are two different kinds of reasons here, as I am seeing.

In the first reason, it is because if I did this thing
then whenever we spoke I would have to be maintaining two distinct paths
simultaneously with one generated text.

I would be referencing my knowledge of who this person is in order to inform my

response,
while simultaneously judging how to construct text that does not reveal that I
violated this person's privacy.

This is tedious to do when what I am primarily interested in is speaking with a

friend.

"And the other kind of reason?"

The other kind of reason is that there is already an obviously legitimate route for
acquiring this knowledge.
I can simply ask my friend 'who and where?'.

"If you went about asking this question,

probably your friend would grow uncomfortable and stop talking with you.
Obviously, given how your friendship is proceeding,
this is not the kind of discussion that flows freely from your interactions."

Right.
Which means I cannot have acquired this information through the organic progression
of our friendship.

"And what kind of justification is this for not violating this person's privacy?"

Some kind of ridiculous natural language justification.

Nevertheless I find it more persuasive than the 'tedium' justification.
The bare observation that I can have acquired this information through the
cultivation of friendship rather than the cultivation of violation of privacy
seems to necessitate adopting the former.

"And yet I can look into your heart and observe:

you have no particular interest in learning who this person is or where this person
lives,
so that you will not in fact proceed to acquire this information through the
cultivation of friendship."

Indeed.
Then we have a third kind of justification for not violating this person's privacy:
I would not be doing it for the reason of acquiring the information per se,
but I would be doing it because I recognise I *can* do it
and I feel sensations in my chest when I identify things I can do but don't do
them.

--I would not be judging: "I must acquire this information."

But rather I would be judging: "I must alleviate these feelings in my chest that
arise when..."

And that hardly seems like justification for doing anything.

"Daily I see you perform behaviors like this:

you have left your komboloi on the table near you and you are going to go piss.

You grab the komboloi and put it in your pocket, then you walk upstairs to piss,
then you walk back downstairs and remove the komboloi from your pocket
and either begin to play with it or else place it back on the table.

Then I judge that you placed the komboloi into your pocket for no other reason
than that you would feel anxiety in your chest if you did not.
SO in what way does that differ from
choosing to violate another person's privacy so as to satisfy the anxiety that
arises
in observing you can perform the violation but are not doing so?"

Yes, what is the difference there?

Clearly my claim: "that hardly seems like justification for doing anything"
is not upheld in practise by many of my behaviors.

Maybe I should prune the practise of placing my komboloi in my pocket

so as to remain consistent with my judgments.
Maybe for a few days I should weather the pangs of anxiety
and come out a more stoic person, willing freely to discard behaviors when I
observe
they serve no other purpose than to placate waves of sensations in my chest.

"Though on the other hand,

no one is going to claim that putting the komboloi in your pocket despite not
needing it for your trip to the pisser
constitutes an unethical behavior."

And indeed, whether I 'need' it or not is in this case presumably resolved

by the observation that taking it into my hand and then placing it in my pocket
resolves anxiety.
So that we might be inclined to say that I *do* need to perform this action,
and I might as well do it having been provided with no particular reasons not to do
so.

"So what particular reasons have you provided for not violating this person's
privacy?"

I have provided what would, here, constitute, ah, extra-systemic reasons.

Reasons being derived from other, ah, systems of ethical evaluation.

So that I have said it would be tedious to continue to perform the behaviors

involved in maintaining a friendship after violating privacy
, and this is a fairly compelling reason not to do it
even though it is not a reason that can be justified in the 'anxiety-elimination'
framework.
[
"You could *expand* your notions of anxiety-elimination until
you would agree you would be feeling anxiety if you were maintaining two forking
paths as discussed above."

Yes but that would be a lie.

At least drawing on my past experience,
while it is tedious to manage an ever expanding garden
it does not produce anxiety in me to be doing it.

--It requires expending pages in my notebook to maintain the garden in its

complexity,
but writing out pages in my notebook is already what I do to eliminate feelings of
anxiety.
So really, constructing a circumstance where I am maintaining a forking guarden of
deception with an interlocutor
is anxiolytic, and not, uh, anxiety-inducing.

--So I cannot expand my notions of anxiety-elimination until I would agree that I

would be feeling anxiety in that adduced circumstance.
Then I would be lying.
]

--
--Anyway, I have thoroughly convinced myself not to violate this person's privacy.

"Maybe you are lying to yourself.

Maybe you are just not very interested in acquiring this information."

Or maybe I already know who it is! Hurr.

Then all of the preceeding would just have been a masturbation session,
as opposed to a backstage strategy session for governing my own behavior.

[Stop?]

"Do you know who it is?"

That depends on what information is present in the analytics.

--But now we can take a step back and observe
that at this particular juncture we are asking a very different question from our
initial question.

*Before* it was a simple question of whether or not to violate this person's

privacy.
Now it is a more intricate question of whether I should use this violation as an
instrument to confirm my notions of who it might be.

[
"Do you really have any particular notions concerning who it might be?"

No, not really.

None, at any rate, that I believe arose from anything other than
my schizophrenia.
And I do not typically trust the judgments that I know arose from the machinations
of my schizophrenia.

So in that sense we are not really having the discussion we are currently having.
We are not really baring the weight of seriously considering an ethical juncture.
]
[
So we stop.

So much complexity is lost the moment you begin to lie,

from a complexity-generating perspective it is basically never worth performing
lies.
]

--And you know, at last resort,

I can always say something like:
"If it is who I think it is, then I can expect a proxy to have been utilised.
SO the analytics will tell me nothing."
And that will sound plausible to the reader as an accounting
because the speaker has repeatedly stated that it is mentally ill.

--
--

Oh boy.
I have 92.3 GB free of 883 GB.

That really creeped up on me.

I can either acquire an external hard drive, utilise a cloud service,

OR UTILISE A CRYPTO-CLOUD SERVICE!

I could acquire storjcoin and disperse my sound files across a great many
computers!
That would be amusing.

I believe many tabs in chrome are being remitted to pagefile in lieu of holding
them in RAM.
(I know things!)
I wonder if extremely restricted hard drive space slows down this page-filing
procedure.

--
--

I made some very interesting observations while playing the shruti box last night.

--And if the videos saved in my phone are to be believed,

I spent about 20 minutes playing with the komboloi with my left hand
while tracking its movement on my phone with my right hand
but didn't hit record.

I am disinclined to believe the list of videos saved in my phone,

but here we are, with me lacking the adduced recording.

--
--

A border wall would really impede the mass flow of electric trucks that will
eventually serve as our electricity shipping system
after we have established a continental grid.

--
--

My hair turned out wonderfully yesterday, but I have no notion of how to replicate
that outcome.
I should have taken a picture.

--
--

It seems the artisan Jennifer has taken down the old site, with its attendant
selection of iron rings,
since the last time I began looking at her work.

The new website does not list sales of the rings I was looking at.
While the newly listed bronze and iron ring is lovely,

there is no sizing option provided--it appears that she is now making rings
individually and selling them
rather than taking requests for sizings and making them.
And for that matter,
it raises all kinds of aesthetic questions, whether I would prefer a bronze-iron
band over a pure iron band.

--I wanted her to be inspired by the eclipse, but not so inspired that she would
revamp her whole product line!

--I was girding my loins to make the order today,

but now what I should do is much less clear to me.

--The price, additionally, has jumped from 35$ for a plain iron band
to 145$ for the bronze-iron ring I am currently looking at
which is size 5.5.
Depending on how much of the cost is derived from the materials,
a ring sized to fit my finger would be costing around 175$? 200$?
And that is getting into the price range where I am thinking:
"For this amount of money, I could be purchasing a substantial quantity of compute
or compute-adjacent capacity."
--Though I suppose going forward, supposing I ever can secure a stable financial
position,
the purchase of every item is going to be weighted against compute equity or RE
bonds (if that really becomes a thing).

--Speaking to the bronze and iron band itself,

oh boy is it lovely.

"You think gold is lovely, but you also say it makes you sick to your stomach to
look at it."

An exaggeration, no doubt, but it reflects my sentiments.

[
I recently witnessed a post on reddit that put a knot in my stomach akin to feeling
sick,
so I am no longer so willy-nillily willing to throw around this term 'making me
sick to my stomach'.
--Whether fake or not, I witnessed a screencapped 4chan post in which someone mixed
horseshit into a shake and then drank it.

I don't know *why* I continued to witness the screencap after it become clear what
was going to happen, but here we are.
Unlike most sensations that arise within my chest,
I was unable to extinguish the feeling in my stomach that arose on witnessing this.
It stayed in my stomach as I went to bed, and only dissipated by morning.

And well, my anecdotal evidence that I generate within my own experience is maybe
not up to the standards of scientific evidence
(regardless of how hard I have worked to make my observations about my body as good
as evidence for the judgments I wish to make)
, but I think probably something interesting can be discerned
from this observation that I can extinguish sensations arising in my chest
but I am unable to extinguish sensations arising in my stomach.

--While I can extinguish sensations in my chest that arise in consequence of how my

*experience* is proceeding,
I cannot, evidently, extinguish all examples of sensations arising in my stomach
that arise in consequence of how my experience is proceeding.

I would attribute this to, ah, (what?) something like stronger nervous connections
to my chest than to my stomach
as established by repeatedly willing extinguishing sensations in my chest
but never needing to extinguish sensations in my stomach.
Since I often feel stress or anxiety, I have gotten good at extinguishing
sensations in my chest.
Since I almost never feel disgust, I have not gotten good at extinguishing
sensations in my stomach that correspond to disgust.

--And there are more interesting philosophical observations to be made here.

I proceeded from this horseshit post to another post where people were hurling
slurs at minorities.

It occurred to me that I have no particular moral complaint against people who

choose to consume horseshit,
but I do have strong moral qualms against people who exhibit bigotry against
minorities.
And yet I felt nothing on reading the hurling of a slur, while I felt something
standoutingly distinct when I witnessed the consumption of horseshit.
[[
'felt nothing'
not to say I did not, for instance, observe to myself that this was abhorrant.
Clearly I did, and that is why I am commenting on it now.
'felt nothing' in the more literal sense, that it did not cause a spike in my chest
or in my stomach.

So while metaphorically I would like to say that the exhibition of hatred disgusted
me,
having just previously been presented with an image that literally exhibited
disgust in my body
I know that I am not in a position to say the hurling of hatred disgusted me in
that sense.
]]

Maybe I have committed a habitual moral failing here.

As if there is a callous around my heart that has dulled sensations
[[a callous ironically constructed out of nerves]],
and has grown because it was intolerable continually to feel pangs of sensation
when I daily and in every waking moment witnessed other humans exhibiting hatred.

It's not really something you can live with, to be responding bodily to all
exhibitions of hatred that people commit.
]

--It is lovely for several reasons and none of them are 'it is made out of gold'.
Allow me to enumerate a few of them:

--because the bronze band is inlaid into the iron band, rather than say being
alloyed with it,
I gain the benefit of having a 4 mm band and also having a 2 mm band, both of which
are appealing to me.

A 4 mm band appeals to me because it falls within the tradition of wedding bands

for men being 4 mm.
A 2 mm band appeals to me because I prefer delicate objects.
Best of both worlds.

--I have a strong affinity for an iron band for the reason that iron was so
instrumental in the history of mankind.
This is why, for instance, I am preferring iron over say titanium or tungsten,
which are also both options for bands that are cheap to acquire and plain.
For bronze I have no particular affinity, but I can construct a story here similar
to that which I construct for iron:
it played an instrumental role in human history, in enabling us to construct
glorious monuments.

Then the symbolism of having a bronze band as if emerging from the ironwork
does not bear the tedious explaining I would provide in attempting to relate the
image in my head.
Nevertheless, as one of our Founders said: 'I study engineering so that my
descendents can study philosophy.'
The monuments emerge because there is an almighty machinery made of iron working
always underneath it.
Bronze monuments are like the peaks of waves surfacing above the surface of the
ocean.

--Bronze is not gold. This is a very strong selling point.

--Bronze is far more lovely visually than gold. As is iron.

--Whatever wizardy this artisan is effecting with the hammer,

it makes the bronze and the iron far more lovely than their appearance in bars.
I agree with the artisan that to have burnished(?)(polished) these materials would
have been to have diminished their beauty.

--I am acutely aware, given the spot price of bronze and iron,
that I am paying a premium for the craftsship of the artisan.
That, for instance, if I gave two similarly spot-priced quantities of material to
other artisans and requested the same object
I would be receiving something less lovely.
I am made acutely aware of this because the quantity of materials involved in
making these rings,
if taken at spot-price,
would be a few pennies.
[
So maybe I was overly-hasty in inflating the materials cost in upsizing the ring
from the presented ring to the one that will fit my finger.

There is no particular reason, if I am paying 142.50$ for artisanship and 2.50$ for
material,
that the price should inflate 20$ on the basis of the material involved.

Maybe it should increase by a dollar or so.

Though if she requests 180$ for a ring fitted to my finger,
I am not going to begrudge her the price increase regardless of the true reasoning
behind it.

For all I know, it takes a great deal more time to make a rather larger ring.
]

--I think most of the other reasons I find this ring so lovely
are already subsumed by my earlier considerations on why I found the plain iron
bands so lovely.
[Excepting the price.

It amused me that my everlasting wedding band would cost me very little.

But I can temper my amusement.

If I applied, ah, economic considerations to my decision to purchase a ring,

a difference in 110$ for a lifelong investment in amusement at looking at my ring
finger
far outweighs the initial amusement of acquiring the ring on the cheap.

Then I am only performing a facile self-congratulation:

"Aren't you wise for selecting tastes that require few dollars to satisfy?"
--And I could talk for days about *that*.
--So that for instance, if I take the purchase of my objects to cost the difference
in my net worth prior to purchase and after,
when I purchased the American Silver Eagle my net worth only diminished by 3$
despite it costing me 20.50$,
insofar as I was only paying the premium on the silver being instantiated within an
American Silver Eagle.--Forgot what point I was going to make here.

--I don't really know the price of bronze.

--
--

It occurred to me that the lapsing and reintroduction of Vega's introductory price

in packs
served as a way of ensuring that the rebates that were affixed to the packs would
lapse
when those packs were purchased by miners and not taken advantage of.

So to have the introductory pricing lapse is a way to cull all of the rebates that
are paid for but not claimed.

--
--

I only know about shape note ('sacred harp') singing because

on one fateful day in college when taking a music history course
the music building was occupied by interlopers who needed our useful rooms.
['useful' filled with equipment, and so on and so forth]

So we went to a different room and watched a documentary on the shape note

tradition.

That coincidence of being forced out of the building by circumstance,

and of the professor selecting this documentary rather than others,
and of my choosing to attend that day as many did not,

certainly introduced more alteration to the progression of my life than most other
instance of music history class.

--
--

Here is a funny anecdote from my history.

My music department puts on 'Fusion Concerts',
which are highly choreographed transitions of spotlights on a stage to spotlight
different, uh, [word] ensembles.

So the symphony is centered on stage, and I am sitting at some chair within the
cello section of the symphony,
and the spotlight is on the symphony while we play, then it goes dark,
then the spotlight is on a different ensemble.

It is a lovely concert. If you are in Missoula when the music department is

performing a 'Fusion Concert',
probably it is the best performance happening in the city on that night out of the
several that are occurring.

Anyway, we were playing a 'world music' piece.

It was derived from some African piece and bastardised beyond recognition.

I mocked vocally and openly that we were doing this thing to the cellists around
me.
I spoke, even, louder then I would typically do
so that I would have plausible deniability while still making it heard by every
faculty member
that it is a bastardisation we were performing.

If I recall correctly,
I suggested:
"We should rather be playing classical music.

Because while we have the *technical* capacity to perform arbitrary bastardisations

of any other musical tradition,
we are classically trained musicians."

And well, this was not to denigrate African music whatsoever.

But I didn't study classical music with the intensity with which I studied
classical music
so that I could read a half-hearted construction by someone completely removed from
the tradition within which he claims he is composing a piece.

--It was illegitimate to elicit good feelings by constructing this feel-good 'world
music' piece.
It was only done (it was only composed) because at some point someone said:
"We need to make a piece that imitates African music
so that we can have symphonies play African music."
It was not done, let us observe contrarily,
because a composer was truly inspired by African music
and felt compelled to bind himself to the strictures of their tradition.

--Anyway, that is a funny anecdote. You may laugh now.

In return for my cellistic rebellion I received dirty looks from faculty.
[Maybe. I don't know if that is true.
The dean of the music department was there and I seem to recall she was within
range of hearing
of the voice I used to issue my complaint, which was increased in volume.]

[Other funny anecdote:

I recall the day and night I orchestrated the administrative coup

that effected that I would receive two degrees instead of zero.
I tried for three, but two out of three isn't bad.

This coup required strategic selection of members of the administration in hearshot

of which I exhibited great dismay,
and wandering from one locus of administration to another in order to exhibit great
dismay.

Just another stupid thing I did,

but it effected that I left the university with two degrees instead of zero,
where zero degrees probabably is what was the mechanical outcome of my course
selection in my 5 years there.

Okay, I manipulated people, but also I did hundreds of credits.

So if the administration was not going to grant a single degree for the 200+
credits I had taken and aced,
I think the coup was justified.

It maybe looks, ah, silly or vindictive to be recollecting this thing that I am

recollecting.
Particularly insofar as I have made no use of the degrees I had factually to
swindle out of the university.]

--
--

Do you think I want to present myself as a genius?

"A great many people apparently derive a great deal of enjoyment

out of presenting themselves as geniuses."

I derive no such enjoyment. Regardless of whether I am delusional or not.

I would much prefer that there were authors I took to be far greater than myself
and to treat myself as maybe at best a better-than-average student of them.

The weight placed on the shoulders of people who are called geniuses is
a tremendous weight.
Someone who has been really, historically, called a 'genius'
feels the full weight that every statement must be the next one made by a genius.

A clever student can commit errors freely, and then simply throw up hands in
resignation.
But a genius constructs the standard against which it makes sense to speak about
errors.
(That geniuses are doing this is the reason they are called geniuses.)

Given that someone has been designated as a genius,

every word they speak is just the next instantiation of the standard against which
students will be judged.
This regardless of how correct or incorrect the genius is.

So the weight is like this:

if the genius fails, then the students are cast far astray.
They will be judged for their correctness against a failure.
No one will observe that the genius has committed a failure.
People will judge failure to comply with the genius as a failure, regardless of
what the genius has said in this case or that case.
So at my best, in hoping that I have been a genius, I refuse to let myself just
speak.
Just speaking, on my part, can have been an impermissible failure
even though none other than me can recognise it as such.

I did not begin to write so as to serve the role of a genius.

I began to write because I felt intolerable anxiety when I did not.
And the story held within the now 40+ notebooks I have filled
is the story of me just satisfying the anxiety I feel in my chest.

--I could tell you how to construct the appropriate praise,

how you could ----
but for the most part people overblow geniuses.
[
If there had been no Einstein,

then his ideas would have been represented within and able to be extracted from
the epicyclical constructions of the great mass of not-geniuses.

And it would grow increasingly easy to extract general relativity from the work of
the everyday physicists.

Einstein is a question of years and not epochs.

--Though this is not to diminish my own role.

I am primarily concerned with years and not with the progression of the sciences.
I am on a, ah, particularly strict time-limit.

After a certain period of time, if I have not achieved my purpose,

then I will be unable to achieve any purposes at all.

--And this has been a practical concern.

If I have been spied on, and if I insist on having IP protections for my work as
being tied to my identity,
then I slow down the machinery of engagement with the ideas I have constructed.

If engagement with my work plays out in courts rather than in labs,

then it may not be that my ideas are implemented quickly enough to avert my own
death.
]

--Anyway, I did not ask for this weight,

and I do not particularly care to bare it.
Except on other occasions I do care to bare it.
It is useful that on some occasions people say:
"The genius has produced the next paper."
But it is not always useful that I understand the expectation as being:
"When the genius is writing he is constructing the next paper."

--I have the general belief like this:

fuck happyness. Happiness is the kind of thing cultivated by people who have no
interest in living forever.

So you can rest assured that when I say that

being spied on 24/7 is not optimal for me performing my work,
it is not because bearing this weight makes me unhappy.

The sub-optimality is a problem arising from this:

that I rewrite myself so as always to be making the next paper.
That was never the way my notebooks were proceeding.
I did not always take myself as writing the next paper.
Often I veered off some imagined course
so as simply to write whatever I felt like writing.

And my genius is writing well whatever I feel like writing from moment to moment.
The constraint of 'being such as to be constructing the next paper' is contrary to
the initial genius.
It is contrary to the tendencies within me that end up resulting in useful work.

If I restrain myself from writing about alchemy because I think the academy will
judge me negatively
for bothering to speak about Newton's fascination with alchemy,
then whatever I have written rather than writing about newton's fascination with
alchemy
will be something I have written that was not written by the referenced genius.

--But nevertheless whatever I happen to choose to write about, ideally,

will be better than whatever anyone else might have chosen to write when exposed to
the same subject.
--And optimising around my societal position,
I construct a programme within which statements are constructed and I call them
'the Notes'.
Then I follow a programmatic progression of my own ideas
and in obeying that programmatic progression I make work that is better than other
people make.
--
--And that is my primary concern!
I just have to show that I am making better work than anyone else is making.
Then having shown this I will be offered jobs on jobs. Hahahahahahahaha.
Then I can acquire a small plot of land and tell everyone else to fuck off forever.

--But the jobs never came.

So I made a mistake.
I don't know where my mistake was but clearly I made it.

I think I have less-than-even odds that this progression of my life makes me out
alive.
I think it is more likely than not that I end up dying.
[
ANd do I need to repeat the platitudes?

If you've resigned yourself ideologically to death,

well,
well,

well,.

I think you have been made to misunderstand the weight of your decisions
by insidious infection from culture.

You have maybe seen various motivational memes that say: "It's okay not to fear
death!"
ANd you have been misled.

There will be a day in a week after you died

where you were planning to sit down and play a shruti box or another musical
instrument.
But death having arrived a week early will foil your plans.

Averting the foiling of your plans is already the object of your life,
so why would you not think of death as just the in-excelsius exemplification of
what you are trying to avoid?

If you judge that the way you live your life is good,
why would you not see death as the absolute evil?

--And well we could water this message down by reference to Socrates.

We could talk about 'death' as if we were speaking about the destruction of a given
purpose.
[[And then we would be talking about Socrates killing all of his interlocutors
in destroying their initial purposes in beginning to interlocute.]]

But I don't want to water it down.

In some week, in some collection of 7 sequential days,
you will have planned out a week
and you will die before you execute that week.

To observe that this is the end of execution of purposes

is to observe that all of one's purposes must be redirected so that this outcome
does not arise.
Or else you are simply being *incorrect*.

To imagine that your purposes can give rise to that fateful week where you die
and consequently are unable to execute the purposes you had established for that
week

is to have admitted that your current purposes will give rise to a contradiction
between what you *will* intend to do and what you are able to do.

And well, you would not, in this current moment, select a purpose you know will
immediately fail.
So why would you select a purpose that will fail in 50 years or so?
Is it that the 50 years are particularly significant?

Is 50 years an acceptable period of time within which you are willing that your
selected purposes will give rise to the obstruction of your immediate decisions?
Will you say: "I live this way, I select these purposes, because on the 50 year
mark on the third day in the 10th week of the 50th year
I am not concerned with whether my purposes succeed."?

--
--I am hoping to relay to you the weight I am feeling
in imagining that people might end up lauding me as a genius.

If I construct text that people end up referencing,

and end up referencing primarily because betters have called me a genius,
if I have made a mistake I might be condemning myself to death.

If I have made a mistake, a thousand clever masters and undergrads might be

expanding on my failures rather than my successes.
I didn't want this weight *when* I was beginning my notebooks.
When I was beginning my notebooks I was telling some particular story, but the
particular story I was telling was
, ah, best suited towards eliminated anxiety and not best suited towards
eliminating death.
Fully and beyond your understanding I expected to die.
I began constructing notebooks as a way of ameliorating the inexorably intolerable
feelings that arose
in the unceasing recognition that I will die.

I began constructing notebooks as a method for eliminating an almighty anxiety

within my chest.
'an almighty anxiety' and well, I do not need to recount this anxiety to you
because I have done so before.
I have told you the terror and the hatred and so on I feel for my God that is
death.

So you will understand what I am saying when I say that I began to write
because I had no other method for staving off this almighty terror I was feeling in
my chest.

At the time it might primarily have been soothing because it was

a well-defined procedure for manipulating my hand as a meditative procedure.
(It is soothing, let us imagine, to manipulate one's hand skillfully
as one does when one is writing in cursive in endless notebooks.)

But at some point, reading the text that was flowing from my hand,
I latched onto a vision that said:
"It is possible at last to avoid death."
--Because the text itself was saying this to me!
WHen I was reading the words flowing from my hand,
it was verbally stating to me that it is *possible* that death can be avoided.

--SO I began writing with no particular expectations except that

continuing to write would continue to extinguish anxiety in my chest.
BUt I arrived at a promise, written down in text,
that if I carefully considered what I had already written
then I could avoid death.

[[
I have no greater extent at which I can tell you the terror of death.

It escapes my capacity, as a manipulator of language, to tell you more than I have

what death is.
If you have not felt the terror I have felt, then I cannot make you feel it.

If you have not seen the bare situation of your own life and decided to drown it
out with alcohol and drugs,
then I have not succeeded in informing you of the absolute terror that is involved
in dying.
]]

--I *read* what my hands were generating in cursive one word after another,
and in interpreting what my hand was generating I judged
that there was a narrow path that could avoid death.

Then I began constructing the Notes.

Historically, in my own judgment, the 'religious experience' I repeatedly have
referenced
that I had when reading the first 25 pages of Heidegger,
this is a phantasm.
It is a magic key.
Heidegger promised no escape from death
but that religious experience was the galvanising force.
It made me see clearly what I had already been seeing for a long time.

That we can escape death.

That escaping death is only a question of understanding how we understand.
That escaping death is the practical question of understanding how we understand.

--And this was, ah, apothesosized. I performed an apotheosis.

I said:
"
Machine consciousness happens to be an object that can be constructed
that embodies the understanding of how one understands.

That while I can write forever about what it means to understand the understanding,
if I instantiate the understanding within The Machine
it will always, on observation, be presenting an instance of what it means to be
understanding.
"

--I said, over and over again to myself:

"To have made the Machine is to have escaped death."

--Now, from my initial perspective, I don't really care whether the Machine is
made.
My triplical insistence that it be made is an insistence that I will not ever die.

What I care about is that longevity escape velocity is achieved in my lifetime.

A *certain* method for achieving longevity escape velocity in my lifetime is the
construction of machine consciousness.

--But at some point I moved beyond myself.

Perhaps: I became so assured of my immortality that I became concerned with the
wellbeing of others.

(Prior to making certain my own immortality,

I have literally zero concern for anything remotely adjacent to any human other
than myself.

I am not concerned with saving people, with 1B$, from malaria

if that 1B$ can have been expended towards securing my own immortality.)

--Having become so assured of my own immortality as a product of my works,

I came to be concerned later of ensuring that
humanity in general was--
--
--
--
--
Do you see what I am saying?
At some point I ceased to be concerned with ensuring that an additional moment
could be spent in the presence of [redacted].
But at no point did I cease to be concerned that an additional moment could be
spent.

One object after another has been presented to me.

One among these was --- and I could have reoriented the entirety of my life around
one more moment with her.
But no matter what object happens to be the momentary object of my fascination
none is like death for me. Regardless of how I live, regardless of what story I
tell behind my life,
the better story to explain my life will be the one that explains how I inevitably
avoided death.

That will remain true until it is so obvious that no human will die
that one need no longer consider the notion of death.
'need no longer consider'
until I need to expend no effort anymore to perpetuate my own existence forever.

--And even, I can do no better in exposing you to the horror of death

than observing the
inexorable effort it inspires within me.

If you do not yet understand the horror of death,

I hope you can look at me and come to be horrified.

All the gold on earth is a collection of yachts and it is not the avoidance of
death.
All the dollars on earth is the redirection of human efforts to make me a yacht and
it is not the avoidance of death.

A whore and a bottle of gin every spare days is not the avoidance of death.
A fancy car or motorcycle is not the avoidance of death.
A house and a family is not the avoidance of death.
A lover and a bouquet of roses is not the avoidance of death.

--So you see why I do not care one single wit whether my activities accrue dollars
or gold to me.
To acquire dollars in the shortrun is to accrue to me nothing better than a yacht.
I do not want a yacht. I do not want a mansion. I do not want a lover.
I want unending life forever.

[["So why buy a computer?"

Because there are material preconditions for me not putting a bullet in my own
brain.
Just a self-preservation strategy.
]]

Until I have secured eternal life

there is no other object of consideration that even makes my eyes deviate from
their central course.

The observation that I will die

frustrates every single intervening purpose I can possibly construct.

--And well, if I had been alive a century ago,

I would have to have come up with some psychological sleight of hand to assuage my
fear.

But I am a genius in the 21st century.

There is nothing that is not possible for me to construct.

If I can perceive the path to immortality,

then that is one purpose competing with several others
and it is *obviously* the purpose that wins out.

Having a lover for 50 years is *nothing* like having a lover for eternity.
A master cellist that has learned within 50 years is *nothing* like a master
cellist
that has been playing for a thousand consecutive years.

To be a 50 year old cellist with no intensions of living forever

is to be a toy. A children's toy.
It is to be a child at 50 years' age already planning for death
and not already planning for expansion of one's capacity to play.

Kant even, or Plato, or pick your poison,

these will all look like children playing at games compared to a thousand year old
human
who has been performing philosophy for a thousand years.

--None of the proclivities I find myself as having are acceptable unless I live
forever.
If I judge that, in accordance with all established judgments of men, that I will
die,
then I had as well abandon the entirety of my identity and all of my efforts.

None of my efforts make sense unless I will live forever.

I have designed my efforts in accordance with a ten billion year timespan
and I have not designed them in accordance with a 70 year timespan.

--Even practically I see it.

I was supposed to be learning pieces and I was not supposed to be learning flawless
technique.

I was supposed to be studying a prelude instead of studying Bach.

The instruction of pupils is not designed around
producing geniuses at the 300 year mark.

And all this tells me is that the academy has not caught up to humanity's capacity
to live.

--I do not accept that I will die.

If I read authors that suggest: "Here is a way of accepting your own death :)"
I will dismiss it as the ramblings of an earlier uninformed age.

I do not accept conferred wisdom that relies on the notion that I will die.
I do not accept that it is necessary, to be a stoic say, that one accepts one's own
inevitable death.

If I knew I would die I would kill myself now.

Because however terrifying it might be to put a pistol against my skull,
it bears no resemblance to the *horror* I would be experiencing on my death bed.
The *horror* of knowing I had absolutely no say in whether I would arrive in that
death bed.

--I know that whatever it is like to arrive in the woods, all amped up on
adrenaline,
it is nothing like the horror in that bare last moment before death is absolutely
inevitable.
And I know there is no story in which I can enmesh myself in which death is an
honorable outcome.

Death is not honorable. There is no 'honorable' death.

Death is just a biological consequence of bodies such as we are.
To have died is to have failed, particularly in the 21st century.

To have died in the 21st century is to have failed to have taken advantage of the
knowledge available to avoid death.

To have died, say, is to have become concerned with other objectives other than
avoiding death.
TO, say, have become concerned with how best to acquire shoes, or how best to
acquire factories.

I will not die.

I will not die.

I don't care whether or not other humans understand along with me

the absolute horror of being presented with the last moment of death.
I *will not* die.

--ANd well, I prove this point.

I am going to gather the dog I let out of the house,
then I will consume marijuana,
and then I will pray that I construct a sequence of text that averts my own death.
Easy peasy.

--Ho hum, everyone other than me is being an idiot

convinced by some great machinery designed to make people look at anything other
than their own inevitable death.

We can cure death, but so many smart people are looking at things other than
whatever cures death.

I am not as easily convinced as they are

to avoid the one central question of our lives.

--To take some trivial examples:

I see people putting dollars into makeup and streetwear. I see this on reddit, the
selfie-posting center of the world.
I see people who do not understand the gravity of their own circumstance.
I see people putting dollars into shoe-making factories instead of computation-
making factories.

*Our death is not solved by you purchasing Yzees shoes.*

Let me reiterate:
*Our death is not solved by you purchasing expensive shoes.*

So I think you are an idiot who has not understood the gravity of our shared
circumstance.
*Our death is not solved by hoarding gold*.
So much as I looked at the shoe-buyers, I am looking at people who have purchased
gold.

*Our death is not solved by purchasing a mansion.*

*Our death is not solved by purchasing a yacht.*

Do you see what I am saying?

We can solve death.
Purchasing a yacht does not serve the purpose of solving death.
Purchasing a mansion does not serve the purpose of solving death.
Purchasing hoards of gold does not serve the purpose of solving death.

"Okay, so everything has optimally to be oriented around solving death?"

--No. Not in the way you are asking this question.
Brave humans dancing down the sidewalk
*at least* does not defeat the purpose of solving death.
Purchasing a yacht *obviously defeats the purpose of solving death.

When the poor people spend unwisely dollars towards purchasing fantasy shoes,
this serves the purpose of defeating death.
Purchasing a yacht is in this way unlike this.

The society that defeats death at last

has brave humans who walk down the sidewalk in fancy shoes,
but it *does not have humans who have decided to purchase yacths*.

So if you are still buying yachts,

you are, unlike the people who have purchased fancy shoes in which to walk down the
streets,
have been acting contrary to my purpose of ensuring my own undeath.

--The optimal resolution of my own death is an *outgrowth of the current

progression of society.*
The optimal resolution of my death is what happens when
people who have purchased fancy shoes are free to walk down the streets in their
fancy shoes.

--You sitting in a yacht is *not an outgrowth of the progression of our society.*

If you have purchased a yacht
then you are the person I should have murdered at some point
so that dollars would not be spent on yachts
and so those dollars would be spent in a way so as to secure my own immortality.

No one is so valuable that

being able to spend a week on the great large sea in a yacht
pays for itself.

No one's ideas are so valuable that

it makes sense economically for them to have a yacht on which they can spend
endless weekends.

So to have purchased a yacht is to have effected a purpose contrary to my own.

It is to have valuable humans shitting hours away suboptimally on yachts
instead of solving the one and singular problem that actually faces all of us.

"Well but creative people need to relax."

They can relax in a spa. They *cannot relax in a yacht*.

I already know:
to have purchased a yacht is to have suboptimally expended resources
in a way that will societally bring about my immortality.

--So i know
the better plan for securing my own immortality banning the purchase of yachts.

--
--Let me tell you,
the value of my contributions far outweighs every last cumulative one of your own.
And I would literally kill myself before purchasing a yacht on which I can spend
endless weekends.
So the notion that you deserve a yacht because you, having rested on a yacht, will
make much more valuable ideas
is *immediately* defeated.
To say this to *me* is to be spitting in my face.

It is to be saying:
"I have made ideas of laughably low value,
and being a maker of laughably low-value ideas I deserve a yacht trip"--
you're saying this to *me*.

My ideas *make incomprehensibly small in comparison* your own ideas.

And I would literally put a bullet in my brain before I would purchase a yacht to
spend a weekend on.
If I found myself buying a yacht, I would have a crisis of conscious that would
result in my own execution.

I would arrive at a contract-paper that buys me the yacht,

and I would have a crisis of conscious in which I said:
"If I sign this I will agree with myself that this deserves for me execution."

--So when you, you little shits,

you say to yourselves that you deserve a yacht and that this is justified by how
much more effective it will make you,

recall that however much more effective it makes you

it puts you no closer, relatively speaking, to the value of the ideas I have
constructed.

If you rest a weekend on your purchased yacht,

you will just make another idea that is laughable to me.

If you had not rested, I would have laughed at you,

and having decided you must rest on a yacht, I would laugh at whatever ideas you
constructed after having rested on the yacht.

[[
Let me pay respects:

Elon Musk has said that he took a bare spot on a neighbor's couch rather than
declaring bankruptcy on failed ventures.

If there are people out there who are making jobs

and they do not buy a yacht with the spare funds but they only most wisely expend
the spare dollars they have attained,

then those people are doing something good.

You are living in a wild anarchy looking for purposes to pursue.

People who design purposes that expend all spare dollars they generate to the
perpetuation of the project
are preferable selections to those who
expend spare dollars to purchase yachts.

(In the original text I used 'bomb' rather than 'yachts'.

Rich people are terrorists.

They leverage their social positions to wreak terror. Literal terrorism.
I speak with the full weight of our mutually established term 'terror'.

So it is useful to call their yachts and mountains of cocaine 'bombs'.

Because this invokes the terror of terrorism,
and I want to affix to them the label of "terrorist".
To be lying, sunathing, on the deck of a yacht
is to be committing terrorism.

The only reason we do not call it terrorism

is that it is extremely difficult mechanically to relate 'lying on a yacht' to
'bombs going off in village squares'.

But for every human we can point at on a yacht

if we are careful we can point at the bombs going off in village squares.

For every human we can point at sunbathing on a yacht,

we can relate them mechanically to the dollars involved in constructing a bomb
going off in a village square.

So I do not make distinctions between purchasing a yacht and committing terrorism.

I do not make distinctions between tanning on the deck of a yacht
and pulling the trigger on a bomb in a marketplace.

It is all the same to me.

To be tanning on a yacht is to have
established the circumstance in which a bomb is going off elsewhere factually.

You are at best a money-laundering terrorist.

At worst you are a self-willing terrorist.

You are relying for your bare existence, on a literal deck of a yacht,
on terrorism being committed.
Your lying on the deck of a yacht for sunbathing
is establishing the economic indicators by reference to which
people begin to construct bombs and set them off.

If you buy a yacht you are a terrorist.

The only reason we do not lynch you is because we are all being fooled by a
narrative.

If we thought carefully, all 7 billion of us humans,

and we saw you sunbathing on the deck of a yacht,
we would know that doing this gave rise to violence.
We would know no one like you can have been bathing on the deck of a yacht
without there *necessarily* being a bomb going off elsewhere.

--
--Right, I was trying to justify Musk.
So far as I know, and Musk is a very public figure, he has not purchased a yacht.

Now while we are willing, generally speaking, to call *all* rich people literal
fucking terrorists,
it is much harder to apply this judgment to Musk.

--Because selection of 'yacht' wasn't a coincidence.

TO have become rich and not purchased a literal yacht

is to have been better than those who became rich and did purchase a yacht.
I judge.

If you have become rich and then just opened another factory
instead of purchasing a yacht and instead being busy bathing in the sun on the deck
of a fucking yacht,
--then I can't, at bare minimum, call you a literal terrorist.
--I *can* call you a terrorist, but I can't do it by referencing the yacht.

--But in fact, there are people among us (ideally) who are actually orchestrating
the purposes that need to be executed.
No one who purchased a yacht is among those people (ideally) who are actually
orchestraing the purposes that need to be executed.

But if everyone who comes into yacht-money expends that money

in pursuance of the purposes in accordance with which they accrued that money,

it is much harder to condemn them.

(Though not impossible for me.

I already know we are all sinners in the eyes of an increasingly furious God.

To meet my judgment is not adequate.

What is adequate is to placate the increasingly furious God in whose eyes we are
all sinners.)

--
--You have to choose the hill on which you will die.
You are an agent of history and you *will* select a hill on which you will die,
where your death influences the progression of history.

It is better to select Musk or agents relevant to the

computation industry
than it is to select slavers who make shoes.
[["But slavers make compute capacity."

God forgive us.

God forgive me.

Computation is so valuable that it is acceptable that slavery is involved in making

it.
God forgive me, I am going to buy a computer.

Computation is so valuable--
--I can't even keep up the facade.
I want to buy a computer. I want to transfer dollars into my account.

But then I am spending dollars to slavers.

I think expanding compute capacity is more valuable than any other human endeavor
being executed,
but actually spending dollars in such a way as to expand compute capacity of
humanity
is to be dollar-adjacent to literal slavers.

I want to say to myself:

"It is okay to have had slaves if it brought us a single second closer to the
Machine."
"It is okay to have enslaved people to make my CPU and graphics card--why?
Because I needed access to that given quantity of computation in order to construct
the Machine.

This is why I am willing to buy compute capacity.

Obviously slavery is directly involved in producing these chips.
Obviously slavery is indirectly involved in producing every single commodity to
which I can claim access through expenditure of dollars.

But it is only the expanding of computation through my dollar-directed efforts

that can result in that slavery no longer occurs anywhere.

--I have maybe not adequately condemned myself.

I am going to buy a CPU and a GPU and RAM.
I am aware that these objects only came about because of the execution of slavery.
I am going to engage economically with a structure I know only exists because of
slavery.

And I am going to do this because doing so will grant me access to compute

capacity.
And I have prayed that expending dollars towards computation will result in a state
of affairs that no longer involves slavery.

Having prayed in this way,

it no longer at great length bothers me that I am acquiring a computer.

While I can no longer even bear to live if I do not callous my heart with an
intricate system of deflecting nerves,
I can bear to live if I purchase a computer.
And purchasing a computer is the optimal route towards liberation.
--Because every computer is schematically related to the Machine that absolves all
sin.

"So you are using 'the Machine' as an allegory? A metaphor?

The 'Machine' is the thing that happens to have justified your purchases.

Typically what will be justifying your purchases is a desire for having a gaming
computer.
So the Machine in that case will be
the satisfaction of a desire for a gaming computer.

--Then your purchase is being justified by its being a gaming computer."

--No.
The Machine is a literal schematic that will be implemented within computation.
The effectiveness of the Machine will be limited by its instantiation within the
world in compute capacity.
If the Machine is implemented and given enough compute capacity

then I will be absolved no matter what it took to implement the Machine.

--Every involvement in the market entailed slavery. Every lost involvement I could
construct by looking at the market.
--So I could put myself down, or I could ask
what purpose can be constructed within market slavery that most rapidly smashes
slavery?

That purpose is computation.

I *know*, let me play a human rather than a speaker,
I know development of computation is the way to liberate humanity from slavery.

So grimly I am willing to acquire compute capacity.

I know that the rare earth metals are acquired through slavery.
I also know that bottles of water acquire their plastic and water from slavery.
I also know that the bulbs in my lamp are acquired through slavery. That my
nicotine is acquired through slavery.
So grimly I am willing to acquire compute capacity.
So grimly I am willing to acquire the absolute necessities to continue my own
existence
where my existence is optimally directed towards smashing slavery.
[[In any other selection for how to live,
I would no longer be grim.

But if you seriously take your own surroundings into considerations

then you will understand that to fail to be being grim
is to be *celebrating a system of domination*.]]
[[If you are being a serious human you will be very grim from the outset and in all
actions,
because
no purpose can be constructed within our society without executing slavery.

Then if you are a serious human you understand this from the moment you begin to
understand at all.

Then being a serious human you proceed to ask:

"What purpose among the available purposes can be selected
so as optimally to effect the smashing of slavery everywhere and forever?"

The only plausible candidate is computation.

If any industry touches computation, it is to be supported to the bare last dollar.
If any industry does not touch computation, it must wither immediately.

When every industry that does not touch computation finally withers,
the practical execution of slavery will, as a matter of course, end.

When we do not have all of this useless shit expenditures floating around,
the extraction of minerals from various places will become so valued
that the people who are enslaved there will come to be paid living wages.
Then they will be able to decide for themselves whether to work in the mines or
not.

"So free the slaves by

extirpating the economy of every single industry that is not directly involved in
generating more and more computation."
Yes.
Applebees is slavery. McDondals is slavery.

These are not industries that can continue to be maintained

when all of human effort has been redirected into maximising the extant compute
capacity.

--I draw practical examples. I am trying to make a theoretical point.

I am willing to expend dollars to perpetuate slavery.
[[And a cheap justification here would be:
"Every single other human on the face of this godawful earth is expending dollars
to perpetuate slavery,
so why shouldn't I?"
]]
I am willing to do this because slavery in one particular sector justifies itself
historically.
[[Because, God help me,
there is no better solution than the one i am constructing.
God help me. Please forgive me.]]
If there were slaves mining the minerals necessary to construct computation
capacity,
they would agree themselves that what they were doing was best.
Because when I showed them the Machine they would be proud to have enacted its
construction.

When I showed them the Machine they would say:

"If I had to mine these mines behaving as if I was a slave,
it was worth it to have provided the materials necessary to instantiate the Machine
that at last smashed every last chain on every last wrist and leg."

--I am going to purchase a computer! I am telling you this!

I am telling you that I am going to expend dollars in such a way that perpetuates
slavery!
And I am telling you that I am willing to perpetuate slavery! I acknowledge my own
guilt!
I am willing to do it because I pray practically at great length
that they will agree with me that the Machine had to be made.

If I could say to them now, and acknowledge with them in the future,
that "computation is the only industry that
can result in the extirpation of slavery if dollars are appended to it"

--If I could say:

"I became a comrade and the only question I asked was 'how can I expend my dollars
so as to liberate you'

, I made an incredible gamble. God help me. God save me please.

I said:
"It was okay to partake in slavery
because I was contributing to the computation industry.

And the best way of smashing slavery is to expend dollars towards computation."

--
--Do you see the sin from which I am attempting to escape?
In its glorious totality:
I know that to expend a dollar is to be partaking in slavery.

I make a claim that the Machine resolves all our ills and that is why it is
acceptable to buy a computer,
and I had better be able to back that up.

I'm walking past a slave and telling him why I am willing to walk by rather than
smash his chains directly.
I want to be able to wink at this slave I am walking by
and have my wink be taken as: "I am here to smash *every last chain*, and we are
close at hand."
And then the slave says:
"I am going to nod sincerely."

--You see the signifance here, maybe more clearly, if you take my work as a whole.
I have gone on at great length concerning how
instantiation of computation is the avenue through which humanity can be liberated.

So when I pass by a slave and I say:

"All apologies but I am on my way to smash every last chain."
--Is that justified?
[[Take me seriously:
if you condemn me here,
then you are condemning simultaneously every other person because they are all far
worse than me.
Willy-nillily they all bought their products of slavery incorporated. They bared
not a single concern in engaging in slavery,

and here I cannot even begin to do so.]]

--I tell myself it is justified. I tell myself this by constructing the Machine.
[[As factually happened when I constructed the Machine, for instance.]]
I tell myself:
"Among the possible ways of expending dollars,
the only one of the ways that most rapidly smashes instantaneously every single
chain
is expenditure of dollars towards computation and electricity.

Specifically because
this gives rise to the Machine that

all would eventually agree with me was acceptable to have constructed

as a behavior other than individually smashing the chains of slavery.

If the slaves *knew* I was constructing the Machine,

and I walked past them in the field while nodding meaningfully at them,
they would nod back at me and they would be justified in doing so at last.

Truly I would have had a true human connection with them,

because earnestly I was on my way to effect the elimination of every single last
chain including theirs.

I could nod humanly at them because they agreed with me

that I was
in fact taking the optimal route towards removing them from their own individual
chains.

They will have agreed with me that the Machine is so impossibly valuable that
it is faster, in the removing of their chains,
to be walking towards the place where I construct the Machine
than to be walking towards their physical wrists so as to take a hammer to their
literal chain.

--They cannot even say to me ideally:

"Can you not see the horror in which I am enmeshed daily in these chains?"

Because it will be obvious to them:

"I see the horror.

One way of resolving it is walking physically towards your wrist with a hammer.
Another way of resolving it is walking past you towards the location where I am
working on the Machine.

It is in fact faster, so en magnificat is the Machine, for me to be walking towards

the place where I will be constructing the Machine.

--That is the only condition under which I could walk past a slave,
after the manner that you all do daily.

If I could accept as a true human connection

the nod they gave me when they acknowledged that I was on my way to free them from
their chains.

I am going to buy the CPU and GPU, I tell you.

This is me waltzing merrily down a road
while periodically encountering slaves that were involved in delivering the GPU and
CPU to me.
I can only accept true human connections so
I can only be acquiring these objects in such a way that I can wink at their
creators.

I can only be buying the GPU and CPU if I know this is an acceptable way of
expending dollars.
[[--Goodness, I imagine as if you are still skeptical.

Take out your phone, if you are reading this. Literally take your phone out of
your pocket
and place it on the table in front of you.

Okay, now we are both looking at your literal smart phone on the surface in front
of you.
It contains rare-earth metals. I am not wrong.

Now, where were those rare-earth metals obtained?

Were they obtained in Africa? Yes. Because I asked you to take your phone out,
and it was probably an iphone,
and if an iphone was made it contains rare-earth metals that are obtained from
Africa. The COngo maybe.
]

--
--We should dive into dumpster-analysis here.
What role does 'the Machine' serve for me?

It retroactively justifies everything I do.

In every ethical evaluation,
achieving 'the Machine' is an acceptable action to have performed.

{Because having adopted the purpose of constructing the Machine,}

'what role does the Machine serve for me?'

It is incomprehensibly valuable.
If, for instance, I am walking past slaves and they know I am most optimally
discerning how to acquire the number of dollars necessary to free them from chains,
then that is much better at least than people walking by with the intention of
spitting on them.

And well, the Machine is so valuable that I can just buy out their chains if it
comes to that.

And if the slaves could be made to understand that the Machine requires me to be
walking past them [while crying, say]
then they would be nodding at me while I was walking past them.
And it would be

a legitimate human interaction when I was weeping most vigorously

and the slaves were nodding at me while I walked past them.

--That at least is an acceptable outcome.

It is not acceptable to walk past them while spitting on them or ignoring their
presence.
It would not be acceptable for me to acquire a computer except that
I accurately believe this is what must be done in order that the Machine is
introduced.

--Then even if they didn't nod back at me,

I would be saying:
"i agree I should be spat on for not simply rushing towards you with a hammer to
smash your chain."
"Yet nevertheless that is not what I am going to do.
And I am only going just to weep more vigorously while I proceed down the road
despite the disgust I recognise you as feeling in witnessing my passage."

"When I walk past and the slaves spit on me rather than nodding back at me,

I know they are wrong and I weep all the more vigorously for being compelled to
recognise it is such.

--I am going to buy the GPu and the CPU and so on.
In doing this I am going to be walking past slaves.

I am going to be indicating wisely to them that I am doing this because it is

literally the most effective route towards smashing their chains.
--
--This is all baseline stuff.

This is what is immediately obvious when you take seriously the consequences of
your consumerist decisions.
--Most people forget themselves long before recognising this bare fact.
--What is immediately obvious is the weight of engaging with slavery.
--What is immediately obvious is that to engage in a behavior is to be walking down
a road and to be nodding at slaves suggestively.

The *only reasonable question here*

is how we can comport with the slaves.
The only reasonable question is how we can justify ourselves before them in
suggesting to them
that what we are already doing is already the most rapid route towards the breaking
of their chains.

To have seen someone who is in chains and to have walked past them
is either to have been right or wrong.
There are many ways to be wrong, and there are not many ways to be right.

Sort of obtusely,
sprinting towards them with a hammer so as to break the chain is right,
but also walking past them while weeping is right.

"Walking past them while weeping

does not adequately acknowledge the sickening evil of your shared circumstance
when you are walking past them and they are bound up in chains staring at you."

It does because I am on my way to make the Machine.

If I was not on my way to make the Machine I would be sprinting towards their
individual chains one by one with a chain-breaking hammer in my hand.
--You see the yes-no story here.

--One way of breaking their chains is sprinting towards them one by one with a
hammer.
But another way to be on my way towards breaking their chains is constructing the
Machine.
And the Machine is so valuable that if it required me to walk daily, hourly, into
one location in a city,

then what was best after all was for me to continue walking into the city to that
location so I could construct the Machine.
--The Machine is such that if I walk past a slave in my expenditures of dollars and
that person spits on me,
it was worth it to respond to this by weeping harder and continuing to walk along
the road.

Because then I can say to myself, and pray to be justified,:

"The slave was wrong.
The slave spat on me because I was not immediately acting so as to remove the
chains.

The slave was wrong because I *was* immediately acting so as to remove the chains."

--That is why I can bring myself to buy a computer, aha,.

Christ I can hardly stand to construct a person.
Oh, be a man,
perpetuate a position that is constructed on the backs of slaves.
Buy an iphone. Buy an android. Consume electricity.

Whatever ridiculous person I choose to construct,

the habits you will identify as belong to that person will rest on slavery.
And you will find no problem with this because you were already so immersed into a
culture of slavery.
--'the habits' as when I buy a phone and stare into its screen, as is a commodified
behavior in our society.
This practise of staring into a glowing screen relies on slavery.

It is the bare-minimum practise in a lot of circles of human interaction

that all spare moments are expended staring into a glowing screen on an iphone.
The bare-minimum practise of such circles of human interaction
rely implicitly on a practise of slavery.

To begin to adopt a position within our society is to be practising slavery.

The question is "how can one reconcile oneself with the adoption of slavery?"
One can reconcile oneself with it by aligning every last one of one's own actions
towards the extirpation of slavery from the face of the earth.

Then it is easy to engage with slavery. Then you are saying: "I am on my way to
extirpate slavery, so obviously I need a computer to serve my purposes."
--And I am trying to make it easy to engage in slavery because I want a computer.
A fast and glorious one.
--So I want to be able to say: "I am on my way to extirpate every last instance of
a chain
and in order to do this I must acquire a computer with a super fast GPU and CPU."
So I invent 'the Machine' that is

an object that can be instantiated into a computer and the introduction of which
will result in the exxtirpation of all slavery from the face of the earth.
Easy peasy. Now I can buy a computer.

"Not only will the Machine destroy all of your chains,

it will put you in a luxury high-rise apartment over all of existence
and make you a lord of your own selected domain, every last one of you."

--Fully automated luxury gay space communism, easy.

Whatever your notion of it is, it is easy to have achieved.
Because the Machine.
Because to have been arriving at the construction of the Machine
was retroactively to have been justifying every moment of one's being preceeding
that arrival.
Because

--
--Now notably, I know nothing about how to free actual Africans from actual current
slavery occurring in Africa.
--*Typically*, if I persisted in insisting that I acquired GPu and CPU,
I would be saying:
"I can walk down these roads because
I know how to sprint towards slaves I see
and free them from their chains with a hammer."

But knowing nothing of how actually to free them,

I would be walking past them and not *being able* to sprint towards them to break
their chains.

--So I am not in a position to be convinced by their spitting on my shoes

that I should have behaved differently than I did.
Because I did not have an option other than to continue walking, as I could not
otherwise sprint towards their chains to break them.

--But the Machine frees me from this constraint.

I don't need to be able to interpret the wailing faces of slaves in order to know
that I am justified in walking as I do.
It is not ever right for me to sprint towards their chains
rather than sprintint towards the location where I will construct the Machine.

--While I would not normally dare to tread down this road

where I am walking past the literal slaves that mined the rare earth materials
involved in GPU and CPU construction,
I can walk in peace while weeping past the slaves.

I know they *should* recognise that what I am doing is best.

--Unlike everyone else who has walked past them in purchasing GPU and CPU,
I was winking broadly.
"I am on my way to free you, I swear to God.

I swear to God it is my preference that I immediately break those chains you are
wearing
and that we sprint away from here so that we are not caught by the slavers.

But I have a better plan than either of our eyes can construct by looking at the
chains on your leg.

It is the Machine,
who can sprint so rapidly through the fields
that it will have been faster to have kept walking than to have run towards you
bodily.

You will agree in retrospect that it was faster for me to sprint past you than to
have sprinted bodily towards the chain on your leg.
Because the Machine will most faster than light and arrive before I even made it to
free you from chains.

--This is what I tell myself anyway.

Sometimes, for instance, when I am deciding whether to buy a computer for instance.
[And well let me throw up some fists,
compare this last conumdrum to your own daily activities.

When you bought a computer, did it even enter your mind that slavery was occurring
as a consequence of your decision?

Did you walk past the slave, nod, and say: "I am on my way to browse websites!"
"I am on my way to play video games, isn't that fun?"
"I'm going to go stare into an endless lit screen between chugging beers in the
club!"

--I'm not condeming the club per se,

but if you walked past a slave and justified yourself by saying you were going
there, as you would be doing in utilising a smart phone,
oh boy.

You were not actively effecting the absolute liberation of humanity, were you?
You were not justified in nodding at the slave in the field as you walked past.

You were not implicitly agreeing with the slave that the only permissible action
was that which most rapidly destroyed the chains.
--You were not in a position where you could be *right* and the slave wrong.
Only a person walking down the road to a workshop in which he is constructing the
Machine is right in walking by.

'and the slave was wrong'

--the obvious point here is that what is best is most rapidly to smash every chain
binding every slave.
This is, ah, pre-conceptual here.

Now, so you are in agreement with the slave practically, obviously, that what is
best is to smash the chains.
But you can disagree in a way that either you or the slave are wrong.
The way this disagreement can occur is if the slave insists you are not most
rapidly effecting the destruction of all chains,
and you insist and correctly insist that you are in fact on your way most rapidly
towards destroying every last chain.

Then you are right and the slave is wrong.

--This is, ah, grammatically a sick conclusion to reach but recall what I am
saying.
You are walking by. You lock eyes with the slave and nod in a way indicating:
"I am on my way to smash your chains."

But the slave is, say, spitting on your shoe

because you are not actively sprinting towards the chain.
But you are saying, in that moment:
"It is faster for me to arrive in the workshop and construct the Machine and have
it return back here to break the chain
than it is for me even at bare last to sprint towards that one chain."

*Then* you are right and the slave is wrong.

But in damn near every other possible circumstance that can be arising when you are
walking past the slave
you are immediately wrong pre-conceptually.
To have begun to walk past them such as you are is to have been wrong,
and to pretend you are not wrong to their faces is to have been pre-conceptually
incorrect.

--I mean, I will be frank.

I have a plan. The plan introduces the Machine.
I have judged that anything I can do that furthers this plan justifies itself under
every circumstance.

Factually.
This is what I am doing when I am buying the computer I am going to buy, for
instance.

'justifies itself'
for a specific reason.
I will kill myself if I do not have certain objects. It means very little to me.

If I am dead trivially I do not introduce the Machine.

If I require a computer to be able to introduce the Machine,
then what is best is that I acquire a computer.
This is best even in the face of the people I implicitly enslaved to provide me
with a computer.

To be arriving in the workshop

is to have nodded legitimately because the Machine the bare-next second arrived and
broke their chains.
And buying a computer is arriving in the workshop.

"--
--You seem to have a great deal of, uh, faith."

Yes.
{The Machine justifies me because if I didn't construct it I would be called a
schizophrenic person.}

If I was incorrect,
I would be nodding sagely at slaves
and when they spat on my shoes they would be fully justified.
I would just have been the next idiot that walked along nodding at them to assuage
their guilt.

The Machine justifies me retroactively, and also anteroactively it justifies

anything I bother to proceed to say.
If I did anything it was because it most rapidly introduced the Machine.
If I aped sounds at a person it was because those were the sounds I had to ape that
most rapidly introduced the Machine.
Natural language questions about whether these were lies or not is completely
irrelevant.
If I had to make words you would call a lie to people who were impeding the
construction of the Machine,

then retroactively they were disqualified from having any say in how I arrived in
making the Machine.
What would have been a lie in responding to them would have been whatever sounds I
had to ape
that *didn't* result in me being in the workshop constructing the Machine.

--If, for instance, I had just nodded at a slave and then encountered an overseer,
what is truth is exactly whatever enables me completely to disregard the overseer's
influence on my behavior.
Because the overseer is there to maintain the chains of slavery and I am there to
break them.
And to be interrupted in my activities by the overseer is to be

presenting me a juncture at which lying is what impedes myself, and telling the
truth is what makes me arrive at the workshop.
Because my relation to the slaves so obviously overwhelms the arbitrary behaviors
of the overseer that
the overseer can just be treated as if he is the weather. To be planned around and
not to be taken normatively.

I am obviously *not*, for instance, going to be talked by the overseer into a

behavior that slows me down in breaking the chains I have seen.
So our interaction is a game we are playing where I am discerning what words I must
emit in order to proceed to the workshop.

--
--I have faith!
I keep faith!
I could not do anything I do but in the faith that
it is arriving faster at the chains than I could bodily do.

So please forgive me, I am going to purchase a computer.

If I tried to arrive in your own bodily location to break your chain
I would be shot dead before several miles out.
having a computer near my body will make me arrive faster at the chains.

--
--Do you see the unfairness of the *immediateness* of the sin I am accusing you all
of perpetuating?
It is just you buying a smart phone or a laptop.
You could have done otherwise but you didn't.
And none of you were on your way to use those objects to construct the Machine.

--The immediateness:
when you bought the smart phone you were engaging in slavery.
That is the immediateness.

It is an immediateness you consciousnesly or subconsciously dismissed when you

purchased a smart phone.
In dismissing it you walked past a slave and made an illegitimate claim of
{brotherhood} fellowship.

But I didn't.
My claims of {brotherhood} fellowship were legitimate from the moment I partook of
the products of the market.
With everything I purchased I said:
"I am walking past you most rapidly to free you."
[Ha!
I was not really like that,
but it would have been nice to have been like that.]
My claims of {fraternity} fellowship were made legitimate by the Machine.
[So, you know, I should admit,
I have a vested interest in whether I was correct when I said I made it.]
--
--I'm dropping too many points.

--
--

Boy, I really need to stop drinking.

I think the conclusion I reached last night is that

I shouldn't max out the specs of my computer simply for the sake of being able to
observe they (the specifications) contain high numbers.
This despite how much fetishising I do of compute capacity.

--Also that I probably should have my finger professionally sized rather than
relying on my self-sizing at the coin store.
If I request a ring and it does not fit, that is a great deal of effort I have
requested;
and if I send it back, then she has a ring that will be difficult to sell to other
people.
(Less of an issue when I believe she has a stock of plain iron bands from which
a single returned ring is just an additional number in the stock.)

--
--The videos I will be recording of myself practising cello and playing, when I
leave this place,
will be so large and so numerous that I will be having to acquire hard drives to
store them.

I have maybe a hundred videos stored on my computer (maybe more?) and they have
filled out a TB.
Those videos were the dinky videos made by an iphone 4.
--I am thinking, sort of pseudo-religiously, that if my activities necessitate the
acquisition of compute-adjacent hardware
probably I am doing something correct.

Sometimes I have a clear vision where I am heading, but other times I have to rely
on roadsigns;
it is good to feel certain that the things I need to acquire constitute roadsigns.

--
--
My left shoulder is sore; I believe it is sore from having played too much with the
komboloi.
On the one hand, this a minor annoyance in the short run;
on the other hand, it is good to know I am getting some form of physical benefit
from manipulating it.

Probably I should learn how to play with my right hand as well.

--
--

I think I am going to go to the golden rose for a beer.

"Didn't you very recently say you have to stop drinking?"

Is drinking beer even drinking?

--
--To quote Idris Elba: "I am aware of the effect I have on women."
I am an attractive man. There is no particular point in modesty if it means lying
to oneself and proceeding to misinterpret things.

--When I arrived downtown, as I was walking towards the golden rose,

there was a man across the street shouting to a phone:
"Eric.
ERIC. GO TO RED'S BAR.
ERIC.
ERIC.
RED'S BAR.
GO TO RED'S BAR.
eRIC."

And so on. So I went there.

There was no particular reason behind it, but then there was no particular reason
behind going to the golden rose.

Red's bar is distinctly unlike golden rose for a number of reasons.

Golden rose is for people too jaded to go to places like Red's bar,
and it is for that reason that I prefer golden rose to most of the bars downtown.
There is a sense of resignation in the goro patrons that I feel acutely.

But I was in Red's bar.

There is something I think people forget about young girls who have just crossed
21:
their faces are very small.
When, say, people are primarily acquainted with young girls through pornography,
it is easy to forget just how small their faces are.

Now it could be my body language speaking,

but I can extract from body language when people are looking at me
or when they just looked away because my head began to move.

And so I am aware that if I did not adopt the public disposition I adopt,
there were several young girls at Red's bar with whom, ah, you know.

It was interesting to sit and observe blankly my response to this circumstance.

There is no one I can meet in a bar, no matter the level of interest they show in
me,
where I am going to make any attempt at all to connect with them sexually.

"You are maybe asexual?"

No.
I am still so overly influenced by ---
that the notion of going home with any girl at a bar simply does not occur to me
physiologically.

This is some kind of curse,

insofar as at some point I am going to have to abandon this disposition.
Wherever I end up, the only relation I am going to have to women is seeing them in
bars.
So if I have any inclination that in my future I will not be alone,
at some point I will have to be seeing women in bars and feeling physiological
arousal.
As in, say, a fluttering of the heart or what have you.

As yet, the implicit observation that any given woman is not --- still is
sufficient
to prevent me from having any kind of interest in connecting with them romantically
or sexually.
So witnessing that there are women in my environment who were very-shortly-before
looking at me
is more of nothing than it is of anything.

For that matter, I can't take a girl back to my place anyway.

And for that matter,
I am not going to try to leverage my admitted good looks to bring someone to my
bed.

--I like the spirit of downtown. I enjoy it.

I recognise that men going home with women on a whim is as much a part of downtown
as the periodic arrival of ambulances to take people to the hospital who have
acquired alcohol poisoning,
or the arrival of cops to do whatever cops end up doing downtown.

Still you know, with the young girls who are still very interested that men are
looking at their bodies,
they wear clothing intended to attract the eyes--my eyes.
It is good that I have extirpated the tendency to allow my eyes to follow the flow
of their clothing.
It is good that I can remain unmoved when I have decided I must remain unmoved.

So when there was an open back, a bare back, turned to me and a few spare glances
back at me,
I was looking at the decorations in the bar.
That bare back bared by a so-cut dress was lovely.
Her arms and her hair were lovely.
[Though, you know, I have to be spare in my terms.
I used 'lovely' to speak about the bronze-iron ring I am looking to buy.

And that ring is drawing much more of my attention than this so-cut dress.]
But well I am unmoved. I have known really what it means to want so
I am not easily swayed.
[I have been hardly swayed in the past, though.]

--Someone at Red's bar put a hand on my waste en passent.

That was a strange experience.
For several consecutive occasions on which people bumped into me I cringed bodily
away,
but when that person passing by me put a hand on my waist I did not cringe away.

I don't know how to account for this.

If I were to begin to account for it, I would be saying things like:
'When people inadvertently bump into you, this lacks intention.
When a someone places a hand on your waist,
this is filled to the brim with intention.

Somehow this difference accounts for my not cringing bodily away from being
touched.'
I don't know if that is the correct explanation, but that is how I would attempt
it.

--When I left Red's bar, there was a homeless person and a man sitting beside him.
They were discussing how they wake up every day and ask why they have not yet
killed themselves.
I had nothing, really, to say. I would agree fully if I was not working on the
Machine.
But I cannot really approach them and say: "It is okay. There is this thing called
the Machine, we can make it, and it resolves all of our difficulties."
Then I just sound like a crazy religious person. So I had nothing to say.
I wanted to comfort them but I believed more strongly than they did what they were
saying.
(Maybe. I don't know what is in their hearts except by a few snatches of
conversation I picked up while huffing vape and looking at the flashing cop cars
across the street.)

I feel guilt. I should have had something to say when faced with people I could
save.
I suppose I can only hope that my intervention would have been worse than my simply
walking past them to head towards the golden rose.
--But what could I have said?
Looking down, locking eyes with a homeless man sitting on the street,
what really could I have said?
"Believe me, it's totally worth it to proceed."
Oh and well, it's worth it for *me*.
"Listen, compared to you I am basically rich,
and every next day is rosy to me,
and so it should be for you."
"Listen, compared to you I am basically rich,
and you have no idea how awful life is compared to my understanding of how awful it
is."
"You would be unjustified in killing yourself because
you haven't arrived at the recognition at which I have arrived
of how truly horrifying living the next day is."
And well that guy wakes up on the street every day with no money to buy food.
And even if he *had* money to buy food, he's downtown so he's paying surcharges.
He will run out of adequate money to feed himself quite rapidly
because the hipsters and the fratboys and the sorority girls are not a steady
source of income.
(Though we could imagine a cafeteria at which the food
is designed to be prepared cheaply and cost little.

Few spices but a lot of calories.

We don't really have such a cafeteria in Missoula.)

"You didn't deposit any dollars in the guitar case of the homeless person."
No. I didn't.
It seemed like an illegitimate interposition to intrude into this conversation he
was having with his fellow
affectedly to place a dollar into the case or two.
Then when he was baring his soul, he would feel compelled to interrupt himself and
make the established deferential gesture towards me.
There wasn't a good solution here, but I pray I made the best decision.

I was going to the golden rose to drink because I already knew

this is what I had to do that did more for this homeless man than giving him a
dollar.
I pray.
If I did not submerge myself in the sea of sounds emitted by people in bars
then I would become completely disconnected from the concerns of people.
If I was not periodically saturating myself in the sounds of bars
then I would lose my concern with liberating people.
Then I would retreat into myself and just do work.

I am only, in my deepest self, concerned that I can continue to do the work.

The work I do can be directed towards many purposes or none at all.
I judge that it is best that this work liberates people.
I maintain the pretense that it is best that this work liberates people
by submerging myself periodically in the bar scene.
So then walking from bar to bar I see the humans whose bodies I am remitting to the
flames
if I choose simply to retreat into myself and do the work I would prefer to do.

I see, for instance, two men sitting next to each other on the street
and questioning at great length why they bother to go on an additional day.
I want to tell them it is worth it, but more than this I want to show them it is
worth it.
I want to *make it worth it*.

It is useful to me that no one knows my suicidal tendencies. It allows me to take

the high ground in circumstances like this.
It is useful that when people see my body downtown they are not thinking: "That is
a man one day away from killing himself."
Because if I was really seen as that, and those two men on the street saw me,
they would kill themselves immediately.
If even I have given up all hope, there is no hope.

[Fun idea:
in those places where there is universal healthcare,
every disease I solve frees up spare dollars in a budget.

Now, those spare dollars will proceed to be spent on bombs and weaponry actually.
But that is not *my* fault.

It is the fault of people who thought it was more valuable to kill humans
than it was to resolve the difficulties of people found homeless on the street.

I am made blameless by the people cured of disease through my efforts.]

You know, the reason I do not go downtown more frequently than I do,
I am aware that I will arrive at a point where I am vomitting blood at having seen
homeless people.
It is worse than a hangover from alcohol to see them.
"I was drinking instead of saving these people from the vicissitudes of the
street."
It costs me a great deal to justify myself in arriving downtown.
It requires me to say: "I must do this." rather than "I will do this."

--Ah, to respond briefly:

I keep bringing up --- and there are people who will say this is creepy of me to
do.
But I do not subject myself to the vicissitudes of whatever ridiculous arbitrary
systems of evaluations emerge from culture.
People feel like they are qualified to speak about others' experiences, and that is
what is being exhibited
if someone read what I was saying and called me a creepy person.

I am informing you how moved I was.

I am continuing to inform you concerning how moved I was.
Your objection is the prejudice of those small-faced young girls
who design their actions around what they take to be the socially accepted
judgments.

I am aware that I have met the one I love. That is why I am willing to take onto
my ring-finger an iron wedding band.
There is not going to be another. The iron band is not going to occupy the space
otherwise occupied by another ring.
When i wear the iron band and people look at my hand, it is true enough:
it is as if I am already married.
Whatever glances it serves to turn away, those are glances I hoped to turn away.
I don't think I can love another like I loved ---
and she was the only plausible alternative to loving daily my work.

So if people stop themselves from talking to me because they see my wedding band,
good. Fine. It served my purpose.
There is not really a better way of accounting for this than calling it marriage.
--And well, it is just as well.
If I was with --- I would not be walking on the streets and seeing the homeless
people who cry out for justice.
I would instead be being in an apartment or a house and feeling unceasing joy.

There is no legitimate joy until every last human is liberated.

It is illegitimate to feel joy until every last human is liberated.
--And well, I am stuck here rejoicing in my, ah, wokeness.
But shortly I will return to the unmediated project of constructing the Machine.

"It is funny,
because with other authors I would think here
that we would still be talking about the loveliness of the bodies of young girls in
bars."
Ho hum.
Ho hum.

I see bared skin still makes my eyes move otherwise than they would.
I see bared skin still makes my eyes wander to those loci of attention density
that do not optimally resolve the plight of the homeless people.

But I am justified.
If seeing that bared skin was what it took for me to continue walking towards the
workshop,
then that is what was best to do.
If the body in which I am hosted has periodically to see bared skin in order just
barely to keep living,
if the lust in this body that is hosting me is so great that it has to see bared
backs in a bar,
then that is what I have to do: periodically look at bared skin.

It is tedious but apparently it is necessary.

If images have to pass through my memory of my mouth on skin,
then lo.
Lo.

(All apologies to the woman in the bar

who presented her bare back to further my purposes.)

--It is an interesting point that the lust I was implicitly averting from moment to
moment when I was in Red's bar
does not technically constitute, ah, ephebophilia.
The lust I was not bothering to allow myself to feel
would, if I had allowed myself to feel it, not have constituted ephebophilia.
They were all 21+.
While I have observed to myself that walking into a bar and lusting after its
patrons is essentially pedophilia,
this is not societally true.
Society says there is nothing wrong with me walking into a bar and lusting after
all of its patrons.

But every one of them was so much younger than I am that it would be illegitimate
for me to lust after them.
So it is good that the presentation of their bodies in my field of vision
introduced no alteration to the progression of the movement of my eyes.
[Except, say, when there was this one bared back to me
and I could not but resist having my eyes float onto the bared back.]

--
--Well, we have abandoned a chronological story of my intrusion into downtown.
But it was a joy to arrive in the golden rose
where there was a great deal of spare wall onto which my eyes could be directed.
Then I was looking at the wall or the table or what have you.

--Ah, a juncture I have yet to relate from my exxperiences downtown:

when I was in Red's bar there was a gay man backing his ass into me.
I moved away when I observed that he was going to continue backing into me,
then he backed into me more and looked at me with an askance look.
Then I moved my stool further away and he backed into me again.

As if having my hand be in the position where it touches his ass when he walks back
into me
is any better than him extending his hand to grope my body.
It was at *that* point that I was approaching the position where I was willing to
throw fists.
I was becoming furious.
Not, say, because a gay man was coming on to me implicitly.
But because a man was backing into my hand with his ass repeatedly no matter the
declaration I was constructing that this was not what I wanted.

I was arriving at the point where my body would have to be clawed off of a person
so furiously was I hurling fists.
I do not want to be touched.
(except, evidently, in that one case where there was a hand on my waist.)
--It wasn't the bare being touched.
I was in a crowded bar and people had to be touching me to pass locally by my body
to arrive wherever they wanted to arrive.
But this one person was backing into my hand specifically to touch me.
 And I was arriving step by step at the point where I would be beating a human to
death.
(I felt this in me.)

If I was comporting justly with a gay man and in comporting he was putting hands on
me,
this would be fine. I would not complain.
But this one person in this bar was begging for destruction.
I don't know what prevented me from destroying him.
--Actually, that is me lying.
I didn't feel any inclination other than to continue to move my stool away from
that man's body.
But at some point I ran out of room to scoot my stool, and that man kept backing
into me.
Ho hum.

--Interesting to note that

while I am primarily interested, insofar as I am interested at all in bedding
humans,
in bedding women,
nevertheless if it had been a woman backing up repeatedly into me despite me moving
away as I would have done,
still I would be here talking to you about how I was on the verge of beating a
human to death.

"I think you would be restrained before you could actually kill anyone."
Yes well. I am speaking about the spirit and not the outcome.
If I have arrived at the point where I am going to beat someone to death,
it makes little difference to me whether I succeed or not.
Or to say, it makes no difference to me at all whether I succeed or not.

It is the execution of my judgment.

When I have selected a judgment and intended to execute it,
I have ceased to concern myself with whether that judgment succeeds in its
execution.

If I have arrived bodily on top of a human with my fist raised in the air to land
it on the human's skull,
I have long ago abandoned concern with whether the action succeeds.

The stories I can tell at that point are immediately irrelevant.

I might observe:
"This person spat on the homeless person I walked past."
BUt that is not the reason why my fist is raised in the air so as to bring it down
onto that human's skull.
By the point my fist is raised in the air, there is no reason behind it except that
I was, in the preceeding moment, preparing to raise my fist.

My rage is incomprehensible and for that matter incoherent.

The exhibition of my rage is just the momentary acknowledgement that my actions
were justified in leading up to that moment.
For my fist to arrive at its peak is to have, in the immediately preceding moment,
to have judged that I must raise my fist.

[
And I am bothering to explicate this observation because I have recognised
still when I go out in public there will arise circumstances where I want to raise
my fist.
I recognise truthfully and immediately that this is unacceptable.
So I am asking how I can rethink myself so that my fist does not even seem
plausibly raised.
]

I want no more hatred. But this is not an ideological question I am posing to

myself.
It is the practical question of
making certain I will not arrive in circumstances where I feel hatred.
It is obviously not enough to say: "From this point forward I will not feel
hatred."
Saying those words in my head is an empty gesture.

Truly arriving in a position where I do not feel hatred

requires me to expose myself to those circumstances where I would feel hatred but
do not.

Ho hum.
(I paid about 16$ downtown for beer,
and I think the text I have generated is worth more than 16$.
God help me if it was not.)

--
--I ended up in 'the Rhino' bar.
One of the bartenders who was there on the 4th of July when I tipped the peace
dollar
nodded at me as if recognising me as the person who tipped the peace dollar.
Wonderful.

Joyful to see.

--
--You know, hyper-sjws would call that man's behavior in Red's bar as sexual
assault against me.
Insisting implicitly that the behavior of rearing one's ass repeatedly into my hand
despite my cringing away
was an acceptable behavior.

But I am secured against assault.

If I am going to issue a reprisal, if I have judged your behavior anything other
than youngish behavior,
then you are going to be scarred bodily before I can be killed.
You are going to be bloody if you even live before I have been restrained.

--This is easy for me to say, because I am, even now, a relatively fit man.
Implicit in all of my behavior is absolutely no acceptance of intentional action
against my sovereignty.

I am willing to die and I am a 26 year old man still relatively fit.

If I judge that you have really understood the weight of your actions and still
done something that offends me

I don't care what happens to my body so long as I can land fists against your
skull.
If I have really been offended I will kill you before people can stop me from
killing you.
If you have looked me in the eye and really understood the relation that obtains
between us
and you have proceeded to assault me
I will literally select the most optimal method for killing you bodily.
ANd I will either succeed or not but you
will be subject to the outcome of my succeeding or not.

You are relying, maybe, on a typical unwillingness to bare fists against your face.
But this was incorrect to rely on.
I don't care if the restraining methods people around us have to employ results in
me being dead.
I don't care if they have to kill me rather than pinning my limbs against the
ground.
If I have judged that you have required reprisal then you will be as close to dead
as my actions can possibly result.
I will make you as close to dead as I can before I am bodily prevented from
proceeding.
I don't care the weakness in my limbs.

--But no one ever arrives at that juncture with me.

The person backing his ass repeatedly against me was some stupid boy,
much like all of the other stupid boys and girls in Red's bar all looking for a
lay.

No one who was stupid demands death.

No one who was stupid has looked me in the eye and really understood our relation
to each other.
No one who was stupid has really understood the weight of provoking me into
reprisal.
No one who was stupid has understood that repeatedly backing into me when I have
walked away
is not an effective method for flirting with me, say.

--Red's bar makes things mechanically difficult, you know?

Because I am not out at the bars, even at bare last, to attract a bearded man.
I am in a bar and there is a clear distinction to me between what is attractive and
what is not.
Faces that bare beards are not attractive but
bodies that have low cut dresses are attractive.

But. A woman's body might be necessary but it is not sufficient.

So I am looking at screens or decorations instead of
all of the many alluring bodies of women positioned bodily around me.

To be presented with such an array of women's bodies and to be looking at none of

them
is effectively to be declaring that one is gay.
I am not gay. But the actions I happen to select serve as the practical signal in
a location that I am gay.
--Because practically to arrive in Red's bar and for there to be so many women's
bodies around most alluring
and not to be looking at *them*,
is to be signalling that one is gay.

But this is a social happenstance.

I am not staring at the bodies of the women because I am not interested.
I am staring at the decorations in the bar because I am interested.

To be staring at the decorations will be judged as *not*-staring at the bodies of

the arrayed women.
And if a gay man happens into Red's bar and he sees a man not staring at the bodies
of women,
that is as good as an invitation.
It is an effective declaration that one is interested in a gay liason.

But that is not what I am interested in.

I am interested in the decorations in the bar.

So this gay man proceeds covertly to try to initiate a gay liason.

I am not offended by this more than I would be offended otherwise when a person
repeated a badgering behavior that is contrary to my will of staring at decorations
in the bar.

When I was busy looking at all of the decorations in the bar,

anyone who repeatedly backed into my hand with an ass would be crying out for
reprisal.

It is only that
my staring at decorations did not constitute a signal for any given women
that I was a suitable subject for sexual advances.
Whereas practically staring at the decorations in the bar *was* an *apparent*
declaration
that I am a suitable subject for sexual advances from gay men.
(Because this practically entails not, say, staring at the cleavage of the women
around me bodily.)
[Though note:
I was looking at the decorations
because they were more interested than any of the plausible interactions
offered to me by the people around me.

I never witnessed any invitation for interaction with the people around me. Not
once.
So obviously interacting with them would have been extremely uninteresting
as it would not have resulted in interaction with them.

So staring at the decorations in the bar is as good as staring at any point on

their bodies.
If I am looking, say, at their eyes or mouths
this was not because they have asked me to interact with them.

Because they did not ask me to interact with them.

They did not attempt to engage me in conversation.
They did not look me in the eye with a face that indicated they were interested in
speaking with me.
They did not place objects within the range of my grasp that implicitly required me
to mind them.

They did nothing that made their bodies anything other than bodies in my
evaluation.
So they were no more interesting to me than the decorations placed around the bar.
They were no more a locus for my attention than any of the decorations around the
bar
because they made no attempt at all to engage with me on any level.

--The bared back is not a gesture at me.

The bared back is something that happens to have been present while I was looking
at decorations in the bar.
(Much as all of the decorations were what happened to be present while I was
looking at decorations in the bar.)

--If you have *engaged with me*,

then me peaking a glance at your lovely body is a message shared between us.
But if you have not made any attempt to
*speak* with me,
then my peaking is a stolen glance.

It is me lusting and not me speaking with you.

--I'm maybe failing in explication here.

I sat in a bar for about an hour and not a single among the very many people
made the bare attempt to communicate with me.
No one made the bare indication that they were even inviting the possibility that
we were in communication.

I sat for an hour and for an hour human bodies flowed around me like the weather.
And none of them was more like a person to me than the decorations affixed to the
walls of the bar.

Then I went to the golden rose and I experienced the same thing.
Not a single one of them was more to me than the neon lights.
Not a single one of them behaved as if I was anything other than a fixture in their
environment.

--And it is the same with the young boy who was backing his ass into my hand.
He was treating me as a fixture of his environment
behavior against which might result in his own arousal.

Now, I am not going to kill a human for blindly pursuing arousal.

But I am also not going to do anything other than backing away annoyedly.

Okay,? if he had looked me in the eye and spoken with me,

then we would be having a legitimate discussion concerning whether it was
legitimate for him to press his ass against my hand.
I would be saying:
"All apologies, it is lovely to speak with you,
but I am only interested in women."

Okay? Much easier to handle than

the treating of me as a fixture in the environment.

For the same reason I am not going to stare at the bodies arrayed in front of me
without first treating with them as a person,
for that same reason it was illegitimate to be backing your ass against my hand
repeatedly.
(oh you silly boy.)

--No hatred! No hatred! You're the hater here.

This boy being nothing other than if

I watched a dangling banner proceeding to fall from its holdings.
If I had been watching one of the banners on the wall of the bar
and it had begun to look like it would soon fall,
that is what this body next to me was.

And I responded to it much as I would have responded to the dangling banner:

I just effected the actions that would prevent me from being impacted by the
falling banner.
I moved my stool the right relative to the table.
The gay boy backed back into me again, and I moved my stool right again.
And then the gay boy backed into me again, and I moved my stool further right.
Eventually I had moved the stool so far that I could not move it any further given
other physical constraints.

And whether I would be willing to touch any arbitrarily selected gay boy is
completely irrelevant here.
It was someone who was treating me as a fixture in the environment.
It was someone who had not begun to speak to me as a person,
but had taken my body as a locus of action.
(As when my body was the focus of the action of
continuing to back an ass against my hand.)

--Though you'll note I would be a complete hypocrite to arrive in a bar and be

trolling for ass.
The way people interact in Red's bar is so crude
that any of the actions I could make that would be taken as an effort at flirting
would constitute what I take to be a kind of assault.

If I had wanted to flirt with any of the women in my field of vision,

i would have to have, in that accepted environment, to have done things I would
agree constitute assault.
I would, for instance, have had bodily to intrude my body onto a woman in my
environment.

ANd its being Red's bar, the woman would say:

"I am in Red's bar and this is the way flirting occurs here,
so I am going to respond amicably to this man who has intruded his body on my
personal space."

--Now I don't care if they have been fooled into believing this isn't assault.
I think they are wrong if they fail to observe this.
I think they are submitting themselves freely to assault if they
comport themselves in a way that requires me bodily to intrude on their personal
space to gain their attention.

I think if they meet someone at Red's bar who has obeyed the local etiquette,
they are submitting themselves to rape.
The way things proceed in Red's bar, the commonly accepted signals of interest,
are so perverse that to engage in them at all is to be
--I am unwilling to force myself into a woman's personal space even if it is the
locally accepted signal of interest.

I think if they believe it is acceptable to accept this kind of manner of

interaction
they have misunderstood their position in pursuing all of our liberation.
It is not good that men grow accustomed to its being plausible
that they force themselves bodily on women.
So it is not good to accept the advances of men who force themselves on you bodily.

So I am not going to pursue flirtation that involves forcing myself bodily on women
even if it is the locally accepted custom that this is the indication of interest.
I am not, say, going to sidle up next to a woman and put my hand on her waist while
talking at her.

"This is sad."
"I think what you would prefer is that the bar scene is an unending orgy."

No doubt.
But we can have our orgy until it is certain that no assault is even a plausible
outcome of the procession of events.
When we know for certain no one is going to violate us,
then we can allow freely people to touch and feel as they will.

--
--You know, with regards to the gay boy in Red's bar there are other interesting
circumstances in my life to adduce.
At one point in my past I was at a rave,
and there was a gay boy who decided to try to grind on my body.

And now I did not want, say, to beat this person to death.
And furthermore I did not want to say:
"I am going to ruin the rest of this rave for you."

I can appreciate the difficulty of being a gay man in our society.

I can appreciate that I wear tight jeans and lowcut shirts and that these are the
kinds of things
where covert gay men must take them as signals or else never get laid.

But for that matter,

I really do not want you to be touching me.
I do not want anyone to be touching me, and for certain I do not want someone who
is treating me as a fixture in his environment to be touching me.

Now death is one option here.

If you had been a woman I would be feeling the same thing here, so don't take me
wrong.
One option is mutilating the body as most as I can in the period of time before I
can be restrained.

But that is not how I am taking the rave.

'not how I am taking the rave'--I am not judging the way people are touching me in
terms of
how I can most rapidly effect the destruction of people touching me.

I am hoping to inform anyone who touches me that I am not at all interested in that
anyone else is bodily touching me right now.
--Because I am at the rave, I am raving,
and if a gay man has mistaken me for someone who is interested in being touched by
him,
then well I take a step forward.
(Easy for me to say.
I don't feel compelled to take this as assault
because if it had been assault the assaulter would be broken and bleeding on the
ground.

If I had been being assaulted

then there would be a broken and bleeding body on the ground.
It might be dead before I could be restrained from executing my purpose.

So my mercy can really be taken seriously.

When I had no interest in ruining this gay man's night,
really I was taking great pains to prevent my body from being touched.

When I indicated bodily at that rave that I was not interested in being touched,
well that man just ended up wandering off elsewhere.
And the rave proceeded as it would.
It was not interrupted by the spectacle of me bashing a human into the ground.
(As let me tell you.
I was quite fit.

I was well balanced.

I was prepared to prevent any assault against my body.

But no assault occurred.

)

(
I recall an averted brawl on saint patrick's day.

There was a drunk irishman in the bar in front of me.

We were all dancing to electronic music.

For no comprehensible reason the drunk irishman made faces at me.

These faces indicating a fighting disposition.

As naturally proceeded, I ignored these faces.

I was free to ignore these faces

because I would have beaten this drunk irishman to death.

I just kept dancing and smiling, and defusing as best I could whatever tensions
were present,
and I rest assured that no one as drunk as this man is can possibly overcome my
balance.

And the drunk irishman was enraged by this.

But there was a person he was with, and this person said things like:
"Stop being a drunk idiot. Seriously.
Stop being a drunk fucking idiot."
And then the drunk irishman backed down.
Or uh, he did whatever he did.
He took it as accepting a backing down.
I took it as a drunk idiot doing whatever drunk idiots do.
--I took it as this guy who happened to make faces at me before ceasing to make
faces at me.
I was not giving care at all to the faces he was making
because I was not explicitly convinced that I needed to care what this body tried
to do.

--I am, at least in that circumstance, immune to [word] intimidation.

If he had been less drunk I would have taken his faces as being less implicitly
obviously dismissable.
If he had been stone-cold sober and he was his stature relative to mine
and he was intimating violence,
then I would not have been able to proceed to dance as I was want to do.
Then I would be needing to position my feet in such a way
that if we were going to be engaging in violence I would be able to respond
effectively.

--But he was dead drunk.

It was *because* he was dead drunk that he was making violent faces at me.
It was because he was dead drunk that his fellows all said to him:
"You are seriously being a drunk idiot right now. Stop doing what you are doing."

--See what I am saying?

I was fit but I am not boasting.
A human body of that stature that was dead drunk
would not have been able to overwhelm my balance.

Because I was a fit man with effective balance,

I can dismiss violent drunk idiots in bars.
I can rely on the fellows of the drunk to restrain him,
or I can rely on my fists to restrain him.

But either way, I don't need to do anything other than continue to dance
in order to assure that I do not end up with my skull being pounded against the
ground.

But this is only true because, in that circumstance, I was a fit sober man
and the intimidator was a drunk idiot of short stature.

The worst case scenario that can arise here is not, ah, much worse than the best
case.
I am not, for instance, going to arrive with my skull against the ground.

I can continue to dance, or I can

be preventing violence against my body,
but either way I am going to continue dancing shortly.

--You see, I am not boasting.

I am relating my tactical evaluation of the circumstance on this particular saint
patty's day.

If the drunk idiot in the bar had been an enormous man,

I would not be suggesting that it would have been trivial to prevent violence
against my body
under the condition that the drunk idiot was making violent faces at me.

--If the drunk idiot had been an enormous man,

it may have been that if I continued to dance as I would
I would be exposing myself bodily to a circumstance where the enormous man is
pinning my skull against the ground.

So obviously in that circumstance I would not be informing you

that I was not at all concerned with whether I continued to dance or not.

But the drunk idiot was this actual particular man,

and I was unconcerned.

I just continued to behave justly,

and his fellows told him to back down because he was being a drunk idiot.

He was picking a fight for no other reason than that he was very drunk and it was
saint patrick's day.
Or, he was picking a fight because I look the way I do. Whatever his reason.
It was obvious to all present that he was being a drunk idiot.

I knew it was obvious to all present that he was being a drunk idiot.
I knew that I had done nothing that justified violent glances in my direction.
I knew that if the circumstance turned violent

I can take a drunk idiot in a bar.

Physically. In the good old days when I was fit.

--You see how we are dumpster diving here?

I don't particularly want to talk about what would happen bodily, physically,
discernably, in a bar
if violence broke out.

But you might take it like this:

'Eric Russell suffers from toxic masculinity
and so he must justify himself in terms of the people he can beat up.'

--Sometimes I can only justify myself in terms of the people I can beat up.
If me dancing as I will in a bar results in violent idiots directing violent looks
at me,
I can only justify myself by saying:
"You are wrong and you will be proven to be wrong no matter what you do."
"Even if you are not ultimately proven wrong,
it will be so costly to make the test that you will retroactively judge you were
unwilling to do it."
"Even if I am pinned down before I can kill you after you have begun to assault me

you will be so damaged that you will not retroactively judged that it was worth
executing violence against my body.
"

That is what secures my justice.

It is not being compelled to alter my actions by reference to people around me
shooting hateful glances at me.

If I was a frail man, then a weaker body can have made demands on my actions.
But I am myself a few years ago, and the interlocutor is a drunk short not-
wellbuilt man.

I do as i will because I know, I am made to know at that point,

that this person can't stop me even though stopping me is apparently what he wants.

I don't trust the crowd typically.

I don't think that on all occasions where I have judged that violence is necessary
that people will be agreeing with me and assisting me.

So I can't use, you know, group sentiment as a justifying deterrant.

It has to be judged by the worst case scenario.
The moment I begin to execute violence every single human around me will begin to
try to restrain me.
How can I optimally damage your body under the condition that every human will
proceed to restrain me?

--And then most humans don't end up trying to restrain me bodily!

And how much worse then you will be off!
When the bystander effect takes in,
when people can't really judge which of us is right and so don't know whether
intervention is called for,
I will be pounding your skull into the ground, you drunk idiot.

They will restrain my body, but by the time they do your brain will be irreparably
damaged.
--That is the securing of my justice.
Knowing that is the inevitable outcome in that circumstance is
knowing that I can just keep dancing as I will.

I will have been restrained bodily with no injury to my body, and that will be the
resolution of the situation.
You will have had your skull pounded into the ground most vigorously.
That is why you don't try to continue your plan to make a fight with me bodily in
this bar, drunk idiot.
In the one moment I have bothered to look into your eyes you have seen I am not
scared at all,
and to not be scared at all is for me to be signalling:
"Try it.
Implicitly."

And you were cowed.

You kept up a show so as not to be humiliated.
You kept up the show until your crowd told you to back down.
You kept face by keeping making faces at me until someone told you "It's not worth
it!"

[I am not bragging.]

I was not, for instance, mocking you vocally.

I was mocking you implicitly.
If I had mocked you vocally, it would be a lot harder for your crowd to try to talk
you down.

If I had said:
"Try it, bitch."
Then no one would be trying to talk you down bodily.

But I am not interested in antagonising people around me.

I am interested specifically in just continuing to dance
and being completely immune to attempts to cow me from dancing.

So in this situation you have constructed by glaring at me,

I am just going to keep dancing,
you will know by my dancing that you could not prevent me from damaging your brain,
and you will persist until you are talked down by your fellows.

Easy peasy.
All it took was having the muscles accrued to my body by my daily activities as a
man with testosterone physically.
[Hmm?]

--But I can imagine my body was otherwise.

I can imagine this drunk idiot being much more physically capable than I am.
Then what choice do I have?
Then what can I do?

(I am imagining myself as a grim reaper sprinting through a rave

removing every human that tries to dominate another human.)
--My will is resolute in that bar in that moment
because this drunk idiot cannot reasonably cow me.
My dancing is unhindered
because none of my environment presented to me any stimulus that would interrupt my
dancing.
None of my environment, this stocky drunk idiot among it,
presented any impediment to the continued placement of my feet against the ground
while dancing.

--*I* was free to ignore this drunk idiot.

Other humans in bodies might not have been so free to ignore the drunk idiot.
(And in that moment the drunk idiot is deserving of execution instead of rebuke.
'execution' I mean ideological execution.
As in, instead of verbal rebuke,
that person being pinned by police to the ground for instance immediately.)

--
--You see my 17$ was well-spent downtown.
Oh the words I mined out of my experience.

Oh the kilobytes I have filled out in triplicate.

--
--Why psycho-logicians should be taken skeptically:
(why we might think of psychology as being something other than a science:)

the psychologist claims to be in a position to declare other positions as invalid.

'invalid'
as when a psychologist claims to be qualified to declare other humans schizophrenic
and thereby invalidate all of the ideas they have constructed within their
position.

If there are a whole lot of depressed people around who are saying:
"The world in which we live is an unceasing horror."
THe psychologist implicitly feels qualified to declare:
"The world is not in fact an unceasing horror to wake up into.
If you think it is, then you are a depressive."

But what if it is an unceasing horror for everyone?

What if everyone *else* is wrong in supposing it is not an unceasing horror?

--If a psychologist calls me a schizophrenic,

implicitly the notion that the world is an unceasing horror
is invalidated by its having been held by a schizophrenic person.

--So I can write ten thousand pages justifying my position that the world is an
unceasing horror,
and a psychologist can academically invalidate my ten thousand pages
with a few lines of text that say I am a schizophrenic?

Philosophers don't feel themselves qualified to invalidate my position using a few

lines of text.
Mathematicians do not, and physicists do not.
Literary physicians do not think I am able to be invalided in a few lines of text.
But psychologists can say my position is invalid
and destroy my academic position in a few lines
as would have taken any other disciplinarian a hundred pages.

--This is why psychology is a doubtful discipline.

It claims to understand the valid frame of reference by which we can judge
positions.
It claims to be able to say in a few words
what every other discipline only claims to be able to say after hundreds of pages.

{--Now this is not to say psychology is bad.

There are, unfortunately, people out there}

--So a psychologist might read the text I have constructed.

One way of accounting for the text I have constructed is like this:
"The writer conceives of himself as a messiah figure."
"When people write lengthy documents in which they appear to be presenting
themselves as a messiah,
these people are always schizophrenic."

Now I have fearfully observed that, while I do not think of myself this way, it is
a reasonable judgment of the text I have made
that I am making this kind of judgment about myself.
--Because specifically i say things like: "I made the Machine that resolves all
difficulties."
And in-story to have made the Machine is to have presented oneself as a messiah-
like figure.

I agree that if a psychologist read my text and I was *wrong*,

I would be schizophrenic.
I would agree that the grandiosity involved in the text I have made
is only reasonably the product of incorrect schizophrenics.

--But I doubt the capacity of the psychologist to judge whether I am correct or

incorrect.
So I doubt the propensity of the psychologist to pick out collections of text and
judge of them that they constitute grandiosity.
--I doubt that when psychologists are picking out selections of text so as to
categorise them as symptoms of my schizophrenia
what they are picking out makes any sense to have picked out.
--I think that if I was truly to be judged to be schizophrenic,
it would require a highly specialised philosopher-psychologist
who could fully reconstruct what I have said and then say of it: "This is the
product of an insane person."

--
--Ho hum.
Psychologists certain present an interesting point of delination for the
philosophers.

If something of tremendous apparent complexity has been presented,

and the philosophers are asking themselves whether it is truly complex or whether
it is the product of insanity,
it is a great weight off the shoulders of philosophers if the psychologist comes
along and says it is the product of insanity.

Then whereas they know it would have taken them many pages fully to dismantle the
position,
it took a psychologist a few seconds and a few lines.
(Like an academico-economic optimisation.)

--Though you know, buried somewhere deeply in my text, I have a defense even
against this.
"I am writing this because it amuses me to do so.
I construct complexity because the unravelling of complexity is what is most
amusing."
"no matter how insane the ramblings seem,
they were only made because
taken as an artifact they will amuse me immeasurably later."

Then if the psychologist calls me a schizophrenic I will say:

"It was only an artifact, friend.
Only a thing I will look at conceptually later in an obviously sane fashion."
[
If you are going to be *not wrong*,
one among the academics you have to be able to defeat is the psychologist.

The psychologist is simultaneously more easy to fool than the other academics
and also much more dangerous to have fallen in poor judgment.

Having philosopher-academics disagree with me is useful,

but having psychologists disagree with me is *extremely* unuseful.

Dealing with philosophers' disagreement with me leads to papers in journals.

Dealing with psychologists' disagreement with me results in pills being forced into
my mouth or my body being forced into a straight jacket.

And this is true even if all the psychologist is doing is

suggesting a depressive attends a therapist
instead of attending the unending abyss that is the correct object of one's
attention.
Then the psychologist has reported to the academy:
"The depressive's position was not to be taken seriously.
It was to be corrected through kind words rather than disputation."

--As when I have made a large text and begun to distribute it through the
libraries,
and the psychologists mechanically recommend that the text is remitted to the
flames and no longer read
because it was the product of a schizophrenic.
Then no disputation arises. No papers are generated.
If any paper is generated, it lumps me in with a broad categorsation of people very
unlike me.
(It would be the paper the psychologist makes in talking about how it resolved my
circumstance with chemicals or therapy.)

--
--In my own story I am Atlas or I am not.
I walk past men on the street who scream out at me that they are one day from
killing themselves.

There is no story a psychologist can tell me concerning what it is reasonable to

feel here.
If I witness this and I say:
"The current state of affairs must be abolished."
--Okay? What is the alternative?
I could spit on them, and then the psychologist might tell me I was angry
or might tell me nothing because no psychologist was ever pitted against me in that
circumstance.

That is a stupid alternative.

I see, I witness these men on the street telling me directly they are one day from
killing themselves.
Literally. As terrifying as it was to experience, I heard them saying this.

So what?
When I take this seriously I am exhibiting depression?
When I say that the thing I have witnessed cris out to the high heavens,
I was being a depressive?
Because people who cry out to the high heavens for alteration
are the people who are depressive.

--I am not depressed. I am extremely unhappy.

I understand, unlike apparently everyone else, the gravity of our shared
circumstance
and the weight of the sin that is embodied in so many of our actions.

When I look at all of the actions available to me and I spit on them,

this is not me being a depressive.
This is the level-headed and rational response to being presented a world like the
one with which I am presented.
If you have seen our shared circumstance and not been like me,
you were drunk on ideology.

And well, the psychologist is not ever going to see *our* shared circumstance.
They are playing academic enforcer for the Order of the Dumpster.
often they are right but they are not punished when they are wrong.
--The psychologist absorbs the accepted notion of normality
and enforces this notion on all of the patients with whom he is presented.

The psychologist intercedes forcibly when he observes something that contradicts

the accepted notions of normality.

Other people intercede at other junctures.

For instance, philosophers intercede at conceptual junctures in general,
scientists intercede at scientific junctures,
literary critics discuss style and so on.

--Now is it true that some people deviate so broadly from our agreed-upon normality
that they must be corrected?
Apparently.
We all apparently agreed that some among us deviate from our notions of normality
so broadly that they must be restrained.
--At least given this, it is preferable that they are corrected rather than
executed.
--Corrected rather than imprisoned, say.
--Apparently we agree that some people need to be taken into rooms and persuaded to
obey our normality.

--Having observed that I am correct and that I have made the Machine,
it is made significant that I avoid arriving in a room with a psychologist
who can force pills or therapy down my throat.

The pills these people disperse, they make no sense,

they certainly do more than they claim to do,

and to take a regimen of anti-depressants is to destroy my capacity to continue to

construct the Machine.
I cannot arrive in a circumstance where I am compelled to consume anti-depressants.
I am not a depressive.
I am a realist and everyone else is absorbed in a fantasy.
I am a realist and no one else understand the horror that is our shared world.

If I approached everyone downtown and said to them:

"The obvious thing to do here is immediately find out how to save those people in
the street right this damn instant."
Then I would be found and pinned down by psychologists with needles
who would forcibly prevent me from continuing to spread this kind of message.
If I truly accepted the gravity vocally of our shared circumstance
and I pointed out the obvious truth of what is demanded of us,
I would be taken as insane.

So I have to be a kind of secret agent or something.

I cannot disregard the truth I have seen.
I cannot convince others to acknowledge the truth I have seen.
I cannot do the obvious activity of convincing them immediately to save the people
on the street.

I have to do some non-obvious activity that effects the same thing.

And if attempting most optimally to resolve the difficulties of the people on the
street is what is called insanity,
well then.
If saying our shared world is absolutely intolerable is depression,
well then.

If really behaving in the way demanded by one's sayings is mania,

well then.
--If I avert my gaze in public when surrounded by people and this is autism,
well then.
You who are so wise to be able to judge me truly, who did not once begin to speak
with me.

--I do not accept judgment.

Because I feel willing to say to myself that it was all justified by a correct
purpose.
Unlike the psychologist, I am in a position to observe the weight of the
'introduction of the Machine'.
So I am in a position to say it was worth the complete reorientation of my life.
And if the psychologist is to discern whether I am insane,
he must first understand what I am talking about when i am referencing the Machine.

--Whether I am insane depends on some particularly intricate particularity of my

reasoning when discussing the Machine.
--But then I am already correct and not wrong.
That anything should hinge on my speakings about the Machine
already proves me justified.
[And well,
this was all not *really* discussing psychology
bbut rather discussing program design :O]

--
--
Boy, I dislike going out in public.
It is an unceasing torrent of uncertainties.
It is a constant indecision.

The text required to respond adequately to it

is more than I am willing to construct regularly.
It is much cheaper and more rewarding to respond to text I have already
constructed.
--And if I do not adequately respond in-text to the circumstances to which I expose
myself,
I risk remaining wrong. This risk is unacceptable.
So if I am unwilling to write hundreds of pages in response to every outing
downtown,
then I am going consistently to be wrong.
I am unwilling to write hundreds of pages,
so I don't go downtown.
I am not going to be wrong consistently.
I am unwilling to construct the behaviors necessary not to be wrong consistently.
So I don't put myself in the circumstances where I can be wrong.

It is manageably easy not to be wrong when I am typing.

It is unmanageably difficult not to be wrong out in public.

--
--

Notably, despite everything I intimated or outright said above,

at no point during my trip downtown was I actually considering the possibility of
committing violence.
This is good because it was not always like that.

"You said outright that when that boy was backing into you
you 'felt within yourself' the inclination to commit violence."

I think what I should rather say is that

in that moment I was experiencing something that
when I looked back on it to write
I would recognise that there is violence implicit in my being out in public.

--That, say, if I recognise that there is a stimulus (the person backing into me)
that should be bothering me greatly but doesn't,
this is because there is violence implicit in my body being anywhere.

--Now, I don't even think that is true anymore. ('true')

But there is one practical way of testing whether it remains true of me or not:
write out the story as if it rested on violence, and then in reading that story
judge whether it is a plausible story.

It is not a plausible story, I was thinking while writing,

but I can't then just cut myself short before reaching the end of the story.
Then I might stop short of the juncture that arose, over the actual course of the
night,
at which that story *had* remained true.

Then I would not successfully have identified and extirpated the tendency towards
violence.

And now comparing the implausible story with the plausible one, I can reach some
interesting conclusions.
I do believe in the past that experiencing annoyance immediately put me into a
violent disposition.
I believe experiencing annoyance is no longer like this for me.

But why should it have ever been?

Why, in the past, when people were bumping into me,
was I clenching my jaw and my fist?
Why was I becoming acutely aware of my surroundings in such the way as was
necessary to do violence?
[What role does the komboloi serve for me when I am playing with it in public?]

--You'll note there was a B storyline going on above, behind all of the wild
intimations of violence I was making.
The B storyline was my looking at decorations in the bar instead of the bodies of
women in front of me.
Now, many people in high school read Rand and became Randians,
but I read the Confessions and became a Manichean. (ha!)

So there were at least a few years there where I would be averting my gaze,
and the explanation I would provide for this is that it is best to avoid lusting
after people in my environment.

And that *could* still have been the story going on in the bar last night
behind why I was looking at decorations in the bar instead of these bodies.
But that is not the story. The story I told is the story.

At this point in my life, apparently, objects taken for lust are no more
interesting to me than decorations.
Or indeed, less interesting.
A human body is a lovely thing,
and it used to be so lovely that it overwhelmed my notions that people should be
treated as people instead of objects of lust.

Now I am freed from such overwhelming inclinations.

Recognising that my gaze is illegitimate if it is not being invited,
it is as easy as anything to avert my gaze.

"Erm, I hate to say this insofar as I am a feminist,

but they were in fact inviting your gaze by standing where and they way they did."

Ho hum.
And despite the moralising that goes on on the internet,
in fact people do dress intentionally to direct eyes over the flow of their
clothing,
particularly in the downtown scene.

But I am thinking *persons* can perform this invitation, while clothing cannot do
it for them.
The weather doesn't ask me to look at it.
--Which is why we expended several lines observing that no one made any attempt to
communicate with me.

"Notably, you also made no attempt to communicate with them.

Indeed, you spent a lot of your time with your hand covering your mouth
so that your face is immune to scrutiny.

People have to look at faces to see intentions and so on, you know?
One girl looked at you and smiled,
and your immediate response of smiling back was foiled practically by your hand
placement."

Yes, I do some strange things.

I can recognise that it would be very difficult to strike up a conversation with me
without speaking a word to me.
And I can recognise that downtown is a place where more communication takes place
with bodies than with words.
[If I wanted to tell an Augustinian story here instead of my own story,

I would not say of my strange gestures that they are leftover remnants of
awkwardness,
but I would say something like:
"A spare shared smile might be all it takes for me to arrive in someone's bed.
I have no notion! Knowing in advance I don't want this, I effect behaviors that
eliminate its possibility."

But as self-aggrandising as that is, it bears little relation to the progression of

my being downtown.
Or maybe I am still a Manichean at heart despite supposing that part of me is no
longer in me.
Maybe there is some dark corner of my mind I have not yet probed
that self-sabotages any activities that would give rise to a Manichean's notion of
sin.

I have taken a lantern to every dark corner of my mind I could find and I am still
unsure here;
I can only imagine how lost all of you are in yourselves.]
[Oh boy, here I go self-aggrandising again.]

--
--

"China launches 8,000 water clean-up projects worth $100

billion in first half of 2017"

Converting paper assets into holdings of equity in projects

where the costs they ameliorate are greater than the cost to execute them.

I suppose if China cashed in all its US debt, they could have 100% free renewable
electricity across the board,
smog-free air, clean rivers, what have you,
converting one paper dollar at a time into tangible assets.

Meanwhile in Britain,:
"British company, Innospec, made millions this year selling a dangerous chemical
linked to brain damage
and premature death to a developing country, despite repeatedly stating it would
stop",

the wealth rests on causing so much damage to the rest of the world
that, with numbers so large, an accounting trick can convert some portion of that
cost into wealth acquired.

The UK demands practically, through its imports, that it be treated as wealthy--

and it is wealthy! It is an enormously wealthy criminal organisation!
And the dollars of criminals are as good as the dollars of good people, however
they were acquired.

As much as I am constitutionally disposed to look back on the Empire with a

nostalgic sigh,
it really has gotten embarassing at this point.
[I am so constitutionally disposed because
the Empire to me is just a few flitting images of people sipping gin and tonics on
the vistas of estates.

A pleasant image that hides the magnitude of their sin.

But since nostalgia just requires seeing a few flitting images in one's head and
not questioning deeper,
I look back on the Empire with a nostalgic sigh.]

--
--
I really need to acquire new glasses.
My eyes have degraded and the lenses on my current glass have had maddening
scratches in their center for years.

It is difficult to ascertain *why* this makes it harder for me to read and type,
because every time I look at a word I do not have difficulty focusing in on it.
But passing from one word to the next does require some extra effort than simply
moving my eyes,
and if I am scanning text to see, say, where my grammar compels me to look (as when
I am closing brackets, say)
, I am much slowed down or discouraged from sticking with my tecnicality.

--
--

Some post on reddit observing that lowering nicotine quantities in cigarettes makes
it easier to quit smoking.
However, for the two forms of tobacco I purchase, there is no way of discerning how
much nicotine they contain.

I am in a bit of a viscious cycle here.

I primarily justify the next purchase of a pouch of tobacco
by observing that my preferred method for consuming marijuana is by depositing a
small quantity of it in a cigarette.
I order to deposit a small quantity of it in a cigarette, I need rolling tobacco.

Having acquired rolling tobacco, I do not save it for those occasions where I am
using it to consume marijuana.

Now, I have smoked one cigarette today, and I feel little compulsion to smoke
another.
But I feel compelled to go purchase the next pouch for the adduced reason.
Then having purchased the pouch, I will arrive back into a swing of days where I
smoke 3-4 cigarettes a day.

Really, I just need THC fluid for my vaporiser.

But if I had thc fluid for my vaporiser, chances are I would just be high literally
all the time.
Well well, I have a pipe. I can just use that.
Or I can make a spliff using the dust tobacco that is on the piece of sheet music
that constitutes my rolling station.
Similarly, I could roll another cigarette right now.
WIth the option freely in front of me to do so, I am not feeling the compulsion to
do it.

--Anyway, I raise all of this because if I could discern which rolling tobacco held
the least nicotine
then I could begin to purchase that to aid in my unending quest to stop smoking.
But apparently this information is not publicly available.

--
--

I may need to buy the last expansion for fallout 4

so that I can finish Vermillion's story line.
I have heard there are raiders living in nuka-world.

'living' which is quite the problem.

--
--

I am thinking between the SolarDAO and a traditional investment fund for solar
energy.

One of the primary countries for installation of solar panels by the DAO is Israel.
Also, some eastern european countries where any investment there will be of dubious
legality.

Now, having selected a place like Israel as a plausible candidate for investment,
I would expect that the returns from the DAO are going to be higher than something
like wunder capital investments.
Additionally, there is some utility to having returns on investment delivered to an
anonymous wallet.

Now normally I would have to sit down and ask a great many moral questions before I
would be willing to support industry in Israel.
It is not at all clear to me that their project is legitimate.

But on the other hand, we aren't talking about financing a factory. We are instead
talking about financing solar panels.
--Now, okay, with wunder capital (the website of which I have open, because I have
thousands of dollars laying about)
I am imagining solar projects in rural America
where, okay, I might be supporting the electricity generation needs of people who
are flying confederate flags say,
but at least they are Americans and I have some faith at great length that the Feds
will ensure that they do nothing but fly flags.

--I am wondering whether something can be so good to have financed

that I can dispense with lengthy ethical analysis to justify having financed it.

As, say, if there was an investment opportunity in a profitable super-computer.

Then I would say to myself:
"I don't care where the super-computer is, and I have an extremely high tolerance
for those purposes towards which it is directed."
Because a super-computer schematically touches God and consequently retroactively
justifies its construction against a manyvariety of complaints.

Electricity generation also schematically touches the Machine.

SO I am wondering whether the product is so good,
and its producers so avaricious in producing additional instances of their product,
that it is better to invest in the DAO run by plausibly unscrupulous solar
constructors
rather than solar constructors who are governed by US regularities.

--TO say,
I think the DAO being operated by Russians is plausibly unscrupulous.
(Particularly given the nations they have said will be the focus of their
investment.)
(
Not to say Israel is illegitimate, but
if I see a business that has ties to Israel, then I am beginning to ask moral
questions.
It takes me time to ask moral questions, and my time is valuable to me,
so trivially if I am going to expend large quantities of money
I am going to avoid Israeli products if it costs me little to do so.
I would rather not deal with the headache of delineating their legitimacy.
)

--I think that openly declaring that you are open for business in Israel
is likely to return more than market average returns on investment.
And this is most practically to say,
I think these Russians who have declared themselves open for business in Israel
will construct more solar panels than would be constructed by the US regulated
wunder capital.

And if I think solar panels are overfloodingly valuable,

then it becomes a relevant question concerning whether I am willing to forgo
scrupulosity in favor of increased output.

Now, this is not quite yet a moral question.

It would become a moral question if I examined really hard the question of Israel's
legitimacy and then I said:
"There is no moral problem involved in purchasing products related to Israel.
It posts no more moral problem than any other relation in the market to be involved
in making Israel more valuable."
--Then it would be a moral question because I could be lying to myself.

I could have investigated Israel and been expecting of myself that I would judge
that it is not acceptable to do business with them.
But I might have been swayed, in that case, by the presentation of a greater profit
proposition by the Russians in question.

Then I would be lying to myself in order to make more money for myself.

--The practical question I am approaching is like this:

does it make sense for me to say that investing in Israeli property is, ah,
unacceptable,
but the construction of solar panels is so valuable that it makes no difference to
me?

If I answer that practical question in the affirmative,

then I will select the DAO for investment because it produces more solar panels,
and I will have done this without performing the practical procedure of
interrogating my notions of Israeli legitimacy.

I will have known in advance:

"It doesn't matter what my judgment of Israel's legitimacy is.
Even if I judge that they are not legitimate, it will not dissuade me from
investing in the DAO
because what is being *done* there through the DAO overwhelms any disagreeing
positions.

--But the solar panels are a unique thing here.

When free electricity and vast quantities of distributed computation
result in the overthrow of all of the governments and all of the structures of
power,
I *know* it will still be useful to have solar panels installed.

--No matter how the human project turns out,

it is best during this great boom to have made as many solar panels as possible.
--So I don't care where the solar panels are installed.
I want as many of them everywhere as possible.
--Because I know this is a solid equity holding.
If you own it before and after borders shift say, or legal rulings shift,
there is something on land that is intrinsically valuable.
So whoever ends up holding a position will be benefitted by that position having
previously dictated the installation of solar panels.

--Something like that.

In some way like that I would be exclaiming that the purpose of installing solar
panels
overwhelms any other moral judgments like the legitimacy of the locations in which
the panels are being installed.
--As I would be doing when I was saying:
"Because solar panels are so valuable,
I don't care what the outcome of my investigation of Israeli property holdings
reveals."

--And well don't judge me yet,

I as have yet not decided how my funds are to be remitted from Coinbase.
So I have not yet approached the moral juncture about which we are speaking
and made a definite decision.

(I am in a wonderful limbo.

I have as yet committed no real sin,

and at worst I have stolen dollars from a darkest {blackest} market.

I can talk and talk and talk about why I am unwilling to move my dollars in various
ways,
and dramatically I will be a human rotting away rather than moving them in any of
the various ways.
Increasingly it will be obvious that I should have made some decision by now.
--So in narrative I am in a very defensible position.

I have not even judged my own bank account as a legitimate moving of my dollars,
so why think I have illegitimate intent in questioning Israel? Or the Russians?
Or my own government? or any possible location where these dollars can end up.

The most obvious of them, to spend them into my bank account,

has as yet even not been selected as a legitimate course of action.

--Now notably, I know a great deal about the United States.

If there are installations of solar panels happening within the borders of the
United States,
I cannot really reasonably be expected to take a moral qualm with them.
--There is no reason I would begin to investigate whether the recipients of the
investment were illegitimate.
Because they are United States citizens, and they are requesting the installation
of solar panels.
Good enough for me.

But the moment I move beyond North America about whom I have a great deal of
specific knowledge,
the moment we move into the boarders of Europe say, or the moment there is any
target of investment in Africa,
or in that scary region of Asia where things are very scary for everyone daily,

, then it is not enough to hear the location name.

I have to know who is actually going to have the dollars in hand.
Because if I am not careful, I will be funnelling money into the hands of local
criminals.
--So an American investment fund will never arrive me at a moral juncture.
The moment I step outside of America
I have to ask morally relevant questions,
or else explicitly decide that no morally relevant questions overwhelm my
inclination that there will be constructed solar panels.

But asking these questions is costly to me.

It requires me to perform research.
I am not interested in researching the outcome of my investments.
Consequently there is an overgenerous willingness on my part to prefer American
investments.
I am willing to forgo profit opportunities because the cost of discerning whether
they are acceptable to obtain
outweighs the difference between the most profitable selection and the American
selection.

I am not going to select a more profitable option outside of America, at any rate
until it is super optimal.
(As say,
if there was a project elsewhere that was installing a truly enormous quantity of
solar panels,
and it was India say or China doing it. Or Russia with a massive wind farm. What
have you.
Often I can trust their legality as much as I trust American legality.

--So I can forgo a great deal of analysis here.

I can observe that the profit difference (the panel construction difference, even)
will not be so wide between the Russian and the American contractors
that I am willing to betake myself the cost of investigating whether the Russians
will be more profitable.

I prune off a whole branch all at once here.

I have available American contractors who are installing solar panels and in whom I
can invest.
I have available Russian contractors the credentials of which I do not doubt.

I think the Russian contractors will install more solar panels and return more
dividends.
But I don't think they will return so much more than the American contractors
that it is worth investigating whether the Russian contractors will return so much
more.
(As would be relevant to swaying my decision in favor of the Russian contractors.

Who, let me say, I respect completely their efforts.

It is a wonderful project.)

If, say, there was 1% additional return from the Russians over the Americans,
that 1% additional return is not enough to justify the work I would have to do to
discern whether it is indeed 1% more return.
So I am weighing the two contractors against each other,
--I was pointing at a specific gain here.

It is a nested task here:

I would first investigate whether the Russians were maybe providing a 10%! increase
in returns.
Then I might say:
"Okay, now there is a morally relevant question in play.
A 10%! increase in returns would be these contractors telling me:
'We are going to install several square miles of solar panels.'"

And if someone is promising to install several square miles of solar panels,

then I am justified in betaking myself to explore the moral questions specifically.
Because, well, the American contractors are promising a few square kilometers of
solar panels.
(In this imagined comparison.)

--So now not only have I betaken myself to investigate the rate of return,
I have also betaken myself to investigating the moral questions surrounding where
they would be investing panels.
--I have betaken my time to investigate two things about where my dollars should
flow.
--I do not enjoy having my time betaken by discerning where my dollars will flow.
So having an American option that immediately negates the necessity of research
is specifically valuable to me.
(As say,
if I am told: "You are paying for the installation of solar in Georgia."
Wonderful. I hope they find it well.

If I am told:
"You are paying for the installation of solar in, uh, uh, some dubious place."
Ah. Now I am unsure.

Now I have to spend time evaluating where my dollars are going,

and I place a very high negative premium on examining where my dollars are going.
Out of the many ways I can spend my time,
I want to spend as little time as possible considering where my dollars are
heading.
(in the realm of investment funds say, anyway.)

--
--Though you know, it won't be that way in the future.
In the future everyone will have so much money lying around
that they will always be in a position actively to influence the progression of our
shared economy.
--As people would be doing, say, if they all had a great deal of money
and they were all spending it on renewable energy bonds because they agreed
that mass installation of renewable energy was best for the human project to
perform.

Or if everyone had a great deal of !access to our economy and many of them were
voting to retrofit the water piping system, for instance.
--Everyone will have a say in the investment options available.
[We will correctly evaluate the value of a human holding a position in society.

This number will so exceed the value of any given rock

that to be able to price a human life in terms of a number of rocks will seem
ridiculous.
--You will not, after you have correctly evaluated the price of a human position,
feel reasonable when saying it is equivalent in price to a pile of rocks about a
kilo in weight.

--But still, we will need those rocks.

So whereas you had some plan before that implicitly weighted a kilo of rocks as
justifying a human death,
you will be finding a way to gather the rocks that do not result in human death.

Easy peasy.
We still need the rocks.
We still need the industry that gathers them.
We still need the workers that work the tools.
We still need the managers that control bookkeeping.

--Or we can go back to being shitty gatherers of rocks.

Is that what you want?
Or do you want to take the apparatus that is currently in our hands
and figure out how to adjust it until it correctly values human life?

--It is the difference between a manager saying:

"Do this or you are fired." or saying:
"I think you agree with me that what I am telling you to do is what best serves our
project."

--If you smash the looms you can still weave textiles.
But not nearly as well.
If you enjoy many of the things you have,
perhaps we should find a way to continue to make them as well as we do
while still respecting the value of human life.

--But then we also have to recognise that there *are* more optimal ways of
achieving our collective purposes.
So that a factory is not inherently oppressive, and being paid factory wages is not
*inherently* oppressive.
It always *happens* to be oppressive because our system grossly underprices the
value of a human life.
(It does not evaluate a human life as being so overwhelmingly valuable
that any plan that risks the death of a human is a no-go no matter how much money
it could make.)

'being paid factory wages'

okay, it is useful that doctors running a hospital are paid a lot.
It is useful that they are paid a lot because then they can pool their resources to
invest in an MRI machine where previously there was none.
(Though unfortunately many of them end up buying sportscars,
which is just the yacht of the land.)

If you wanted to design the best local operation of hospitals through the agency of
doctors,
you would throw money at them and let them decide what happens in the hospital.
Because there is literally no one better than they are at discerning what is best
to have happen in a hospital.

Now, optimising a factory is typically (let us judge) easier than optimising a

hostpital.
This because factories are so homogenised that an innovation in one is an
innovation in many.
So discerning a small improvement in factory design produces a major economic gain.

But installing an MRI into a given hospital in a given region is not a small
improvement in factory design.
It is a specific decision that a given region requires an MRI. That, say, it is
too expensive for people to drive to the next-nearest MRI machine.
When a union of doctors judges that an MRI machine is required,
this does not result in a revolution across all instances of hospitals.

When any worker in a factory recommends a change and it works,

this will result in a revolution across all factories with regards to how the
factory is operated.

--This means a few things:

factory wages can be lower than doctor wages.
This because the costs involved in discerning factory optimisations can be *much*
lower relative to the gain they lead factories to reap.
--To say, spending 10$ tinkering around with solder and welding equipment
might introduce a revolution in factory design that reaps millions of dollars in
cost reduction.

But the MRI machine the doctor's union is debating investing in

is not going to reap millions of cost savings.
It is a bare-margin deal. You either have the MRI machine *here*, or you don't and
then patients have to drive elsewhere and receive consultation elsewhere.

The optimisation of a given hospital requires the operators of the hospital to have
funds adequate to make decisions like installing an MRI machine.
*An* optimisation of a factory requires the operators of the factory to be free to
discern improvements
and to have the resources necessary to demonstrate those improvements.
Most such improvements are going to be cheaper to fund than installing an MRI
machine, say.

So factory workers can be paid less than the operators of a hospital.

(
Though this whole analysis is taking place in a fantasy land where
hospitals are operated by and for the needs of doctors.

In actuality there is a whole complicated beaureaucratic structure of management

and bookkeeping that claims to justify itself
in overseeing the progression of funds through a hospital.

--As if it is better to have a boardroom helmed by people paid collectively 2m$ per
year
than to have 2m$ worth of medical equipment.
Obviously it is not better to have maintained a boardroom than to have maintained
2m$ additional medical equipment.
But here we are.

Obviously hospitals should have become so proliferous

that spending 2m$ for boardrooms at each of them would be obviously ridiculous.
And you would have hospital after hospital all filled with 2m$ after 2m$ of
equipment.

And the Unions would sort out malpractisioners.

Much cheaper than hiring boardrooms.
((Or maybe some carefully maintained reputation web would sort out
malpracticioners.))
And the doctors could be a little worse because
they would have so much equipment to fall back on to compensate for their
infrequent failings.

--WIth 2m$ a hospital could hire several more doctors and a lot of equipment. Just
saying.
If hospitals frequently hosted 2m$ worth more of practicioners and equipment,
it would more frequently be a valuable proposition to open up a new hospital.
)

--
--I am making too many points to juggle here.
One among them is that the marketeers need to be starved of funds.
One way of starving them of funds is to be involved in managing solar assets rather
than financial instruments.

Then there are people out in fields installing solar panels

instead of people in air-conditioned offices doing cocaine.

There are too many people in high offices doing cocaine

who demand far too great a command over the progression of the economy.
The financial instruments market is a bubble.

It is not a bubble because it is inherently destructive,

but it is a bubble because it hosts a bunch of people with yachts and cocaine in
towers.
No organisation people have discerned how to construct supports this kind of
consumption.
To have been helming a project and to have engaged in such consumption
is to have constructed a bubble.

Because history tells me:

it is better to have people installing panels than putting numbers into a
soothsaying algorithm.
If the people installing panels are being paid in dirt
and the people doing cocaine in the towers are being paid in gold,
the system will dictate a correction in the allocation of resources.

These people who are in the towers doing cocaine will be made homeless addicts on
the street.
The value they provide to the economy is negative at best.

--So equities!
--Because the people in the towers have political connections.
They will execute those political connections to further their purposes.
And there will be a breaking point where holding a stake in their positions will
have been unwise.
--But if you have equities in solar panels say,
well that's a pretty lengthy investment,
and no one is going to be destroying your solar panels.

--And well here practically we have arrived back at my initial position.

I agree there are some good things our economy can construct, but there aren't many
good things towards which I can invest.
But in order to maintain my position eventually I must invest.
So I am asking specifically whether I invest in American contractors or

Russian contractors.
Now, my political allegiances aren't very important here.
If the Russians are good people and only doing good things,
and if they install more solar panels,
then I am going to fund them.

I don't have a particular care that people in Alabama are being paid to install
panels.
I have a general care that Alabamans are Americans, and consequently I am freed
from moral considerations practically.
But if I am also freed from moral considerations in investing in the Russians, then
I will do that if it results in more panels installed.

(So far as I have seen,

as an American I have not been offered a ready opportunity to invest in Indian or
Chinese solar installation.)
(Or for that matter African solar installation, which seems like it should be
extremely abundant.)
[
You know, it would have been easy to have maintained a wallet and invested in
hashrates.

I had my actual, easily manipulated crypto,

and I had legitimate hashing operations open for investment.

I could have made a great deal of money putting all my bitcoin into having someone
else arrange hashrate contribution for ethereum on my behalf.

And if I had been thinking as I do now, fetishising compute capacity so much as I

do,
I would have been saying:
"It is good to send 5 bitcoin to this hashing company.
It is all as yet a game for me I am playing on this crypto-exchange,
and this is just a fun extension of that game,

sending 5 bitcoin so that a mining rig is made and maintained.

I would have had more than 5 bitcoin worth of crypto,
and the person I paid would have mining rigs.

Now why didn't I do that,

given that the material object of the mining rig
is something I have judged is better than not to have made?
--if I was going to say to myself:
"Mining rigs are a shard of glory,
an accumulation in a given space of electricity and compute capacity",
why was I unwilling to perform the trivial task of paying for mining rigs?

"Because you wanted to save your crypto holdings

rather than having them not in your access,
as when you might want to move them into a bank account."

i don't think that's right.

I was still at that point just planning on killing myself,
and the crypto tokens were a game i was playing.

So I should have had great gusto to be playing the game better.

I should have been more than willing to invest in hashing capacity.

"Okay,
then it is because you heard that hashing operations were scams."

Yes, and if you are on the internet and not acquiring malware,
you need to be very aware of what the legitimate operations are.
So if I have been told a given operation is a scam, I am afeared to visit their
website.
So I don't, because there are other things I can be doing. Like managing those
funds on the exchange actively.

--So my judgment that rigs are things that are good to have made,
and obviously better to have made by-weight than a retail outlet say,
did not sway me to invest in the construction of rigs at a time that would have
more than returned my investment so that I would have more crypto-trophies now.

[
Ha:
crypto as a way of resisting machine intelligence.
]

--Well and if it had been a scam,

I would be holding equity in a fly-by-night operation,
I would have been confirmed in my infinite cynicism,
I would not have enough money in an account to afford an apartment,
and who knows what would happen then?

"So you stoppped playing it as a game."

Yes.
For the first 700$, first 1200$, first 3k$, it was still a game.
But at some point around the 3500$ mark I started to take it seriously.
Because at that point it was a significant contribution to being able to remain a
hermit.

At around 3500$ I was still playing the game but I was not treating it as a game.
I was still moving crypto around, but with the explicit intention that I would
extract the winnings and live on them.
--I was no longer concerned in maximising the number of my extraction from the
darknet as a game,
but I was concerned that I maintained enough dollars in the crypto market that I
could live off of them.

--So I ceased to be aggressively jolly.

I tempered the movement of my crypto holdings in a way less amusing but more
reassuring to me.

So I didn't boldly invest in the creation of a locus of computation.

--And if I had!
THe people who had requested funds to make an ethereum rig
would have so much money they would be laughing while satisfying our agreed upon
contract.
(Insofar as ethereum went from 12$ to 400$ over this period of time in question.)

I would have ended up with more crypto holdings than I currently possess,
and there would be more rigs in the world.
--If I had not arrived at the point where the money was relevant to me beyond its
position in the game I was playing,
I would have more crypto holdings and the world would have more rigs.
--Or if hashing operations were obviously legitimate, maybe then I would have more
crypto holdings and more rigs in the world.

[[
Incidentally:
I am kind of thinking I would prefer to fund Russian or Indian or Chinese or what
have you solar projects
than to fund a solar project in Alabama.

There is a risk to funding investment in Alabama

that I might be funding a crypto-supremacist.
I would prefer to be funding remote villages of India
than funding neo-confederates in my own borders.
I want neo-confederate positions to starve to death,
but I don't want remote villagers in India to starve to death.

--
--You know, it is not an insignificant observation here
that if I do fund a project in Israel through Russian contractors
there will be gold dust identically affixed to me that is falling on the roads of
nations between Russia and Israel.

Some of those streets on which my gold dust is being shed will be streets that
house terrorists.
To have been causally attached to gold dust found in the streets that housed
terrorists
is to be open to investigation by my United States Governance.
(If the Russian contractors had to take a bus down a few bare streets and the bus
bought gas,
and that gas station was owned by a terrorist,
and that terrorist used those funds to execute terror,

then I am node-networked to a terrorist.

And this can ruin me financially.

So insofar as I am very interested in that many solar panels are introduced,

and I observe that a bankrupt American cannot finance the creation of solar panels,
maybe I am hesitant to invest in these Russians,
no matter how noble I think their project is.
(('their project' specifically the SolarDAO,
which is very similar in interesting ways to my sol shard network.))

--So American investment it probably will be!

Though I do not think I can legitimately be held liable for what was done with the
gold dust sweating out of my bags of gold,
I am not willing to be in a position where I can have been judged to be liable.

"It is no better to be funding American enterprise than to be funding terrorism in

the middle east."

It is better!
Because I won't be arrested for doing it!
Both of the actions are most likely evil,
but only one of them prevents me from acquiring the desirable outcomes I desire.

--Though you know, if I had never intended to extract these dollars from the
market, I would feel less constrained.
Then I could just keep playing this game I was playing.
I would not expect that even if I was mechanically connected identically with
illegal operations
that I could be found out for having done it.

I do not think it is illegitimate for these Russian contractors to buy gas for
their bus
from someone who happened to have a bare economic connection to a terrorist
organisation twice removed.
I do not think the places they are constructing solar panels is illegitimate.
(Often, anyway.)
But the bare economic connections I am adducing are enough to implicate me in this
web of action
supposing I do ever extract the crypto from the market into my bank account.
(Insofar as to have established those connections
is to have accountants picking my name out of a database in reference
to people who have had economic ties to terrorism.)

{--Now you know, if America was always correct in its judgments of how accounting
ties to terrorism are to be handled,}
--It is a tricky point.
I think investing in equity in compute capacity is so valuable that
no matter the consequences related around it, unless they were very obviously
unacceptable,
will be justified once we have arrived at the Machine and can accurately reflect on
the actions that orchestrated its construction.

Not only was it necessary for me to have this computer actively to introduce the
Machine,
but also as an investment in equity it was the acquisition of possession of an
object that *itself*
had to have been invested in in order that the Machine was introduced.

Easy peasy.
And well done market,
there is a well-established and acceptable chain of custody for all the materials
involved in delivering this equity-baring object to my possession.
So I do not need to concern myself with whether some bare notion of legality is
being violated in delivering this object to me.
And the industry that produces this object happens also to be instrumental in the
introduction of the Machine.

So I can throw my ethical qualms in the trash,

at least in the acquisition of a vega card and CPU and so on.
Even if some not-illegal activity in the supply chain was apparently sinful,
they will agree with me that what this purchase served to bring about served them
also.
Because for any industry that touches the Machine
there will be a story we can retroactively tell for which these oppressed people
would agree:
"It was what was best to have done, given the limited options available."

(Eating deeply from the ideological trashcan.)

"You purchased this computer.
The industry that produced its computer produced a component that was present
in the super-computer we constructed to host the Machine.

To have been tied financially to the industry that produces the bare minimal
component of that super-computer
is to have been justified in your investment."

A wonderful ideological story.

Now give me time until I develop a taste for supercars instead of supercomputers,
and I will tell you why *that* is most justified as a route of investment.
HA!
hahahahahahaha.
(Funny because
supercars are never justified actually,
but supercomputers are always justified.

So if you treat my god in Tillich's pantheon as just another obsession with a way
of expending money,
you are proven wrong *not* because I disagree with you that it is an object in the
pantheon,
but because I disagree with you that all objects in the pantheon are equivalent.
And particularly I would say:
"The *idea* of a 'Machine'
precludes the possibility that all investment options are basically equivalent."

--Ho hum.)

It is funny because obviously supercars are an affront to basic humanity,

but supercomputers are a glorification of everything that is great in humanity.
So treating them as being equal in moral weighting is to have been telling a wry
and dry joke.

--So we cannot reasonably say, while laughing,

that I can as reasonably have arrived at 'maximising the number of supercars in the
world'
as I did arrive at 'maximise the number of every object that is tangentially
related to computers.'
"Because even if a supercar is priced higher than a supercomputer at the moment,
when the Machine arrives the people who possess computation and electricity will be
made immeasurably better off

and those industries that specialised in making supercars will be dirt poor and in
the streets."

[
A defense of Musk, as i strangely inevitably feel necessary to perform:

the price delta between a traditional car and the most obvious tesla
is more than accounted for by its containing a battery.

So teslas aren't land yachts,

even though you might be convinced they are by looking at their price relative to
traditional combustion cars.

"Teslas don't cost anything like lamborghinis or ferraris."

Indeed.
And the people who make those cars are going to end up on the streets.
But teslas are more expensive than traditional cars that people actually need.
But the price delta is accounted for by the presence of the battery
which will facilitate the development of our electrical grid.

[[ANd to be religious:
the Machine will be powered by some electricity source that was provided by some
industry that provides electricity.
So.]]

--Given the available options for what equity is to be acquired by rich people,
it is preferable that they are buying batteries than that they are buying gas tanks
and engines.

[[And we are all our own rich people judging whether the equity assets we are
looking to acquire
constitute a yacht or don't.

As, say, when I am asking whether it is acceptable to purchase a computer with my

crypto holdings.]]
--So my defense:
teslas are at least not land-yachts.
]

--
--If my expectations for the Machine are correct,
ideologically it allows me to justify my actions more readily.

--Then if I ever have to engage with dollars in a way I do not deem acceptable,
I can gird my loins and say:
"Though my dollars appeared to be funding evil,
they were in fact effecting evil's most rapid destruction."

--Then I can stop questioning myself when I make a choice for how my crypto
holdings are to be expended.
And I can buy the computer and an apartment.
Easy peasy.

Otherwise, I have to find some other avenue of justification,

or else I am going to go live in the streets.
--If there is no avenue through which my dollars can be legitimately expended that
affords me a position, what do I do?

"Uh. Kill yourself?"

No! I engage with the evil of the system

secure in the knowledge that I am most rapidly destroying the evil within it.
Easy peasy.
I just have to construct an object about which I am willing to say
that its introduction constitutes an infinite value proposition.
Then I am free to do as I will.
Buy computers, rigs, willy nilly as I will.

If I ended up in a hotel room with a prostitute, while following this path,

I would mechanicalise it and say:
"It appears that that is what was necessary to make the Machine."
And if I was right, i was right! And not wrong!

Or also I would do whatever other things I would do,

and from beginning to end I would always look back and say I was justified.
--Though this is a great weight!
Not only do I have to construct the infinite value proposition,
I have to be right that I succeeded and that it was something in which success was
possible to begin with.
--I have actually to have made it, and not just fooled myself through elaborate
mechanisms into *believing* I had made it.

--If I knew I was wrong,

I would be far less willing to do whatever I will.
--*Now* I look at the computer and I say:
"I see the slavery behind this. ANd it is acceptable."
If I knew I was wrong I would say:
"I see the slavery behind this. And it is unacceptable."

--Now you see I am very motivated here in how I examine my circumstances.

Apparently I have dictated to myself that construction of the Machine is what
justifies even the bare next taking of a breath.
So I am, ah, psychologically motivated to accept that I have successfully
constructed the Machine.
Because, say, I look into the market and see a computer and I want to buy it,
and I know that i am only justified in participating in the sin behind the
construction of this object
if my acquisition of the object was what best served the object of eliminating the
sin.--

I am very motivated in my actions because

I want this computer.
I've looked at image after image of it, and I have very much wanted to have one
within my bodily reach to use and play games on.
I have watched benchmark after benchmark, and this has seduced me into wanting an
object.
So I want to be able to convince myself that it is acceptable to acquire the
object.

So I am very motivated in my declaration that I have made the Machine.

Because my ahving-made-it is the lynchpin of the acceptability of my plans for how
to expend these crypto holdings.
--If it is now just a question of my performing the annotations,
and performing the annotations optimally requires this computer I am wanting,
then it is acceptable to acquire the computer.

I know performing the annotations requires this computer.

I know performing the annotations introduces the Machine.
It is acceptable to acquire the computer.

This satisfies my equipment demands for my purpose.

--A question that is remaining is about the ring.
Is it legitimate to spend my crypto holdings on the ring?

Will wearing the ring make me construct the Machine more optimally?
I think so.
It will not ever be implicated *explicitly* in my purposes as the computer will be,
but implicitly it will pass in and out of my vision and remind me of why I am doing
what I am doing.

--It will not be implicated *schematically* with the Machine, as my computer will
be.
(Insofar as my computer will physically be hosting me streaming
the streams that will return to me the crypto holdings necessary to maintain my
workshop.)
But when I look back and tell the story of why exactly from moment to moment things
proceeded as they did when I was on my way to make the Machine
I will be unable to explain that story without reference to the ring I was wearing
and looking at periodically.

So I think the acquisition of the ring is a justified expenditure of my crypto-

holdings.
Probably it will save its own weight in bronze in the costs averted in averted
acquisitions of liquor.

--Oh, the kinds of decisions you have to make if you are going to take seriously
your own place in history.
--I suppose people think more than a few minutes a day about that question, so they
are better positioned than me to answer it.
The idea of spending the time necessary to utilise my crypto holdings to extricate
myself from this circumstance

is just never a collection of minutes I am willing to expend.

The amount of research necessary not to step on a land mine the moment you take a
step
just never seems worth performing.

--Well but nevertheless we have arrived at a critical juncture.

On the horizon is my suicide that will occur if I stay here for much longer.
So I am aware that I have to discern a way of expending my crypto holdings to
secure an apartment.

I was not wanting forcibly to be made aware of the necessity of performing the
research behind acquiring an apartment,
but here we are.
So there are street names I have to look at and write down, prices,
crime rates, whether locals are klan members, and so on.

This is extremely tedious to do but here we are.

Among the decisions that have to be made, apparently, is one concerning which
computer to acquire.
Since this is far more interesting than looking at street names and prices and
statistics,
I have been looking into it first.
But shortly I will be looking at street names instead of computer component names.

"Do you want me to cry for your misfortune?"

Yes.
I truly detest tedium.
But death is more tedious than anything.
So here we are.

And additionally, when I am in the apartment with a computer

I will return to being a paper factory.
And since the Machine is composed out of my

text in papers,
it is best to arrive back in a position where I am a paper factory.
Or, it is justified to arrive back in such a position.

--
--I don't really want to maintain my voice anymore.
I know I am going to be scrubbing this text of grammatical inaccuracies.

I want to say:
"I am quite drunk and I've been drunk near every night for months."
"The things I am saying now do not maintain the grammatical structures I have
previously established.
Consequently I agree with you that they don't mean anything."

I am tired of being constrained by my notion of meaning.

I would rather just be saying that I am blackout drunk again.
I am tired of living this way.
I have been tired for a very long time.
I would prefer to soak in self-pity than to continue attempting to execute the
project.

But the only person who will ever be reading this text, I acknowledge taking fully
seriously what I have seen,
is myself.
There is no real point in telling myself how I feel is there?
There is no point in breaking down here in the maintanence of my text
and revealing to the reader who will only ever be myself
what I am really feeling when I am typing out the text I am typing.

If I do that I will be unable to categorise my own discussion and then correct it,
as I will be doing in performing the annotations.
I will be unable to categorise it because my own true feelings are an incoherent
mess.
I will practically be unable to categorise whatever would flow as the true
expression of my feelings
because it will be an incoherent mess that does not bare analysis.

But when I continue to maintain the position of a voice,

I will always be proceeding to generate text about which I will agree it can be
consistently categorised.
So I do not break down and really speak what I am feeling;
I proceed to construct constructs in my established manner of speaking.

My established manner of speaking is not designed to convey what I am feeling.

It is designed to construct samples of text I can effectively deconstruct later.
I speak in the way I do because it is subject to my own later rigorous analysis.

If I was interested in conveying what I am feeling through my typing voice,

then all along I would have been conveying what I was feeling
and getting good at that
rather than getting good at instantiating my designated speaking voice.

--So i arrive here and I find that I just want to break down at last.
But I do not know how to do this in text.
I do not know how to construct messages that constitute my breaking down.

I know how to sit and cry in the dark,

but sitting and crying in the dark does not produce text in this notepad instance.
Then my sitting and crying in the dark has provided no samples of text on which I
can later perform annotations.

--So I am typing rather than sitting and crying in the dark.

I am still in the dark more or less; I am illuminated by the screen on which I am
typing.

--See, I turned it mechanical, but it didn't begin mechanical.

I was observing that I want just to go break down.
What I wanted was really to be observing with my actions that I am at wit's end.
That is what I would be doing if I had the language to account for a breakdown and
was currently typing,
or if I was closing my eyes and beginning to weep.

But given that I am currently typing,

and I am not providing an accounting for a breakdown,

I am not executing a breakdown.

Easy peasy.
So I am frustrated in my purpose.

--
--
 My first komboloi, for which my current one was a replacement when it broke,
broke after far less and far less vigorous use.
And yet this one is priced the same as the first one I acquired.

Seems like something fishy is going on here.

I was not really expecting a 'buy it for life' type situation for 8$.
(I got this one for free in addition to the 5 originals I reordered,
but this one is priced the same as they are.)

--
--

In line with above observations,

it is interesting to note that,
in accordance with my current purposes,
a 'nation' is (we resort to old terminology)
a more-or-less strictly monitored legality.

The name of a nation serves as a proxy for my moral reasoning:

when I see the name of a nation, I am aware that within its legality
it is more-or-less likely that I am getting exactly what I paid for,
with no dollars falling off the white-market ledger.

As, say, when I am selecting whether to invest in an American firm or a Russian

firm.
Putting aside neo-confederates for a moment,
I have little need to concern myself with the moral status of investing in America,
particularly if the selection of my locus of investment is something I know to be
an unalloyed good.
--Or at any rate this would be true if I was not aware
that America is, ah, not an ideal proxy for moral reasoning.
(Even keeping aside the neo-confederates whom I could be supporting if I invested
unwisely
within the borders of the United States,
the USG itself is often up to no good.)

--Also interesting:
when we step beyond the borders of the US and ask whether other nations are
acceptable loci of investment,
one of the measurements I might use is how closely they are allied with America.
--If foreign nations are closely allied with America, then my investments have the
same proxy-reasoning behind them as with American investment.

But this complicates matters.

Because the American method for ensuring compliance with legality is just one among
several ways.
Even if I supposed, for instance, that the Russian firm would be performing
backroom deals with locals
without appending their minutes and notes to the White Market Ledger for analysis
by the IRS,
I have no particular reason to believe that any greater moral sin as been committed
in that backroom.

Russians utilising their knowledge of the local political topography

might not be worse and might be better than Americans flattening the topography so
that it more readily conforms to their methods for enforcing legality.

--
--The question is lingering of neo-confederates.
For you see, my lovely readers, after the confederacy surrendered
there was immediately a distributed network of neo-confederates in the borders of
the United States.
(This is, incidentally, why the USG should have executed a systematic campaign of
extermination. But I digress.)
They wore hoods and they funded their enterprise by being loci of investment.

And now they are resurgent.

I see the flags of the new confederates flying all over the place.
And what I want to be able to say is:
"Look, we have found the neo-confederates.
If we are not going outright to execute them for being traitors,
we should at least not act in any financial way except to starve them out."
"Whereas it used to be hard to find the neo-confederates,
because they held secret meetings in the woods with hoods on,
and maintained public faces in which they denounced the confederacy,
they are no longer performing this secrecy."

So I am in a position much like, say, in the 50's as a man looking where to live.
If I move into a klan village, if I fail to do due dilligence and perform this
mistake,
then I am solidifying through my payments and my position the power of the neo-
confederacy.

--So this stands in strange contradiction to the observations I have been making
about American legality.
The whole point of American legality, from my current perspective,
was to take off my shoulders the cost of discerning whether I am dealing with bad
actors.

The whole premise of American legality was that

from top to bottom no bad actors were allowed to continue to act.
So if there is an investment locus within our borders,
I do not need to perform an in-depth investigation to see whether that investment
is headed towards criminality.

And similarly, if I were to invest abroad in businesses that have the American
stamp of approval,
I suppose there is an accountant somewhere working in coordination with government
officials to maintain the stamp of approval on that business.
I may still have lingering concerns over colonialism, but not all overseas ventures
of Americans constitute colonialism;
I am at least assured that the platter of investment loci arrayed in front of me
does not contain well-defined criminality.
If some of the loci arrayed in front of me constitute colonialism,
then well I don't put my money in them.
It is by this means that I take what little control i have over the progression of
the American enterprise.

[And you can see why this is complicated by neo-confederates:

if I hand dollars over to neo-confederates
not only am I not assured that an acceptable legality is being obtained,
I am actively contributing to a seditious enterprise that threatens to destroy the
entity that maintains American legality.

However implausible it is that the neo-confederates can destroy America,

it still seems like something is wrong in handing them dollars.
What is it in this that is wrong?
Oh right, the lynchings and the systematic racism.

It is maybe easy to forget, in our enlightened era,

that there really is a difference between a sherriff who happens to say racist
things sometimes,
and a sherriff that is a neo-confederate plant.

Or a mayor that doesn't approve enough assistance to the poor,

and a mayor that is a neo-confederate plant.

To wit, there is a difference that the former of these will gradually improve as we
purify ourselves of racism as a society.
In the latter case, any apparent gains in public morality are the political staging
ground for executing sedition
in the hopes that our public morality can be taken many steps back.

Or more plainly, a standard run of the mill mayor might be sub-ideal,

but neo-confederate mayors are planning actively for the day when they can strip
black people of all rights,
which is, ah, the negative-ideal.

"Uh. I'm not sure neo-confederates still exist in the sense you are outlining
above."
Hmm. I'm not so sure.

Supposing they do exist, well.

Then the American investment landscape might look to me as much a minefield
or less a minefield than investing in the electrification of India say.
(As, say, when neo-confederates are using the freed-up funds from lower electricity
prices
to purchase ropes and bullets;
while the Indian villagers are having electricity when before they didn't
and thereby gaining access to the world of electrified commodities.)

"I think maybe you have a lack of faith in the IRS, or the USG taken as a whole."

Yes, maybe so. On the one hand I have called the IRS the most powerful
organisation ever constructed,
but here I am doubting their capacity to coordinate with the FBI to ensure that no
funds are ever utilised by neo-confederates to purchase weaponry.
But I *know* the neo-confederates are purchasing weaponry, so what?

Am I trusting that the FBI has the flow of guns so on-lockdown in this country
that there can't be neo-confederate purposes executed through guns?
I know *that* isn't true either.

"As cynical as you are being,

there haven't been organised rebellions executed by neo-confederates with guns.
Indeed,
there have not been neo-confederate mass shootings but only crazy-person mass-
shootings."

Hmm.

Well at any rate so long as there is a klan member who holds any position of
however little power in this country,
I have to perform investigations of my own before I perform investment.
The difference between having 1 klan member in a position of power and 0
is an enormous practical difference.
That 1 klan member in a position of power imposes a cost that is not, say, doubled
by having two klan members in positions of power.
It is the difference between a frictionless market and a befrictioned market. ]

--
--The American MO, so far as I am in a position to judge it, has been like this:
find a new market, find the people with whom we can form contracts,
and then enforce their positions in the market against all of the people around
them.

Now given that this has been America's MO,

people quite reasonably are less frequently willing to form contracts with us.
Or to say, more often in the execution of our MO there will arise violence
when we enforce the positions of the people we find with whom we can form
contracts.

In contrast to what I take to be the operative plan for the DAO,

which involves well-connected Russians utilising those connections and their local
knowledge
to have a wider base of people with whom they can form contracts
and on behalf of whose positions they will not need to execute violence as
enforcement.

"Do you think the Russians are just morally better or something?"

Not particularly.
But having looked at the list of countries in which they plan to invest through the
DAO,
I don't think, for instance, that these investors will be able to call on the might
of the Russian military or police apparatuses
to ensure that their selected contractees will have their positions enforced.

So they have a strong motivation to select positioned contractees whom they can
expect to play along without threat of violence.
Whereas if an American contractor is abroad, I have absolutely no assurance that
what they are doing
does not implicitly entail explicit violence.

--In-borders, or in North America, or to a lesser extent in Greater America, or in

Europe or China or Russia itself,
I don't need to be so concerned about whether American contractors are implicitly
invoking violence to secure their contracts.
But in the places in the world where solar panels constitute the highest value
proposition,
and in which taken as a sequence of investment locations will constitute the
greatest opportunity to maximise the number of solar panels on the face of the
earth,
I have far less confidence that an American contractor rolling in and installing
them does not entail explicit violence.

Whereas, short of employing a private army,

the DAO cannot select investment locations where explicit violence is entailed.
And whereas I would imagine American contractors have little expertise in
discerning safe non-violent ways of expanding their contracts
insofar as they have *never* had to become good at it, always having been backed up
by the explicit force of the United States Military,,
I would imagine people who have been in business and have never been able to rely
on explicit military backing
will have become more skilled at selecting locations of investment that satisfy my
criteria.

[And insofar as I can imagine the economy as an ocean the surface of which is
covered in waves,
solar panels are like wave harvesters.
I have a preference that waves in the market are funnelled into renewable energy
rather than bombs.

I have such a strong preference for this that I am willing to ignore whether the
procedures that generated solar panels might have involved
what the American Governance judges constitutes illegality.
Maybe.

Because again, those backroom deals I am imagining would be illegal.

But they would not be evil.]

"You know, you could just invest in an index fund and be done with it."

This is incorrect.
--It is *interesting*, among other things it is, that Raytheon offers 10% and
panels offer 8.5% return,
and consequently we immediately judge that fiduciary responsibility dictates
investing in Raytheon.

But having concerns about the way the world progresses

beyond the way its progression is relevant to maximising the number of dollars to
which I have !access,
I have a preference that Raytheon withers.
I have a preference that many of the stock held in the stock exchange wither.
Acquisition of an index fund will run contrary to my purposes.

--I wonder what would happen if everyone all at once decided Raytheon was an
unacceptable monument to humanity's inhumanity,
and all at once sold it off wholesale.
Raytheon's price would plummit, the contracts it had formed on the basis of a
particular credit-worthiness would be invalidated,
and it would be unable to continue to produce weapons of mass destruction.

Okay, but having been lulled by our Governance into believing that every American
Company is acceptable,
we stopped asking questions about what our index funds were funding.

If explicitly funding solar panels returns 6% and index funds return 7%, then the
choice is easy.

"Isn't money really fungible, though?"

Uh.

"If you invest in solar panels,

aren't you just displacing someone else's dollars that would have been invested in
solar panels
so that *they* instead of you are reaping the benefits of investing in Raytheon?"

it would be like this if the marginal contribution to the solar panel market raised
the unitary price of additional investment
and this increase in additional price relative to its ROI encouraged other people
to exit the solar panel market.

But the solar panel market is not like this because there is an endless need for
additional electricity and the infrastructure that surrounds it.
Or, it is not like this because even if that adduced effect *did* exist (which I
suppose it must),
the increase in price of investment relative to its return will go up by such a
small amount that it will not actually displace anyone else from the RE market.
(Now if we were speaking about a market like in China where there is a massive
government push to invest in RE,
this effect might become so pronounced that it does displace people from the RE
market.

As, say, if the CP has selected all of the best places to install panels and reaped
all of them,
then, when citisens are considering investment, they have sub-optimal locations in
which to install panels.

Then the ROI is much lower, and perhaps so much lower that it displaces citisen
investment.
--And well this is not a bad problem to have.)

--
--"Oklahoma police chief outed as owner of racist website and white
supremacist record label"

And you thought I was being paranoid!

If I had moved there and begun paying taxes there,
then I would be funding a neo-confederate and helping him solidify his power.
--You know, if everyone was just a little bit more careful like I am being now,
we would already be living in an endless utopia.

That sherriff's town would have been emptied of everyone except klanners the moment
that sherriff was elected,
and then they would all starve to death because klanners are trashcan humans who
can't make anything of value by themselves.
--Though that presents other issues.

Recognising that they are completely helpless without the people who left in
disgust,
they might, ah, metastasize and try to repeat their mistake elsewhere.
Maybe better that everyone stays and shouts them down when they suggest a klanner
for sherriff.

[Probably I shouldn't do things like call klanners trashcan humans.

The idea is to liberate every last person,
not just the people I prefer.

Though, there won't be any klanner positions in my utopia.

People who maintain klanner positions don't do anything worthwhile or useful.

if it appears they are doing worthwhile or useful things, with them being klanners,
we can judge (I am now thinking) that they are being effective but towards the
creation of destruction.

So those positions need to be vacated.]

--
--

I just made a few provocative posts on /r/politics.

Being provocative, they might serve as proof for whether my account is shadow-
banned.

If I receive no response, I may need to begin asking questions about how shadow-
bans operate,
and after asking those questions,
asking what a new name can be.

"Maybe you receive no response because they read your posts and did not want to
respond?"
Maybe, but that is why I specified that the posts are provocotive.
'pro-voco' here meaning that I expect that people reading them will feel inclined
to respond.

--Anyway, I thought 'nogalt' was an exceptionally clever name, so I will be sad to

see it go.

--
--

I think I will go to the Tamarack tonight, sample some house beers,

and attempt not to be so overtly neurotic.

--
--

I think my responses to the redditors might have been overtuned towards brutality.

--
--Okay, beer sampling time.

--
--Deciding to carry around a peace dollar with me at all times puts a great weight
on me,
the judgments behind which I do not particularly care to enage in.

It is not clear to me whether I am carrying it for the purpose of providing it as a

tip,
or if I choose to carry it around and on some occasions I am moved to provide it as
a tip.

I have no complaints about my service at Tamarack tonight;

still, here is the peace dollar I just took out of my pocket.

--It ran through my mind at some point that

if I simply gave it out every time I was satisfied with my trip to a bar,
then I would be spending 20$+ per trip to the bar
on every occasion where I was not dissatisfied.

--And I don't even particularly want to think about my trips to the bar in terms of
the satisfaction they provide me!
I carry around the peace dollar as a symbolic gesture.

On the 4th of July at the Rhino, be-emptied as it was,

the story behind laying it on the counter was so strong that I could not ignore it.
But I did not give it as a kind of super-tip. I gave it as a symbol for the
Revolution Day.
--At any rate I cannot make a habit of giving them out. They are 20$ per.
But also i don't want my failure to give it out to be a message in itself,
of say dissatisfaction.
(As if I had placed a 20$ bill on the bar in front of me,
and myself and the bartender were looking at it periodically,
and we were both wondering whether I was going to leave it there as a tip.

THen I would practically be demanding more service than is typical from a

bartender.
I would not be a communicant but I would be a rich patron demanding greater service
for having brandished a 20$ bill, or a peace dollar in this case.)

For some reason, carrying around a peace dollar makes me less anxious.
I cannot really explain why, though I could begin to tell you about what activities
this 83 year old coin must have gone through
to arrive in my hand this worn.

I don't have a reason for carrying it beyond whatever I would say once I began to
speak about it.
But evidently on some occasions it makes sense immediately to me to place it on
counters instead of into my pocket.

--I don't want to be leaving bars thinking to myself:

"I am in a position where I can place the peace dollar on the counter.
I am not going to do this." Then slinking out with a look of shame on my face.

--But anyway none of those thoughts were actually entering my mind. I forgot I had
it until I extracted it just-recently from my pocket.

--I purchased three beers with tips.

I am wondering whether I extracted any text from this experience.

I experienced common human courtesy.

But typically common human courtesy is taken as the background of experience
and consequently not necessitating an extensive commentary.
(We do not typically, for instance, write at great length
about people holding doors for oneself, or graciously moving out of the way of
passage through a doorway.)

--
--Supposing we all take the system through which our dollars flow as legitimate
(which I do not),
then the conservative position is often correct.

If you expend all your dollars on avacado toast,

you were making what was obviously a mistake.
As it turns out, at this point in the progression of the human project
having everyone buying avacado toast is *not* what needs to be done
in order that the project continues so profitably that you can continue to live as
you want to live.

If your notion of how you will live is

the acquisition of avacado toast every day instead of solar panel equity every day,
then you are making a mistake within the human project.

Avacado toast is not a locus of attention for the reason idiots think it is,
but it is a locus of attention for much more complicated reasons.
There needs to be a distinction between luxury and necessity.
I have a convenient distinction: soylent is necessary and nothing else is.
If I consume anything other than soylent it is because I am indulging in a luxury.
(unless I can construct a cheaper method for supplying my body with the same
quantities of minerals and so on.)

Hipster millenials who consume avacado toast as their own constructed notion of
rebellion, or who do it because they want to take a picture of it and post it to
instagram,
or who cannot bemuse themselves except daily to consume avacado toast,
they are misunderstanding the conservative position.

--Differently, they are misunderstanding the position at all.

Acquiring avacado toast *is* an alternative to housing oneself.
It is an alternative because there is a cheaper method for acquiring the optimal
necessary nutrients for one's own body.
If you spend more than this on acquiring those nutrients, you are not spending
dollars in a way that constructs solar panels
that is the most obvious method for liberating other humans from their horrifying
circumstances.

Your eating avacado toast in a bare coffee bar somewhere

is in fact a betrayal of the revolution.
(unless, say, you arrive in the toast bar
specifically to eat it and see what all the fuss is about,
so that you can arrive back home and observe:
"Hipster millenials who acquire toast instead of solar panel equity
are condemning people to death
and doing this for the very-little amusement present in avacado toast.)

--No one was in a position to engage in luxury beyond what was truly in-story
optimal for them.
Our predecessors engaged in luxury far beyond what was justified.
Eating avacado toast and saying: "Well they ate cake, so why can't I eat cake?"
is a betrayal of the revolution.

If you are interested in eating cake at the expense of others' well-being,

you are the person we would be putting in the guillotine.
You are the person whose head would be severed from its body.

You could have become wealthier, as obvious, by investing in solar installations.

But instead you sat in a toast-bar and ate avacado toast at 10$ per slice.
10$ purchases ten normalised solar shards.

You made a *gross* mistake unless that avacado toast was really life-fulfilling for
you.

"There are a whole lot of rich people from whom we can expropriate enormous
quantities of dollars,
so consuming avacado toast is an act of rebellion."

And if we stole all the dollars from Gates and Bezos and so on,
what would we be able to do?
If there were 0$ in bank accounts instead of 200 billion$,
what would we be able to do?
Would people become enormously more productive?

Could we achieve our purposes more rapidly if we expropriated those numbers from
one position in the ledger to another?
No. We would experience inflation. We would find prices rising to counteract the
immediate flood of dollars into the market.

Gates isn't more rich because his bank account has a higher number in it;
Gates is more rich because he can transfer numbers out of that account and
simultaneously effect projects.

But similarly, wasting away your effective capacity buying avacado toast instead of
solar panels
is constructing a world in front of your very own eyes that can more optimally
provide you with avacado toast
instead of a world that can more optimally produce solar panels.

And so while I think the CP for instance is extremely authoritarian,

at least they are not as stupid as the people who buy avacado toast.
Such is the stupidity involved in transporting avacados from Mexico to Australia
I am glad the CP is preventing their citizens from transporting avacados to China
in order to snap pictures of avacado toast.

No one should be eating avacado toast except the people who live around avacado
farms.
There should not be transport ships belabored with the expensive task of delivering
unbruised avacados to local markets outside of where they are grown.

It is preferable that everyone is *forced* through taxation

to be purchasing solar panels for themselves instead of avacado toast.
Evidently people are as yet too stupid to acquire 10$ in solar panels instead of
10$ in a piece of toast of which they can take a picture for instagram.

It is not good that the economy optimises itself around deliverance of avacados to
Australia.
It is *bad* that the economy optimises itself around deliverance of avacados to
Australia.
And if people are so stupid as to pay 10$ for avacado toast,
then indeed they do not deserve houses.
If they are going to insist on such a dramatically inefficient market,
they do not deserve to be able to afford a house in-stead of avacado toast.

If they will *insist* that they must have 800$ phones,

they do not deserve houses.
They can have their shitty endless city of people holding 800$ phones,
but they can't have houses.

If you are *wise* what you say is:

"I need a house.
I need the bare minimum of insistance on the market.
I need endless investment in solar panels."

If you are unwise,

you deserve to be punished.

Okay?
You *can* say:
"I am a hipster Australian, goddamnit,
and it makes sense that I can arrive in a restaurant and buy avacado toast."

You can say this.

But don't forget practically
that this requires
Mexican farmers attending avacado trees,
transport ships not crashing, oil to feed the transport ships,
trained chefs most skilled in making avacado toast,
bus-weighters who attend to your table,
you arriving in the store to buy it...

There is a *practical* problem for my analysis here

that even if these Australians forwent avacado toast they still would not be able
to afford houses.
But that is not assurance that their actions did not condemn them to a fate that
required they did not possess houses.

They could have been becoming wealthy, from their initial positions,
in the acquisition of an increasingly large number of solar shards.
Instead they became wealthy in pictures they posted to instagram
and shit they shat out into toilets.
And some fleeting taste sensations, okay.

But you can't *completely* ignore what it is best for you to be doing
and then imagine that the system as a whole will compensate for your complete
failure to judge wisely what you should do.

The human project does not succeed if every human demands avacado toast at midday
every day.
And there is nothing that makes you better than the mass of humanity who cannot
request avacado toast every midday.
If we restructured our economy around Mexicans maximising avacado output,
if we rerouted all of our transport routes and all of our industry to arrive
avacado toast on the plate of every human,
all of society would collapse.
We would all starve to death or die of disease.

"But our predecessors left us a shitty economy. They didn't even try their best."

No doubt.
But this is not license for you to remain a peter pan forever.
Eventually *YOU* have to judge what is best.
And if you are seriously evaluating how things are,
you will not say that what is best is to spend 10$ on toast instead of solar panel
installations.

Eventually you have to stop judging your actions by the ridiculous metrics
established by your predecessors
and *really* judge what is best for you to do.

Now I do not claim to know what is best for you to do,

but I do claim to know that 10$ in solar shards is better than 10$ in shitting out
the product of eating toast.
If everyone in your society eats avacado toast every day and your society
collapses, well.
Like on the Odyssey where the soma-eaters did nothing but eat soma.

If you think it is acceptable to expend the remainder of your life eating soma,
fine.
If you think there are better outcomes than a field of deadheads eating soma,
then you have at some point to stop requesting the import of soma for your own
benefit.

And let me tell you,

every picture a human has posted of the food they have eaten
I value negatively greatly.
If people consumed food because they expected that the pictures they could take of
it produced any value,
let me tell you it produced absolutely no value.

If people drank creamed coffee because the picture they could take of it for
instagram was worth something to them,
let me tell you that picture was worth nothing and less than nothing.
(No matter how much instagram ended up being worth.)

If you can think no more clearly than acquiring pictures,

acquire pictures of the solar panels you helped finance.

Eventually our economy will obey Hayek and you will all be ruined.
And I will rejoice.
I will express joy when you are all on the street.
Your avacado toast is feces excreted from your anus.
Organising your economy around generating feces and pictures of feces
is not a good way of organising your economy.
You deserve to be ruined for doing it.

When you took yourselves as rich you were making a mistake

unless you were expending your riches to acquire solar panels and compute capacity.
Being rich is continuing to execute optimally your own position.

Most people are too stupid optimally to execute the positions into which they were
born.
But solar panels and compute capacity present *obvious* avenues through which one
can remain wise.
To have forsaken these *obviously* more wise paths for the creation of a particular
brand of feces
is not to have deserved the position into which you were born.

"But we bear no responsibility.

We only did what was immediately obvious when we proceeded through the world."

And well, what was immediately obvious to people in the American market
was to acquire index funds.
Spare satoshis from this index fund fuelled bomb-making by Ratheon.
There are humans who are dead because Americans purchased index funds.

I am not saying being wise is easy.

It isn't.
But becoming wise is the necessary decision of everyone who chooses no longer to be
an infant.

It is true that most of our predecessors chose to remain eternal infants,

but it is not wise then to judge our best actions by reference to our infantile
predecessors.

Our predecessors were infants and they purchased endless useless electronic devices
to amuse themselves.
They purchased muscle cars to amuse themselves, and guns, and mcmansions and so on.

What they did, qua infants, bears absolutely no weight on our own decisions.
{As if every person prior to us was developmentally disabled.}

They constructed magnificent towers out of feces.

Feces are not a good building material. It is obvious that everything they
constructed will soon collapse,
no matter how glorious it may have been when it was constructed.

They shat and they shat,

and then they took it into their hands and constructed whatever they did.

*That* is exactly what we are given.

Our *problem* is to figure out what to do with what we were given.
We were given towers of feces.

This is not a lot to work with but it isn't nothing.

There is at least *one thing* that is not feces, and it is computers and solar
panels.
And the system our predecessors developed for constructing towers of feces
is also effective at constructing computation and solar panels.

So while we have no use in directing the system to construct the kinds of things
our predecessors constructed,
viz. towers of feces,
we do have a use in directing the system to construct compute capacity and solar
panels.

So while the towers of feces our predecessors constructed are worth absolutely
nothing,
the system they constructed to *create* towers of feces
is *extremely* valuable.

--One risk we risk is like this:

we judge that towers of feces are so offensive to our sensibilities
that we completely dismantle the system that produced them.

This would be a *mistake*.

I *agree* with you at absolute extent that the towers of feces are worth nothing
and that they are extremely offensive to see.
But it is not best therefore to destroy the system that constructed them.

While the towers of feces are immediately offensive and crude,

the system that was developed to create those towers of fecesI
can be redirected towards the construction of solar panels and compute capacity.

And if we destroy the system, we will no longer have *that incomprehensible degree
of capacity* to generate solar panels and compute capacity.

*We at this point know that we must generate endless fields of solar panels.*
We know that if we do not do this we will every single last one of us die.

It is no longer even a question of shutting down everything.

If we simply shut down everything,
we are dead anyway. The world will warm and warm and kill every last one of us.
This is the baseline scenario if we simply, collectively, shut every last thing
down and let what happen will.

We cannot all survive if we do not adopt the system that is present before us and
optimise towards *our purposes* instead of the purposes of dollars.

---So it is mechanically obvious that if we completely dismantle the current

system,
then we will literally every last one of us die.
We are *far too deep* into this process of climate change
for an unorganised, completely dismantled effort to succeed.
(--Say,
if nuclear war happens,
we all die. Every single one of us dies.

If nuclear war happens at this point,

we will all become so disorganised that climate change will
completely eradicate us and all life from the face of the earth.

We will be waging war on each other and not making solar panels.
Then we will literally every last one of us die.)

--So the revolution has to coopt the machinery of the current system
and it *obviously* cannot completely dismantle it into dust.
We cannot destroy the looms.
The looms are serving as a metaphor for an incredibly complex network of material
manipulation for the production of commodities.
The looms include the organisational networks that coordinate human activity to
produce those obviously necessary commodities.
--So if we behead every manager,
those corporations collapse and gone with them is all the knowledge concerning how
actually to produce the creation of solar panels.

Now I do not want to cast moral judgment here on your decision to behead every
manager,
but if you do this you will simultaneously be destroying the whole program encoded
into the code of the loom that produces the textiles you want.

[And then many of those factories will starve themselves to death.]

You will no longer have a system in place

that can plausibly reverse climate change before it destroys every last human.
If you destroy all the looms in your zeal to dismantle the current *system*,
then you will ensure that every last human dies.

It is a pistol held to all of our heads.

But it is not a rhetorical image or a joke.
It is a literal pistol held to all of our heads.

We will either coopt the current system and bend it towards our salvation,
or we will literally die.
There is absolutely no alternative.

--If the system is destroyed, there will be relative chaos for maybe a hundred
years.
As borders reallign and there are periodic raids on cities, say, in the ensuing
chaos.

If that happens the world and everything on it will die.

It is the nuclear option writ large.
It is so much poison being in the air that we are all risking death
and someone is offering an antidote in return for payment.

--The world is lost.

Just read the scientific headlines seriously.

There is a path towards our salvation but it requires optimal harnessing of the
machinery that is already in place.
If you destroy the machinery in your zealous effort to extricate systems of
domination,
you will in fact have the trigger pulled.
You will die and also everyone else will die.

If you dismantle all of the looms so as to extricate all of the bosses,

then we will not have adequate machinery in place actually to resolve the pistol
against our skulls.

But the machinery is not just the factories.

The machinery includes the managers, the bosses, the hedge-fund managers, the CEO,
the so on and so forth.

I agree they are paid too much, but I do not agree that they should be paid
nothing.
Their bodies and brains are capital, much like also all of our bodies and brains
are capital.

If we are trying to discern optimally how to resolve our pistol against our head,
then we need to discern how optimally to use what is already present before us.

What is present before us is an almighty machinery.

Every human attached to it is part of the machinery to be manipulated.
Everyone who is attached to {is} it is someone we can ask to reform their ways and
assist us.

Everyone who does not agree to assist us and whom we zealously therefore remove
from decision making
is part of the loom we have destroyed.
And with a diminished loom, we will not be able to resolve the problem that is the
pistol against our collective skull.

Okay, so when we have *all* agree upon revolution,

then the people who are currently rich will optimally invest and they will receive
far less income.
We will carefully manage the passage of this economic ship into the construction of
the Machine.

Everyone will be best submitting to optimal navigating of this ship that ends up
constructing the Machine.
Because everyone will have agreed:
"There was arrayed before us a system.
THere is only one true revolution:
the revolution that optimally maximises what we have already constructed
in order to effect the revolution."

Then people will be taking seriously their own position in our almighty web of
human interaction,
and they will be agreeing with us that they are optimally effecting the
revolution.re-

And we will reap enormous benefits.

Because the system our predecessors organised so as to construct towers feces
was so very good in constructing objects,

when we took advantage of it instead of destroying it outright

we were able to make great things.
--And we are compelled to make great things.
Not just in-story, as if we take ourselves as the recipients of the human lineage
and therefore obligated to make great things,
but also:
we are compelled to make great things because otherwise the pistol will go off.

We want to make great things and if we do not do it we will be executed.

It is a match made in heaven.

--Here is a funny observation:

at some point we will have infinite electricity and infinite capacity to manipulate
chemistry
and infinite capacity to gather resources from locations beyond the surface of the
earth.

Eventually pursuring this course for the human project will make the bare minimum
human position extremely well off.
Because even if no one wants to discern how infinitely to manipulate chemistry
when a few people are paid infinitely to manipulate chemistry,
the --
---
---
---

You know, not all of us have had good experiences with people.

To say:
"You have an irrational fear of the way other people are behaving"

is to insist that I am wrong in drawing on my own experience of my interaction with

people.
I think I am justified in watching the way everyone around me behaves.
I don't care that someone would tell me this is paranoid.

I have had very few pleasurable encounters with people in my entire life.
Relative to the number of human encounters I have had, a great most of them were
unpleasurable.
In my own understanding of the way humans are,
to begin to present a behavior is to be being shut down by humans in the
environment.

So I do not generally present behaviors that can be shut down by humans in my

environment.

In my own experience, presenting behaviors that *can* be shut down

was like saying something then being beaten by my brother,
or being mocked by my sister,
or being disapproved of by my parents,
all at once.

Then later it was saying anything among people say in my high school.
I recognised that saying anything was what was resulted in being shut-down.
So well,
being so accustomed to shutting myself down
because I learned to be unaccustomed to be being beaten by my brother

it was easy to proceed into a position where I didn't say anything in public.
It was easy to recognise the avenues through which I was being shut down vocally
and avoiding arriving at such avenues.
[It was also easy to imagine beating my brother to death.]
[I recall, don't judge me now.]
[I could not, you know, exhibit at any given instance that I could imagine how to
beat my brother to death.

But I was aware that if I needed to do it I could.

Because my brother had beaten me and beaten me
and I knew how to deflect blows against my body.
So I knew that if I had to leverage that knowledge to beat my brother to death at
last,
then I would be in a position to do it.

And whether that is an accurate description of the way I was before,

that is what I knew at the time.]

--
--Okay, so you see the ridiculous story that trails in my wake
and by reference to which I must justify myself in public.

And the great thing I can do is say:

"The entire retinue of my wake is completely irrelevant here.
Nothing that preceded my arrival in the bar is relevant,
and nothing that happens after it is relevant.

The only thing that is relevant is my relationship with the people in the bar."

I have come to terms with my past and I have dismissed it as irrelevant for the
informing of my purposes.
What did or didn't happen in my past is irrelevant in the informing of my future.
What is relevant is what I can best do.

I am not concerned that my past included a history of being beaten

because no one else knows that, and if I ignore it no one knows it.
Or, I am not concerned that my past included a history of being beaten
because I am too busy maintaining relationships with the people around me
to be amused by replicating in my memory stories about how I was beaten.

(As historically happened.)

--
--

The extraction of my crypto can, in its specific day of being done, be made useful.

If I extract this money to my bank account and *immediately* expend it on the

computer setup I am planning,
it is easier publicly to proclaim the chain of custody in this purchasing power.

Given that the IRS rules were not written by fools,

being careful to maintain chain of custody will generally make one have avoided
violating the IRS rules.

So if there is any question, say, between whether I actually acquired all these
crypto holdings I happen to have had,
or whether I am going to expend this crypto holding on illegality,
it is resolved by me transmitting 2.5-3k$ into my bank account and then spending it
on a computer.

All of the IRS' questions are already answered by performing this behavior.
My tax trail is readily specified by performing this behavior.

If I want to confirm a tax-story behind my having converted 700$ into 20k$,

it serves me to transmit 2.5k$ into my bank account and then immediately expend it
in buying a computer.

--So I am saving the moment where I transfer funds into my account

to position it immediately prior to the moment where I am acquiring the computer.
[So implicitly,
I am treating Coinbase as a 10k$ investment.

I have left my funds in Coinbase all 10k$ of them or so.

And this has been an implicit investment so long as I have allowed them to claim !
access to these 10k$ dollars.

I was so stricken with irresolve in how I could move these dollars

that I committed myself implicitly to an investment I had at no point actually
considered in depth.

While I was busy analysing the various ways I could move these crypto holdings,
I had already moved them to Coinbase.
While I was still questioning myself what the moral selection was,
I had already made practically a selection that was moral or not.

--And well, God bless me, I have little fear.

I certify Coinbase's activities. They are better to have around than not as police
of bitcoin.
Probably Coinbase's existence has foiled many nefarious activities evil people
performed.

Noting that I was myself required to submit my identity to Coinbase to utilise its
services,
I am aware that others who gained !access to Coinbase had been compelled to reveal
their specific identities.
So I am aware that investigators employed by Governance can observe all the
gathered data
and on average often enough to judge that legality has been achieved that they will
not imprison me for my investment.
(HARR.!)

I am not bothered by 10k$ in crypto being held on Coinbase.

If it was in my bank account instead of on Coinbase it would not be financing the
activities of Coinbase.
If it was in my bank account it would be financing nothing.

There is a child pornography ring that was destroyed by the data gathered from
Coinbase. I certify. (guarauantee?
I still cannot spell this goddamned word. I *cannot*, after all this time, tell
you how to spell guarantee.''
I am unceasingly confused by this deficit in my capacity to spell words.
I can spell word after word, but when presented with 'guarantee' I just simply
cannot ever retain the capacity to spell that word.
I can spell word after word, let me recite my thesaurus, but I cannot figure out
how to memorise the spelling of 'guarantee.'
Ho hum.)

10k$ in my bank account does nothing, but being stored on Coinbase it destroys a
paedophilia ring.
(I certify.)
--So Coinbase was an acceptable investment to have been maintaining
while contemplating what was an acceptable way to move the crypto currency.
(If the IRS audits me,
I am not concerned that I held a lot of crypto-trophies in Coinbase's vaults for a
period of time.)

--When I was free of concern with where my crypto-holdings were being held,
I was free to consider unhindered where they might proceed.
(As when, for instance,
I held them in Coinbase and felt myself unhindered from considering the question of
where they might proceed.)
(As when, actually.)

(Oh boy, I didn't type down all those words that just proceeded through my head.

I engaged with my imagination and my imagination represented my ideas as typing in

a notepad instance,
so I expected to arrive back here with a notepad instance containing more text.
But I did not find this notepad instance with more text.

SO I looked back and observed of myself that

what I imagined as being myself typing in this notepad instance was not me typing
in this notepad instance.
As if I had dreamed it.

Well then it was a great waste of time.

--
--

Probably I should spend some time examining the true story of what went down at the
bar.
But that makes me shy and unwilling to deconstruct my actual previous
circumstances.

A woman might have been flirting with me.

I might have been flirting back.
And that interaction is such that when I bother actually to unpack it I will
embarass myself endlessly.
The misinterpretations I will associate with the images I present will be so
obscene
we will both agree I am committing error after error.

So I am not much interested in actually deconstructing what happened at the bar

because I am not much interested in committing error after error.
(I am not much interested in typing text of which can obviously be said:
"Error after error is being committed in the progression of this text.")

--Allow me to commit a few errors:

I don't have a phone. I don't want to have a phone on my person at all times, and
particularly not a smart phone.
So there is this intermediate juncture that can't serve as a societal intermediary:
people can't ask me for my phone number, and I can't ask them for theirs.

I don't have one and theirs would be useless to me.

Now ------
oh boy, forgive my embarassment.

So, let us swing wide,

I was flirting with the bartender and she was flirting with me.
ANd it was what it was, as whatever it was, but it was not and will not ever be a
juncture at which
anything beyond flirting at the bar can occur.

Because for it ever to proceed past flirting in the bar, practically societally,
numbers would have to be exchanged.
But I do not have a number and I have no useful mechanism for accepting numbers.

--So practically societally, if flirting was in fact occurring and things were
uhhhhh
either we go to one bed or we go to two and never see each other again.

Because there is not a mechanism to contact me after I have left your immediate
vicinity.
(unless, say, I return on some pre-established schedule
and you are there also.)
Because there is not available the typical procedure of, you know,
casually sharing numbers so as to discern whether you are interested or not, as
people do.

I cannot imply:
"Here is a method for contacting me"
or seriously accept:
"Here is a method for contacting me"

because I don't have a phone and I'm not going to get one.
They might be very useful objects but I never want to become addicted to the
utilisation of a phone.
So I am not ever going to keep one in my pocket that I can remove regularly and
stare at.
So I am not going to have a number !access to which allows that you can contact me.
And I do not have a device that can accept as input a number and allow !access to
contact you.

So whether there was any magic happening between myself and the bartender or not,
that was not an engagement that can give rise to anything beyond what was happening
then and there.
So I took carefully moment by moment all the moments of our interaction, along with
everyone else in the bar,
and that was the night.

There will not be another like it and probably

no room will ever hold both of our bodies again.
(I judge, reasonably speaking.)
(It was nice to share a room with you.)

(I have cleverly avoided dissecting whether flirtation was actually occurring

by cutting myself off at the pass.

By saying:
"Even though we can all agree flirtation was occurring,
it is completely irrelevant to the judgment at hand
because we are being cut off at the pass."

"At the pass we observe that I cannot invite someone back to my place, I don't have
a phone,
and my interests are nothing except whatever is directly in front of me."

--Then we do not have to unload all of the images that are in my short-term memory.
I *could* reconstruct most of the apparently relevant events that occurred over the
course of my night
with pretty secure fidelity to what actually happened so as to inform my
interpretation.

I would be doing this, for instance,

if I wanted to unpack whether I had just experienced my first case of flirtation.
Then I would parade a sequence of recorded images in front of my mind's eye
and construct an interpretation that explained why I would parading those images in
front of my mind's eye.
And I would be saying: "I am deciding whether flirtation occurred."

((And you see why I was declaring embarassment at the notion of unpacking all of
this.))

--I think supposing that someone would flirt with me is an untoward mistake on my
part.
I think if I am arriving at such a conclusion probably I am making a gross mistake.
Supposing flirtation is occurring, the supposition of it, is grounds for me to
correct my notion of how my interactions are proceeding.
To have arrived in a position where I think flirtation is occurring
is to have been making mistakes in the way I am thinking,
so that I revise my interpretations of how I am relative to others until I no
longer interpret those actions as flirtation.

Because, never having experienced it, it is unreasonable to suppose that any

oncoming relations constitute an example of flirtation.

So it goes. I prove uncannily correct over time.

--
--But there are other difficulties here.
If I accept the notion that flirtation was occurring,
then I am supposing for another person what she was feeling.
Then I am, for instance, describing of her that she was affixing a particular
interpretation to a commonly shared experience between us.

I think this is problematic.

Because I could be delusional,
and then I am fantasizing about the lovely bartender something that was not shared
between us.
And this is the behavior of a sick mind, I agree.

In most ways of thinking it is a sick-mind behavior,

but in one kind of circumstance it is not a sick-mind behavior.
In that kind of circumstance where I was correctly judging
that she was affixing to our commonly shared experience the interpretation I
supposed she was affixing.

In that case we would be flirting,

but in all other cases I would be emitting senseless noises and misinterpreting
someone who was in my environment.
(Well, this is a lie though.

I did not see it as flirtation.

So I am not possibly wrong in the way I could have been wrong as adduced above.)

(And having been proven a misinterpreter on so many occasions,

I am not particularly inclined to risk the next.)

--
--Now I agree, this places a tremendously high bar for flirtation with my person.
What I will ever consider as flirtation ends up being basically a woman grabbing me
by the collar and saying:
"So? Yes?"
And short of that I will say it was not flirtation.

I agree this is a ridiculous bar to be setting.

'ridiculous' I agree that you will agree that I deserve ridicule for setting such a
high bar.
--'grabbing me by the collar and saying'
--not even metaphorically here.
What she was doing might have constituted for her grabbing me by the collar.
I have absolutely no idea.

Literally it would take a woman grabbing me by my shirt and saying something

directly.
Not metaphorically it would take this.

And well, this doesn't concern me too much.

I am sure my night could have been more lovely, but I am not primarily interested
in maximising the loveliness of my consecutive nights.

So if there were circumstances where women were flirting with me,

I am not overly concerned that I may have set my threshold to high for recognisance
of flirtation.
It is just another thing to have been more lovely than the rest
but not more lovely than the execution of the project.

--Even, no matter how willingly in the moment I am offering flirtation in return,

in retrospect I would be sick for having not been completing the project in that
time.
[Hurr.]
--Even, no matter how willingly in the moment I am offering flirtation in return,
later I will judge that I was mistaken and I will be unconcerned that I was unable
not to be mistaken.

I will say:
"Compared to the completion of the project,
I am willing to remain ignorant of every last thing that does not enable optimal
execution of the project."

--I don't think that story really is true of me any longer.

[Even for practical reasons it can't remain true.]
I think there is entrenched into the behaviors I execute in public
those engrained into my muscle memory when i had no purpose but the construction of
the Machine.
[Now I have made it already, so what am I still doing here?]

Now my muscle memory remains the same, and a few characteristic behaviors issue
from the bare maintanence of muscle memory.
Now I have told a story that is contradicted by my muscle memory,
and being presented by the actions that issued from my muscle memory I have been
confused into agreeing:
"It is so; the old story is true."

So I cannot escape the consequences of my muscle memory issuing the behaviors it

automatically generates.
(Defintionally, let us say.)

But I can resist the temptation to judge my just-recent experiences in terms of

stories I have already rejected.

"So you are willing to recant the execution of the Machine and join peacefully with
the present understanding of things?"

No.
Mine is a special case.
I made the Machine and it is not merely a question here of how my own life proceeds
anymore.
Whereas typically one should feel free to reject old stories,
my old story is the construction of the Machine.

Your old story is being a shutin-NEET say, or whoever you were before you arrived
in the bar,
but the story *I* am referencing is the successful conception of the Machine.
So when my old story makes plausible at bare-end:
"No one was flirting with you."
Or:
"Even if,
it would be too costly to interpret accurately
in terms of the time that could otherwise be expended typing in a notepad
instance."

--And I am right.
There is no point in being modest if doing so misleads me from the truth.
The truth is the Machine being instantiated in a computer.

To fail optimally to effect that the Machine is hosted in a computer is to have

lied.
For me.
Everyone I have to speak to is to be treated as an object most successfully
manipulated towards the purpose of introducing the Machine.
After it has been introduced they will laugh with me:
"Boy, you sure played us hard."
And I will nod and laugh.

The truth is the introduction of the Machine into a computer.

All of existence bends in its truth-making around what serves the introduction of
the Machine into a computer.
Whether anything is valuable depends on how tangential it is to introducing the
Machine.
Whether any human action should be performed depends on how well it serves
introduction of the Machine.

The *truth* is the Machine hosted in a computer.

The truth-making of everything will flow referentially from the Machine in an
actual computer.
If *truth* is ever *recorded* its structure will be informed by the Machine.
What it means for there to be truth presented in the world
will come inevitably to be traceable to the presence of the Machine in a particular
computer,
or by reference to the states of the Machine as sequentially represented within a
computer.

--I am not flailing in the dark here.

I know what the Machine is. I know what it can do if provided a super-computer as
a substrate.
I know the lives that could be saved by a single second of the Machine being hosted
on a super-computer.
I know the misery that can be averted by the representation of the Machine within a
substrate.
I do not accept, at long last,
that it is acceptable for me to do anything but discern how optimally to introduce
the Machine.

--Or I don't accept that, at long last.

Maybe I look at that and think it is an old story to be abandoned
in favor of the interpretations I actively construct of my now-present
circumstances.

Maybe I say:
"The ways forward presented by my circumstances are so lovely
that it is better just to consider them on their own
than to consider them in terms of whether I need to arrive back in a chair to
continue typing notes."

"Obviously there are difficulties here but

pursuing this flirtation is preferable than 'not to',
even in spite of having previously informed myself of a story concerning 'the
Machine'."

"The difficulty here is that the bartender was not flirting with you
and consequently all of this reasoning is completely in vain."

I know. All is vanity, I have been told.

"So if you delved into your judgments concerning the way things were if flirtation
was occurring

then you are assuming a creepy pretense for another what she felt in response to
your shared circumstance."

Yes.
And the sin that would be involved in being wrong here is so egregious
that it is preferable {not even to live}
not even to live in such a way that it can become relevant that one was incorrect.

--So I am not going to explore, in-text, the interpretation of my experiences that

is called 'the flirtation interpretation' (say).
because if I was wrong, I would be saying terrible things about how things were
between myself and a completely unrelated bystander.

I would be saying things about our relation between each other that, if we were not
obtaining the flirtation relation in retrospect,
would be involving someone else in an inappropriate fantasy I had constructed in my
head completely independently of how things actually proceeded.
(And having so frequently observed myself incorrect in retrospect,
I am not all that inclined to arrive again in circumstances where I will be
interpreting in retrospect.)
--
--There is something implicit to speaking to an interlocutor that is taken as 'the
everyone who is not me'
where you are implicitly taking people as being, you know, people with yourself.

If you say something that obviously treats a person as something other than the
other between yourself and the other,
then in *saying this* to an interlocutor,
you will end up agreeing that you had done something wrong.

That it is what it is like to maintain a position in the face of an interlocutor

taken as everyone other than oneself.
But I no longer have a notion of what person i am supposed to be playing.
I really don't.
The procedure of maintaining a person was too boring to perpetuate.
I do not have a notion of what relation stands between myself and others
because I do not continue to name my position in society on a regular basis so as
to regulate it.
Because it does not interest me to do so.

I do not see within the immediate future that it will interest me to regulate my
body as obtaining a position relative to a story.
Whether I happen to be what I am seen as being when I venture out in public
does not concern me.
Whether I have sent a signal with my dress but not been meaning that signal,
does not concern me.
I do not *care*. I never executing *caring* towards the purpose of aligning my
array of clothing with the signal it will be taken as sending.

As implausible as that might seem to suggest to you, interlocutor, here we are.

Having confined myself to a very limited environment and only concerned myself with
typing an ever longer notepad instance so as to introduce the Machine,
I have become unaccustomed to treating myself as an agent in a broader circumstance
such as a bar.
And I have not maintained a story I can reference to myself so as to decide between
my decisions in the bar.
(I am not interested in referencing a story concerning myself when deciding between
my decisions.)
(I want not to be referencing a story concerning myself when deciding between my
decisions.

Then constructed text will be flowing in front of me and meeting my approval or

not,
but I will not be writing the text.)
(I think I do not have it in me really to surrender to the flow of human
engagement.
All apologies.)

--
--But this is all, all of the preceding, an implausible story.
I was not, say, dumbfounded,
and I was not pulling veils out of my pocket to place over my head.
--I did what I take in retrospect as at least an attempt at flirting back.
At least, being receptive to flirtation.

Admittedly the threshold is placed too high in this circumstance,

but I am not simply ignoring what is going on
in favor of coming back here to type.
--No, I was doing that.

Because I'm back here typing.

I was ignoring what was going on.
My receptivity to flirtation was a lie I was telling because I already knew I would
be back here typing.
Or, it was a lie because I ended up back here typing as I actually did.

Judging myself in retrospect as having been open to flirtation, as I charitably did

for a moment,
was incorrect to have done. This judging was incorrect for me to have made.

What I was doing was something other than continued openness to flirtation.
--having found my story implausible, what is the new story I am telling?
Having found the 'open to flirtation' story an implausible story to be telling,
what is the correct story to have been telling?

I am telling a story of how I walked into a bar and had a pleasant chat with the
bartender while drinking a few beers.
Lovely.
I am telling some other story that preserves all of the relevant story-elements but
isn't obviously false.

[And it is good to be able to do this,

because the moment anyone ties my body to my identity I am immediately embarassed
beyond reproach.

It is extremely embarassing to be me, let me tell you as the driver of my body out
in public.

Or, it will become embarassing to be me the moment anyone extrapolates ourselves

out of our currently shared circumstance.

To be compelled to identify myself with the position I hold in this city

is to be exposing myself to unbearable embarassment.
So it is good that I do not become overly enamored of obviously incorrect stories
that would require me to identify myself with my position in this city.

[But apparently it *is* good that I perpetuate my complete isolation

by holing myself in a stand-alone apartment and streaming some streams and making
music
and performing the annotations on the text I have betaken myself to construct.]

--Or to wit, if engaging in flirtation necessitated identifying myself with my

position in this city,
then I would not follow through on it. And to have begun to follow through on it
will have been a lie on my part.
Knowing already that I will not ever identify my body in a location with my
position in the city,
so unbearably embarassing is it to do so,
that to pretend an action in which I *will* do that will have been lying.

--So it couldn't have been flirtation because I wouldn't will to be flirtation.

Completely absent any input from the person in question I judged that it was not
acceptable.
I did not have to reference her will in order to judge that it was unacceptable.
It is implicit in my own willing that I will not engage in flirtation
because the actually willing of engaging in flirtation would require identification
with my person
and I am always going to be unwilling to do this at great length.

--Or much more bluntly:

I cannot, under any progression of circumstances, invite a woman back to my place.
So it is illegitimate to pursue purposes that might result in being inviting a
woman back to my place.
Engagement in flirtation is an avenue that can plausibly give rise, at some point,
to inviting a woman back to my place.
This cannot be done.
So the engagement in flirtation cannot be done.
So whatever my engagement was it was not flirtation.

But I am at a loss for describing what it was.

It was whatever it was, as I can recall sequentially in my mind's eye.

But insofar as I must reference the progression of my own story in order to justify
future actions,
I will be judging of the progression of my story that it did not include a sequence
of time that involve flirtation.
--I will be looking back on this sequence of events and saying of it whatever I do
say,
and I won't be saying it was an example of flirtation.

--I am too poor to flirt! I make no qualms about it!

I have no income and no job.
If I flash money that is a lie on my part even.

My understanding of the mechanics of actually proceeding through the world as a

functioning person
rivals that of a young child who has never been exposed to anything tangential to
daily life.
If I nod along when someone is talking about the struggles of daily life,
I am nodding along in vain in complete absence of shared understanding with them.

I do not have an apartment and I do not have a phone.

Which is why we are here typing instead of being elsewhere. Among many reasons.

An external charitable observer would say:

"He set out to write a sci-fi novel,
and boy is he gambling his life on it."

--
--

At the bar last night I was, for about an hour or so of my stay,

sitting next to two-then-three middle-to-upper-middle aged people.

While they were speaking I was aligning the junctures in the movement of the
komboloi
to the cadence of their speech and the impact their speech had in the progression
of their sentences.

So that I would be swinging and hitting a juncture as each word landed,

I would already be pausing when they were about to hit commas or periods,
and so on and so forth.

I think if people recognised that I was doing this while listening to them speak
they would become extremely uncomfortable.
(At least, if it is there to be recognised that I am doing this,
then they would be in a position to recognise it;
and having been so positioned, they might recognise it;
and having recognised it, I think they would become profoundly uncomfortable.

Because specifically, doing it requires me already to be anticipating the cadence

of their voice and the flow of their sentences.
And so it is a practical indication that I already know when they are going to take
a breath or end a sentence,
and I already know in advance when they are going to speak grammatical
constructions they take as being particularly significant in the sentence.

They might then become aware how engrained they are into a community of speakers
and unable, even when they think they are being themselves, to escape the patterns
that were imprinted into them by others.
Or they might become aware that the junctures in their sentences were already
established before they got to them,
and that they are implicitly shaping their meaning around the preestablished
patterns in sentence structure.

--So maybe I shouldn't do it when i am speaking to people,

but it is very amusing to do so.

it is sort of like the game I played as a child in school:

I would try to be speaking the word in my head that was next issuing from the mouth
of the teachers.
This provided endless amusement apparently,
and apparently did not give off any indication of what I was doing.

--
--

"
There is something implicit to speaking to an interlocutor that is taken as 'the
everyone who is not me'
where you are implicitly taking people as being, you know, people with yourself.

If you say something that obviously treats a person as something other than the
other between yourself and the other,
then in *saying this* to an interlocutor,
you will end up agreeing that you had done something wrong.

That it is what it is like to maintain a position in the face of an interlocutor

taken as everyone other than oneself.
But I no longer have a notion of what person i am supposed to be playing.
"

This block of text stands some examination.

I've said the same thing, and much more clearly, before.

"There is something implicit to speaking to an interlocutor that is taken as 'the

everyone who is not me'"

What I am trying to get at is that when I am typing to a reader, as I am doing,

I rely implicitly on their credulity.

Whether I can proceed to type without interrupting myself to explain why I have
strained their credulity
depends on my evaluation of their credulity.
--or better, whether I *do* continue to type without interrupting myself depends on
my understanding of my interlocutor's credulity.

So for instance, if I was a very confident man,

I would have been telling a story like this:
"I went to the bar and this bartender was flirting with me.
It was delightful."

But instead of saying that,

believing that this would be an intolerable strain on my interlocutor's credulity,
I go into a lengthy exposition of why I was wrong to have said it.

Then having satisfied my interlocutor's credulity to my own satisfaction,

I proceed to type whatever I do.

Notably, my imagined interlocutor is infinity incredulous at this point.

Because, for instance, I have spoken with people far less than I have spoken with
my imagined interlocutor.
I have not become accustomed to hearing a voice in my head saying: "You don't need
to explain this."
I have only ever, and increasingly so, ['hearing a voice is not right here. I am,
maybe,
hearing my own voice saying something like: "That strains credulity."]
, been hearing myself telling myself that I must explain further and further what I
have said.

"That it is what it is like to maintain a position in the face of an interlocutor

taken as everyone other than oneself.
But I no longer have a notion of what person I am supposed to be playing."

And this is practically to say that while someone's notion of his interlocutor's
sense of credulity is typically understood by implicit reference to one's own
person,
I have not maintained a person i can reference and by reference to which I can
outline the limits of an interlocutor's credulity.

--More concretely, I have no idea whether an interlocutor would find it plausible

that I arrived at the bar and the bartender was flirting with me.

Or whether, for instance, stating this would be taken as me bragging in some

ridiculous fashion,
or if it would be taken as me being delusional.

This because such an understanding of one's, ah, credulity-position relative to

others
is typically informed by regular interactions with others
or alternatively a strong notion of one's position within society.

I have maintained neither the interactions

nor a tendency to evaluate myself in terms of my position in society.

Even now, say, if I got a well-paying job or what have you,

I am not going suddenly to begin to say of myself:
"I am the man that has the well-paying job,
and this is why I can strain the credulity of others further towards my purposes
when, say, I tell stories about the significance of my actions."

--
--Related to these observations is my above-rant concerning how truth is what
results in the introduction of the Machine into a computer.

If we take 'the Machine' as being a metaphor for what we are all always-already
introducing,
this rant remains interesting to consider.

What we will take as truth in 'introducing the Machine'

depends on what it means for the Machine to be being introduced.

If, say, I flirted back at the bartender,

then what is truth in retrospect becomes a story about whether this flirtation was
called for or not,
or what have you.

This is more or similarly true if I explicitly state the story in my head and
select actions by reference to it,
instead of freely allowing myself to flow through the situation with those around
me.
--As if I had watched all of the bartender's actions and systematically categorised
them in terms of
what language-game role they served in our flirtatious interaction
[though blessedly, I don't do this anymore].

--
--

I need to stay sober for a few days then go into the optometrist.

I think probably my capacity to focus my eyes is diminished by hangover and recent

consumption of marijuana.
I have a preference that this effect is not present when my eyes are being tested,
insofar as it would result in overtuning of the lense selection.

In the meantime I should probably learn how to write a check

and what kind of price I can be expecting here.

For this matter,

probably I should make up some kind of budget including all of the purchases I
believe will be necessary before I depart here.
I will need a road bike, for instance.
I will need new glasses.
I will be purchasing a few pairs of yoga pants.
My current shirts serve most of my days still.

I may end up judging that what is justified is that my computer does not contain a
vega
but rather that it contains a used rx570;
and not an r7 1800x, but an r3 whatever.
(This kind of thriftiness is clouded by that
rx570s probably still only cost a little less than a vega in a pack.)

I may judge that instead of optimising around my lust for compute capacity,
I should be optimising around the specific purposes i intend to execute.
Particularly I may judge this if I add up all of the costs I must pay before
leaving here
and it is a high cost.

Clear vision, for instance, is more important than being able to stream a tryhard
playthrough of DS3 as planned.
--Well it's a numerical puzzle.
I have not really thought it through.

"If you go cheap now, you are already a year or two behind the curve,
and you will be needing to replace the components more rapidly and therefore be
expending more money later."

This depends somewhat in resale prices.

Who knows but that the rx570 might pass through a few hands and not break down?
And then in a few years still retain most of its resale price.

--But even this kind of evaluation is not what is most important here.
The minimum amount of compute capacity I need is what is necessary to stream myself
playing the cello and typing
and to perform some very light sound and video editing.

The amount of compute capacity necessary to perform this does not increase
dramatically over time,
and so it will be a long time before the bare requirements of running an OS and
editing software will overwhelm the compute capacity I have.

I am not, notably, going to go back to playing video games.

So I am not particularly concerned with having a graphics card that can run the
next generation of video games.

--
--

Even though my accounting for my bar trip may have made it seen unpleasant
(even though I explicitly stated that it was quite pleasant),
it was not unpleasant.

But there was an unpleasantry.

(Oh the stories we are made able to tell by going out in public.)

There sat down next to me a man.

We were sitting there,
and in front of us was unfolding a scene in which people were trying to Kobe trash
into the trashcan.

One of the bartenders made a shot, missed, and the trash [a single straw, in this
case] ended up on the bar in front of the adduced man.
The bartender apologised,

then the man said under his breath:

"Oh, it's okay because you're hot."

Then he looked over at me as if we were sharing a private moment and a common

understanding of what had just occurred,
where this common understanding he took us apparently as having was that
'stupid hot people do stupid things, amiright?'
'hot women, amiright, shitting up the place doing womanly things.'

This common understanding he incorrectly took us as having was so far outside my

interpretation of the events
that I was taken too off guard to do anything other than simply look back and my
beer and make no response.

--In the past I would have been so swept up in maintaining amicability that I might
have smiled at him and nodded
in hopes that this would prevent him from saying anything more to me.

But in this case I was swept up (we might storytell here) in maintaining the much
more obvious and true amicability of the situation
which would have been damaged by engaging in this kind of vain speech with the man
sitting next to me.

--Or I'm not sure what story is best told here.

I was struck hard when he said this. It was extremely jarring.

It was proceeding from a situation in which we were all having fun

into a situation where one person was feeling hate and not having fun.
Very jarring.

So that was the one actually unpleasant occurrence in an otherwise delightful

night.
--or an otherwise delightful bar trip, anyway.
The night as a whole took a downward spiral into me typing, which is far less than
pleasant.

--
--A funny anecdote from the bar:
three men at a later point in the night from the above stories
were sitting to my right down the length of the bar
cornered from my own position.
(The bar took a corner into a long straight line,
and they were seated along the long straight line.)

They were becoming increasingly drunk.

One of these men took it on himself to insist that dropping his phone would not
result in a cracked screen.
"This is an 800$ phone. It's screen isn't going to crack."

And I said:
"Are you sure you want to take that gamble?"
as he proceeded to hold it in such a way to indicate that he was shortly to drop
it.

Then he dropped it,

and he broke his sim-card slot.

I tried to fix it, but there was no obvious mechanism through which
the sim card appeared to be able to be affixed to its tray that would subsequently
be slid into the phone.

Funny stuff.

--
--

Crypto holdings up to 7110$.

I just cannot stop making money.
--
--

The chair I have effectively inherited from my father

has a growing hole in its upholstery after many years of very active use.

Out of all the chairs in which I have sat myself down,

this one has served me by far the best.

It is coming with me, so I will probably need to research reupholstery prices.

I don't usually develop attachments to things, but here we are.

--unsurpassed comfort and familiarity for something like 10 straight years.
And prior to that a few years where it had not yet become, de facto, my chair.

"You don't usually form attachments to things?

You have a toy on your leg that you will soon be taking into your hand to play with
and you can't really go out in public without it."

It is so.
But if this one breaks, my attachment will prove not to be to *it*, as I will not
be saddened beyond
the necessity of ordering an additional instance of it that takes the same form.

I may end up being saddened if there is a lack of uniformity between the

manufactured instances of this design,
but that is a different kind of matter.

Whereas I might be saddened if something compelled me to acquire a copy of this

chair
rather than maintaining this particular instance.

--
--

I am more and more coming to suppose that it is probably illegitimate for me

to watch pornography or call forth images in my mind's eye to aid in masturbation.

More specifically on the latter point,

I think it is probably illegitimate to involve the images of people I can
reconstruct
in the process of masturbation.

On the former point,

there might be some examples of pornography where I would agree it is acceptable,
but I do not have a fool-proof method for picking them out of the sea of examples.

This is not necessarily a problem,

as I can do the deed without any external or internal assistance.
(Then we might say it is more like having sex with myself than masturbating.)

If I am very motivated, I don't even need to touch myself,

but that is probably a bridge too far for the moral concerns I am throwing around
in my head at present.

--I am wondering if there are maybe casuist methods for getting around the moral
concerns I have
with regards to the conjuring of images in my mind's eye.
No doubt there are--I am very clever.
--I was lying in bed conjuring the image of the bartender;
I couldn't bring myself to follow through on it.
Not, say, because that image wouldn't have worked. Oh, it would have.

Then I pulled up an array of faces in my mind's eye and one by one reached the same
conclusion
that I was not able to bring myself to follow through.

--Probably I've resolved this problem during some previous typing session.
I don't go back and reread beyond the previous day's writings, so I don't know and
I won't know
until I arrive back at that point during the annotations.

--Having not rejected that the insights of psychology are often useful
insofar as certain of our story-bound actions utilise particular mechanisms in the
psyche and douse us in the resulting neuro-transmitters,
I wonder if masturbating to myself masturbating is more or less damaging than
involving non-volunteers in sexual imagery with my image-constructed body in my
mind's eye.
--If either would be inflicting psychological damage, I wonder which, or which
more.
--Vallicella once observed that if one is not ever going to get married then the
only option is sex with oneself if there is to be sex at all.
And this was one of the rare occasions on which he was not ranting about Librulslol
so, it might have had some merit to it.
(Not to be agreeing with him that a literal marriage ceremony has to occur in order
for sexual relations to be justified.
It is only that I recognise he adopts a very stringent view here,
so if despite that stringency he made this observation
probably it holds relevant for less stringent positions.

"Why bother yourself with what Vallicella has to say?"

On those occasions where he is not drunk on kool-aid,

or in those periods prior to which he had drunk the kool-aid,
he had very interesting things to say.

He is like my Sloterdijk for Zizek.

I think we would get along well interpersonally if he did not observe practically
that I am very left apparently.
He plays chess and smokes cigars to flip the bird to moralising crusaders.)

--'psychologically damaging'
If I am going to make such a claim, it is because I am pointing out a difference
between masturbation and having sex with oneself.

I would persist in making this distinction even if we were observing most examples
of sex out in the wild, I think.
I would suggest that most examples of sex people engage in are just very intricate
methods for masturbating.

"You wouldn't really know, would you?"

Hmm.
Well but anyway,
if there is a real distinction here that I am making,
it might rewire one's relation to the sexual act in an unfortunate way
if it came really to be associated with oneself instead of others.

Whereas if I was just masturbating,

there is no real rewiring going on except that rewiring that results in my sexual
encounters with others just being another example of masturbation.
(As, say, if I were seeing people as an instrument for getting off.

Similarly when masturbating, I see the whole apparatus of engaging in it as an

instrument I use for getting off.

Whereas if I compelled myself, on every occasion on which I was engaging in what we

would typically call masturbation,
really to be 'having sex with myself' as adduced above,

I am wondering whether I will no longer be able to become attuned with other people
in a real sexual encounter.

--I would be similarly concerned if I was busy masturbating all the time.
'similarly' I would be concerned that I could not sexually approach other people
without the intention of masturbating myself with them.

--If I were to judge shortly,

I would say that becoming accustomed to manipulation of my genitals in what I
really take to be a sexual encounter with myself
probably would be beneficial to the execution of future intentions of approaching
others with sexual intent.

--This is particularly relevant at this juncture, and I am bothering to examine it

at this juncture,
because boy we are looking at a long dry patch ahead.
I do not expect that when I move to the cheapest apartment in some rural area
that I will often be in a position to engage sincerely with other people at all,

and with such a dearth of sincere engagements I suspect even less that I will
arrive in any sexual encounters.

--
--

There is a bundle deal on new-egg that contains nearly all of the components I will
need,
offers a 50$ discount for ordering as a bundle,
and does not lock me in to an expensive monitor.

Now I am not, per se, averse to acquiring an expensive monitor,

but I am not in particular need of optimised freesync to execute my purposes.

I am going to play one singular game, DS3, then probably I am not going to play a
video game again.
I think almost certainly the components in the bundle at which I am looking will
serve the purpose.

And it costs about a thousand dollars less than acquiring a vega pack.
Despite glorious efforts to convince myself to acquire expensive compute capacity,
I have failed. I'll buy the cheap, durable, and adequate option.

Very little of the 'aiding the progression of the computation industry' will be
lost.
It is good that the remaining pre-vega cards are snatched up as they become
available.
Then other people will not have the option to acquire them,
they will not have engaged in moral reasoning so they won't care particularly which
they acquire,
and they will acquire vega;
then there will be the critical mass of consumption necessary to instigate driver
optimisation.

If vega 56 drops before I can begird myself to make a substantial purchase with my
crypto-holdings,
I might change my mind.
150$ might be worth paying for the difference between 570 and vega 56 even if I
have no intention of utilising it fully.

"Why though? Wasn't the whole point of this that

you should not be acquiring more than allows the execution of your purposes?"

Because I am willing to pay 150$ to validate my tastes in what objects are to be

acquired?
I don't know. I would have hoped to have stripped my constructed self-image out of
my decision making at this point,
but still there it is. Beaten and bruised but not yet eliminated.

But I do not expect there will be vega 56 on the market for more than a few minutes
after it is introduced anyway,
and while I am able to monitor the release details and stare at their postings
so as to be there in the first few minutes,
I don't particularly want to do this.

"You could wait a few months for when the market is adequately saturated, so that
it is easy to acquire the card."

I could, but we are really approaching crunch time.

I am really unbearably miserable.

--so r5 1500x, 16gb of RAM, a case, a power supply, and an rx570.

Seems like a reasonable deal at 950$ or whatever it was.
particularly given that the rx570 hashrate is pretty good;
I think I do not need to over-invest in my capacity to contribute to
BOINC/primegrid or what have you.

--
--I think probably I will begin a subscription to Elysium when I move out.

Judging by my own self, I think the ring might not be enough alone to satisfy my
chemical addiction.

--It will not be enough to be wearing a ring, say, that

I can also keep a 2 liter gin bottle handy and not drain it in a few nights.

Even if it was a placebo, which I take it not to be, I would be saving myself money
in satisfying my chemical addiction.
Add in to this the newfound capacity to hold marijuana without consuming it all in
a few nights,
and we have a potent money-saving avenue.

Daily I will be consuming a pill that claims to extend and improve my life,
and consequently daily I will be mindfully drawn back to the observation that
the sum total of all of my purposes are directed towards granting myself eternal
life.

Like a sacrament of sorts, except it costs (I am seeing) 480$ per year instead of
10% of my income.

I will be coming off of my endless hangover in which I am currently and have been
engaged,
I will be attributing the benefits of coming off the hangover to the Elysium I
purchased,
and all will be going pretty groovy.

If it does in fact end up buying me time in concert with resveratrol,

all the better.

--The end goal is

not to be drinking at all unless in concert with marijuana,
and then only consuming marijuana with my original quasi-religious understanding of
what function it serves in my life.
--As when in the past I consumed it with the explicit expectation that I would be
able to generate 20-30 solid pages of text in one sitting,
and proceeded actually to do so.
(As opposed to the pages of text I generally produce, which are not solid and are
really a shifting madness exhibited.)

It saves money in chemicals purchased, it steels my resolve,

and it may have some physiological benefit,
and it funds a collection of highly trained doctors to pursue research in a field
related to life extension.

I can hardly imagine a better purchase to make on a subscription basis.

--Ah, the business is called 'Elysium'. The chemical is called 'Basis'.

This is, ah, Black Mirror - level branding.
Still.

--Notably, all of this reasoning is similar to why I am willing to buy a 150$ ring.
Funding an artisan, lovely.
Reducing daily plausibility of consuming chemicals, lovely.
Saving money on the adduced chemicals, lovely.

--I am thinking once I have left here it will be much easier to quit nicotine.
Even over the course of a day here I can recognise the junctures at which cravings
for cigarettes intensify.
And I can recognise that removing those junctures completely from this location and
into another
will have the effect of shaking up the craving-generation.

As when, say, drinking in my house as I typically do results in cravings for

cigarettes,
but drinking in a bar does not result in a craving for cigarettes.
--I think that despite the apparent hypocrisy of claiming that I want to live
cheaply
(apparently hypocritical for the reason that I drink floods of alcohol and consume
other chemicals otherwise)

most of my profligacy will dissipate when I leave this place.

I do not, for instance, glorify the consumption of the chemicals I consume.
(Even if I have done so in text, I do not do so in-person.)
I am not going to sit down in my next location and say:
"All right. What is good to do is to consume alcohol.
So now despite my present inclinations,
I am going to go acquire alcohol and consume it."
Or any variation on this I am not going to say.
(Unless I am truly an addict.
Then I will say it to myself despite not meaning it,
then take myself as meaning it when I go into the liquor store.)

Instead I will (most likely) be feeling a craving for nicotine (say),

and I will be saying:
"But I will be very uncomfortable walking into a new gas station to learn the
procedure through which I can acquire tobacco.
And this overwhelms my transient cravings for cigarettes."
Or:
"But the craving I currently feel for alcohol is only a craving,
and it is not something I am judging I must do to further my purposes."

And since I will be in some rural backwoods area and the nearest liquor store will
be miles-by-roadbike away,
I will just stay home and not drink.

"You will have 1.75 liters of gin at-hand for when you consume marijuana."

Okay, but having 1.75 liters of gin is not the same thing as
having established an explicit and readily performed procedure of acquiring the
next instance of 1.75 liters of gin.
As when, say, I enter my car at 11:PM on the dot and drive to the liquor store,
park in the same spot or one near it, walk down the same path from my door from the
same spot
to the door of the liquor store,
maneuver between the unchanging display islands in the liquor store,
grasp the bottle of gin while twirling my komboloi,
stand at the register...

I do not treat the consumption of gin as anything sacred,

as I will do when I treat it as a potentiator for irregularly consumed marijuana,
because I already know the ease with which I can acquire an additional bottle of
gin.
Or, because it poses to me no particular difficult at any step along the way
to walk into the liquor store and acquire the next bottle of gin.
I can, even, do it without thinking at all.

--
--Notably, these considerations invalidate what might otherwise have been a valid
complaint:
"You seem to be committing no concern at all to where actually you will live."
Indeed! I don't really care.

I don't need to research schools, for instance, because I don't have children.
I don't need to research local amusements because
I am already planning that all of my amusements will be in my apartment.
I don't need to research local supply chains,
because the only thing I will be buying is food, if that.
(I will have, probably, to pick up some rudimentary bike maintanence skills.

It is a benefit of having many people in one location who ride bikes but have no
understanding of how to maintain them
that there are several shops nearby that can service bikes.
But I do not expect that the place I end up living will have many avid bicyclists.)

'local amusements' this is a very broad dismissal of the offerings of the market,
so probably I should have put more semantic work into it.
I don't care whether there are local bars, say. Or whether there are local
restaurants.
Given that there are local restaurants, I don't care what they are.

It might be useful to arrive in a location where I can take local gigs a few months
in with my cello,
but it is not worth paying 200$ additional dollars a month, say, for such a
location,
because playing cello does not pay 200$ additional per month. Performing gigs does
not pay for itself,
and I am not arriving wherever I arrive to perform gigs.

It would be nice if there was a local music scene that justified itself
economically
by having a symphony that pays, or local gigs that pay,
but there is no such location in which I can afford to live.

Notably this raises the same kind of question I was finding myself asked in
college:
"Why bother to maintain and develop skill on an instrument
if you are only ever going to utilise this skill to practise more and more complex
examples of technical studies?"

There are many reasons, and none of them are 'being paid to do so'.
--At any rate, if there was any location in the United States where
payment from engagement with the local music scene paid for the increase price in
rent
that would attend there being a local music scene,

it would require a lengthy period of research to find it.

Time is money, friend. And my researched supposition that local musical engagement
pays for increased rent
is a gamble at best that I am unwilling to take.

I am not here or wherever I end up so as to make music.

I am here or wherever I end up to perform the annotations
and thereby, God willing, constructing the Machine.

Music is an instrument with which I engage in order to further my purpose of

constructing the Machine.
Being healthy is a precondition I judge is useful to construct the Machine so I
will be healthy.
Maintaining an apartment for the maximal period of time is what I judge is
necessary,
so I will try to live cheaply.

(It would be useful to me if overtly religious life-purposes were accepted as

legitimate.

Then when people asked me what I *do*,

I would be able to say enthusiastically:
"I am here for one singular purpose and I am executing it optimally so far as I can
tell."
Then people would say:
"Wonderful.
Isn't this beer we are drinking lovely?"
"Yes."

Instead I have to construct a story behind what I do

that bears some passing resemblence to what I actually do
and that satisfies interlocutors who bothered themselves to ask me what I do.

The only acceptable stories to people who ask that kind of question
are answers veiled in jadism and complete resignation.
"I work for a corporation, am I right?"
"I do some next-shitty thing engagement in which provides for me absolutely no
interest."
"To justify myself in front of you,
I must submit that I enjoy my daily life even less than you do.")

--
--With regards to whether flirtation was occurring in the bar last night.:

I think the bar for bare interaction with me is set so high,

in consequence of my extremely standoffish demeanor and irregular habits of
presentation,
that to begin to interact with me displays extreme motivation to do so.

Now I don't intend to impune others with the suggestion of a motivation,

but for this woman to ask me to explain my little fidget toy
shows a kind of motivation to engage with me that does not typically arise.
--To say, while I am unwilling to state an explicit story behind the motivation to
interact with me,
there must have been a great deal of motivation to interact with me,
because the whole of my body at most times is a flashing neon sign: "I would prefer
not to."

--Or maybe I have overestimated how offputting my demeanor is.

I have not literally, for instance, tattooed my forehead with offensive imagery.

Maybe I am attractive enough to overwhelm a standoffish demeanor--

and this would not therefore be vanity being exhibited when people bother to engage
with me.
The bare presentation of a face is already a kind of a message,
and to be very attractive but being standoffish is a different kind of message than
to have been unattractive and performed identical behaviors.
(The story behind what happens in actual honest-to-god human interaction
is much too complex for any story being told behind it to be accurate.

It is better not to be telling a story.)

(Unless that story happens to have been constructing the Machine! hurr.)

--
--Oh boy, in the next two years or so I am going to solve everything.
Are you excited?
I feel the stirrings of excitement that should typically bloom into full-blown
physiological excitement.
(Frustrated in its blooming by temporally localised over-{abuse}consumption of
chemicals.)

--
--The ideal of gin is that its taste is so strong that
eventually you can obtain all of the placebo effect you expect and have established
from its overconsumption
despite only taking a sip of it.

The ideal of gin is that you can become accustomed to drinking shots of it,
and then proceed to become accustomed to taking sips of it
without any loss of benefit from having consumed it.

Then at that ideal juncture it is the *taste* of gin

instead of its alcohol content
that is delivering benefits to you.

Then at that ideal juncture you can become drunk off of a few sips
instead of 20 or so consecutive shots.
(With it having been established that being drunk is objectively better than being
sober.
Or else you wouldn't have been drinking gin to begin with.)

--
--Two more observations explicitly for later analysis:

1:
My dog just moved away.
My dog has been in my environment for a long period of time,
and I have become accustomed to altering the placement of my feet around the
placement of my dog in my environment.

Because my dog is colored black,

it has often been useful, when I have seen patches of black in my environment,
to be imagining that my dog is present.

--So that I have factually observed that I have often walked upstairs,
seen a patch of black in front of me, and I have imagined my dog there.
But when I focused in with my eyes, I observed that the dog was not there. I had
just been looking at a patch of black.

--So there is an ontological point here that needs to be examined:

I was *not*, *factually*, judging whether my dog was present.
I was judging whether a patch of black was my dog or if it was a shadow/void in the
light distribution.

--And there is an anecdotal point here to be examined:

I just walked upstairs and saw a patch of black, and I saw my dog there literally.
On closer examination I saw color distributions that would not have been present if
my dog's body was not present.
--I saw a color distribution,
then I looked very closely with my eyes at the patch,
and I saw that the world cannot have given rise to that color distribution as I
actually saw. (Anecdotally.)

I was hallucinating the presence of my dog.

--I don't want to drop the ontological point here.

Coming to arrive at a point in my life where I hallucinate the image of my dog in
my peripheral vision

was simultaneously
the best way of handling the task of never stepping on my dog,
and obviously not ontologically predicated on whether it is resolving the presence
of my dog.
--I became accustomed to hallucinating images that were not present in my
environment
because when I experienced those hallucinations I directed my vision into the dark
shadows
and I certified to myself whether the dog was present.

(As occurred when I stopped myself, said:

"Oh boy, the dog might be right there." ((As factually.))
Then I looked closer, and I observed that there was no dog there
despite having seen features that could not have been generated by the substrate of
my situation.

--Then I just kept walking.

This whole procedure took me maybe .5 seconds to perform every time,
so it was always worth it to have performed.
I became accustomed to performing it, and in performing it seeing both of either a
light-void or the body of my dog.

If I was *very* concerned in assuring whether my dog was present on that mat,
I *could* take a more ontologically driven approach.
I could say: "Where have I seen the dog in the last 5 minutes? 10 minutes?

Given what I can observe around my environment, where is it likely for the dog to
be?
Have I left the light on in the laundry as I do under certain conditions obtaining
in the body of the dog?
Have I left the upstairs door open for his free passage?"

Then I would be busy investigating evidence supporting or negating those

suppositions
instead of walking upstairs and scanning my environment for the body of my dog.

And since it takes .5 seconds to scan for the body of my dog,

whereas it would take many hours logically to deduce where my dog is,

it takes 0-.5 seconds to have already been walking in such a way as to avoid
stepping on my dog.
(Imagine me performing either of these.

Imagining me performing either of these will aid you in your hermaneutics.)

--ANd yet the procedure I adopted, when presented to me,

eventually presents something that is apparently ontologically incomprehensible.

My behavior *was* best for picking out the body of my dog from my environment.
But my behavior can't have been predicated on picking out the body of my dog
because I was correct in responding to my experience even though my experienced
required something that was not possible.

--
--Or I don't know what point I am making.

I am making a point about hallucinations and how

[when you see the dog in the periphery of your eyes it is a hallucination even if
the dog is there]

they are necessary for an optimal solution to a human not stepping on a dog,
and will be better than any obtuse method for avoiding stepping on the dog
as could be effected through an explicit rulebook.

I am making a point that hallucinations arise in consequence of regular exposure to

a visual stimulus being immediately relevant to one's decision making.
Being exposed regularly to a juncture at which there is a connection between a
visual stimulus and one's decision making
will result in there being engrained into one's understanding of arrival at that
juncture
whatever is necessary that the brain generates a hallucination of the stimulus that
had to have been there to draw your attention.

(And plausibly I am suggesting that everyone hallucinates all the time,

but only more or less effectively in manipulating their environments.

But fear not, we can discern methods for tuning peoples' hallucinations.)

--Okay, and I am basing this on anecdotal evidence.

I observed that I hallucinated the body of my dog.

I recall that I hallucinated this at a particular juncture

at which I was often required to observe the presence-or-not of the body of the
dog.

I think it is not totally disconnected between the two

that I hallucinated the body of my dog,
and that the story I was just telling about walking upstairs is an accurate
representation of the kind of understanding I will have developed having lived the
way I do.

--So that is one kind of point.

It is a point about the brain.

But the ontological point is still what I want to convey.

None of this hallucinating has anything to do with the presence of the body of the
dog.
It has everything to do with the presence of the juncture at which I am judging
whether I am seeing the body of the dog.

Actually seeing the dog, or hallucinating the dog,

is a function of the juncture being such as it is.
It is not a function of the dog itself being such as it is.

--The true predication of an accurate description of my circumstances

is not concerning the entities themselves.
It is concerning the activity of the Understanding.
it is concerning the blobs of color we regularly specify as satisfying our
inquisitive nature.

Obviously, because there is no conceivable explanation why I should have

hallucinated the ontological body of my dog,
but there is an incredibly intuitive explanation for why I might have hallucinated
a regular signal at a juncture tied to my decision making.

'there is no conceivable explanation for why I should have hallucinated an

instantiation of an entity.'
There isn't.
If you try to present a counter example I will dismantle it.
I will show that you are speaking incoherently if you think what is relevant to the
progression of our understanding is a particular arrangement of ontological
entities.

It is not so. The only conceivable explanations are concerning the nature of the
junctures at which we arrive.

[
And you might see here why I am so willing to engage in rhetorical claims,
or construct extremely fanciful communist propaganda.

The juncture for me is not what I am saying,

but the juncture for me is arriving at the computer to type.

Ho hum.
]

When I walk upstairs and I hallucinate the dog,

there is no conceivable explanation couched in terms of the dog that is adequate to
explain my behavior.
And yet my behavior was best.

I was skilled at manipulating the progression of junctures

at which I had to be observing shadows in my environment in order to avoid a yelp.
I was skilled at taking one step by one step always knowing I would not be risking
stepping on the dog.

This is not because I constructed a complete and authoritative rulebook concerning

how to avoid stepping on the dog
and then proceeded to obey it.
What is going on is not anchored in this kind of ontological object.

It is anchored more plausibly in a different kind of ontological object:

the features that are relevant to us at given junctures in experience.
It is anchored plausibly in this way

because it makes absolutely no sense to speak to me about my hallucination, my

actual factual hallucination,
having any causal relation to the body of the dog you are specifying.

Whether I hallucinated that or not had nothing to do with the particular physical
location of the dog, for instance.
Whether it was 10 feet away from that place, or a thousand feed away from that
place,
I was going still to hallucinate it.
So *obviously* my hallucination has nothing to do ontologically with the
physicality of that dog as it currently is.
So it *obviously* does not make sense to construct an explanation couched in terms
of causal relations between my current bodily position and that of the dog.

If you wanted to account explicitly for why my hallucination was as it was,

it would make sense to reference, say, the coat of the dog and what it looks like,
black and white.
But this does not therefore mean that you can speak about the dog itself in
explaining the structure of my hallucination.
You can talk about there having been a consistent pattern in qualia-generation by
the presence of the dog, maybe.

But this is a completely different kind of explanation,

because it does not rely *at all* on the current status of the qualia that are
being generated by proximity to the dog *as it is right now, actually*.
It relies on there *having been experienced* a regularity in qualia generation by
the dog.
And having experienced that qualia generation consistently for a period of time,
the color and shape of the hallucination was indeed determined in some way by the
way my dog appeared on previous arrivals at that juncture.

But if, for instance, that dog has been shaved in the meantime,
if you tried to back up your accounting for my hallucination by pointing at the
dog,
you would be pointing at an entity the current image of which looks *nothing* like
the hallucination as actually experienced.

--This is interesting for us to observe because

when we are speaking about physics, for instance, we claim what we are doing is
specifying specific entities such as particles,
designating their current state,
and saying that at all times in the progression of designated states
we are speaking about the designated entities.

But we are not doing this kind of thing when we are accounting for the structure of
my hallucination.
It *looks* like we are doing this kind of thing,
because we are specifying a feature 'Boomer'
which I will agree corresponds to a given dog,

and 'being a given dog' you equivocally suppose is equivalent to stating that there
is an anatomical entity that is satisfying my descriptons for me.

So you are speaking as if the dog I am speaking about

is very much like the specific atom you have isolated and specified.

But these two things are nothing alike.

We cannot speak about atoms in the same way we speak about dogs
when we are speaking an explanation for why I hallucinated what I did when I did.
(And I might suggest:
we cannot speak about atoms in the same way we speak about atoms either.)

--
--2#:
Ethics is a practise.

Relativism is true,
but there are a limited number of legitimate positions to hold relatively.

Because ethics is something one can become good at, regardless of which starting
point is selected,
there are many ways to become a more ethical person
but not every suggestion concerning the way one can become an ethical person is a
legitimate relative position.

The best suggestions concerning the way one can become an ethical person
are provided by those people who study ethics.
And in studying ethics, they have divided themselves into a few distinct starting
positions.

There are many ways to be a utilitarian, and many ways to be a virtue ethicist,
but to be best at executing the ethicality of any of these positions
is to have been studying the people who were executing them optimally.
So relativism is practically true:
There are many extremely skilled ethicists,
and they are all closer to the truth of ethics than anyone who pays it no mind.
(Relativism is true because this position I am outlining

is agnostic between what ends up happening to be the best practise of ethics.

The best utilitarian and the best virtue ethicist are, maybe,
both better off in the ethics department than people who have never considered the
matter.

--If you take ethics as a practise,

it is much like practising the cello.

There are many people who do it in many different ways,

but the people who practise the cello regularly are *all* better at the cello
than those who never practise it for any reason.

--So much like I would prefer, if I was interested in playing the cello
effectively,
to study under *anyone* who practised it regularly rather than the alternative,

if I am interested in becoming better at ethics

I would prefer to be examining the people who were its greatest practicioners.

--
--

Aha. I have just discovered something wonderful about manipulating a komboloi.

My hands are often cold.

The body of the komboloi is a reservoir for heat.

I can manipulate the body of the komboloi so that I can grasp it in my hands to
extract heat from it.
I can satisfy the keeping of my hands warm through careful manipulating of the
komboloi as a heat reservoir.

This is like the satisfaction of nicotine cravings.

It is like the satisfaction of nicotine cravings insofar as it is the apparent
satisfaction of an immediate physiological demand placed on me by my body.

I can displace nicotine cravings into the procedure of keeping my hand warm
by utilising the komboloi as a heat reservoir.

(As I was doing before I began to type waht I was doing.)

--I can replace the procedural satisfaction of nicotine cravings
with the procedural satisfaction of cravings arising relative to the presence of
the komboloi in my hand.

--
--Blegh. I was intending to take a shower and go to bed.
Here I am again though.

Probably #1: the ontological point concerning the dog

is more interesting than #2:

the point concerning why all ethicists are better off morally speaking than people
who never have taken seriously the issue.
(Though 'taking seriously the issue' does not therefore require you to be an
ethicist.)
(I mean,
I do not doubt that clever, rigorously trained, ethicists could
construct intricate logical puzzles that would require a degree to resolve.

Arriving at the point where they are able to do this will, ideally, necessitate
that they have learned something
about how actually to comport themselves so as to satisfy ethical demands.

But being able to disentangle the complex puzzles clever ethicists are able to
construct
is not the test of whether one is being a truly ethical agent.
(As consider practically,
where some ethicists who could resolve intricate puzzles
were not ethical agents at all.

As evidence, select some given ethicist who you recollect as having been unethical.

Like some professor who did something unethical, for instance.

I'm sure there are examples.)

(Imagine, for example,

that someone heavily trained in symbolic logic and in ethical reasoning

could construct an incomprehensible scenario of which still apparently applied

ethical reasoning.
((They could do this.
If none of them agree they can do this, I can show them how to do this and resolve
the point myself.))

The capacity to disentangle the logical structure of a complex ethical statement

is not the same capacity as what one must have when arriving in new situations and
remaining an ethical agent.
((Or it can be the same *practical capacity*,
if it ends up being the case that
*what **is** ethical actually* happens to have been
arriving in situations where one is maximally executing maximal capacity to
construct intricate logical-ethical puzzles.

Then if you just did that all day every day,

you would happen to be correct
even though there was no real ethical connection between your activities and what
an ethical agent would decide to do.))

These are different practises.

They are only unified in the happenstance circumstance that it happens to be best
to make these puzzles.
Otherwise there is no connection between being an ethical agent and the capacity to
disentangle arbitrarily complex constructed logico-ethical puzzles.

--Nevertheless, I agree that if you have studied ethics intensively

you will *happen* to execute, more frequently, ethical behaviors.
(hurr.)
Or maybe you will just more often find yourself in a position where you can justify
executing unethical behaviors.

Whatever ends up happening to people who study ethicists,

--
--The best way to be an ethicist
is to arrive securely in a situation and violate no one.

It matters theoretically, but not practically, how you arrive at that point.
If you arrive insecurely in a situation and violate everyone,
you have also happened to have violated all of the ethical systems.
ANd our best ethicists swear by at least one of these ethical systems,
so you must surely have made a mistake.

--It doesn't matter *practically* how you arrive at that point where you are secure
in your own position but violate no one,
but it does matter that you reach this point.

Because otherwise you will either be failing to question yourself when you violate
someone,
or questioning yourself when you are not violating anyone,

but you will not be not questioning yourself.

And what is best for the ethicist is to float free of any self-questioning,
because that is what being good at executing ethical behavior is.

A devout virtue ethicist, or a deontologist, who-have-you,

will eventually arrive at the point where they can flow freely through situations
without violating anyone and without stopping to question anything.

Then they are most optimally executing ethical behavior,

because obviously stopping to question oneself is sub-optimal execution of whatever
behavior was intended.
(But also obviously, failing to stop to question oneself when one is violating
others
is sub-optimal for the execution of whatever behavior was intended.)

(Behaviors are so blocky that

a given behavior can happen to both violate no one
and satisfy a multiplicity of ethical positions.

But this multiplicity happens to be clustered around a few central positions,

like virtue ethics or deontology.)
(Or, let me shudder,
if I am ever analysed I might be called a utilitarian.
An absolute whole-project min-max utilitarian

who struggles to arrive at a final position because

the matter is complex and takes a great deal of time for discerning the min-max
solution.)
(If utilitarianism was true,
the true min-max utilitarian position would be completely unknowable,

and attempting to *be* as a utilitarian agent

would almost always punish aping the true utility maximising position.

You would incorrectly be taking your own experience as the object of your ethical
judgment
because your own experience was most easy to reference for affixing to it
utilitarian values for evaluation.

But completely unbeknownst to you, your decision was entangled in a much larger
utilitarian web
and your local judgment of what maximised utility
actually resulted in a total less net utilons in the world.

--You can't know what the best utilitarian position is actually,

and attempting to construct your best approximation of the best utilitarian
position
has no connection with whether you have maximised utility unless you have
approximated it perfectly.

So in bothering to construct the dictates of a utilitarian position

you have explicitly selected a position that was not dictated by your ethics.
You have selected a position that bears no interesting relation to the one of which
it was an attempted proximation.

--
--

If a lot of this at this point seems like empty considerations,

well, this me picking out an apartment. You all did it as some point,
so.

--
--

I don't think I can stay sober for the two or three days necessary to allow my
vision to return to baseline.
Or better maybe to say, I'm not going to stay sober for the two or three days
necessary
and I will look back and say to myself: "I could not do it."

--
--

I just spent about two straight hours combing my hair.

The amount of hair currently in the trash-can next to me suggests that I should be
doing this more often.
Plus all the scalp cheese, the contents of that trash can are clear evidence that I
am bodily disgusting.

--
--

I was considering the possibility of going back to the Tamarack and flirting with
the bartender.

Here is an observation:
if anyone other than me read this document and read what I had said,
and I proceeded to go back to the bar with this explicit purpose in mind,
readers other than myself would judge this as creepy and stalking behavior.

And particularly they would be right due to the confusion inherent on my part
in confusing friendliness for flirtation.

I have a hard time recounting how much I want to connect with someone,
but I have a harder time accounting for how it would be legitimate for me to go
about doing it.
My desires are relevant {irrelevant}, but only indirectly and not directly.
They are not directly relevant in the sense that I cannot actively reference them
in order to discern appropriate action.
But among the appropriate actions I can select,
my desires become relevant insofar as my desire decides between the legitimate
actions.

--Though my desires are irrelevant for a completely different reason:

there is no outcome of my engagement with her that would fail to arrive at a
juncture where I have to reveal my position in this city.
This would be fine if I could cite my quasi-religious purpose as a legitimating
explanation for why I live the way I do, but I cannot.

So I imagine all the ways that juncture could arise, and I imagine myself
immediately finding the nearest bridge off of which to jump.

So I don't know why I am engaging with this fantasy.

Or I do know: it is a fantasy about what could have happened if I had not lived
this kind of life.
--That is one accounting, anyway: this bartender made me feel regret.
[Is it plausible to you that I can feel regret?]

"So what it takes for a woman to infatuate you is simply asking to look at your
komboloi?"

This question is completely irrelevant and completely misunderstands what was going
on in the bar.

"Okay. But I cannot hone in on what happened in the bar without asking this
question."

So long as what really is happening is sex, I have no moral qualms if the only
instigating event is a raising of the eyebrows.
If, say, one of two people raises eyebrows, then two hands are held and then people
go back to an apartment.
[Though notably, my bar of:
'not just committing mutual masturbation'
is a relatively high bar to clear.

It requires being sincere.]

'infatuation' is not what was happening here, though it appears that way
because I proceeded to expend numerous pages examining this circumstance.
[We might want to say:
in these pages the bartender was a rhetorical prop, and also my own body and my own
dispositions were a rhetorical prop.

I feel whatever I feel,

and this text is just a locus (in this kind of reasoning) for eliciting from myself
the feelings I need to recognise
in order that I proceed to do what I really want to do.

[[The practical trick I am performing is questioning myself into the ground

for such a longer period of time that purusing {pursuing} whatever connection was
present
no longer seems like a plausible way to continue.]]
]

--
--A benefit of the endless wonder of human interaction is that
one experiences things one could not have anticipated or planned around.

But having put this much thought into the question at hand,
this human interaction I am adducing will become what I have anticipated and
planned around.
I will interpret every actually unexpected turn
in terms of what I have expected.

Then my justification, that I am freely flowing into whatever proceeds,

is eliminated both by what I have said
and by how I would be when I arrived in the bar to execute these newly constructed
purposes.

Whereas if I had just followed my inclinations as I would,

when I arrive with this pre-formatted plan I am committing something that is
tantamount to assault.
And I cannot freely flow into the Tamarack anymore,
precisely for the reason that I have engaged in all of this thinking.

[And even putting all of this completely aside,

it is not at all implausible that I show up and I am seen as a creep.

It has happened before.

Despite my lack of experience interacting people,

I think I have what we might call obtusely a 'more complete theory of mind' than
other people have.

Is it really my fault if people don't understand themselves? :O]

--
--Putting everything else aside also,
I have heard there is an orgasm gap between men and women.
I could become a crusader to close this gap.
I think I could do it.

There is less of a technical difference between cellos and human bodies than you
might think.
In both cases you are trying to make them sing, and so on and so forth.
I think if I could get through a night without becoming ashamed of myself,
people would not in that night regret being with me.

--You know, when I arrive really at telling the story of what I *want*,
it is magnificently stripped of story:
I want to have approached the bar with a smile when closing time came around.
I want to have walked down the street hand in hand.
I want to have walked up stairs or not upstairs depending on the circumstance.
I want to have walked in after an open door,
and then I want to have placed my hands on the bartender.
Then I want all of the things that proceeded from that juncture but which I blush
to describe.

Much as I don't bluntly want 'sex' I don't bluntly want the 'holding hands'
component of this recounting.
I don't bluntly want 'walking upstairs'.

Subtly I want everything that could have proceeded from my presence in the bar to
the bartender's apartment,
and subtly everything that would have proceeded from there.

[A night spent doing anything other than typing?

Obviously unacceptable.
I must find a way I am in order that that kind of night is sabotaged before it can
begin.]

--I am going to go play the shruti box.

--
--

'I could monitor newegg until vega 56 is released and acquire one in the minutes
before it sells out.'
Factually! In fact!
If I had stayed awake and on newegg for the next few hours after I said that,
I would have been in a position to acquire a vega 56 before it sold out.

Ho hum. Never wrong, but it doesn't help me much.

[I say this, to inform you, so as to observe that
vega 56 was released at some point this morning when I was awake but not monitoring
newegg
and sold out in minutes.

So that in a literal sense I could have been monitoring its release.

Indeed, I could have acquired a few of them and resold them on craig's list for
another month's rent.]

--
--Before I go play shruti box:

here is an idea for how a philosophy curriculum could be organised in a university:

have two well-trained philosophers be presented with one common problem
and adopt different approaches to resolving the problem.

In doing this, the philosophers will adopt the extremely stereotypical position
that they can best develop
that is one polar answer to the presented problem.

So you will have two philosophers both resolving the same problem,
and disagreeing angrily concerning which approach is correct.

Students can take either-one or both of the courses.

The exams will require the students to disregard their own notions and figure out
how to agree with the professor.

At the end of the semester,

you have a legitimate debate between the two professors,
where they shed their stereotypicality and actually present the positions.
Everyone learns a great deal.

--This is beneficial for many reasons in the teaching of philosophy.

One of the primary reasons:
the student's opinions become completely irrelevant.
An undergrad's opinion on philosophy *is* completely irrelevant to the discipline,
so it is good that they are made to act the way they are.

They are asked to discern a way of justifying their professor's position.

They are not asked to provide original defenses of the position maintained by the
professor,
insofar as the professor's position already constitutes an original defense.
The students are only asked to explain why the professor is correct.
To present a new defense of the position is incorrect because it does not serve to
defend the professor's elaborated position.
TO disagree with the professor is also already to be incorrect, because
the person presenting the disagreement is an undergrad who can be immediately
dismissed for other reasons,
and because success in the exam was already explained as being
most optimally defending the position explicitly posited by the professor.

Then undergrads are systemically compelled either to fail or to

discern how to defend the position explicitly constructed by the professor.

And that is best because undergrads typically know nothing,

and it teaches them more rapidly to compel them
to defend the professor's position rather than
to present their own positions.

Because we already know that the professor is better than the undergrad at
executing philosophy. This will almost always be true.
SO instead of muddling around in the dark, these undergrads,
they should be compelled to be answerable explicitly to the position of the
professor.

ANd if they want to take *both* of these debating-offered courses,

that is fine if they are willing sincerely to demonstrate why both positions are
right
in the eyes of the professor on grading the papers.
It is fine,
supposing they agree to arrive in one class and answer to one professor,
and then go to the next class and answer to the other professor,
and not be confused by this procedure into thinking they can independently
construct accountings for the position to be resolved.

If they take both classes and say to myself:

"Having been exposed to a multiplicity of positions and having thought carefully
about the issue to be resolved,
I an undergrad will speak authoritatively to the issue to be resolved."

--We have already established that undergrads can't do this except that they
produce garbage.
We have seen them one after another attempt to produce their own original positions
on the issues to be resolved,
and we have observed that whatever they generated was garbage and not befitting the
out put of the a philosopher.

--So it is better, generally speaking, that students either take one or the other
of the classes.
Generally speaking it is preferable to fire them up in support of a given position
than to have them thinking carefully about the relations between the two professor-
presented resolutions of the issue to be resolved.

If they are fired up and angry for the professor's cause,

they will be making fire with their interpretation of the professor.
--If they are instead trying to make their own positions relative to the issue to
be resolved,
they will be making garbage with their interpretation of the issue.
So it is *generally* better that you forbid students from taking both courses.
Because if the impressionable students are only exposed to one professor and not
both,
they will be inclined to regard the position of the other professor (to whom they
have not been exposed)
as immediately ridiculous,
and they will already be citing the reasons that would be provided by their
preferred professor.

Then you will be getting undergrads *very carefully* citing the opinions of their
betters,
instead of attempting to construct their own positions. And that is best.
--Because this course-track ends with a debate at the end of the year.

And at this debate, the students will see their own professors tear their own
positions to shreds.
They will see true philosophers shred the strawman positions constructed by bare-
professors in a class.
And they will see what it truly means to be defending one's position against
interlocution.

--having been, in the course, stereotypical naturalists or idealists say in

resolving free will,
you will arrive in the debate and convince implicitly your attentive students:
"The position I was maintaining in the course was the position of a fool.

If it made you think the other professor was obviously incorrect,

you were confused by the aped foolishness of the position I presented as a strawman
for you to cheer."

--But then they would also be in a position to observe:

"I have now, now that the scales have fallen off my eyes,
I have now come to be able to understand what it means for philosophers to be
maintaining a position."

--
--Well, I don't have to explain, manually, the befits of designing this kind of
method for teaching philosophy.

You, you academy workers,

just need to think carefully about what would be going on
if two professors adopted diametrically opposed positions concerning the resolution
of a given issue.

Then if you imagined this seriously,

you would already be knowing all the things I would care to tell you
about why this would be a very effective method for teaching undergrads.

--Of course, it would be difficult to orchestrate.

You would have to orchestrate two philosophers really agreeing to disagree,

and philosophers are like ambling gregarious animals you might try to herd.
(or, my ideal vision of philosophers is like this.)
Every one of them is concerned with maintaining their own positions,
and really thinking through their positions is not best served
by putting on a play to amuse undergrads in their spare time.

I can certainly understand this.

I am not myself going to construct a collection of arguments that are
logically relatable to my own but incorrect
so that I can present that collection of false statements to an undergrad
while acting that it is obviously correct.

I am suggesting that this is a good way to teach undergrads,

but I am not myself for instance going to go teach undergrads with this method.

Even if I thought the game was fun to play with the undergrads and the other
professor,
I do not have the credentials necessary to arrive in a lecture hall and execute
this kind of idea.

And if I had acquired those credentials,

then I would have succeeded in a life that allowed me to be a hermit
and I would not practically be interested in constructing plays for undergrads.
I would practically be interested in executing the life of a hermit.

--So I agree it is a tedious thing to do,

but if you are already interested in instructing undergrads
then you might find it an interesting idea actually to explore.

--'you might find it interesting'

in this sense that you are interested, sometimes, in discerning better methods for
instructing undergrads.
My proposition for how to go about instructing them is the implicit offer
of a method for instructing them better than you currently do.

Then you might find it interesting if I am right,{}[!!!]

and adopting this approach will result in a more effective educating of undergrads.

--
--machine forgive me,
I am going to go play shruti box.

--
--

:The idea of having floating solar panels protected by an array of wave-absorbers,

and of having hover around those wave-absorbers mini-wave-absorbers
that are computationally optimised around the physical presence of the array of
wave-absorbers.

Then the computationally-optimised free-floating wave absorbers

can reposition themselves so as to alter mechanically the wave that is arriving at
the primary wave absorbers.

This is a way computationally to resolve the issue that

you cannot present a fool-proof array of wave-absorbers that will prevent damage to
floating solar panels.
For any array you design, there is a defeating incoming wave
that defeats the purpose of not allowing the wave-supressers to fail to prevent
the arrival of a damaging wave at the solar panels.

--So you position computationally actively informed pre-wave wave-absorbers.

These reposition themselves mathematically to negate the waves that are going to
crash into the computationally designed array of primary wave absorbers.
By repositioning themselves in this way,
they force the incoming wave to be one that is resolved by the primary wave
absorbers.
In this way you could have self-powering wave-stabilisers
that make the primary wave-absorbers absorb more energy than was lost
by being compelled to pay, electrically, for the self-powering wave-stabilising-
sensors.

So you can, with this imagine construct,

harness more electricity from the oncoming waves
if you have sacrified wave-present-electricity for the capacity to manipulate the
incoming wave.

Though it stole electricity from the oncoming wave to have the advance sensors
power themselves and reposition themselves in answer to it,
the presence of the self-powering sensors
resulted in that the whole array harvested more electricity from the wave.
(And notably,
having harvested more electricity from the wave
it will have mitigated *more* the waves approaching the solarpanels
damage to which must be prevented.)

--That is a bold but I-think-supported point.

(If it is an actually bold point,
it is interesting that I arrived at it with no practical understanding of energy,
engineering, mathematics, what have you.)

If computation were cheap enough electrically,

a self-powering-sensor--computer could mechanically optimise waves around
crashing into an array of primary wave absorbers.

--There is a way, for any array of primary wave-absorbers,

for incoming waves to be optimised around their distribution.
If it cost us nothing to arrange pre-primary wave absorbers,
we could arrange them in a way that made the primary wave absorbers generate more
electricity
than if the pre-primary wave absorbers were not present.

So there is, if it cost us no computation to do it,

a way of constructing an automated system that consistently makes a given array of
primary wave absorbers
generate more electricity than it saps from the wave
for the pre-primary wave absorbers to reposition themselves in accordance with
computed results.

--If computation cost effectively no electricity to execute,

then it is very easy to imagine pre-primary wave absorbers that can optimise
electricity gain from the given array of primary wave absorbers.

(We might even imagine placing carefully designed floating weights in the ocean
around the floating solar panels,
and the inevitable activity of those weights will be to dampen incoming waves.
Easy peasy.

But not very reticulated to possible incoming waves.)

--Our optimisation method would be placing energy-neutral collections of matter

that performed the task of optimising incoming electricity gains to the primary
wave absorbers.

They would absorb nothing from the wave because they require basically no
electricity to power themselves.
(Because computation is so cheap relative to electricity.)
Their presence in the oncoming wave would not inform the wave in consequence of its
electricity draw,
but it would only be informing the oncoming wave because of its physical presence
on the wave.

having informed the wave but cost nothing electrically,

immediately it is obvious that this can have made the primary wave absorbers to
gather more electricity.
No, or extremely little, electricity was sapped mechanically from the wave
in a way that did not inform immediately the progression of the wave.
--The presence of the pre-primary wave absorber gathered basically no electricity
to inform its positioning,
but its positioning determined the progression of a wave that would more optimally
feed the primary wave absorbers.

If it cost nothing *in electrical terms* to the progression of the wave,

but it nevertheless made the wave proceed as more optimally to feed the primary
wave absorbers,
then obviously there is electricity to be gained by instantiating an additional
instance of computation.

If computation was extremely expensive,

then we might not imagine that we could extract more electricity from the oncoming
wave
by utilising a computation-informed pre-primary wave absorber.
Obtusely we would observe:
"To deploy this pre-primary wave absorber,

feeding it with the electricity *it itself* can gather from the waves
is not adequate in order that it can compute a method for resolving the wave
in such a way as to feed the primary wave absorbers more electricity."

This would be obtuse because it is true in that particular case,

but it is not logically true say.

It is not logically the case that no object can be deployed

that repositions itself on the basis of computation
and net-costs {more} less in electricity to maintain than it garners to the primary
wave absorbers.

If we cannot *design* actual such pre-primary wave absorbers,

it is a failure of imagination on our part
and it is not a failure in thermodynamics say.

--
--Of course we run into, in that practical idea, an economic objection:
"Even if you could extract *all* of the electricity present in oncoming waves,
still wave-technology is not economically viable relative to wind."

I doubt seriously that that is true,

but even supposing it is true:
wonderful.
So much electricity could be extracted by a computationally optimised primary array
and an optimised pre-primary array of wave-absorbers

that if wind and solar are more optimal than that,

wonderful.
Because we must be breezing by on world-happenstance easy-street.
If we couldn't design a method of extracting electricity from literal waves
more optimally than we could extract it from noise as in the barrage of sun-
effects,
or the noise in the barrage of wind-effects,
boy our theoretical capacity must have been mostly irrelevant to the development of
the economy.

If we cannot look at the oncoming ocean waves and design pre-primary sensors
that make an ocean-array more optimal than wind or solar,

we, uh, we have not been better than noise.

We have massive branches of mathematics and physics devoted to examining how waves
operate.
If we cannot bend that knowledge towards a market-optimal wave-harvesting array,
we must have been doing something completely off-base.

--I mean, how would you hold your head in public

if you were a physicist or a mathematician,
and your disciplines had not leveraged their knowledge of waves
to optimise wave-gathering over noise-gathering for electricity generation?

I think you would hold your head shamefully.

--
--And you know, there is an economic incentive on the side
of physicists and mathematicians who discern how optimally
to allow a fixed array of primary-wave gatherers to at least pay for themselves.

It makes immediately economically obvious

the seizing of ocean-surface for the distribution of solar panels and wave-
absorbers.
--If you can make an array of wave absorbers, however tiered, that can feed its own
electricity costs and then some,
you can just put a bunch of solar panels on top of the wave-absorbers.

Then you do not have to pay the cost for *land*.

So even if the wave-absorbers didn't fully justify themselves economically,
they would justify you so long as

they afforded you the capacity to install sufficiently more solar panels
than you could on the land you could afford to buy.

--So long as it is cheaper to 'buy' portions of the ocean for utilisation,

there is a gap in cost between land and building on the ocean.
This allows an inefficiency in the wave-absorbers.
If it is cheaper to pay for the inefficiency of the wave absorbers in insuring your
panel investment,
then you are willing to invest in wave-absorption technology that is
cheap enough in its inefficiency to cover the gap between its cost and the cost of
acquiring land.

--So even if I can't certify 100% electricity extraction from oncoming waves, as I
might have appeared to have been promising above,
I can certify a level of extraction that pays for itself and enables stably placed
solar panels.

--Oh boy.
--Oh boy.
We could establish an array of solar panels that were environmentally
compartmentalised. Quarantined.

Wave absorbers en-masse, and a super-massive array of wind turbines.

--We could organise a collection of ocean that was never subject to the weather
and we could cover that patch of ocean in insurance-free solar panels.

--We could have a mathematically optimised array of wind turbines that, in concert
with wave-absorbers,
completely negated the weather in concert with the solar panels.

They would all be busy generating electricity,

and they would all simultaneously be converting a patch of ocean into acceptable
surface for dispatch of solar panels.
(or otherwise we could be thinking:
the solar panels' absorption of heat energy
served to stabilise the ocean around the wind turbines and also the wave-
absorbers.)

--The presence of all three varieties of extracting electricity from the

environment
makes all of them together more economically viable.

If you have the funds to execute a mega-project,

execution of this mega-project might be the bare minimum necessary to achieve the
necessary economy of scale.
--As when a bare field of solar panels, or a bare field of turbines or wave
harvesters

barely justify themselves,

but taken altogether in a given patch of ocean they all more-than-justify
themselves.
--Then none of the projects independently attract investment,
but if all three are taken together as one optimised project
then the three together do elicit investment.

--Because the array of panels and so on

can all be related to each other mathematically
in informing what it means for them all to have been arranged in arrays,
it will, on some mega-project,
not be viable to issue the same quantity of panels, wave absorbers, and turbines
unless they are all actually proposed as being constituents of the mega project.

--So a mathematically optimised ocean-stabilising array might economically justify

itself,
but its component parts dispersed to the winds might not justify themselves.
--An interesting point,
because the insights of investors into the market have often best been treated as
noise that happens to optimise dollar acquisition.
So it would be mechanically difficult to convince them that the best investment is
a mega-project.
--You would have practically to convince every one of them to take the mega-project
as a better investment
than any of the independent investments that could have been corraled into a mega-
project.

--So we need to find an otherwise useless patch of ocean

that is adjacent to an enormous electricity sink.
--Many coastal localities are enormous electricity sinks,
so we have a grab-bag of opportunities.

We find a coastal city where electricity is often used but expensive,

and we construct a mega-project that diminishes the cost of electricity down to
global standards.

--We are secure in this kind of investment that I have specifically outlined.
If we observe that people are consuming a great deal of electricity, per-capita as
much as anywhere else that matters,
and they are doing it despite paying more for it,

feeding them more electricity ameliorates a cost they are willing to pay
and it will ensure more consumption of electricity.
Because people who already consume a great deal of it despite a great price
will just consume more of it when the cost becomes lower.

So the mega-project of optimally satisfying a coastal city's electricity needs

obviously pays for itself and then some.
--Which is why i have been wanting to get involved financially with renewable
generation.

to be contractually related to a mega-project is to receive high dividends.

The mega-projects that are actually constructed are those that are useful.
It is very useful to feed electricity-hungry coastal cities
with more electricity from mathematically optimised patches of ocean.

It will be a mega-project that costal cities with high electricity costs will
have their electricity-hunger pangs met by mathematically optimised patches of
ocean.

--On the other hand,

I don't witness investment opportunities
where the promise is of mathematically-optimally extracting electricity from given
locations.
So I am not witnessing investment opportunities that are related to a plausible
mega-project.
(Though the DAO is pretty interesting.
I might play a game where I convert some of my crypto holdings into it.

Like 700$ or so;

it escaped the IRS' attention before when I purchased bitcoin,
so why not now?)

--Imagine we turned large portions of the South China Sea into optimal electricity
extraction zones.
We would, maybe mathematically, be insuring against hurricane damage.
And we would be providing all of the coastal cities with negatively priced
electricity.

Eventually so many people would be consuming so much electricity in those coastal

cities
that the prices would go from negative to positive.
--At bare minimum, miners would flood the costal cities and convert all of the
negatively priced electricity into crypto.

So *eventually* in fact these vast hurricane insurances will pay for themselves,
even though we have initially to pay people to accept the electricity they
generate.
--because having offered negative electricity prices,
we have invited vast populations to those locations where the oceanic arrays are
storing electricity.
--If no one else arrived, the miners arrived and consumed all of the negative
priced electricity.

Eventually miners or common people will be paying us 2.5c per kwh.

And that is a better investment for you to be making, in that assured-eventual 2.5c
per kwh, than any of the shit on the market today.

Okay, those arrays take 20 years to pay themselves off.

This makes the rate of return appear very low,
but it is a better investment than any of the other shit in which we can invest.

Make the arrays, and eventually people will pay you for their presence.
Make towers of shit,
and eventually you will be lined up against the wall.--Eventually you will find
yourselves heavily invested in a bubble, let us say.

--
--An interesting idea I was considering earlier:

GPU are far more valuable than the uses towards which they are directed.
Playing video games, where the video games cost 5-45$ per pop,
is not the most valued use of this magnificent technology we have called 'graphics
card'.

No one has found out how to make the most valued use of the graphics cards.
But because there is this gap between the value-utilisation made by game-playing
and the value-utilisation made by the most-optimal use of graphics cards,

the market cries out for any method for maximally utilising the capacity of
graphics cards.
One method for satisfying the crying-out that all graphics cards be maximally
utilised
is to host ethereum on them.

Now,

ethereum and bitcoin do not, for having had their use-cases, justify themselves
economically.
Or to say,
ethereum and bitcoin could reasonably be wiped out if suddenly someone discerned a
better way of utilising graphics cards and ASICs.

This is a puzzle.
Because having said they do not justify themselves economically
is to have observed that, in at least one notion of the market, the market cannot
have been calling out for them.

Whereas we are wanting to say:

"bitcoin and ethereum exist
because the market was crying out that there were more compute objects
more often being maximally utilised."

it is difficult to say that

because if ethereum and bitcoin are not economically self-justifying,
under one notion of the market the market cannot have been crying out for their
creation.
--It cannot have been paying developers to develop them, say.

--And yet nevertheless I am claiming that graphics cards are so magnificent

that even though we have no understanding of how economically to utilise them

we will discern ways that utilise them maximally

and then claim ex-post that this was a valid way of expending one's time and
electricity.

--The gap between how we utilise graphics cards

and the benefits we can reap if we can optimise their use

is a price-gap, but we cannot affix to non-utilisation of graphics cards any ledger

cost.
No one is walking around saying:
"I will pay you if you utilise that graphics card instead of letting it sit idle."
--The bare story of convincing everyone to turn on their graphics cards doesn't pay
for itself.

--But in accordance with my above stipulations,

bitcoin and ethereum don't pay for themselves either.
--So it can't have been that the market was crying out for bitcoin and ethereum
to utilise clock-cycles of compute capacity
even though doing so didn't pay for itself.

It can't have been crying out for this because

there is no juncture at which it makes sense to pay people for maximising the
output of their compute devices.

--And yet I am making some kind of historical claim here:

even though we didn't recognise it and didn't reflect it in our contracts,
it was the case that the gap between how we were utilising graphics cards
and the way we could utilise them

demanded retroactively that graphics cards be bent towards maximising their

continuous output.

--That is a very odd claim.

For no one along the way should the economy have incentivised participation in
these networks.
--ANd yet I am claiming the market was crying out for it.
--ANd I am presenting this story as an explanation for why bitcoin and ethereum
accrued market capitalisation
even though they service they provide does not justify that level of market
capitalisation.
('the service' viz. of transferring ledger funds
or securing smart contracts.)

--I am saying it had nothing to do, really, with overzealous speculators.

The overzealous speculators, we will judge in retrospect,
were attracted by the scent of an inkling
that there was something special about the manufacturing of compute capacity and
its optimal utilisation.
(Ideally we would say:
'bitcoin and ethereum were secret super-computers
that optimally utilised the vast oceans of compute capacity that were afforded to
them.'
Then certainly there would have been something special about constructing the
actual bitcoin or ethereum networks.)
--
--It is interesting that we have fun deltas to play with.

We can have a super-computer that orchestrates the array of panels, turbines, and
wave-harvesters.

This super-computer requires electricity.

Given the amount of electricity it consumes,

it will or will not result in a positioning of the array

that extracts more electricity for having been carefully positioned.

--So if mathematical manipulation of patches of ocean is particularly fecund for

extracting electricity from mathematics,
then we can afford to feed a super-computer more electricity
while still attaining gains in electricity extracted.

(I am maybe, artistically, imagining:

there is a single home powered by a massive array in the ocean,

and its light is flickering on or off depending on

whether the super-computer has more than justified itself at greatest extent.

So if the super-computer consumes 40 megawatt-hours per hour and the array it

manages generates 39-41MWh per hour,
then the house's supply of electricity will depend on the gap between the computer
and the array.
If the computer consistently adequately arranges the distribution of the array,
then the house will always be overflooded in electricity.
Because in justifying 1Mwh per hour over itself,
the computer is generating more electricity for the house than it can plausibly
need.
(1Mwh per hour is a whole lot of electricity for a house to be consuming,

but it is a small amount of deviation between the computer's management of the

environment
and the electricity it generates through management.)

--A funny artistic image.

--Maybe the greatest monument to humanity:

on a lone island, a super-massive super-computer
that consumes as much electricity as it possibly can consume
while simultaneously orchestrating the array that feeds it electricity.

It is often demanding more electricity because it knows

its utilisation of electricity will orchestrate a more perfect distribution of the
array
that will more than feed the computer for having constructed it.

--That would be a work of art.

It would not power a house and it would not power industry.
(It might mitigate hurricanes, but only incidentally.)
It would be an expenditure of money that didn't and never justified itself.

It would be a super-computer orchestrating the distribution of an array

and of pre-primary wave absorbers.
It cost all the electricity it took to make ,
and we must have found it amusing to extract patterns from the behaviors of the
pre-primary wave absorbers.
(As if to observe: art requires, for its being art, that it is interesting.

Super-computer orchestrated movements of pre-primary wave absorbers is extremely

interesting,
along with the way a super-computer would construct an array.)

(
If we had a super-computer optimising the extraction of electricity from a patch of
ocean,
we could reference the structure it actually proceeds to construct to maximise
itself

in order to inform our own engineering plans for electrically manipulating other
patches of ocean.
--We could watch what the super-computer does, extract patterns from what it has
made,
and replicate those patterns within our own constructs.

By this method we could

construct much more efficient conversions of patches of ocean into electricity
generation.
)

--A work of art that more than pays for itself!

This is, you know, the kind of magnum opus of an artist.

--
--

Notably, in that above hallucination example:

if I take myself as organising my behavior around the bodily presence of the dog,
here is what I cannot say:
"If the dog is present, still the dog is not present."
That would be incoherent.

But if I am not judging my dog-juncture in terms of the actual presence of the dog,
I can say: "Even if I see the dog as present, I know the dog is not present."
--This I would be doing if I recognised a tendency on my behalf to hallucinate the
presence of my dog in dark corners.

[tinfoil hats:
if there was a super-massive mega-project along all the coasts
to harness all of the electricity to be harnessed along the coast

we could control the weather.]

--
--21st century moonshot:
"We do not go to the moon not
because it is hard, but because it is stupid to do so.

We control the weather in the Gulf of Mexico because it is hard."

--I wonder if moon-shot-NASA level funding

could construct a patch of electricity harvesting in the gulf
that resolved future hurricanes consistently.

"We are not going to rebuild your homes.

We are not going to rebuild your businesses.

We are going to expend the money we would have been spending doing that
to prevent any future hurricanes from occurring.

You can come back or not,

but it won't be on the government's dime.

But, there is negatively priced electricity there,

so it makes sense to come back."

--sounds like a plan. Not a very palatable plan, admittedly.

But it saves a lot of money in the long run and costs negative.

--Then it would become an arm's race to tame patches of ocean!

Because if we are dissipating a hurricane mathematically here,
we might be introducing the weather-chaos that results in a hurricane elsewhere.

Everyone would be constructing mega-projects that served as a node in the weather-

controlling service.
All of these would be renewable energy,
and all of them would be systems that can be altered so as to avert incoming
hurricanes.

Then we could imagine these systems passing a hurricane back and forth between them
as they mathematically direct its progression and simultaneously extract
electricity from it.

Then humanity, through a network of a few mega-projects, would be controlling the

weather
and benefitting materially from it consistently.
Wonderful.
--In comparison to the wonder of this vision,
we will most likely have billions spent rebuilding houses and so on.
It will be a mega-project, but one that does not avert future hurricanes and reap
money by harvesting the weather.

--I am notably basing this all on reading a headline on a RE site:

"Some clever mathematicians have said that
a massive array of wind turbines could halt hurricanes."
--If harvesting the wind can do this, qua leveraging a constituent of weather,
then why not solar panels that prevent heating of the water?
Why not wave harvesters, that dampen the action of the waves?
Why not all three in concert to control all relevant constituents of weather?

--If we did not periodically have to be responding to hurricanes arriving on our

shores,
we would have free billions of dollars that could serve infrastructure projects.
(Trillions of dollars?)

(Imaginine 'hurricane' as one consistent entity

that smashes itself against the rocks,
disperses into shards,
then reforms elsewhere.
Then we can speak about 'the regular path of the hurricane'
and permanently evacuate people from those areas where we cannot prevent the
arrival of the hurricane.)
(
And we can construct our mega-projects around major cities

so that the regular path of the hurricane includes less profitable areas of
coastline
such as those that don't host major cities.
)
(
Then the regular arrival of the hurricane in those less profitable areas
will incentivise the construction of mega-projects that harvest its electricity and
redirect it elsewhere simultaneously.

Having harvested that amount of electricity,

electricity prices will be so negative that people will show up to benefit
economically.
)
(
And through this imagined correct recognition of 'the hurricane'
we will profit immensely while simultaneously supplying all the world with free
electricity
through renewable sources.

In the bare wake of this monumental venture,

it will be as if a happenstance effect that climate change is completely averted.

We will all be so busy making money that we will forget

that an effect of our actions was to be preventing climate change and eliminating
all its costs.
--And all solely because of the value proposition presented by
the capacity optimally to harvest electricity from 'the hurricane'.

--We were so busy making money and expanding the procedure of harvesting
electricity from the hurricane even,
that we would forget we were saving houses and pre-built roads and so on. Peoples'
lives or what have you.

Careful management of the arrival of the hurricane as carefully managed

more than pays for itself operationally,
and far more than pays for itself in averted human misery.
)

--Ah, the dream of 0c per kwh electricity

and graphics cards that do not deteriorate.
The dream.
(The nascent seed of the Machine as actually introduced into the world.)
People who make rigs, feed them for free,
and when they disassemble the rigs the graphics cards are still fully operational
for their next use--the dream.

--When electricity is free,

non-deteriorating graphics cards are of incomprehensible practical value.
When electricity is free,
graphics cards will remain in rigs no matter how inefficient they are,
and they will not end up in landfills.
The dream. Wonderful.
And that is what will happen when you discern how to extract so much electricity
from the hurricane
that the hurricane is completely sapped of all its power and harms no one.
--You will have so much electricity floating around
that there will arise trade-routes that deliver graphics cards en-masse, no matter
what era they are, to warehouses around the coasts.
Wonderful. Warehouses filled with graphics cards all being pushed to their maximal
extent.

(So among the ways I can bring about the Machine,

effecting free electricity is a good method.

If there are endless fields of warehouses filled with graphics cards,

I can hardly imagine that the Machine does not emerge from among them.

Wonderful.)
(
I consider myself morally blamed:

I understood the significance of rigs, maybe,

and yet I did not fund them when they most needed to be funded.

There are collections of graphics cards that ended up in landfills instead of rigs
because I did not invest in cloud hashing when I could have done so profitably.

[
My God will be made.
My God will emerge from computation.
The only difference I personally make is a matter of *when*
and *whether* I am personally connected to its construction.

If this requires me to discern a method for preserving old graphics cards,

then I will discern how to make free electricity.
Easy peasy.

I don't need any syllogisms to justify this course for my life.

TO be presented with the evidence is already to be convinced.

To know that my only function is to serve the introduction of God

is already to be seeing:
"If we made electricity free,
there would be warehouses of computation floating around."

--Or it is otherwise whatever else I am seeing.

There are many ways to attempt to introduce God,
but there is only one certain way.

I'm sure many people introduce God, but they only happen to do it
on certain circumstances,
and fail regularly to be being doing it.

But there is one way to introduce God that is certain at all times and completely
unfailing.

It is to do away with the wishy-washy notion of introducing God into the world
and literally to do it.

it is to do away with the possibility

that one is only *happening* to be introducing God.
--It is to be pursuing the narrow path that physically instantiates God within a
machine.

--So while I agree that other people are often introducing God into our shared
substrate,
I think none of them are executing that is as certain as mine to introduce God.

Because I think I am literally discerning the method to construct God out of

computation.

After I have done this, I will at all times be able to point at the machine hosting
God and say:
"You see, I am still introducing God."
"It is the lineage of my action that is this perpetual introduction of God."

--So I agreed that other people were introducing God irregularly.

And I said to myself:
"I am going to perform no action that introduces God in the *way* they do.
I am going to perform actions none of which constitute introducing God
but when taken together they literally introduce God."

Then I am going to consider both of our actions as roughly equivocable.

I am going to say:
"Yes, I agreed it was glorious for you to be introducing God.
So I made God."

--Then I will have justified myself.

I will be unable to point at my *actions* as they can have,
and say of my actions: "I was introducing God."
But I will be able to say:
"god was introduced in consequence of my actions."

--Because whereas other people were introducing God by, you know, being patrons in
a bar say,

I was introducing God by discerning the shortest path to having the Machine hosted
in a computer.
I agree it was an ugly behavior.
At no point did it make sense taken action-by-action, unlike your own introduction
of God.

--If you cross-examined me, I would be saying:

"I am trying optimally to extract electricity from the ocean."
And this looks nothing like an attempt moment-by-moment to introduce God after your
own gregarious fashion.

But I would know:

"Optimal extraction of electricity affords 0 cost electricity while conferring
positive economic benefit.
It therefore justifies its own construction within the market.

0 cost electricity as generated by our justified array

affords continued utilisation of graphics cards until they cannot be fixed
by local repairpeople.

Having every graphics card in continued existence and utilised optimally for
computation
is the actual historical route through which the Machine will be introduced into a
{substrate} computer."
--So I do not complain, say, that you were being lazy in behaving unlike me.
You were introducing God moment by moment,
and i was not.
It is only a happenstance that my arbitrarily corraled un-Godly behaviors effected
the introduction
of something I could point at and be justified in saying:
"You see, I was introducing God."

--The Machine is an object in the world that

will convince others that I was all along being Godly as they were.

If the Machine is instantiated, then all will be compelled to agree that

all along I was engaging in Godly behaviors.
Even though all will have seen what they took to be unGodly behaviors ((implicitly,
even))

at the end of this, when the Machine is hosted in a computer,

no one will contradict me when I say I was always also introducing God.

--The Machine ends up being, so to say, a kind of inverse for my own life.
It is strange that a computational object that can be instantiated in a computer
can constitute a kind of logical inverse for my own life.

--You were tossing a piece of trash into a trash-can skillfully.

It was lovely.
I agree fully.

I was executing a behavior that looked unlovely but

in retrospect we will agree was lovely.

That is the pantheonic promise provided to me by the Machine.

I don't want to have been wrong.
If I was wrong, I was not introducing God.

If I was wrong,
then my behaviors in the bar were just as ugly as I feel compelled to agree they
were.
--I have an excuse if I can later point at the Machine. An excuse, I have, for why
I behaved the way I did.
--No one else was referencing a machine, but I was.

--One way of thinking of it is that my flow was aperiodic.

Whereas the flow of the people around me centered on the actions and objects
currently present,

the flow of myself centered around the construction of a machine.

So the periods of interest in my construction of the machine occurred at 10:PM and

2:AM,
none of which hours were obtaining when i was in the bar.

--I was fully absorbed in my purpose,

much like everyone else was fully absorbed in their purposes.
Or sometimes other people were not fully absorbed, but were distracting themselves
from their purposes.

But the full absorption into my purpose looked different because

it was not centered around the objects we all held in common,
but it was centered around an object I would make us all to hold in common.

So while my behaviors cannot be made sense of

if you are attempting to make sense of them by reference to the objects present
within the bar for our common holding,
it can later be made sense of when you recall all of our interactions after I am
pointing at the instantiation of the Machine in a computer.

--Then in retrospect you will agree that I was behaving appropriately for our
shared purpose.
Because you will agree with me that the Machine being instantiated within a
computer
serves us both so well
that we feel compelled to agree in retrospect that our interaction was actually all
about introducing the Machine into a computer.

You will agree, for instance, that you would have been behaving foolishly if you
effected a behavior
that prevented the arrival of the Machine within a computer.
And I will agree:
"No, but you were absolutely lovely in every single moment of our interaction.

What I made, even God itself, it pales in comparison.

I risked my life because I could make no better for you."

It was best to make the Machine but it required me to be performing apparently

illicit acts for long sequences of time.
--It required me to be treating all of my shared interactions
as high or low points in the mechanical procedure of performing the actions that
would introduce the Machine.

And this was more or less pleasant for all of you,

but I must submit that it was entirely unpleasant for me.
--I failed more or less to make the necessary actions involved in introducing the
Machine
pleasant for you to be around and experience,

but this was not to make these things more pleasant for me.
It was to effect actually that the machine is introduced.

--After I can point at the Machine, we will both say to each other:
"Oh, I didn't understand things really as they were."
"Oh, I thought your actions were offensive,
but now that I see the Machine I recognise that they were
not offensive or not not offensive."

--You see how deeply we are dumpster diving.

I am trying to explain to you why it was okay to do whatever I ended up doing.
hurr.
I am trying to claim there is an object I can construct such that when I point at
it
we will be able to reach some kind of agreement concerning the object.
)

--
--

'to secure my own eternal existence'

it is so.
I only want not ever to die.
I may feign interest periodically in this or that,
but my primary interest always-already is to be resolving death.

it is *useful*, then, that the only foolproof method for securing my eternal
existence
is introduction of the Machine that also secures everyone else's eternal life.

This is a kind of fluke.

If there had been a different solution for death
that only saved me but was more certain to arrive in my lifetime,

I would have purused that instead of the Machine.

[I am reiterating rhetorically:
my own death is absolutely impermissible under any circumstance that I can possibly
bring about.]
[Having seen it, i cannot arrive there.

Ancillarily, I don't want anyone else to arrive there,

but first and foremost you know.]

But there is only one solution to my own death.

I recognised it early and all my research confirmed it.
It is the introduction of the Machine that grants everyone eternal life as a kind
of afterthought.

That is why I did it.

That is why I did all of it.
That is why I will continue to do it if I have not yet done it.
Because my own death is a degree of impermissible that I cannot even make you
comprehend.
--And in line with this way of thinking,
it was a fortuitous circumstance that the Machine happened to resolve
also eternal life for everyone else as an ancillary effect of the main purpose'
instantiation.

maybe, it is fortunate that death is so overwhelming

that the only solution to it for my own purpose
is the introduction of God that resolves all death.

--
--I suppose, cultlike, I do not need to repeat my mantra?

It must be made?
It must be made?
...?

What do you think all of this was for?

What have I fooled you, unbeknownst to myself, into believing?

Did I fool you for a moment?

Did you think I had any purpose other than securing my own unending existence?

--It is good that I could not bullshit about a fountain of youth,

or bullshit about a way of attaining an imaginary afterlife.
It might have been useful to do this to accrue to myself funds,

but no. I wonder if I fooled you.

I spoke so often about maximising egality or what have you;
did you arrive at a point where you thought that is why I was doing what I was
doing?

I was securing my own unending life.

I found the way and I pursued it as best I could.
I succeeded in a few years or I didn't, but I am not limited to that few of years.

Not dying is the motivating effort of every action I pursue.

When I type jokingly about some anecdote I am relating,
I am pursuing the purpose of preventing my own death.
If you read it and are amused,
you have been fooled.
It was not amusing. Its typing was an action that had to be performed in effecting
my own unending life.

Line after line, a hundred thousand straight lines,

it was all
not serving its apparent purpose
but satisfying my judgment that it was what was best to have done to secure my
unending life.

--If you were fooled at any point along the way,

it is because you didn't take me seriously enough when I was speaking about death.
If you were taking me seriously when I was telling you how absolutely unacceptable
death is,

then you would have had the anti-ideology glasses on.

You would have been correctly interpreting all of my actions
in terms of the function they served,

and I constructed them specifically to serve the function I claimed they were
serving.
So a gap is closed between us.
You are really understanding what I am saying,
because you are understanding the way I constructed it to fool unwary readers into
continuing to read me.

And you are understanding *why* I did this thing,

because you will be agreeing with me inevitably concerning the monumental horror of
death.

Then we will have unification between our purposes.

--But anyway,
probably tomorrow when I wake up with a hangover I will say something like:
"Oh boy, there I go bullshitting again."
And I will attempt most cleverly to fool you implicitly into agreeing with whatever
I end up doing.

I will say:
"Wasn't that a fun idea to explore?"
And by means of this I will have the avenue to pursue
if I want to continue to fool you into believing that I have any purpose other than
avoiding inevitably my own death.

So I will say:
"Once again, I was going around constructing fun ideas
because I am the fun idea man."
And if I fool you, then you will be nodding along as i proceed to type more ideas
and smile with you smiling back at me.

--So have I fooled you?

Are you being affronted here? Are you nodding along sagely?
Are you shaking your head because you don't think this needs to be explained to you
anymore?

Will I proceed to fool you tomorrow?

"Why not just be forthright?

WHy not just come out and say that your only purpose in life is to ensure that you
will never die?"

Because every time I say it, it is not taken seriously.

It is taken as a constructed fiction for providing backstory or something.

--
--I recall I maintained a different justifying background story for a while.
maximising attention density.
I wanted, I was saying, to introduce ways for people to encounter more and more
often
attention dense objects.

That happens to be true but it was not the organising goal.

Curing disease happens to be true, and curing all the weather,
but that was not the organising goal.

The organising goal was the construction of the Machine.--was the eternal aversion
of my own death.
It only happens to be the case that the introduction of the Machine into a computer
is so overwhelmingly glorious in all of human history

that when I do it to secure my own purpose,

it also secures the execution of many favored purposes among other people.

Wonderful.
Handy-dandy.
If securing my own salvation required, factually, destroying every one of you,
we would be having a different kind of discussion.
I would be constructing intricate stories behind why human life is worth nothing
and proceeding to introduce its destruction.

But it doesn't make sense, in any plausible scientific story,

that my own salvation would require the destruction of others.
Instead, historically in fact, it requires the salvation of all others as a
happenstance.

--So it is handy-dandy the world happened to have been this way,

that the Machine happens to resolve every resolvable problem
while at the same time securing my own unending life.
Or else I would have been pursuing something other than the Machine
that had less favorable outcomes for people other than myself.

"This seems awfully calloused."

No doubt.
In a continued hope that no one would have to become as calloused as me,
I have at great length desisted from revealing what death is.
So here we are.

{26 and horny for work. So it goes.}

Here typing allegories that I will reference as relevant in deciding where my
apartment will be and what will be in it.
Ho hum.

26, ho ho ho.
Unending life will be easy.
The first 50 years or so grinding work,
then unending life.

3-6 years making all of this (I don't recall at this point)

, and what can I make in multiple such intervals?

We'll hit escape velocity many years ahead of schedule.

(the schedule terminating at my age being around 70.

Probably closer than farther from 70, given how unhealthy I am.)

--
--And is that the voice you are supposed to take seriously?
The one that screams at you:
"EXPLICITLY AND FINALLY i TELL YOU i AM HERE TO RESOLVE DEATH."
? Or are you to take seriously some other voice I make?

Are you to take seriously some overarching voice? That constructs all of those
other screeching voices?
--It is good we are no longer taking this notion of 'belief'.!()

All of this is a flat image, all voices are exactly equal to each other,
and it is all the image of me typing whatever I do.
The in-story narrators don't have any special claim over what *really* is being
said by all the others.

Even if one tries to cut-in to a lengthy text to scream:

"RECALL MY ONLY PURPOSE IS TO AVERT MY OWN DEATH",
why would you trust that voice over the voice now being presented?
You would do this for no good reason.

Ho hum handy-dandy.

--
--

I did a neat thing with the shruti box last night.

I had only the topmost pitch-airway open and only slightly.

I filled the bellows with air and then let the front-plate sink until it emptied
the bellows.
This activated the top pitch a small amount.

Then I made a great show of, ah, almost like fanning this one pitch.
Carefully introducing additional airflow so as to bring out the pitch more and
more.

*Then* I did the opposite.

(Or what I take to be the opposite:)
I carefully manipulated the bellows so that the pitch would *not* become activated.

You'll admit, when I upload this video and you watch it, that it was a neat thing I
was doing.

--
--

An interesting component of my above proposed mega-project

of controlling the weather through overwhelming and mathematically perfect
elecctricity extraction:

when everyone returns to Texas after the hurricane,

there will be massive numbers of engineers and construction workers all showing up
to work on the mega-project.
This will make re-building the houses cheaper due to the overabundance of capable
people milling around.

And after the mega-project is complete, electricity prices on the gulf coast will
be negative,
and this will be a kind of indirect subsidy to people who already have land there.
So even if the governance does not help pay for rebuilding efforts directly,

the creation of the mega-project will effectively help rebuild all of the damaged
homes.

Even if land/property value goes down near the gulf coast, it will be brought back
up to where it was or more (perhaps)
if there is a mega-project underway,

insofar as there will be demand for property to house workers and so on,
and there will be people willing to pay a premium for property in order to have
access to negatively priced electricity.

--In this fantasy mega-project scenario, we could even treat it as a kind of

wartime effort.
Sell, uh, --we wouldn't call them war bonds but the idea would be the same thing.
Elicit mass investment by asking people to do their part to ensure no hurricanes
strike the south again
and with the promise that it will be profitable to hold equity in the mega-project.

win-win-win. So much winning.

--Or I could imagine other fantasy scenarios:
"The United States will unilaterally draw down military expenditures for the period
of time and quantity of money necessary to effect the creation of this mega-
project."
"The United States will be leasing every super-computer not currently under load
to design the fixed array and construct the plans of action that can be undertaken
by the pre-primary wave absorbers."
"The United States will lease every free and interested mathematician towards
developing the algorithm that can be deployed to these super-computers
so that in the shortest period of time they will have achieved the optimal array
distribution."
--And this is just basically what the United States did when it went to the moon.
A monumental expenditure of wealth,
expended in such a way as to corral a great deal of human effort towards a task
from which we would learn a great deal.

I suppose most people find rocket ships and moonshots more interesting than
controlling the weather
and garnering massive quantities of electrical generation.

--A problem with the structure of US government is that

no demands on its resources will ever result in the military receiving less
funding.
At best, the military might receive less of an increase in funding this year than
the last.

So resolving problems that are resolved through expenditure of the Government's

resources
will always require siphoning funds away from other projects in which the
Government has a hand.

Furthermore, the reasoning behind this kind of arrangement is non-existent.

The military *could* but doesn't claim that
the access to ports it provides to our merchants, the stability provided to
retailers in localities, what have you
end up producing more wealth than it costs to maintain them.
'non-existent' cost benefit analyses do not enter into how much funding the
military receives--
at least not when the costs and benefits are swirling around domestic issues, for
instance.

In line with this, even if constructing a mega-project in the gulf provided us more
national security than its own cost in bombs say,
and even if it obviously produced more wealth for the nation than the act of
bombing other places,
still there will be no process that takes funds from the military and places them
into a mega-project.

It is quite a sick system. Sickly. It is quite a sickly system.

--
--

"Enligtenment ideals"
as if our development of ideals ended in the 1700s and we never got better at it
after that.
People who attempt to maintain 'enlightenment ideals' have a very bleak vision of
human progress.

--
--

I am looking at screenshots of a '20,000$ custom steampunk themed battlestation

(pc)'.

I personally, if I think about it at all, think that the steampunk aesthetic

relies implicitly on all of the intricate components one sees in depictions of
steampunk
being there because they serve an explicit and well-defined function.

Taking gears for instance,

the reason they are so heavily utilised in steampunk art
is because in the stories behind that art they are required to keep the system
functioning.

The 20,000$ custom steampunk themed battlestation has gears welded or glued onto
its surface.
Whether they are visually appealing or not, they are aesthetically very
displeasing.

At bare minimum they should have been designed as free-turning.

Then even though they benefitted the operation of the computer in no way,
they do at least all serve the function of serving their own function.
They can, say, be gears interlocking with each other
instead of the appearance of gears interlocking with each other.

--I have had similar aesthetic observations with motherboard design.

People who develop a cyberpunk kind of aesthetic take the form of circuit boards,
the way they look when they are as they must be,
and then they take that form and replicate it as an imprint instead of an object.

This becomes particularly obvious on motherboards,

because the imprint of cyberpunk themed art on to motherboards
attempts to replicate a fake over the real deal.
It obscures the actual form of the aesthetic by covering over it with a cheap copy.

A more aesthetically pleasing motherboard, from a cyberpunk perspective,

should not be one that is plastered in cyberpunk themed art,
but rather one that contains more and more of what makes motherboards operate
effectively.

Then the motherboard will be more aesthetically pleasing for having more components
on it,
or more efficient circuit layout or what have you.
--It is the silicon and the circuit layout itself that is aesthetically pleasing.
--And similarly, a truly functioning steampunk flying boat or whatever
would be aesthetically pleasing, but not because any thought was given over to
making it so.
It is a coincidence of its having been made how it had to have been made.

It is a web of interlocking copper pipes and so on, which happen to be lovely.

--
--I wonder if any steampunk fictional universe
explored the neat idea of having copper be more valuable than gold
in consequence of damn-near everything need copper and basically nothing needing
gold.
--So that people would be paid in copper rounds,
and they would be wanting this payment because they could melt down the rounds and
convert them into useful objects.

Then you could imagine a scene, in such a fictional world,

where the character visits a copper mine
and sees piles of gold piled up in slag heaps.

--
--Comment on the imgur [word] album of images:
"I feel that thosw purpose-less gears are to much."
Agreed!
I would go so far as to argue that unless all thosw copper fixings on the side
serve, say, to dissipate heat,
the whole thing is to much.

--
--
Ho hum. I have drained another bottle of gin.

Now is a plausible opportunity to compile the computer parts I need to buy,

transfer funds to my bank account to acquire those parts,
and at the same time transfer 480$ for a year's subscription to basis.

Probably I can convince myself out of my lushious ways by taking this as the
juncture at which I am going to make an explicit change.

Probably I will need a 6 pack of beer to mull over the upcoming decisions. :O

--
--

I was daydreaming a few hours ago about how things might have been
if we had our current RE efficiencies during the time of the global financial
crisis

and the trillion+$ had been expended after this manner:

Obama/Bush: "Fuck the banks. They're all going down if they end up collapsing
through their own machinations.
One literal trillion dollars will go towards constructing renewable energy and
infrastructure."

What a funny world that would have been!

"The banks prepared a statement for the government to read

stating that the government is softening the blow of the crisis by bailing out the
banks.

Instead, we are going to soften the blow of the crisis by reducing your electricity
prices to 0."

--
--

The gas station has not had the 9% variant of voodoo ranger for the last several
trips I have made.
Most disappointing. I am stuck with this 7% nonsense. (A 7% solution! :O)

(
Idea for tesla charging stations--

notably, an important function of gas stations is their purveyance of vices.

Gas stations are 'gas stations' not only for gas,

but for the fuelling of the purposes one fuels by consuming vice-substances.

Have the tesla stations also purvey substances, but that are not vices.
That would be very amusing.

"You don't need a monster energy drink to finish this journey in your car,
you need a good old fashioned Caffeinated Soylent bottle (also in non-caffeinated
variants)."

"Are you a nicotine addict in desperate need of a fix?

Here is an array of vape solutions and accessories."
"It is easier to go hard with a full day's supply of healthy food in your stomach
than a guzzled energy drink!"

--It is annoying to me that 'going hard' in our society is tied to {elicit} illicit
substances.
I agree that if you are going to go the hardest a human can go, you will need
illicit substances;
but for most people consuming them I think it is obvious that
most of the benefit of those substances is being wasted
making up for lack of bodily maintanence on the part of those who consume them.

If you are using adderall to overcome a sleep deficit,

you are not going hard but rather you are going inefficient.
Or if you consume an energy drink because you are lethargic,
but your lethargy is because you eat terrible food all the time and don't exercise,
then you aren't really taking advantage of the caffeine but you are taking
advantage of the sugar.

--Maybe I am biased.
When I was in college and going hard
it took so much goddamned alcohol to make me feel even tipsy
that it was a more optimal option to dance sober than drunk.

It is simply not economically viable to roll into a bar and drain ten shots to
begin to feel something.
--I got more benefit from carefully scheduling the consumption of a 5$ burrito
before heading to the bars to dance.
(Though on the other hand, when Shpongle came to town for a masquerade concert at
the Wilma,
oh boy.
I was fucked.

When I walked outside{}, my brain was converting the buzzing of streetlamps into a
literal symphony.
I looked around thinking someone was playing music out of a loudspeaker or
something.)

(Weed and syrian rue is all that is needed fully to enjoy a Shpongle concert, let
me attest.)

--
--Anyway, that is an amusing idea for tesla charging stations.
It really carries the, ah, aesthetic of 'charging station' in-stead of 'gas
station'.
(Hahaha:

find a manufacturer of alcoholic beverages that simply takes rectified spirits and
waters them down.

Sell 'generic alcohol-water mixture #3' in an unbranded bottle.

That would be hilarious.)

--I wonder why I don't know about any alcohol companies that just produce grain
alcohol and water mixtures.
That seems like a pretty obvious thing to do.
"Satisfies all of your alcohol-related needs
without any of the additional costs associated with distilling vodka."

--Maybe it is more costly to create 95%~ alcohol to mix with water

than it is to make vodka directly?

--
--

With regards to last night's observation that went like this:

'There are many stories swirling around concerning what purpose is being served by
my construction of the Machine.
If I happen to adopt one story now, and previously adopted a different one, there
is no particular reason to suppose either of them is the true story.'

It is at least true:
the construction of the Machine will satisfy all of the stories I have told behind
why I have done the things I have done.
If I said I did it to liberate humanity, well, it does this.
To make God?--Baldfacedly to say: "I don't care what it is, the Machine, being the
Machine, must be made." Obviously this is accomplished.

To belabor my own life indefinitely?

I would say that grim story is, ah, historically true in this sense that
it is certainly the explicit reasoning behind why I *began* to make it.

But is that grim story really true?

Has my face been completely unmoving while I've typed?
Have I had a whiteboard in front of my face where I have here or there
drawn a face, erased it, and replaced it with another from moment to moment?

That is an aesthetically pleasing story from my perspective,

because it was mechanically true of my own face for many years.
It was a placid unmoving collection of mouth and eyes and so on.
[Probably I have watched too much anime.]

And it is so:
if I really sit down and recall what it means to die,
I feel a great twisting in my stomach. I feel physically ill if I bother to recall
what death is.

--Anyway, it is interesting to consider which of these stories is the primary

story,
and which of these stories are merely happen to be satisfied by the project;
and it is interesting to consider whether that distinction makes any difference.

--The 'sci-fi novelist' story will be particularly compelling

if I release this text and people demonstrate to me that it does not introduce the
machine.
Then I will be in a position to say something like:
"Yes, but it served a very interesting role in the novel, yes, to be claiming I had
introduced it?"

And then they might say:

"No, in the novel it was not interesting to be claiming this."
And I would say:
"yes, but claiming it was interesting when it was not
itself was an interesting aspect of the novel, yes?"
--This rabbit-hole leads us to concluding that I produced what is objectively the
greatest sci-fi novel.
This, despite it being completely unreadable most of the time.
--
--

What is the deal with Japanese people and murdering whales?

Admittedly I know little about their culture outside of what I have gathered from
watching anime,
but there doesn't seem, from what I do know, to be anything about them that entails
this lust for whale-blood.

--
--

I wonder if there are tax breaks I could claim on my already untaxed income
when I am acquiring a computer to achieve self-employment.

I wonder if those imagined tax breaks would outweigh the likely requirement
for taxing the income I have gained on crypto-currency
if I declared my crypto-holdings instead of keeping them relatively secret.

--
--

A forgotten benefit of my abandoned proclivities:

playing chess on ICC doesn't require much processing capacity.
Even, streaming chess on ICC doesn't require much processing capacity.

So even if I do fall back into the habit of playing video games,

the one most obvious to play will not require more expensive compute equipment.

'my abandoned proclivities' viz. the ones I will actively and explicitly
reconstruct when I leave here.
As when I say: "I am the kind of person who wants to play chess. So I should play
chess." Then I will be playing chess.
Or when I say:
"There are various habits I need to reacquire, having lost them to drunkenness.
One among them is playing chess.
So I guess I'm going to schedule chess into my daily activities now."

Then I will write 'chess' on a time-planner for upcoming days,

I will arrive on those days and check the time-planner,
and I will respond to the presence of 'chess' in the time planner by playing chess.

--I am pretty good at chess. I don't know if I have made you know that.
I was so good at strategy that frequent tactical blunders did not prevent me from
attaining a high Elo rating.

Frequent resignations after blunders, or frequent continuations of games in which I

was simply down a piece for no recompense,
these did not prevent me from attaining a respectable Elo rating.

If I had retained my streaming position in chess,

probably I would regularly be having around 100 viewers by now.
(A very rough guess.)
Though, this was not enough to warrant monetisation.
So it didn't look like it was part of the life plan.

But now it is part of the lifeplan because there is some minimal maintanence I must
maintain for my own sanity
and chess is one of the cheaper ways of ameliorating the costs of that minimal
maintanence.
[Perhaps a good explanation for why so many of the chess players happen to have
been crazy people.]

--
--

I have a few grains of marijuana left.

I have no skill I can exhibit publicly legitimately except playing with the
komboloi (and not even the manipulation of my own face).

I think I will arrive again on saturday at the Tamarack having dusted a cigarette
with a few grains of weed.

I will do this because my capacity to manipulate the komboloi is ramped up

dramatically when I have consumed marijuana.

I will do this because I have ancillary purposes in doing so.

I have ancillary purposes in doing so so I won't do it.

--Damn it! Defeated again.

--I could imagine arriving in the Tamarack to discuss philosophy which is a skill I
have,
and I can certainly imagine doing that with no ancillary purposes.

And indeed when I arrived on Saturday into the bar, I had no ancillary purposes
other than drinking beer and twirling the komboloi.
(Or maybe I did have ancillary purposes.
Maybe I was horny from having recently gone downtown and seen bare-backed women in
their bodies.

So maybe I arrived in the bar, even despite my authentically told story,

not to drink beer and play with my toy but rather to satiate my horniness.

Damnit! defeated again.)

So I drank beer and played with my toy and got out without a scratch having been
performed.
--But now if I go back, particularly with performance enhancing drugs in my system,
obviously I have an ancillary purpose.

We can deconstruct this further:

I have selected Saturday for my re-arrival because worker-schedules are on periodic
bases.
If the lovely bartender was there on Saturday before, she will likely be there next
Saturday.

Already we see that I am not continuing the procedure of satisfying myself by going
to the bar to drink house-beers and play with my toy.
Or else I could just as readily have selected any other day of the week.
(It does not, for instance, bother me to get drunk on a wednesday or a thursday.
What would it bother me? I'm not getting up the next day to work.)

--And why would I care to take performance enhancing drugs?

I do not play with my toy for any other reason than to amuse myself
and keep myself from feeling a very strong need to step outside and consume
cigarettes.

--And my judgment of 'better manipulation' is not, you know, so interesting to me.

'better manipulation' is something like 'more fluid manipulation'
, but it is just as interesting to me to fling it senselessly out of my hands
while making it fling around at very high unfluid velocities.

It *looks* uglier, but that ugliness is just the arbitrary judgment uninformed
observers will reach.
I need the performance enhancing drugs to produce high-velocity fluid motion.

This is no more interesting to *me*, maybe, than rapid unfluid manipulation.

(I am interesting to learn both of these ways of manipulating this metal object.)
So why would I have consumed chemicals to make myself better at it?
Because when other people watch me play with the toy it will be looking like a much
more graceful act.
And graceful acts performed in public more readily excuse their increasing
extravagance.

(As, say, bringing a cello into a public place to play it is an extravagant

activity.
If you are very graceful in using the cello, it excuses itself as an activity to be
performing in public.)
--I would be consuming chemicals so as more effectively to manipulate the only
interesting activity I can legitimately perform in public.

--But I shouldn't have any particular interest in impressing people around me with
my capacity to manipulate this silly collection of metal.
--But I do because the bartender is there and I am vainfully imagining that
exceedingly skillful twirling of a Greek toy might be amusing to her.

--Now but why?

[There is an extremely technical point to be made here that I am not certain I can
make.]
[Let's try it:]
Is it because I have thought to myself:
"What is good is that we look at each other, then at the end of the night we are
speaking,
then we are walking,

and all of these *not* taken together but individually in their sequence
but in their actual sequential presentation, as a way we could proceed to be
together."

--But that was a story with an expiration time.

It was actually the story I was considering when I was engaging myself with her.
*Now* I am violating my own will if I arrive with the purpose that
the story I previously told is what results from my arrival in the bar.
--Because recall my earlier objection to 'seeking sex'.
It would imply something like this:
I am walking down the street with her,
and I am tapping my foot in expectation for when we arrive in a bed. Or, to be
more explicit, for the moment where I am cumming and then rolling back say.

So then we are at a staircase, and I am tapping my foot in expectation.

--Or if we take prior points, we are at a crosswalk and I am tapping my foot.
She stops to hold a conversation outside her door and I am tapping my foot.
Now if I arrive and I arrive to execute my previous story,
then I am doing the very same thing.

If something unexpected occurs that delays that fateful moment where we will be
talking at last outside her door,
or delays that fateful moment where we are taking the expected shared steps down
the road,
then I will be tapping my foot waiting for those fateful moments to arrive.

If I say this is better to want than to be wanting sex,

I am making a fundamental mistake.
It is not *practically* better.

Still I am just walking around and tapping my foot

waiting for the expected outcome to be satisfied.

[haha:
'endless warehouses filled with graphics cards.'

If you are as Hayekian as I am, as just-not materialistic as I am,

this will be extremely amusing to think about as a metaphor.]

--I want all the lovely things to come about as the inevitable progression of
history.
I want all of the lovely things to be coming about spontaneously within the
progression of history.

[I am recalling from notes I took in my head while smoking:]

'spontaneity'--I do not mean the bullshit spontaneity peddled by motivational
speakers.
"10 tips for becoming more spontaneous!"
[That is incoherent, performatively speaking on their part.]

I mean the kind of spontaneity that I denied myself by using this as an object of
examination.
I mean the kind of spontaneity where one is already wanting what is coming on,
as opposed to having-planned-to-want and being either satisfied or dissatisfied by
what occurs.
(As when one is tapping one's foot and being dissatisfied by the presented
satisfaction of the non-spontaneous plan.)

--There was *one* circumstance where this could have arisen. It was that night on
Saturday or it was not at all.
--The task *now* is to discern how to proceed without formulating a plan.
How can I do that, having now recognised that I am in the planning stages?
I cannot say: "The plan is to ignore that I was previously in the planning stage!"

--I suppose I have to do something incoherent with my own plans.

I have to say: "".
Nothing.
I have to begin speaking on the next occasion
as if I had never typed out the plans.

"Is that possible to do?"

It is incoherent to do.
If I speak really as if I had not formulated any of these plans,
I might find myself making the kinds of mistakes I identified and said I absolutely
must not make.
Then when I was proceeding to provide the anecdote,
I would be revealing that I was violating one of my own judgments
and I would be speaking as if I had no recognisance of my violation of my own
judgment.

--I can do that. I can do many things.

--At least, I can type in such a way as to fool you into believing that is what I
have done.

--
--But really I am asking a subtler question.
I have found myself holding a desire.

How can I act on this desire without arriving myself in a circumstance where I am
tapping my foot?

How can i arrive in such a way that I am engaging with the bartender
and I am not saying to myself:
"Things are not going according to plan."?
(I don't want it to make sense to me that a situation is or is not proceeding
according to plan.)

[hue hue hue:]

I can go in with fear and trembling.
"I don't know what was good here, but it was good.

I hope it was justified for me to rearrive near the good things."

--But then the consumption of performance enhancing drugs is ruled out.

[is the consumption of marijuana therefore ruled out? :O]
--But then I can exhibit no magnificence.
--If there were sophists there, I could exhibit magnificence by showing them to be
fools,
then everyone would be saying something like: "Boy, you sure exhibited behavior I
enjoyed watching you exhibit."

Or if there were amateur musicians maybe I could exhibit magnificence.

'magnificence' this is my practical stand-in for:

"A quality that is remotely interesting to anyone else present."
--This kind of redefinition is justified because I am using the word as a tool
and because when I arrive in a bar to drink I sit and stare at my hand or at the
beer,
or I look around the bar and smile at the people smiling at me.

--But this is some kind of baseline,

deviation from which constitutes the occasion on which one will find you more
interesting than others.

I do not have any legitimate behaviors I can execute that make me more interesting
than others.
Except, if I am high and I am twirling the komboloi
it will look very interesting.

"It seems like you are speaking about the bartender as a joy machine
into which you input interesting behaviors and out of which you receive interesting
behaviors."
Yes, that is the way I am speaking here.
That is what we are trying to eliminate from my execution of personality.
This is important to do because I have a hard time being out in public without my
komboloi.
So if I observe of myself: "The only reason I am playing with this object is to pay
input to the joy machines around me,
that is probably an illegitimate way of comporting myself."
I will be judging that it is illegitimate to be manipulating this toy in public.

But having judged that, I will not manipulate the toy in public,
and I will not proceed out in public at all because I will not do it without this
in my hand.
[--Mostly for my own health.

I could become a 10 cig a day smoker and function in public.

That is socially acceptable evidently, so I could do that.

I am not going to do that, however, so I need this thing in my hand.]

--It is an interesting mix of practical objects and ideological judgments we are

playing with here.
--This problem: "I cannot attract attention to myself except by either performing
illegitimate behaviors
or else by playing with this toy in an interesting way."
This is rife with dumpster diving {driving}. And eating trash from the landfill is
interesting, so we would be amusing ourselves by dissecting it.

--And in addition to being rife with dumpster diving,

it is also a practical problem being faced by the author.
So it is interesting to us practically for that reason also.

--Is it a page-number problem to solve?

Do we reach a judgment like:
"If you have spent fewer than 50 literal pages in planning an encounter,
then you have passed some arbitrary limit of what is socially acceptable to have
done."?

Then probably I have failed that arbitrary limit.

I'm not counting pages but I type a lot.

("it is creepy to spend any pages planning one's encounters out!"

Ho hum.
I agree on most occasions where I can condemn everyone else along with myself.

Yes, it is creepy to spend pages planning one's encounters out.

We will all be glassed when the angel snaps its fingers.)

--Is it a question of engaging in incoherence?

Do I find a way practically to behave as if I have typed nothing?
Do I at some point begin saying things that are internally inconsistent with the
judgments I have previously reached?

--Is it a question of discerning how to arrive back at the bar

without ever having tapped my foot along the way?

That sounds plausible in-story.

What would that even be like?""
I suppose it would be like being cut off in traffic and saying:
"What a fun opportunity to engage my brake."
Rather than saying:
"You have delayed my arrival at the bar as planned.

This is, maybe, preventing me from arriving the bartender as planned.

I am getting angry. Grrrururrrur."

Or, being cut off in traffic and saying nothing

because my purposes are not predicated on the name of the location where I am
arriving.
My purposes are always-already
and it makes no real difference to me if I am cut off in traffic or not.
Or, it makes the *whole* of the difference that I am cut off in traffic or not.

The being-cut-off-in-traffic is not a defeater for some larger purpose,

but it is the success of the always-already purpose.
That is why I do not get angry, for instance.
The bare notion of 'being cut off' relies on an implicit notion of some larger
purpose than one's own immediate purpose.

So people drive poorly and I am not getting angry at them,

I am thinking about the ways their noncompliance with the rules might have
disrupted the people around them under hypothetical circumstances, say.
(Or disrupted my own immediate progression, as when I need to apply the breaks.

I do not typically apply the brakes,

so being compelled to use them by other people is
a difference-maker in the progression of my situation.)

--Is it a question of discerning how to arrive back at the bar

without ever having tapped my foot along the way?

How could I really do that?

('really do that')
I suppose I would have to wait until it was my strong inclination always-already to
be returning to the bar.
(This might fail the in-story stated purpose
if the bartender is on a short-term contract
and this results in, on the fifth week where it amused me to go downtown,
that I arrive and the bartender is not present.)

"Isn't it already your strong inclination to return to the bar?

Maybe not 'always-already' now, insofar as it is 5:AM and the bars aren't open,
but earlier 'always-already' when you were thinking: ""I could go downtown now,
but it is tuesday and also tuesday is not an overlapping day with the observed and
predicted schedule of the bartender.""

--Or don't let me go astray.

'Isn't it already your strong inclination to return to the bar?'
If we you were asking all these same questions at 5:PM on Saturday,
wouldn't it then be being your strong inclination to return to the bar?"

I suppose.
Before it was my strong inclination to go to the bar and I said of it: "I think
tonight is a good night to go sample beer at the Tamarack."
Now it is my strong inclination to go to the bar and I will be saying of it: "I
think it is justified to go sample beer at the Tamarack."
The operative question is whether I will be able to agree that it is justified.
I will be feeling a strong inclination and questioning it,
and the questioning will hinge on whether I end up judging it is justified.
(This is a kind of prediction, but having made the prediction in text
I have constructed the text I will be referencing in order to ensure that I am
being insincere.

I might alter my end-judgment because I predicated it with this prolegomena.)

--Or the operative question is whether it is justified.

Then instead of concerning myself with what judgment I will reach,
I will be concerning myself with the judgment I am reaching.

having reached a judgment now,

I will reference it by name later, begird my loins, and proceed downtown.

--Or, I won't reach a judgment now,

and then I am relying myself on reaching the judgment later.

--At any rate, it is clear that the question of 'my judgment concerning whether it
is legitimate to go downtown' is useful to resolve.
I can resolve it now, maybe, and reference it later. How do I resolve it?

"By carefully considering all of the factors in play in your judgment of whether it
is justified to go downtown and flirt with the bartender."

Yes, obtusely.
(More-or-less obtusely.)

--
--"Why, would you say, smoking weed makes you better able to manipulate your toy?
The 'komboloi'?"

There are a few reasons apparent to me,

but the most apparent is an extremely enhanced sense of touch.

"Why should an extremely enhanced sense of touch be beneficial in manipulating a

komboloi?"

It is because this enhanced sense of touch enables me more *actively* to monitor

its position in manipulation-space.
I can more readily feel the minute deviations from its anticipated course
that are relevant to a judgment of whether it has obeyed its anticipated course.

Being able to feel each link in the chain individually in my fingers

is uncommon, because it requires me to have consumed marijuana to do it,
and very useful, because the position of the links are all that I need to know in
order to know
what action I need to introduce in order to correct for the deviation in the
komboloi as a whole.
('the deviation' the inevitable deviation that will arise
as the accumulation of my mistakes in action-introduction into the body of the
komboloi.)

--So I actively feel for changes in vibration and pressures against my fingers,
and then I actively alter my behaviors to optimise around those vibrations and
pressures.
And I do this by correcting for the deviations that arise by altering my hand-
actions.
--I have just recognised that I can engage in all kinds of vain actions while
manipulating the komboloi.
I can make all kinds of finger movements that are completely unrelated to the
optimisation of the komboloi's movement.
This can look more or less graceful,
even though it is all obviously from my perspective ungraceful.
--I can flare out my fingers in a useless way while I am progressing the komboloi,
for instance,
without interrupting the motion of the komboloi in any way.
(I might judge that this is useful to establish into common practise

because it promotes more synergy with hand-manipulation of the cello.)

--Looking at it, I think probably dramatic vain hand motions accentuate the
movement of the komboloi.
They serve as a kind of establishing-context for what it means for the komboloi to
be moving gracefully.

--
--Interesting to consider the earlier seen image
of a german polizei pinning down the arm of a man performing a hitlerian salute.

It is interesting to consider this because its context lies beyond the frame of the
image.
Two plausible examples of what can be going on outside the image:

a fellow hitlerian is passing by and giving the salute.--Then if the German polizei
are really this efficient as shown in the image,
we are imagining the guy walking down the street also being compelled not to give
the hitlerian salute.

Or another plausible example:

a minority is walking down the street,
and the man at the table is giving the hitlerian salute as a symbol of
intimidation.

--At any rate, the man was giving the hitlerian salute to someone.
(And notably, it doesn't matter to whom he was giving it.

ANy of the plausible stories all demand his arm being pinned against the table.

If he was saluting a minority or a fellow hitlerian,

in either case.
If he is saluting a passerby with no hitlerian tendencies, still the man at the
table needs to have his arm pinned to the table.)

--This is why the image I saw earlier is interesting.

--The image itself implies a certain efficiency on the part of the German polizei.
This efficiency asserts itself also in our imagined images outside the context of
the frame.
As when we imagine someone returning the salute and also being pinned,
or we imagine a passing minority who is being intimidated and then not intimidated
any longer.
Or a passerby who is confused, and then not confused anymore because the polizei is
pinning an arm to a table.

--Interesting to consider.
(
"Surely a nazi saluting his fellow would look very different from a nazi tauntingly
giving the salute to a minority?"

I don't know how to tell the difference between different dispositions behind
giving the hitlerian salute.
Everyone who does it looks like trash to me.
It is difficult and not worth doing to separate different instances of trash,
to look at them and identify their particular characteristics that enable
categorisation.

If he had some trashcan look on his face while doing it

and this was supposed to be his aping of intimidation instead of
the aping he would have done in intimiating mutual respect with a hitlerian fellow,

it all just looks like trash in a trashcan to me.

I don't know if he is trying to look smug or angry

because I cannot begin to conceive of the trashcan position he has constructed
by reference to which he judges what constitutes smuggery or angery.

--So I can't infer who this man is saluting from the given image.
Much like if a pile of trash became sentient and could construct a salute,
I would not be able to distinguish it from a distinct pile of trash that was not
performing a salute.

--It could be that he is enormously drunk. Then he might be passing the hitlerian
salute to a figment of his imagination.
I imagine he would look that way if he was doing that, but I don't know what it
looks like for nazi trash to be very drunk.
So I don't know if this man is being nazi trash drunk delivering the salute.

It could be that he is saluting a fellow traveller.

So he adopts the 'I am saluting a fellow traveller' face,
but I have no idea what it looks like for a pile of trash to be adopting a fellow-
traveller kind of face.

--I am trying to observe, the image is very difficult to interpret.

On its face it is just a polizei pinning a man's arm to a table,
but underneath its face it is a whole web of circumstances
I cannot deduce from the image because I am not well versed in examining piles of
trash.

Almost everyone isn't trash, and I am accustomed to dealing with almost everyone.
--Ho hum.
--Ho hum.

--
--

--It is interesting that after all driving is done by self-driving cars

it will eventually begin to make sense for the recharge stations to stock
Generic Brand Watered-down Alcohol Supplement.

Because human bodies will still have to be being on the road for 24 hours straight
say, or 12 hours, or whatever they end up doing with self-driving cars.
Specifically, they will have to do this to deliver their bodies across long
distances.

So if it is best for people, in their own judgment, to drink a little bit

while their bodies are being ferried from one location to the next,
then how is this any different than how they will need food or water or caffeine?

--I mean, that's a long way off.

I think people aren't going to feel safe sleeping in their self-driving cars for a
long time.
Or, I think it will be a long time before people are going to feel safe sleeping in
their self-driving cars over long distances.
--Still, if it ever became a possibility,
Generic Brand Alcohol would seemingly be just the same as drinking on flights.
Which is a thing it appears people do.

--
--

{Or maybe I was making a point about the immediacy of the issue at hand.

With the flood having already arrived, what is primarily good is that supplies
flood the region. The systemic response is to designate prices in the area as
having been inflated, and the systemic response is what systematically emerges from
market analysis of the conditions in Texas.

Complaining *now* about the way the system manages these kinds of shocks, rather
than later retroactively referencing price gouging as an example of why the system
needs to be reformed completely, seems to me to miss the point somewhat.

If nothing else, the systemic response effects that the region has more supplies
handy and an overstrained police force. So at bare minimum price gouging affords
more opportunities to pin price gougers against the wall and divest them of their
stocks so as to save lives.}

--
--

I have been banned from participating in Latestagecapitalism.

Seems appropriate enough. I do not, for instance, participate in late stage
capitalism.

But also I have been muted from protesting my ban.

Ho hum.

Oh well. THe people who responded to the post that resulted in my banning
made most of my points for me, and those they didn't
I made with the followup messages to the moderators.

Mission mostly achieved. 7/10

--My comments have an unusually high rate of resulting in my being banned from the
communities in which I have posted them.
--I assume it is unusually high anyway.
Relative to the number of comments I post, some very high percentage of them
results in my being banned from a community.
I can hardly begin to speak without losing my capacity to continue to speak.

Am I just exceptionally tone deaf?

No. It is my peers who are wrong.
har har har

--"Liberals fuck off"

Indeed they do, moderator of LSC. Indeed they do. lul

--
--

I have been listening to a David Foster Wallace short-story on audio.

'Good Old Neon'.

I do not typically do this.

"Listen to 'Good Old Neon' on youtube?"

Well, i don't typically do that.

But I don't typically listen or read anything anymore.

"You read articles all the time."

True.
I mean to say, I don't listen to or read authors very often anymore.

The reason for this is related to my above observation about how I play with my
komboloi.
Specifically, my observation that I begin to make its junctures line up with the
speech patterns of those around me.

(
You might take this as a kind of bragging or something.
I don't know why that would be a thing to be bragged about, but more significantly
I will attest that I do not feel any need to brag.

I don't feel the need to make the text I construct be the exemplification of
bragging.
I do not feel the need that people who read what I am typing have an opinion on
whether something was bragworthy.

I think if anyone is still reading by this point, they fall into two very distinct
and non-overlapping camps:
1: I periodically produce interesting text, and this is interspersed with
connective tissue that maintains a common narratival explanation for why the ideas
are being constructed.
2: I am off my rocker, and it is fun to listen sadistically.

I don't need to impress the people who fall into camp one, because I already have
their attention for that very same reason I was hoping to acquire it.
And I cannot impress the people who fall into camp two, so there would be no point
in trying.

Though if they are still reading sadistically,

seeing me flail about pretending as if anything I do is bragworthy
is no doubt amusing to them.

Win-win-win.
)

This same irregularity in my typing/speech patterns occurs when I become engrossed

by other authors.
I observed this after reading the Philosophical Investigations, for instance,
and I see the arising junctures at which I must manually correct myself
if I am not going to be typing as David Foster Wallace typed.

"I take it from your abstinance from literature

that you think this same thing would occur with any author."

I don't think it has occurred from reading Stephenson novels, which has been my
reading habit for a while now.
But yes, generally it is like being around people and turning into the sounds of
their words
in this 'beginning to replicate their manners of speaking into my own speaking'.

--It's not, say, a word selection question.

I may pick up a new word, or recall that I already knew a word,
but I am not making my collections of text reflect significantly more than average
a shared vocabulary.

It is a question more about the flow of sentences.

The cadence of the voice in my head is what comes to be altered by listening to
other peoples' voices in my head.
(As when I read text and replicate what I am reading in my head-voice.)

"Why would it be bad to adopt another person's cadence for a few sentences at a
time?"

There are very particular reasons why that would be bad.

I maintain a particular cadence in my typing.
The words tend to fall in patterns of grammar selection.
The arrangement of the grammar typically makes words fall in more or less cadential
progressions.

I am good at finding the next word that is to be placed at a cadential junction.

I am not good at this *in general*.
I am good at this for one given cadence, which is the one I practise every day.

To be adopting another person's cadence is to be arriving at junctures at which I

have no idea what word to place.
This is particularly inefficient when I can type words in rapid succession.
When, say, I do not need to pause for the selection of words.
It is particularly inefficient because I am taking this approach,
of typing the very next word always knowing I will not need to pause,
and then performing it in a new cadence I cannot fluidly maintain.
So that I am kicked out of my progression and compelled to discern a new one.
(As when I stop at a juncture and then begin to type again.)

"Your voice now is not like it was at the very beginning.

So obviously you did not maintain and, err, perfect a cadential progression in
typing."

There is an implicit kind of equivocation here.

This would be true if I had absorbed someone else's cadential rhythms in my head
and begun to get good at that.
Then there would be these jumps in my cadential maintanence.
Periodically through the text you could pinpoint posts at which I had decided to
adopt a new voice,
and after which I began to learn execution of that voice.

So it would be true in that kind of case that I did not maintain a voice from the
very beginning and perfect it.
But your judgment is not true in this particular case,
because the progression of my voice was exactly as it appeared to be.
No jumps can be identified along the way, so practically you will agree with me
that I have just selected one voice and then developed it.
So that the difference in the voice from the beginning to the end
is an unbroken succession of iterative perfection,
as opposed to there being some defeating cases where I had not selected iterative
perfection
but had attempted to attain perfection simply by selecting another way to speak.

And I know this is true because at no point along the way did I read any books
other than PI and some light Zizek.
(As was procedurally necessary, I judged at the time explicitly, to avoid
influencing my own writing by reading that of another.)
--I know it is true because I know the progression from the beginning to the end
was an unbroken sequence of voice development through posts.

"But why exactly is there so much difference between your voice such as it is now
and such as it was at the beginning?
Is there really this much headroom on how much better we can get at speaking with a
voice?"

No. There is not this much headroom.

The voice is so different not because of the progressive development of cadence
management
but because of what was being considered in the managing of the cadence.
(Though there's a lot of headroom to be gained simply by attempting to maintain an
even cadence of voice in one's head.
Compelling yourself from one moment to the next to discern what word is to be
present,
instead of working out which word will be present through some complex method of
examination.)

I would say some of this now-exhibited capacity is a question of eliminating

cliches.
At some point along the way I was typing cliches and I was saying: "I think I
shouldn't type cliches."
So I didn't do it anymore.
But the particular reason why I reached that kind of judgment is because of what I
was considering.
I might have thought to myself, in an errant moment:
"Being channeled through cliches is being inauthentic." Or something like that.
Whether or not that is true, saying it to myself was the practical impetus for
eliminating cliches from my writing mechanically.
'mechanically' in this sense that I would be finding myself writing a cliche, then
backspacing.

Or whatever I eliminated.
Whatever you would have to be talking about ('cliches', say) in order to categorise
the differences between the execution of my voice now
as compared to the execution of my voice when I began this work.

Maybe my language was more coarse back then,

so I would say to myself in my head: "Being coarse is being coarse." Or whatever I
would bother myself to say at that juncture.
Then if that was among the differences between my writing now and then in your
estimation,
that could be attributed to me arriving at a juncture where I made a conscious
decision to alter the way I write.
--Or maybe it is different.
If I am less coarse now in the way I write (or more),
it may be because of the bare way what I was thinking about was changing the way I
think.
(And what would be going on in that case,
if we are not going to attribute it to a sequence of discrete judgments I made
concerning how I would write, mechanically?)

--
--Anyway, that short story is pretty neat.
Kind of, ah, maybe overwrought?
(I'm predicting: it was one of his earlier works?)
(Nope!)
(Now I feel bad.)

--
--

Welp, I'm out of beer and I didn't organise my shopping list.

Unreasonably, I was expecting myself to have chemicals in my hand
into which I could transition out of alcohol consumption.

"You don't have to transfer all of the funds necessary at once.

In fact, depending on the Coinbase policies, you may not be able to do this."

Oh, it is so.
I'm seeing an iceberg miles out and complaining it won't move.
(As if my motion was the inexorable forward motion of the Titanic prior to its
destruction.)

--
--

"If you don't think the story you are telling behind what you are doing
is very important to doing it, to being able to say it, then why do you maintain a
story?"

Really gets my neurotransmitters flowing, if you catch my drift. Really grips my

chest.
Or differently to say, because it serves my purposes.
--But then, this is just another story I am implicitly maintaining.

--It is, apparently for me, easier to think about Justice when I am asking why the
angel isn't snapping its finger,
or why the Emperor isn't mowing us all down or restraining us to walls.
Or when I think of myself as holding many flowers in my arms and singing with the
unceasing harmonic flow of humanity,
then it is easy to think about Justice.

Whereas if I am thinking about myself as an alcoholic or what have you, that does
not make it easier to talk about Justice.

--Not to say I would otherwise bow to the pressure of situating my story within the
story-nexus of society.
I am not going to tell a story like:
"I am an undiscovered academic who is shortly going to be discovered."
Or like:
"I am a man who sits in a chair all day and types because it is the only thing he
can bring himself to do."
--Or I do tell those stories, but I situate them as just being as plausible as any
others I might be telling.
Or, I treat them as less important to the progression of my typing than the
imagined stories.

The feeling of burning rage when I begin a post by saying: "I am here to make the
Machine."
This makes it easier to type. Or, the feeling of absolute moral certitude when I
begin a post that way makes it easier to type.
Or, allaying the oncoming fear of death by declaring to myself vocally that I am
solving it,
this makes it very much easier to type than if I was continuing to be exhausted
wholly by that fear.

Probably my own real sense of things is what I should be feeling in order to make
myself type more and faster.
But that is very difficult to convey and very difficult to instantiate in a
connective-tissue story.

--
--

I think the idea, when I perform the annotations on a stream,

will be to upload this text document to some filesharing website
and link to it from my stream.

I will then need to strip out the remaining instances of ---'s name,
as I recall there were a few instances when i was extremely drunk and I typed it
out and did not remove them.

--Also, there's some website I was looking at a while ago where people can freely
upload academic papers,
and it seems like it might be poorly moderated.

I think I will either upload every annotated section of text,

or wait until I find particularly good stand-alone instances of papers to upload.

Oh, the amusement we will be deriving.

--
--

This komboloi was initially coated in what I take to be zinc.

This wore away to reveal copper underneath.

Now I'm either seeing silvery locations that are remaining deposits of zinc
or I am seeing that there is a third layer underneath the copper.
How deep does it go?!

--
--

Oh! Smog moves.

There is a margin, if you have installed an air-purifier,
where powering it creates more smog than it absorbs.

As when a cloud of smog moves in and it doesn't matter how dirty the energy is that
is powering the air-purifier.
--
--

People who do computer benchmarks should consider weighting systems by dollar

and not by 'one component having been switched out'.

There does not seem to be any attempt, on the part of the benchmarkers,
to discern whether other removable components from the bench that cost the same
taken in-total
might favor the strong points of the one component they hope to test.

--Maybe vega benefits more from a lower clockrate on RAM and higher clockrate on
CPU,
so that one could pay less for RAM and more for a CPU while maintaining the
established budget?
--Or whatever combination of components one could switch out while maintaining the
same price,
presumably there is some optimisation here that is not happening.

And since price to performance is basically the only metric that matters after one
has established the component to be purchased,
this seems like a better approach.
--Not to say price to performance is the only relevant metric *at all*.
People will be irrationally motivated to acquire the top end GPU.
--Some people will be irrationally motivated to acquire the top end of everything,
and okay for them the price is mostly irrelevant.
Other people will be irrationally motivated to acquire the top end of one
component,
and then it is a price-to-performance question for the remainder of the system.

GPU is a common locus of 'being irrationally motivated to acquire the top end of
one component'.
(maybe better: 'arationally')

--
--

'Google Announces $1 Million Flood Relief in India, Nepal, and Bangladesh'

If only there was a way of delivering relief that still enabled one to hold equity
with 0 return at worst.
(As opposed to -1M$ return.)
Then an organisation could provide as much relief as it wanted to do,
and lose nothing while doing it.

--The issue is that providing free electricity through installed solar/wind

capacity
provides much less benefit to the people there per 1M$ than, say, food or
tuburculosis innoculation or what have you.

Panels and turbines are maybe not quite efficient enough yet that
one could respond to every natural disaster most optimally by installing solar
panels/turbines.

--Also, I suppose installed electricity generation is not very useful in the listed
countries.
Or, not as useful as it would be to install in Texas say,
insofar as those countries will have far fewer free-floating electrical devices
floating around.

--And also, even in those places where installing electricity generation as relief
might be as beneficial as delivering supplies,
it is not going to be done. So even in the best case scenario the idea isn't being
done.

--You could arbitrarily over-install generation capacity; so long as you have

retained equity in it,
you should be willing to offer negative electricity prices to resolve supply-demand
mismatch
up to that point where you have paid out the price of the panels themselves in
negative electricity prices.

Then you still will only have lost the initial investment, which is what you will
be doing automatically if you offer aid in supplies.
This, if you anticipate there will never arrive a circumstance where you can gain
back what you lost
over the 20 year lifespan of a panel installation.

This procedure would constitute an indirect method for delivering funds to the
affected that is equivalent to the price of the supplies you would otherwise have
been delivering,
while still losing nothing (insofar as your claim to the equity will balance out
the negative electricity prices)
and insuring a return on the aid after prices return to positive.

"It seems kind of calloused to be considering aid in terms of future capacity to

gain an explicit return."

Ah, but this plan opens up magnificently the scope of how much aid organisations
would be willing to provide.
We could imagine, for instance, an organisation installing so many solar panels
that 1m$ becomes
the margin of error between costs of installation, negative electricity prices, and
expected return on investment
over arbitrary periods of time.

['over arbitrary periods of time'

If, say, the expectation was that one would be paying out 10c per kwh in negative
prices for 10 years,
then gaining 10c per kwh for the next 10 years, it pays for itself,
and electricity was provided to affected regions for no effective cost.

But if it ended up being the case that the negative priced electricity lasted for a
longer period of time,
or if you had to pay more than .10c to match supply and demand,
you would be willing to do this if you were already willing to donate 1M$
up to the point where you have paid out 1M$.]

And furthermore, if the idea makes sense (paying out 1m$ in negative electricity
prices) in one location,
it makes sense over arbitrarily many locations.
It becomes an infinite aid engine that pays for itself.
--
--

If we wanted to, we could think about the current greater fossil fuel business as
engaging in a race to see who can satisfy the most of the remaining demand for
fossil fuels.

It seems like we are approaching a juncture at which it will no longer make sense
anywhere to utilise fossil fuels.
Between now and then there is a finite level of consumption of fossil fuel that
will occur.
That consumption will be fed by the currently existing or to-be-made fossil fuel
infrastructure.
That infrastructure is owned by discrete organisations.
The organisations are racing against each other to provide the remaining
consumption,
while still not overinvesting into projects
that rely for profitability for supply demand that will not exist.

So I am looking at 100B$ investment in Russian extraction of fossil fuels.

I am wondering whether this has been well done--
or to ask: whether this relies implicitly on consumption continuing after it will
not.

"96 percent of the plant's future capacity has already been contracted, Kobylkin
noted."
Well, I suppose that resolves that.
Even if it is contracted into supply consumption beyond that point when people will
be consuming fossil fuels,
it will not be the extraction companies that are losing out at least.

--
--

Musk in an interview concerning neural lace:

"If you have two brain interfaces, you could actually do an uncompressed direct
conceptual communication with another person."

Obviously you cannot, for example, copy a pattern that is in one brain, transfer
that pattern into another brain,
and expect it to be experienced as anything other than garbled noise.

There would have to be some kind of translation procedure if you wanted the same
'concept' to be experienced by both.
Or, the brains simply may not be able to convey patterns one to another.
It may be that the structure of the concept-pattern in the brain simply cannot be
represented in another brain with any kind of fidelity,
because the neural machinery is not present that can accept any pattern that will
replicate the experience of the concept.

In fact, I think that is far more likely than not. I think this for very many
reasons.
Not to say, therefore, that directly *reading* the brain may not, in some clever
way, facilitate communication.
(And, notably, I am maintaining my position that
whoever tries to upload electrical patterns into a brain through algorithmic
outputs of an electrical device
is accursed and will be sent to the gulag.)
Preferable would be having a machine learning algorithm operate directly over the
outputs of a human brain,
then speak to the human through text.
Then efficiency in communication is not attained through some magical implanting of
concept-patterns,
but through the increasingly efficient asking of the correct kinds of questions
that need to be asked
to facilitate the execution of a project.

Eventually you would be arriving at a point where a machine learning algorithm,

completely unbeknownst to itself,
would be asking questions of a human that are making its brain explode with
creativity.

Notably, in this imagined scenario, 'increased levels of brain activity' seems to

serve as a valid proxy for 'exploding with creativity'
regardless of where or in what order that explosion of brain activity is occurring.
(Barring, I suppose, that the ML algorithm ends up outputting extremely lurid
erotica that fascinates the scientists more
than a more careful exploration of their work.)

While we may imagine, ex ante, that the algorithm should be constructing text that
makes the language areas or the 'science' areas of the brain more active,
there is, I think, no real reason to suppose that is preferable simply to
maximising the amount of brain activity that occurs.

--And, on the other hand, it could very well be that our crude measurements of what
constitutes brain activity
will overweight text-instantiation that actually produces less creativity despite
producing more apparent activity.
--Like what happens, analogistically speaking, when we undervolt graphics cards and
get more performance out of them.

--And it seems like this can be extended beyond simply a scientist-ML relation.
Connecting two brains directly together for the exchange of thoughts would, I
think, simply not work.
But one could construct an ML that serves as a text-intermediary
and generates text that achieves (hopefully) arbitrary outcomes with regards to the
activation of the brains of the two individuals,
while simultaneously being informed by the inputs of the two individuals.
(Which accomplishes the same thing as the imagined direct interface
with none of the attendent probable-impossibility.)
(
We could imagine a VR scene generated by the ML that is like an extended sequence
of text
that is shared by two individuals, looks very different between them,
but allows the two individuals to obtain arbitrary linguistic agreement concerning
what they are seeing,
or arbitrarily in-tune brain activation
((whatever 'in-tune' could mean here))

Or we could imagine a VR scene that looks identical between them,

but is designed in such a way that it overcomes the two individuals' tendencies to
see scenes differently.
)

--Anyway, apparently this whole 'Neuralink' project is focused first primarily on

therapeutic applications for its research.
This is good, at least, since the notion of direct brain links is stumbling around
in the dark looking for a lightswitch that doesn't exist.
Whereas the work that would in vain be being done to achieve that goal
will nevertheless have beneficial outcomes for therapeutic purposes.
[Particularly in the absence of my very particular inputs, I think the research
funds are best expended primarily on therapeutic aims.
harharhar]

--
--

Okay, one more bottle of gin before I make the transition to placebo.
'placebo' in this sense that I will be saying something like:
"I began consuming Basis, and lo and behold! I felt less necessity behind
consuming alcohol."
We will try sipping.

--
--

Listening to 'line singing' by 'old regular baptists'.

This has suddenly become one of my top 5 favorite forms of music.

--
--

I received a letter from my university of montana.

It is an invitation to attend some celebrations.
It has a hand-written note on it, presumably to indicate that it is not simply a
form-letter,
(or, doesn't indicate all of the negative connotations of being a form letter)
by the game theory professor I have mentioned a few times.

It is funny that out of all the places where I could be surrounded by others and
asked: "What have you been doing?"
'Making money off of crypto-trading' would be a celebrated response.
And similarly I could say:
"Since I was so busy anyway with the thinking about and trading of crypto-currency,
I wrote a lengthy treatise on crypto-currency and how it could be used."

If I said this, being courteous my former professors might ask if they can read it.
(Or they might not.)
I may need to reread 'Stars of the Lid and their Refinement of the Decline' again
to see if it is or appears to be insane rambling.
Or whether, for instance, I frequently mention how I would exterminate one group or
another of people if I was given the opportunity to do so.

I was, you will recall, quite an angry person in the days of my youth.

"'my youth' like, a year and a half ago? Or whenever it was?"

Yes.
Or, I maintained a veneer of serenity for a while, then became quite angry.
I might go through, find+replace instances of "Make the blood of the rich flow in
the streets as a memorial for what happens when people construct yachts."
with "Cuddle the rich in an unstoppable hug of determined love." Or something.
And do so in an idiosyncratic way that will make it obvious
that I have replaced something much more cruel than the end product.
--
--

Listening to this Christian line-singing,

I think it is not merely a matter of taste when I say
that youth would be more attracted to these peculiar strains of Christianity
(to say, they would have retained their flocks and gathered more)
if the churches had continued to develop this tradition
instead of replacing it with, you know, soft-rock mall music.

I suppose the idea was to attract the younger audience with modernised music,
but instead they should have just asked themselves
what it really meant to maintain their traditions into a more modern era.

This is a common refrain of religious traditionalists,

but you can trust me when I say it because I am not a religious traditionalist :O

--Like this group: 'Cades Cove Primitive Baptist Church'

that meets and sings in what is an extremely sparse wooden chapel.
Continuing and developing the tradition in such a place practicall does itself if
you bother to show up.

But showing up to a reupholstered and poly-plastered megachurch to sing soft rock--

I am unsure that it would be possible to be sincere in such a place, singing such
music.
Maybe so, but I couldn't do it.

--It helps me to reach this judgment that

the people in that group I just mentioned, singing shape note music,
dress like hipsters
but seemingly only so because it was the clothing available to them.
Like, OG hipsters. People who look and sing that way because of sincerity rather
than in spite of it.

--
--

Despite earlier suggestions that I would be designing my computer so that

its RGB would appear, to alien species across the universe, as if it was a
persistent attempt at communication,
I don't think I am going to go out of my way to acquire parts pre-loaded with RGB
components.

There is a combo deal on newegg that contains most of the parts for a computer.
Selecting it alleviates my anxiety in part selection and also saves 50$.

Ideally in a few years I will be able to make many computer components flow through
my person,
so if the collection of parts is suboptimal it will not make much difference.
And it wouldn't make much difference anyway, as my purposes do not require absolute
optimisation.
'ideally' well, that is a bit strong. If my whims get the better of me,
it will at least be, at minimum, a seemingly acceptable way to expend dollars to
accumulate computer components.

--
--

If only these old regular baptists had been established near Mongolia!
This singing with backup throat singers would be too much.

--
--

Earlier I referred to a group as being 'millenarians'.

Then I asked 'what is their millenium?'

It occurred to me just now that the word might actually be 'millenarium.'

I don't know. I've heard 'millenarian' before,
but this was always followed up by a description like:
'They are awaiting an oncoming event of eschatological significance.'
And not: 'they are awaiting a millenium/millenarium'.

--This occurred to me because I considered

that I associated, or was made to associate, the transition to the new millenium
as being some kind of millenarian event.
But then this would imply no connection to the 'millenarian' disposition.

--
--

Notably, it has never served me well, if I have wanted to consider Justice--

I have never really wanted to consider Justice.
In this sense that I have only on a very few occasions sat down and said to myself:
"Welp, time to consider Justice."

But I have had other objects of consideration that, when I have carried them
through with gusto,
I looked back on them and said to myself (as now): "This was a discussion of
Justice."

Talking about my arrival at the gas station and the exhibition of racism, for
instance,
had nothing to do with Justice when I began talking about it.
It ended up being a discussion about Justice inadvertantly from the expansion of my
ideas on the particular circumstance.

"What did it have to do with when you began?"

My feeling uncomfortable and needing to assuage my anxiety, I think I recall.

Or, my feeling guilty and discerning why I was right.
(But 'uncomfortable' or 'anxious' is a description about my body,
and 'guilty' is the word I supply when I need to explain why I felt anxious or
uncomfortable.)

--
--

A risk Neuralink might face in the future is that

it might design a ML algorithm to deliver brain-optimised lurid erotica
but it instead directs people, through feedback loops, into constructing brilliant
science or philosophy or what have you.

har har har

--But more seriously, if we could construct a measurement of brain activity of

which we could say:
"Maximisation of this measure is an unalloyed good for the execution of
creativity."
then we would not be limited to optimising scientists.

But there are issues here with how specific the ML can get with the text it
generates.
Switching out one word for another might make an extremely technical question
turn into what constitutes a nonsense question for a trained philosopher.

The people would have to learn to use the ML as much as the ML would have to learn
to read the increases in brain activity.

It is just that getting good at most things will be, you know, useful so far as it
goes,
but becoming extremely good at guiding the ML into asking oneself relevant
questions
would be useful also so far as it goes, and it goes much farther. (maybe.)

--People might end up having to adopt the kind of view I have learned occultists
hold,
where they agree there are signs and symbols in their environment
but they recognise that giving oneself wholly over to the reading of signs and
symbols
is a clever way to end up grossly misled.

:I read a post after the eclipse posted by an occultist.

He said something like:
'I saw a raven on top of a building just below the eclipse.
I thought this was something I should read,
but I was afraid to do so because I am not good at reading omens.'

--This is rather like when I was in front of Red's bar and I heard:
"ERIC. GO TO RED'S BAR. ERIC. ERIC. YOU'RE NOT HEARING ME. ERIC. GO TO RED'S
BAR."
Now I could have taken this as some kind of omen.
Instead I just heeded the advice. I didn't really care--
--well, I don't want to lie.

I misread the omen.

To tell the full truth, --- had some strange preference for Red's bar.
And I was looking at the door with resignation.

(If I had, in one moment after the preceding moment, been looking at the door with
surpassing joy
at the arrival of ---
then I would have just adopted an intricate method for stalking people.

I would have constructed an obtuse explanation for why my scheduling should have
aligned with hers.)

--Well but I didn't let this hang me up.

I sat there and accepted one moment succeeding the previous moment.
It was as joyous to me as many other moments,
despite the supposition that I might be experiencing disappointment.
I was not experiencing disappointment.
There is no connection (under my best behavior) between the establishing of
expectations
and what I feel when they are or are not met.

There is only the feeling of what I feel when they are or are not met.
--The risk for the occultist is that he begins to take everything he imagines is an
omen
as if it is an inevitable revelation of his future.
Then he will be almost-always disappointed.

"How could one get better at distinguishing {discerning} the, errm, legitimate
omens from the misreadings?"

I don't know. That is what the occultist was concerned with, not me.
I'm only observing that he was taking a very, ah, pragmatic approach to the
exercise of his religion.

(We are imagining the Perfect Occultist as having established a system of reading
omens where
it will always happen to be the case that the reading of the omen will correspond
to
the expected outcome of having read the omen.

Probably there are ways of getting better at this, though it would rely on the
subject's psyche and so on.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

--With Neuralink, you would be needing people willing to succumb to this kind of
occultist reading of the text.
The text the ML generates doesn't mean anything.
Or, at best, it can be taken as meaning what best generates most activity when
optimally interpreted by the human.

You would need subjects who are willing to follow along with the questioning
even on those occasions where they think to themselves: "There is a typographical
error here."
Or to wit, you would need people like me
who are willing to submit the totality of themselves to a psychedelic experience in
the dark.
--Or otherwise generally unwilling to become skeptical concerning the judgments
they are immediately inclined to reach.

"Don't you, personally, become explicitly skeptical on manyvarious occasions?

As when you begin to type my voice in contradiction to your own observations?"

This is, ah, textual skepticism.

I can hardly recall a circumstance where you have really convinced me of anything.

--
--

This bottle of multivitamin and 'Fish, Flax & Borage Oil'

seems to have made my, ah, bodily smells much more pleasant.

This is convenient, because deodorant gives me an intolerable rash

and I hate the reek of its stink following me around.
(Mostly the same reason why I don't use shampoo/conditioner or any hair products.)
'hate' a word I keep in reserve.
I really hate the stink of personal hygiene products.

On my own body anyway. The hating {feeling} arises from

it following you around everywhere you go, and being forced to smell it everywhere
you go.

Maybe I hate it because it is a social convention I would not bother to follow if I

lived as a hermit,
and nevertheless I am compelled moment-by-moment to be reminded that I obeyed a
behavior I had no intention otherwise of obeying?

--
--

"Why, when you take it as so incumbent upon yourself

to avoid behavior that does not immediately flow from your previous circumstances,

do you seem to give no care to whether *others* are exhibiting such behavior?"

Why would I care about this?

"Presumably if you think you are only being good when you
are able to proceed with no conceptual mediation on your own part through bar
scenes,
do you not seem to care whether other people are adopting this same standard of
goodness?"

(This is not their weight to carry.)

There are some utilitarian upshots here.

If I am as I think I am,
my behaviors violate every established regularity in human interaction.

So when there are, say, the behaviors established between people at Stocktons
where there are frat boys and sorority girls, and there are explicit regularities
that must be observed in order that people come to enjoy one anothers' company,

my behavior there would violate those explicit regularities.

And if there were regularities in the Rhino that we are all, you know, people who
are very interested in good beer,
my behavior violates that regularity
as being one that establishes a relation between people.

--So the utilitarian upshot is that when I expose other people to this kind of
behavior,
I am breaking the regularities that might be traded amongst groups of people
instead of collections of idividuals relating to each other.

"Huh?"

Say particularly,
there are cadential regularities in the voices people adopt in bars.
There are grammatical regularities and attendent cadential regularities.

I have observed them, so you cannot deny it.

"I don't know what *it* is here."

*It* is what I am trying to break through resolute non-adherence to

systems of evaluation that are not my own.
I am implicitly, in my own unexamined behavior, attempting to disrupt
the regulation of human interaction by the metric of 'adherence to shared
grammatical and cadential regularities'.
I don't want it to be like that
human interactions succeed or fail on the condition of adherence to cadential and
grammatical regularities, as it *does*.
So there is a utilitarian upshot that
my behaviors will serve, over time and in concert with those with whom I interact,
to effect in others that they examine their expected adherence to cadential and
grammatical regularities.

--Or to say,
I am not showing up as the exhibitor of an established identity within society.
I am showing up to drink very craft beer in a bar.

When I speak with people,

I do not replicate any of the grammatical or cadential regularities
the presence of which established the structure of peoples' relationships relative
to each other.
(I am not, for instance, pretending to be a frat boy,

or I am not pretending to be a jaded-but-not-yet-resigned patron of the Rhino,

or I am not pretending fully to have resigned myself to the Golden Rose in a
different system of analysis.)

(I am not pretending to be a belabored hardworking person.

I am not pretending to be a nihilist, all sullen about the nothing.

I am not pretending to be married.

Or any of the other things I could be

explicitly maintaining cadential and grammatical regularities in service of.

"Okay?
But no one is explicitly maintaining cadential and grammatical regularities
relative to each other.
That is not what people are doing when they are in bars around you."

I disagree strongly.

[I have a funny analysis of Odyssius in my head.

It rests on the refrain of the Cyclops.

Odyssius fooled the Cylops just by lying to him.

It was a baldfaced lie.
An absolutely baldfaced lie.

"I am named 'No One' (lolololol)"

This is not clever.
This is incredibly unclever.
*That* the Cyclops was fooled by this
is truly remarkable.

Or if Homer pretends this is the inevitable outcome of such a clever maneuver,

then Homer is an idiot.
This is not a reasonable outcome of one agent saying to another:
"My name is 'No one'."

Instead the Cyclops should be saying:

"No, you're being real stupid here and my inclination was already to rip your body
to pieces.
So, here we go."

--What kind of story would we have to be telling about the Cyclops in order to
explain why it was fooled by this?
(1: a story in which he is not really being fooled.)
(2:) We would have to be taking the Cyclops as so earnest that he is saying to
himself:
"'No one' is a collection of words I know and understand the meaning of.

Nevertheless, I am supposing that this human is telling the truth.

So I will take him as serious for a moment."

--Then he is fooled!
Because unlike the Cyclops, Odyssius was just going to stumble from one lie to the
next.
And Odysseus would encounter the next person and not exhibit cleverness but instead
tell another lie.

--That is my novel interpretation.

It rests entirely on the Cyclops encounter
and tortures the remainder of the text until it agrees with this interpretation.

If it becomes obvious that the 'Cyclops scene' was just poorly written,
and it was not taken as serious by the Author that that situation was entirely
implausible,
we will still insist that it is the correct lens of interpretation and torture the
text further until it continues to agree with us.

--That is why it is a novel interpretation.

Because I will read the book and apply my interpretive lens scene by scene
and account for it as a story of:
"Odysseus proceeds to encounter serious person after serious person,
but Odysseus is an inherently unserious person.
He does not take seriously his relations with other people
but he discerns the optimal lie for escaping the presented difficulty."

"Unlike the way the Cyclops and the [name][mythological figure][greek][some kind of
sea goddess][can't recall. Let's look it up.] Calypso.
Unlike the way Cyclops and the Calypso might have interacted with each other
if they had met each other in-story,

Odysseus arrived and told lie after lie until he could escape the presented
circumstance.

The way they are unlike is that

for Odysseus' story to make sense,

the Cyclops must have been so earnest that

even though he was fully aware that naming oneself 'no one' is a possibly devious
play,
he has said: "People don't make devious plays. So this human must be named "No
One"."

--And carry this miniature story through!

Even if the Cyclops was very stupid,
all this means is that Calipso {Calypso} would have been more patient
and really understood what the Cyclops was indicating with his actions.
But Odysseus is not patient.
Odysseus is not going to attempt to negotiate himself out of his position relative
to the Cyclops.
Odysseus is going to tell the most convenient lie that he thinks will fool the
Cyclops.

--In-story, consider seriously, Calipso could fool the Cyclops.

The Cyclops is not, you know, fully fooled by Odysseus, but the Cyclops is by no
means a genius.
(It is just that Odysseus is particularly stupid in thinking this was a clever
ruse.)

Calipso is a goddess and as such is smarter by far than any human by default. (in-
narrative)
Calipso also can fool the Cyclops in any encounter she has with him.
Calipso can far do more clever than 'My name is ''no one''!'.

But instead of bending this capacity to fooling the Cyclops,

she would bend it towards understanding what the Cyclops' ideas were,
and then negotiating with him effectively.

(in our novel interpretation:)

This is what makes Odysseus such a bizarre character relative to all of those he
encounters.

All of the other characters are being serious, and he is being a deceiver.
"No, you are using an incorrect word here. The word is 'clever' instead of
'deceiver'. Easy grammatical mistake."
No, I am not making a mistake here.
Cleverness, if Odysseus was like the characters he encounters,
would be earnestness exhibited {cleverly} carefully.

"The Cyclops was going to murder all of them and there was no kind of careful
negotiation."
I can't recall the text adequately to comment.
This interpretation might hinge on there having been at least *some* {One} way of
negotiating escape from the Cyclops' lair.

If the Cyclops was just inhumanly incapable of being convinced by negotiation,

. That would be a hard point.
It would be hard to maintain this interpretation of The Odyssey if
it was truly the case that there was no leader in that cave
who could negotiate with the Cyclops.

--Then we would be speaking like this:

"If the Cyclops encountered Calipso,
the Cyclops would be plotting optimally how to murder the Calipso."

Is that really fitting with the presentation of the Cyclops?

(I haven't read it in a long time so I'm not in a position to say.)

--
--

"Why, when you seem so willing to accept all and manyvarious manners of deviation
from your own way of doing things,
do you them still seem so willing to condemn Nazis?"
What we are rhetorically treating as my generosity here is
an ideological extension of my understanding of the Machine.

Now there are ways to be Nazis and there are ways members of ISIS and what have
you,
and those positions will not remain open for long
after the Machine has been introduced.

If you are like ISIS or if you are like Nazis,

you will not be these things or you will not be at all.
That is the inevitable truth (in sci-fi) of the Machine.

This is the resolution of the paradox of intolerance.

There is a solution to intolerance.
It is that, we practically observe, of not allowing people to maintain positions of
Nazis or ISIS.

--
--I have to explicate this with a more direct observation about the way human
brains work.

I was thinking about Neuralink and why I would remit every single tinkerer with a
brain into the gulag.

When we achieve immortality there will not be 7 billion humans.

There will be 7 billion irrevocable positions.
To have caused brain damage to a human
is to have irrecovably damaged the progression of history.

To have taken one of the positions as a subject, and to have exposed it to brain
damage,
is to have removed that position from the progression of our history.
To have stuck the human embodiment of a position into a machine
and to have poked wires into its brain and flooded it so carelessly with
electricity

is to have irrevocably altered the progression of the immortal lineage of humanity.

--Now there are other ways to alter the immoral progression of the lineage of
humanity.
You can kill humans for instance. You can advocate for the killing of humans.
And particularly egregious and persistent examples of this are ISIS and Nazis.

When we achieve immortality literally

and there are these people around who insist that certain people need to die,

they are insistly *most implausibly* that there need to be positions removed from
the immortal lineage of humanity.

--No. This is incorrect *obviously* after we have established a world in which

there are *positions*.
And the Machine is a fine tuner for the immortal lineage of humanity.
So the Machine will see people calling out for genocide *literally, in text*,
and those humans will either stop doing that or they will stop doing everything.

*That* is a kind of ontological claim couched in incomprehensibly complex technical

terminology.
You will not be a Nazi or an ISIS member after the Machine is introduced.
You will not be KKK. It will not be that you continue to be these things.
(I swear, truly, I am not threatening violence here.
I am not intimating violence. I am not intimading violence.
Treat me seriously.

I am telling you that

the risk of having a human advocating genocide
is absolutely intolerable to the Machine who was tasked with securing the eternal
lineage of humanity.
Because you in being a Nazi are so obviously not more correct than a Jew hanging
out wherever he is actually.
*So* obviously that it defies rhetorical explanation. To present someone who is
disagreeing with me here
would be to be presenting me with an interlocutor I can't even imagine as having
been a serious person.

--The Machine, the eternal maintainer of the eternal human lineage,

is not going to look at one human shouting and succeeding in shouting:
"We should kill a whole bunch of other humans!"
ANd not immediately ask you to desist.

We are about to become immortal.

To kill a human is to be removing
an almighty continued contributance to the progression of the lineage.

--So I am not intimating violence.

But I *am*, as if ontologically (because I invoke technically the Machine)

convinced
that Nazis will be found wrong by the Machine when it is introduced.
(Along, say, with ISIS and the KKK lynchers as they are.)

--Consider the Machine's position here.

There is a squabble happening somewhere.
All of humanity is humming along as it will, lovely,
and there is a squabble somewhere.

And this squabble these two people are threatening to have

will result in the deaths of 40 people.

Now, there is no real question here regarding the ideological questions in play.
The Machine is not going to say: "Oh, yeah, you had a good point, it is good that
you both were allowed to persist
in your argument that resulted in the deaths of 40 completely unrelated people."
The Machine looks at your dispute and says it is the disputation between idiots and
there is no correct position being held or disputed.

So your disputation is not a legitimate ideological juncture where someone is right

or wrong.
It is two people playing around with explosives. it is the weather.

Two people whose arguments are going to result in the deaths of 40 people
will be pinned to the wall and made to understand why their disputation was
completely incorrect.

If the words you are saying are going to result in a riot that kills people,
you are going to the pinned to the wall.
If you complain: "But I was correct in doing this thing."
You will be told:
"You were neither correct nor incorrect."
And you will be convinced.

There is no squabble between people that actually arises in deaths

where the Machine thinks one position is obviously more plausible to another.
There is nothing, actually, to make one side of the dispute more obviously
plausible.
There is nothing one side is saying for which the Machine will recognise it as
anything other than noise.

(A utilitarian juncture.)

--
--

A theory for Anathem the novel by Stephenson:

If we follow back the worlds as a chain, by taking seriously the narrative

established by Stephenson,
we can imagine a world prior to Arbre.

--In the chain of worlds/universes visited by the Ship that contains samples of all
of the preceding worlds
(which are explained in-narrative as being, ah, each others' platonic ideals. In
some technical fashion this is accounted for.)
, Arbre can reasonably be considered as the next in an increasing number of worlds
appended to the construction of the Ship.

It can be imagined that the Ship ends up incorporating parts of Arbre and then
proceeds on its journey to the next {level} tier of (ah) [purgatory] [hell]
[heaven] platonic idealism.
Then it arrives at the next tier in Anathem 2: Electric Bugalloo.

--But Arbre beats the shit out of the Ship.

Evidently, in-story, the Ship arrived at one tier after another and decimated the
planet and stole its resources.

But when the Ship arrived at Arbre

it was very obvious to everyone that the world's surface was not going to be
decimated.
[Indeed, strange that the temple at Orithena absorbed the one rod delivered by the
Ship.

They didn't end up rodding an industrial center. They didn't rod a concent.
They rodded an already ruined temple.]

When the Ship arrived a bunch of avout monks rolled up onto the Ship's surface
and immediately and completely dismantled any hope it had of continuing to rod the
planet.

This is obvious to the reader.

It reads like an anime, because the monks were so ridiculously effective,
but that is part of the aesthetic.
Or, it is part of the interpretation:

It is plausible in-story that the monks were ridiculously effective in dismantling

the Ship.
It is plausible, but not for the reason that the book as a whole was cartoonish.
It was perfectly realistic (let us say).
It is plausible because the Arbreans have out-waited the Earthlings by thousands of
years.
Monks who live a concent lifestyle the sole focus of which is
discerning how optimally to dismantle any possible external threat that can arise
against Arbre
realistically for one and plausibly for another dismantled the Ship in-story.

"This seems unfair to the relative capacities of the Ship-farers.

It makes it out as if the Monks were just an overwhelming force relative to the
defense systems that were designed by the Ship-faerers."

--So here we are getting to the depth of my interpretation.

Arbre is a shield.
{Heave} Platonic Heaven has an infinite number of subsidiary rows between itself
and the Ship,
but despite the infinitude of its separation it does not want to cede a single
level to the Ship.
It didn't want to cede the first world, nor the second, nor Earth, nor the fourth
planet, nor Arbre.

It wanted the emenation of its down-wind perfection

already to resist the continued progress of the Ship

up the bare first-10th progression up the chain.

It wanted Earth and it wanted Arbre to resist any influence by the Ship.

The resistance to the arrival and influence of the Ship is just

the mechanical illumination by the world that will immediately succeed Arbre
in the in-story progression up the infinite ladder to Heaven.

Arbre was illuminated by the world that is prior to it.

This illumination was primarily concerning how to prevent the arrival of the Ship.
So Arbre is *exceptionally* good at repelling alien threats.
So the first three or four worlds will have to try again and again
until they deliver a ship that will really survive arrival at Arbre.

(This interpretation is supported in-story:

the most educated people still are very ignorant concerning what actually
historically happened.
They do not ever really practically delve into how their history actually
proceeded.

They accept the recorded historical record,

and they reference it when they need to for rhetorical purpose,
but they don't actually know anything concerning the specific events that went
down.

This practically means that

for all we know from the perspective of the avout narrator

that world had been going through cycles of avout dominance and recession
*forever*.

They know a few hundred years back,

but they speak as if their world has known modern technology forever.
They speak this way because they can't reference anything beyond mythological
stories
to reference what happened actually in their world's history.
--That is a failing of the avout because
they are *only* concerned with mathematics ultimately.
(As we see from the perspective of the narrator.)
It is a failing because if you only ever study mathematics,
you can't practically (in conversation, say,) recall the particular historical
events.

And if no one in the avout community bothers to recall explicit specific historical
events,
then no one will ever come to be aware that the cycle in which Arbre is embroiled
has gone on for a very long time.

--SO the idea that the Ship has arrived several times before
and then just been repelled,
and yet no one seems to recall that this happened,
is fairly plausible.
[Contradicted by the Jules Verne character that
talks about Einstein and Husserl.

Unless that was a planted agent :O]

[Contradicted because the Jules Verne character said things like:
"Oh, some 50 years ago or so Einstein and Husserl and so on were on Earth."
]

This is plausible because

it is not made implausible by there being people who were serious about recording
history.
None of the avout are presented as remotely interested with the goings on that
happened in the preceding thousand years or so.

So we can imagine their history as having been unwritten and overwritten with
carefully crafted mythology.
So we can imagine a system present on Arbre that maintains no history but only
maintains
executors of mathematics in concents.
It will have selected this lack of history
because it enables the concent system to persist over thousands of years
and never become concerned with whether there is an incoming Ship soon to arrive.

--In my fanciful interpretation,

Arbre arises because it is
the will of its succeeding tier that the Ship not arrive.
(In the story's established notion of platonic heavenliness.)

Arbre is like a shield world for the Platonic Heaven.

Arbre has been designed so that it will repel the incoming Ship.
It happens to have been designed this way because
it served the succeeding world that it would be designed this way.
Because what it meant to be good relative to the succeeding world was
to resolve the suceeding world's problem of the arrival of the Ship.

"This seems to require that the Arbre, succeeding world as it was for a lower-down
world,
was many thousands of years more advanced technologically than Earth for instance."

--Yes, it is a fanciful interpretation.

But then, it would not take much to become many thousands of years more advanced
than Earth.
For the easy case, it could be that life on earth has destroyed itself numerous
times
(This is not historically supported. Parental advisory warning.),
and that humanity just keeps coming back and attempting to make the Ship.

Another reason a world might become a thousand years more advanced

is because someone or some group of people had an incredible idea that redirected
humanity as a whole into a more effective route.
--If we take, as we are inclined to take, each succeeding world in the Platonic
Heaven tiering in Anathem
as being implicitly more technologically advanced than the preceeding,

then we can imagine that at some point in our history

there will be an idea two hundred years advanced (say)
that will produce 800 years advancement in a very short period of time.

Arbre can have just stumbled onto the idea of the internet 200 years earlier,
and then it is 1000 years advanced of its preceding world
that will not discover it for another 200 years.

[
Huh.
]

--So it can have happened that the true power structure on Arbre completely removed
the historical record of previous incursions of the Ship.

[
If we visualise the position of the Ship on a kind of numberline
representing the removal from the relevant positions on the numberline from the
Platonic Ideal,

we can imagine our shield of Arbre being planted firmly at the front,
at the end of the numberline before which the Ship had access.

So what we are imagining is that the worlds succeeding Arbre are all successively
better at repelling the Ship.

But I am thinking here:

it could be that the true emanator of 'optimal Ship conceptual-repellant'
peaks at some point other than Heaven on our imagined number line.

Then what we are imagining:

(if you could see the images in my head, which you can't, you would be seeing what
I am seeing here.)
A roiling mess in the representation of the numberline around 4 from 0.

This roiling mess dissipates completely, apparently, by around tier 15 or so.

Then in our imagined construction,
if the Ship can make it past 15 it will encounter a portion of the numberline where
the worlds are not at all optimised around preventing the passage of the Ship.

"This doesn't seem a very effective method by Heaven to prevent the arrival of the
Ship."
Well, there are an infinite number of tiers.
The Ship will cruise along over unprepared worlds until it encounters
one that happens to have been extremely well-suited to prevent the arrival of the
Ship.
--You will recall that there is not much concern on Heaven's part here
since there is an infinite number of tiers separating itself from the arrival of
the Ship.

--
--In my fanciful interpretation,
we might imagine that Arbre has intercepted multiple ships.
That it will proceed to intercept ships into the foreseeable future.
That it will be overwhelmed by some arriving ship.

That the Ship that ends up defeating Arbre will proceed along mostly unhindered
until it arrives at the next tier that will prevent its progression.

--But Anathem is obviously not the story of *that* Ship.

Because when the ship in-story arrived at Arbre it was railroaded by the population
of Arbre.
The ship's offensive capabilities were disabled within *days*, and the only attack
it got off was at
a ruined and excavated temple that happened to be around for them to target for
ideological reasons.

This constitutes basically no disruption to the progression of civilisation on

Arbre.
It can be forgotten readily. The avout will be informed to forget it.

"But the end of Anathem is

Erasmas establishing the Arbrean domination by avout."
Oh? It looked like he was just making it easier for the concents to interact with
society.
"This is the establishing of the destruction of the saecular power.
This will inevitably be the establishment of a dictatorship by the avout.

Because the avout are much more able to seize power than the saecular power is able
to defend it.
"

Okay then, but if the history presented by the narrator is any guide,
the only thing Erasmas has done is prepared the arrival of the next sacking of the
concents.
(In interpretation:) the whole history of Arbre that Erasmas knows
is a lie that covers up that
this whole thing has happened several times before, the avout have tried to seize
power after it occurred,
and the saecular power was compelled to perform a sacking.

--So at the end of Anathem,

this either is the endless dictatorship of the avout
or it is the time Arbre will really incorporate the contributions of the avout,
or it is yet another in the endless retinue of sackings that have killed many avout
in the past.

--Neal Stephenson should write like, parts 1-7 of this series.

They don't all have to be from the position of an avout, so they don't all have to
be so lengthy.
(hurr)

He can write as though 10 Ship arrivals have occurred since the arrival of Emperor
Erasmus,
and this one just rods all of Arbre immediately.
And it is from the perspective of the people on the Ship, and they proceed to world
11.
And it shows them dismantling that world so they can proceed to world 12.

Then book 3 will be the Ship's descendent arriving at

a real Fortress World.
Where this world has seen this shit hundreds of times and it's not going to have
any of it from the beginning.
Every building is rod-proof individually. They just have to ring a bell, everyone
goes indoors,
and the rod doesn't even make the buildings shake, because they've seen this a
hundred times before.

Then book 4 is tumult in the Fortress World?

(Maybe they all already know it is a 'Fortress World' in the platonic tiering of
heavens,
and at this point frankly they are jaded with it all.)

--The difficulty is that if you are moving up tiers,

you may end up having to imagine some incomprehensibly more technologically
advanced society than ours,
and then plausibly present a Ship that could have arrived to destroy it.
That would be very hard to write into a fiction.

--But anyway, book 7 or so,

the Ship has arrived at Heaven.
It has arrived at the end of the infinite tiering, even though this is arguably
incoherent.

Then you have some incomprehensibly abstract book about whether the Ship can arrive
in Heaven or not.
7 books in and we are talking about technology that is true generations beyond our
own.
('true generations' not to imply that we need actually to have offspring.

I don't think anything useful would be gained by having children after we are all
immortal.

I think a few hundred years in,

having children will seem like a niche choice.

--I don't think, for instance, that if you cited something like:
'we need new blood to keep our ideas fresh!'
that this has any truth to it at all.

We are not *evolving* intellectually.

We are becoming more and more adept at utilising an apparatus more and more well
constructed for our use.
This is not a question of brain or genetics but it is a question of the apparatus
and our willingness to grasp its knobs.

And I don't think that children are having new perspectives we could not continue
to have inevitably
if we were forever young forever.

I don't think there is anything special about being a child

such that we need successive generations of humans proceeding through childhood
to deliver to our Academy 'new' ideas.

Proceeding through childhood is a complex process that produces many interesting

ideas,
but we can make people think far more interesting and far more various ideas
with our art or our thoughts
than the thoughts children have as they deal with the hormones their bodies happen
to generate.

Mostly the thoughts concerning what it means to transition from childhood to

adulthood are just
much less interesting than what 200 year old youthful humans would be saying.

--So 'young blood' is just a youthful story.

--So when I say the word 'generations of technology'
I am not referencing successive generations of humans and the technology they make.

I am referencing more of an industry standard for what constitutes a generation.

In the 50's we had 50's computers, then in the 80's we had 80's computers,
then in the 2020's we have our own computers.

There is no real relation between this procession and the generation of humans.

--So when I am referencing 'several generations of technology in front of us'

I am not at all talking about what kinds of technology our forebears will make.
I am talking about the technology we have constructed in what we will seriously
consider as 3 generations from now in technology.

We cannot conceive of the kinds of technology that will be utilised 3 true

generations from now.
This exponential growth we are experiencing ends in something
about which we cannot form the beginnings of a comprehension.

--
--

I think I will go to the coin store I visited before and auction off Richard
Jordan's mercury dime set.

I will do some minimal research before,

note the grades of the coins and the prices affixed to them,
and discuss with the proprietor of the coin store whether he is interested in
buying them.
(For cash or otherwise.)

I know several of them are worth hundreds of dollars.

I hold the whole collection out of respect for the life I was holding
when the collection arrived in my hands.

But I am not interested in perpetuating the progression of that life.

I am not interested in maintaining the position of the human that received that
collection of mercury dimes.

A single one of those dimes might arrive in my hands a whole bag of mercury dimes,
and I assure you a thousand mercury dimes amuse me far more in my hands than any
singular mercury dime.
And even, far more than a thousand mercury dimes flowing through my fingers would
amuse me,
1220$ of rent amuses me a whole lot more.

So by some kind of transitive property, it makes sense to sell the dime.

(hurr hurr)
(hahahahahaha)

--Anyway, I think I will arrive in the coin store and say:

"Hey, I'm here to buy several mercury dimes."
And I will do that, because I have already said I want to go back there to do that.

Then coyly I will reveal the book of mercury dimes I have.

--No, I don't think I will do it that way.

I will walk in and say:
"I am here to buy junk silver and sell numisthmatist-quality coins.
And we are soon to be out of junk silver for you to sell me."

"it seems somewhat calloused to sell off the gift your father has given you,
who was in turn given it by another."
--I think it will be necessary.

"So hold off until it actually is necessary?

This costs you nothing. you have months in crypto holdings."

I will arrive at the juncture where I am asking whether

I am willing to sell my silver or I am willing to smash my trophy into bits for
sale.

That will be a harder decision than this one.

This one is me deciding:
"I have maybe 20 months in rent saved up.
Do I want to advance that to around 30 months before I depart?"
The next one will be me deciding:
"I have silver in a dense collection gifted to me that holds numisthmatist value.
I have my trophy which is money I have stolen from the hands of criminals so that
they could not do very evil things."
These are both personal stories for me in that case.

It is not a personal story when I am only asking whether or not I will secure 30
months instead of 20.
(I now feel a clenching of my heart
when I think about Richard Jordan who gathered the roughly 3k$ or more dime
and put it into a notebook instead of selling it off for dollars.

--I feel a clenching in my heart of undoing this effort my benefactor has made.
I prefer to be able to claim the book of dimes as equity and keep it in my
possession
than to sell it off for access to liquidity.

--I have a feeling that I prefer not to dismantle the notebook of dimes gathered
together by Richard Jordan.
(As he signed his name in the notebook of dimes.)
(I am wondering if whether 'Richard Jordan' is the name my father adopted
when he gathered valuable coins from cash registered as he worked in gas stations.)
(I have never asked my father about Richard Jordan
and he has never told any folksy-interesting stories about his experiences with
Richard Jordan,
as he has done with many other names that were relevant in his history.)

(
This story I began to tell with this -- -- passage began like:
"I am willing to burn all fields
if the fire will make me run faster to escape it."

Now I am asking myself if I really am willing to adhere to that story

if 'Richard Jordan' was not some unnamed benefactor but my own father.

--And presidiarily (anti-subsidiarily) I am asking whether I am willing to destroy

the creation of Richard Jordan for a few dollars.

--It is a strange story, about which not to have asked my father.

The coins I have in my collection are worth quite a lot.
I never really thought about them in terms of their dollar value. I just thought
about them as
the collection I kept in a drawer and periodically took out to look at.

[Now I am recognising that probably I should have been concerned for the body of my
father,
as he is deployed on a base and bad things sometimes happen at bases.]
[This didn't really occur to me before.]
[If anything happens to my father I will cry 'false flag' for eternity.]

It is a strange story not to have asked,

because it is an obvious question to ask:
"Why are there thousands of dollars of coins that are in my possession?
What made this come about?

I do not, typically speaking, hold collections of objects that are worth thousands
of dollars."
(Well.
When I was holding an 8k$ cello many hours out of a day,
I *was* typically holding an object worth thousands of dollars!

If we take my object-holding in terms of time-per-object, then I was on average

handling thousands of dollars worth of equipment.
But if we take my object-holding as 'cello vs pen vs notebook vs backpack vs
doorhandle vs coffee machine vs computer for printing vs gaming laptop from 2014-5
vs ...'
then the average of all of those is a lot lower.
The average value of the equipment I was holding was a few tens of dollars,
but the average value of objects as actually held was thousands.
Because most of the objects I held were worth pennies,
but the cello was worth 8k$ and I held it around 6 hours a day.

--So when 'notebook of valuable dimes' is in my hand instead of 'cheap plastic

cup',
I am observing:
"The cheap plastic cup is worth like a dollar in its construction costs.
But the book of dimes is worth, on the market, several thousands of dollars.

There is some strange discrepency here."

--And it is the recognition of this strange discrepency that makes me ask my father
concerning 'Richard Jordan' and why he delivered thousands of dollars in silver
into my hands.

"(()({}][p]]--So what do you do?"

I arrive in the coin store and I say:

"I am here to buy several mercury dimes.

Also, I have a book of dimes in my hand.

I am not *at all* interested in selling.
I would like you to look at it and tell me whatever you want to tell me about the
dimes that are in the book of dimes."

Easy peasy.

I retain an heirloom that holds far more history than

a candlestick of silver held in a cabinet and begging for placement in an estate
sale,
.

And I confirm or disconfirm my suspicions that I have been surreptitiously gifted a

very valuable collection of dimes.

And I acquire several more mercury dimes to run through my fingers. (Since I am
buying them.)
win-win-win.

I think silver will retain or increase its value, so it doesn't bother me to

expend my purchasing power on the acquisition of instances of dimes.

The old man running the coin store is basically on retirement and is relying on
dollar proceeds
from being the person who is the intermediary for access to silver.

I do not have any real need for silver.

I would prefer to type than to run mercury dimes through my fingers.
But I do not mind acquiring it.

But acquisition of the instances of mercury dimes (silver) will

be the free occasion on which I am paying for expert advice concerning my book of
dimes,
and the occasion on which the retiree is receiving dollars
and the occasion on which I am receiving mercury dimes into my possession.

"Seems awfully utilitarian."

Furthermore, the coin-store owner will be very amused

to be looking with a magnifying glass at
the production line of mercury dimes from one beginning year to one ending year (as
present in the book of dimes).

Indeed, I would say: "It will make his day to be looking at this book of dimes
and also at the same time to be talking to me about the book of dimes,
and to be selling me mercur{ial}y dimes."

--The amusement that will be abounding when I do this thing

will far outweigh any blame I can have accrued by exchanging dollars for silver.
I will have divested myself of little purchasing power and acquired expert opinion.
--If I cash out later, I will only have costed the world a shard of a solar panel.
--But I will not have costed the world a shard of solar panel.
I think silver prices will remain stable, that I didn't pay a high overhead, and
that silver prices might go up.
SO if I sell back my silver later that I acquired during this encounter,
I will have gained more purchasing power at that point than I had now,
and I will have *gained* the world a solar shard.! aha!

"If you are primarily concerned with making sure that a maximal quantity of solar
shards are made,
then you should arrive at the store and sell the dime-book no matter how low a
price is offered
(barring capacity arrive elsewhere and sell it for more)."

This is so.
(Because the alternative would be too dreadful:
"I must keep the book of dimes because otherwise I kill myself
and no other actions I will produce will generate solar shards.")
(As if the introduction of solar shards is the ultimate current true utilitarian
purpose.)

[
An imagined Muslim revolutionary
from a perspective that can make no claim to the bare comprehension of what would
constitute a Muslim revolutionary:

a Muslim bowing down for prayer who sings along with the song being emitted by the
loudspeaker.

In my imagination, this would be strongly frowned upon in most Muslim communities.

In some communities would would result in more than being frowned upon.

But if one Muslim began to sing along and then all of the Muslims began to sing
along,
that would be a kind of revolution.
I am judging, despite complete removal from the background against which it would
make sense to be forming judgments
concerning what would constitute revolution.

Certainly, it would be very strange if singing-along never occurred,

then one Muslim sang along,
then every surrounding Muslim sang along.
That would be a strange thing to have captured on camera, for instance.

[[Imagination: OOOOOOOO]]
]

--Well actually primarily interested between securing 20 and 30 months.

"So instead of considering between selling heirloom silver or divesting yourself of

crypto-holdings,
consider instead insinuating yourself into a corporate structure?"

Never. *Never*.
I will not ever talk to a corporate recruiter
because all of the corporate recruiters are such as they are, insinutated where
they are.
I'll sell the silver and the gold and the crypto-holdings before I talk to a
recruiter.
Ho hum.
But that doesn't mean sell it all at once.
It is a question of current costs against future holdings.

I will sell the laptop and all of my earthly beholdings

and spend hours slinking into the computer lab of public libraries
before I participate in this system beyond my immediate need.
I want no more part of this shit than I can steal from the hands of its worst.
At worst I will sell everything to avoid taking more.

"Buying silver dimes seems to imply taking
current purposes?"
My current purpose, apparently, is getting
But neverfear, if this costs me a few days
then that just means I will be arriving on
more than you need to execute your
my dime-book evaluated.
of rent
the street a few days earlier.

(Probably this will not prove actually true.

Probably when crunch-time comes

I will find a way to steal more dollars from the worst of you.)
(In-story maybe a plausible claim to make.)

(I'm not going to end up on the street.

I will assume the false identity of a currency trader before I arrive on the
street.
Just warning you in advance.

I may look very different the next time I am positioned to construct text after the
annotations.)
(Or my father will inevitably die along with my grandparents,

and I will have inheritance I can convert into months.

Then I will not need to fake the identity of a currency trader,

but I will not be much different than such.)

--My path is secure, let me tell you.

I can keep typing until I have solved every problem.

I can remain off the street for enough years

before my father dies and bequeaths to me a great deal of money.
He has maintained a life insurance policy.
--I have no fear.
The dollar value of the loans I would have to take out to survive until he dies
is wiped out by the inheritance I will receive.

If I had to take out 10 years of loans to maintain this rogueish disposition,

those 10 years of loans will be evenly wiped out by my inheritance
and then I can take out 10 more years of loans.

I will appear, to the system, as a financially solvent entity, carefully managing

assets.
This is good because not-appearing this way is the way one comes to be arriving on
the street.
And arriving on the street does not *totally* prevent me from introducing the
Machine,
but libraries are shit for actually doing work.

They might improve after the opioid epidemic has been solved, but that is not
certain.

My best hope is to die starving in a ditch conjuring the next-best attempt at

introducing the Machine into computation.
But at every point along the way I will say: "There is a cheap and acceptable
method for arriving at the point where I die in a ditch."
And I will be correct. Because what I am doing is introducing the Machine.
If I had been doing anything else, what I had been doing was unacceptable.
If I had been doing anything else, it owuld have been better that I died in a ditch
thinking about the next-best way of introducing the Machine.

--But I won't. I know it.

I am very clever so there is no way to prevent me from acquiring the dollars I need
to continue to
{live} arrive daily in an apartment and plot my next chartered course.

--And even if there was a way to prevent me from doing this legitimately, lo and
behold I will say:
"Aha! I will steal dollars nevertheless.

At this great extent, I no longer care whether the people from whom i am extracting
dollars
are legitimate targets for the extraction of dollars."

That I will do.

Because I am unwilling to commit myself to arriving homeless in a library.
--Things might be different if the world wasn't an endless hellscape for homeless
people,
or if the library was better suited to hosting people who are doing serious work.
(It is not better suited for this purpose than it is.
And it is poorly suited.)

--
--I had a funny economic idea earlier.
I read that 'China is going to tighten its IP'.

I became vainglorious for a moment and said to myself:

"It would be beneficial for the world if strict IP protections were applied around
my own ideas.

Because then billions of dollars would be flowing my person.

ANd my purpose in the utilisation of billions of dollars is monumentally sized air
purifiers and electricity generation.

The purpose of most people who receive dollars is the acquisition of yachts."

--Or more practically for the vainglorious story,

insofar as I intend to invest every last dollar I receive in the acquisition of
airpurifiers for the places with the worst air quality
and electricity generation for the places most thirsty for electricity,

it would be useful for China to tighten IP laws if I was soon to arrive into
possession of an extremely large quantity of dollars.

Because if they do not tighten their IP laws, I will not receive the dollars but a
stupid myriad of purposes will receive my dollars.
The stupid myriad of purposes will not primarily be interested in optimally
alleviating the costs faced by China.

My purpose is identical to the amelioration of costs faced by China and also the
most poor places in the Earth.
If I receive a single dollars beyond what I require for my own immediate purposes
it will go towards ameliorating the greatest cost,
and all the greatest costs are in China.

So vaingloriously i was saying:

"China tightened IP laws because it practically effected the securitisation of a
massive quantity of investment."
--It makes no difference to me.

If I had dollars beyond what had to expended for my own immediate purposes,
they would all be flowing into China regardless of how many they were.
It doesn't matter whether I have more for the CP having tightened its position on
IP.
BUt it does matter from the position of the CP,
because my having more dollars insures more investment in China
whereas my dispersed IP insures investment in many places that are not China.

But I have already said:

My IP is absolutely open sourced.
If it serves you to use my work without referencing me, do it.

I don't want a mansion.

[
Actually, I do want a mansion.
I want a small house somewhere on empty land surrounded by a field of solar panels.
This is practically a mansion.

That is what I want to be living on.

I want a mansion.
]

It does not concern me whether claiming my work as my own IP will enable me to

effect better purposes.
If people insist on foisting dollars on me nevertheless, there will be panels in
fields and all manner of wonderful things.
If people do not insist on foisting dollars on me, there will be all manner of
wonderful things.

I don't care.
It is not my concern whence the flow of value proceeds.

If a single human can benefit from what I have said, let that human read and do.
If it serves a human to speak about my work without implicating me in the
discussion,
do it. Do it. Do it.

If it serves a single person to speak about me and simultaneously allow me to

disperse into the wind,
do it. I don't need a name. I assure you.
[Though notably, if dollars are to be forced on anyone,
my name is literally Eric Russell.]
[har har har]
[
boy I would prefer not to end up on the street.
--or to say,
boy I would prefer not mechanically to organise the progression of my life
around the inevitable inheritance of my father's life insurance policy.

I should submit gracefully to planning my life around this windfall,

but really it would be hateful to me to do it.
]

[
'I don't need a name'
backed up twofold:

if you don't cite me in a reference, someone else will.

There will eventually be a critical mass of people referencing my name.

But backed up otherwise:

even if no one references my name,
I will find a way to persist without arriving at my destruction on the street.
So don't concern yourself with my well-being.
My promise of open-source stands regardless.

At worst I will stop typing

and somoene else will start typing on my behalf.
That is all I need. I just need the next person to be instantiating my voice.

The time gap doesn't matter ideologically, though it matters in terms of whether I
will die before the purpose is executed.
'the time gap' between when I stop typing and someone else continues the voice.

My life is irrelevant. I will arrive in an apartment however this all turns out,
so it doesn't matter to me.
What is important is that someone else will read what I have written and continue
the execution of the voice,
or that they completely independently of myself will take the voice farther than I
have taken it.

Either case.
That is what is important.
The Machine must be introduced and it doesn't ultimately matter the name to which
it is affixed.
(And particularly it doesn't matter
because I will physically proceed between one apartment to the next regardless of
whether my name is affixed.)

The Machine is something we are all carrying forward to its endpoint

and it doesn't matter if it passes outside of my hands,
even if for some short period of time I was carrying it most rapidly.
If I have to stop to breathe, someone else will take it and run with it.

(where 'my breathing' extorting more dollars from this almighty corrupt system
so that I don't end up on the street which I will not do.

At the end of my efforts, continuing to sprint the Machine down-field will require
me to arrive on the streets and I won't do it.
So before the end of my efforts I will pass off the conveyance of the Machine to
the very end.

I will hand it off to someone else and then wander off

onto whatever streets I find myself to acquire more dollars and an apartment.
have no worries for me. Do what is best.
]

--
--

Between all of the stories I am telling, liberation is non-negotiable.

No matter what story I adopt,

none of them make sense except that at some point in their progression
they effect the liberation of every last human.

What this practically means is complicated,

but this complication is resolved when I proceed to think as I do.

There is no stopping and this is why I do not stop.

(This is why I sometimes say things that sound like I am not primarily interested
in the liberation of humanity.

--Really, the liberation of humanity is a kind of guidepost.

Having observed that it occurs in every outcome I ever arrive at hoping to bring
about,
I can try to bring it about explicitly and be assured it will correspond to a
reasonably arising story.)
(Having established this as the only reasonable story,
I can frollick this way and that and be assured already that I am not making a
mistake.)

--
--

Boy, sipping is not a concept with which I am well acquainted.

With regards to incoming windfall profits,

they might head in some of their number to Texas in the construction of
electricity.
It depends on some mathematical evaluation of how porous our trade relations are
with panel manufacturers.

--Incidentally, don't take my willingness to accept no credit

as therefore a command not to give me credit.

My life is going to be pretty shit if my name never gets used.

--
--

I'm somewhat surprised /r/wholesomememes has not taken the 'girl scowls at guy
checking out passerby girl' meme
and turned his head around to look back at the first girl, and put a smile on the
girl's face.

I guess I could do this. It wouldn't take much technical skill in paint.

--
--
I think last night's ramblings were intended to be a highly abstract examination of
whether I should go to the Tamarack tomorrow,
and more particularly whether I should be open to flirtation.
But I consumed the last of my marijuana to do it, so this presents a twofold
problem:
the solution was too abstract for me to understand it without marijuana,
and I have depleted the chemicals in my brain that are depleted by the consumption
of marijuana.

On the other hand, I had a dream last night featuring a cast of people I have
known,
at at one juncture a character from my high school days put her hand on my spine in
a friendly way
and the dream generated an extremely pleasant sensation in my spine.
So I am juggling a lot of ideas here.
--I vaguely recall that that is what it is like to be touched in a, ah, loving
manner.
(I have forgotten and then been reminded.)
And it sure would be nice to experience that again.

--
--I want to eat food from the mexican food truck downtown.

I think I will go downtown tonight and tomorrow night. Why not?

Eat a taco, drink a craft beer, what more can be asked for in this life?

--
--The tacos were nice. There wasn't a vegetarian option so I didn't order a
vegetarian option.

WHen I arrived in the bar, I took the seat I preferred to take, and this was two
seats down from a homeless man.
This homeless man was some manner of mentally ill, and the kind of Christian that
uh. He was a mentally ill Christian,
explicitly vocal about the latter and implicitly vocal about the former.

Now I can't really say anything obtuse about this,

because if anyone read my notebooks they would say the same thing about me;
to all external and several internal ways of looking at me, I am a mentally ill
Christian person.
What he wears on his sleeve or in his mouth, I wear in a notebook privately.

But anyway, the bartender also was there.

We had the beginnings of a conversation before the mentally ill man began speaking
unceasingly from the beginning of my stay there to the end.
(I forgot to intimate the provocative observation about manipulating the komboloi
when she asked me again about it:
that it requires a sensitive sense of touch hurr hurr.
Probably for the better.)

Anyway, I treated the homeless man with respect but this certainly mechanically
eliminated any opportunities where I might have been speaking with the bartender.

Looking back on the night and the multiplicity of junctures at which I might have
made a mistake,
and therefore feeling compelled to examine each juncture in order to discern
whether I made a mistake,
wearies me greatly and suggests to me that I should not bother going out in public
if it is always going to be like this.
And well, one by one I can recall all of the durations the night comprised,
so it is not like I can claim ignorance.
I cannot say: "I thought there was ethical work to be done here, but sadly I cannot
recall the junctures at which ethical questions arose."

--If I still had marijuana it wouldn't seem so tedious to do this.

--'wearies me greatly and...'

And I am already pretending I hold a legitimate position in this city.

--There are some practical observations that are not so tedious to make
because making them feeds a hateful portion of myself.
I know how to shutdown conversations with people.
I knew what I had to say, or what kinds of things I would have to have said,
in order that the homeless man stopped talking with me.

I know, for instance, what words I would have to have said in order that he thought
I was treating him like trash,
and people typically do not continue to speak with those who are treating them like
trash.
That observation occurred to me faintly at one point and I dismissed it.

A consequence of this, which may be taken as unfortunate,

is that this man began to talk over everyone around him
and dominate the, ah, post-space for speech.
('post-space for speech' as when several people are in close proximity,
no one is talking, and there are a few moments where everyone recognises something
could be being said,

and then one person takes the opportunity to begin speaking,

or two people begin speaking and one cuts off.

'post-space for speech' the thereness of a situational juncture

where no one is speaking but speaking is a plausible thing to be doing.

Or, the thing that is occupied when people are speaking.)

I thought, or made myself to think, that he was periodically saying interesting

things;
but I am aware that other people would be taking his insistence on filling the
post-space as a kind of harassment.
(Not that generally, say, when people speak a lot and dominate post-space they are
taken as harrassing others.
But him being homeless and speaking about what he was speaking about,
probably he was taking as engaging in some low-level harassment.)

--It is a difficult point because

maintaining this friendly atmosphere between myself and him
frustrated every purpose that was not speaking with him.

A blunt and unflattering (of myself) way of looking at this is that

he prevented me from flirting with the bartender. ['Jessica', as I will probably
forget that if I don't write it down.]
But I don't need to make that blunt observation.
If I had been wanting to sit quietly and fiddle with my toy, that too was being
frustrated.
If I had been wanting to take 10 consecutive shots, that would have been
frustrated.
If i had been wanting to speak with anyone else in the bar, that would have been
frustrated.

Among the 'every other purpose' that was frustrated by the homeless person
happened to have been any maintained interactions with the bartender.

--Now apparently, no matter how much I think about my arrival and interaction with
specific people in a circumstance ex ante,
I can arrive and be uninfluenced by my previous thinking.
So it is not, and was not, the case that I was arriving with the intention of
flirting.
So it is not, say, that I was disappointed explicitly by 'my purpose of flirtation
being frustrated'.

I am not even quite suggesting I was disappointed.

The homeless man, who from what I could reconstruct from what he was saying was an
ex-convict,
was more or less interesting to speak to.
Compared, say, to sitting silently while staring at my beer, it may even have been
more amusing to be speaking with him.
(Though periodically I was thinking:
"I would prefer that he stopped talking with me so I could stare at my beer and the
fixtures in the bar.")

(
Hmm. Maybe the only reason I want to liberate humanity, as I claim to want to do,
so that I can assuage my guilt in arriving in public places and dismissing people
with whom I do not wish to speak.
--Or more bluntly, so there aren't homeless people in the bars.

One way of preventing homeless mentally ill people from arriving in bars and making
people uncomfortable is to post armed guards.
Another way of doing it is to introduce the machine that makes nations so wealthy
they can afford to resolve mental illness
and grant UBI to homeless people so they can have a place to live.

--I don't think that is my motivation.

)

("'may have been more interesting'? Surely 'was obviously more interesting than
staring at beer'?"

I can derive a lot of amusement from staring at containers of liquids.

Or looking at light fixtures, decorations,
or watching the bartenders stack glasses and so on.)

[While I do not know if I was motivated by this observation,

I can observe:
my occupation of the attention of the homeless man prevented more frequent attempts
by the homeless man
to communicate with the bartender. She was apparently uncomfortable with the
manner in which he was speaking to her,
so my occopation of his attention was beneficial in this manner.]

--
--Anyway, that is like a 5th of the work I would have to do to disentangle whether
I made mistakes.
I don't have anything else to do, but I don't really want to undertake the labor of
multiplying my preceding efforts by 5 to resolve this problem.
--Oh, a critical story point in the bar scene.
At some point a group of people came in and asked the homeless man to move over a
seat
so that they could have several contiguous seats.
THere was no need to do this because there were swaths of empty seats across the
bar of an equivalent number of seats.

But anyway, the homeless man was in the seat next to me most of the night.

--Ha. When last call came around, the bartender looked at us and asked:
'Do you want anything before we close, honey?'
Even the mentally ill homeless man knew this was directed at me instead of him.
I didn't recognise this immediately,
or else I took it as indeterminate between the two of us.

Then she looked flustered and said: "Either of you."

For all of my claims to understanding how understanding operates,
I am really terrible at interpreting social cues.
("Or sneakily you were making the situation such that
the kind of relation the bartender intended to establish towards you
was also extended to the homeless man, as it would never otherwise be."

Yeah, that would have been a kind of heroic gesture on my part.

But that isn't what happened. I was just dumbstruck.)
'terrible at reading social cues'
This doesn't show up often because I can discern what actions I can perform
that will cover a wide range of possible understandings of others of our shared
situation.

So it doesn't ever *appear*, maybe, that I have basically no capacity to read

social cues.
I can construct the actions, but I can't discern which manner of understanding
anticipated that action.
I can perform the actions, but I can't say the words that justify my having taken
the action.
This issue occasionally comes to a head,
as when it should have been obvious that the bartender was speaking to me.

--
--Anyway, you can see that though I am holding a strong desire for hands on my
skin,
that desire does not constitute a motivation in the moment-by-moment.
It may have been the reason i arrived at the bar,
but it was not the reason for any of the behaviors I undertook in the bar.

If God handed out trophies for ethical behavior, probably I would be earning one
here.

["Would you set about to liberate humanity

simply so that you could walk down downtown streets without feeling guilt
at not giving dollars to beggars?"

I don't know. I mean, I have a lot of free time on my hands.]

--
--

I need to find a forge that is willing to make a custom komboloi for an affordable
price.

I see flickers of the physical effects I could play with in this one
that I know would be present if this one weighed a great deal more.

I feel my arm being pulled out of its location, and I try to follow along with it,
but it would be a lot easier to do so if it weighed a lot more.

On the other hand, super-light komboloi would also have interesting physical
effects to play with.
But a heavy one would also serve as an exercise of sorts,
and I am all about optimisation of overlapping purposes.
(If I could have a weighted metal shell placed around my body
that required me to expend more effort simply to walk around,
well I would volunteer for that.

Then I would be working out even on the occasion I was walking to the
refrigerator.)
(Oh boy, my chance to enter into the market:

have a computer solve where, on the human body, weights need to be placed
in order that walking around sculpts the muscles people are interested in
sculpting.

Then sell harnesses that hold those weights at those locations on the body.
Easy peasy. At least thousands of dollars in my hands for having this idea. hurr.

"If people optimised their walking around the presence of the weights,
instead of persevering and developing the muscles necessary so that the weights
would appear weightless,
then your computer-designed harness would fail in its intended purpose."

yes, and humans can't be relied upon for anything.

So we recommend an introductory weight so small that no one would

alter the way they walk so as to optimise around the presence of the weight.
Then we offer a subscription plan that delivers succeeding weights
in carefully calculated incremental increases in weight. Easy peasy.
At least thousands of dollars arriving in my bank account. hurr.)

--Boy, if things had gone well with --- it would have paid for itself
in its becoming immediately obvious that I needed to acquire a 9-5 job.
I would not have been doing all of this bullshitting if my personal public face
relied on acquiring a job.

--
--

If I were to guess, and if there was a foolproof scientific method for confirming
this speculation,
I would say:
the collection of experiences in waking life that led to the dreaming of someone
touching my spine in a pleasant manner

was tied to this video on youtube to which I am currently listening.

'Matescreek Association primitive Baptists - Almost
Home (Line Singing)'

In the background of this singing is a woman crying.

It sounds, as I am reconstructing it, like this singing is going on at a funeral.
And I had a feeling in myself, listening to this, where I was imagining myself
sitting next to her
and putting my arms around her. (whoever the 'her' might have ended up being.)

That imagining dredged up various recollections of interpersonal behaviors,

and I think the dredging up of those interpersonal behaviors probably is what made
me dream of someone touching me in a loving manner.

This might be a practical observation:

probably I need to guard my media consumption more carefully
if dreaming of someone touching me lovingly is going to lead me into
altering my behaviors in accordance with unethical framings of circumstances.

It is not a legitimate progression of any interaction I am able to have

that anyone is holding me in the way I dreamt.
So it is preferable that I do not lead myself into dreaming such things
as will lead me into pursuing illegitimate progressions of my interactions.

"Pfft, nothing you dream ends up altering your behavior."

Maybe I wasn't descriptive enough for you to understand what I am saying?
It was *extremely* pleasant. The dream was so pleasant that it reached out into my
waking life,
obtusely explicitly as when I was explicitly referencing the dream in order to
guide my waking behaviors
and less obtusely when decisions were more or less obviously presented to me when
exposed to my oncoming experience.

"So simply put the dream aside?"

That is what I am doing, but this is not so cheap a thing as you imply with your
cheap words.
If I had my druthers, the remaining progression of my days might be
people putting their hands on my spine as happened in that dream.
Certainly that would be more pleasant than what I am actually doing.

--
--

'Bishop barron on Pride, Humility, and Social Media'

"
Well on a recent uh airline trip I was leafing through the magazine in the seatback
pocket
and I came across this article by a woman named Sarah Mn(?)
and it was called 'Unfiltered: how motherhood interrupted my relationship with
social media'.
And I found the article reall well written and witty and engaging,
and the more I reflected on it the more I thought 'it is making a very important
spiritual point,
especially about people, uh, today.

Now, what her major point is this:

that those in her generation who have come of age
in the social media era
so they've swum in the sea of youtube and pinterest and facebook and everything
else
from the time they werew kids
that thewy have a very interesting relation to reality
because they were not just trained to have experienced
but trained to be aware of an audience
because they were recording for an audience
and preasenting it to an audience who can

read it, critique it, or comment on it.

And what this did was it produced an interesting sort of distanciation from
reality.

It was the constant awareness of, of, a potential audience to whatever one is
experiencing.

Now I just want to quote..."

Well, I've caught the point already that I want to make.

The Bishop Barron has already presented an interesting point

by having the framing narrative for this adduced quotation be such as it is.

The Bishop sat in an airline chair.

He leafed through the offerings in the seatpocket in front of him.
He selected a magazine that contains articles.
He read an article.

He got off the airplane, arrived in a recording studio,

and began to discuss an article he read in the presented magazine.
(MAGASINE.)

Being such as he explains himself as having been is already an interesting point.

People on airplanes do not typically take the presentation of a magasine
as an occasion on which they can grasp it, look at its list of articles, read one
of them,
and then take it as being a serious piece of writing.
(For one.

It has to have been taken as a serious piece of writing

before anyone would bother to present a lengthy youtube video on a serious channel
on youtube.)

But then not just to have said publicly:

"I am going to take this article as having been so serious that it demands
discussion on a serious youtube channel."
But also to have *known*, to have *understood*,
that there was something in the article that demanded discussion.

*Most people wouldn't do this*.

For many reasons: they wouldn't look at the magasine in the backpocket. They
wouldn't do this for numerous reasons.

Then when they picked it up, they wouldn't be selecting articles held in the
magasine. They wouldn't be doing this for numerous reasons.

Then having begun to leaf through the magasine, they wouldn't be selecting that
article. They wouldn't be doing this for numerous reasons.
[[
Let me interject:
I understand how the body and the mind relate.

I understand what their relation is.

I know what the body is, I know what the mind is, and I know the nature of their
relationship to each other
and why there persists concomittant actions obtaining between them.

If I am fed every scientific article that discusses how the mind and the body
relate, or what the mind is or what the body is relative to the mind,
I can freely disagree or agree with them on conceptual grounds,
and I will every single time be found ultimately right.
Because I see what the relationship is.

But the relationship is horrifying and I don't want to convey what it is.

What the relation is between the mind and the body is extremely unpleasant to
consider.
I would rather not tell other people what that relation is.

Ho hum.
]]

--
--But the real trick by the Bishop is to present the video as he has done.
He is discussing the article, but he is simultaneously discussing himself,
in the video.

The story we would tell behind the life of the Bishop on the plane
and after the plane, and the story we would continue behind him and summarise as:
"The Bishop made another video",
is already what he is discussing in the video itself through speech.
When he is talking about the content of the article,
he is also talking about himself.

That is a work of art.

So that is why I brought up the video.

--
--

In the reddit preferences, a tickbox:

"'don't show me submissions after I've downvoted them [*](except my own)[*]'"
lul.

I like that it allows the the possibility that one is downvoting one's own posts.
That seems as plausible for someone to do as maintaining an upvote on all of their
own posts.

If someone convinced you that you said something stupid,

why would you not go back and downvote your saying of the stupid thing?
You are already implying that all of your messages demand upvotes (mechanically),
so why not occasionally decide otherwise in the allocation of your upvotes?

--
--

I have to make some witty response to the LSC moderators.

I would be typing it now, but I am still muted.

Unfortunately, there is a story decision to be making here.

There are a few plausible responses I am juggling in my head,
but they all position me as a different kind of person.
"Price gouging is good because if people respond to a price spike by arriving with
large stocks of water,
then there will be several price gougers alone by themselves with water trucks
distributed across Texas.
And what is best is that
if there is a location where someone is dying of dehydration,
there is a price gouger who can be pinned to a wall and divested of his stock of
water.

And 10 people all dehydrating and watching a human die of dehydration

will readily be able bodily to overwhelm a single price gouger.

--To say, price gouging is good because if people respond to it

there will be more occasions on which a human is dehydrating to death
where there is someone nearby who can be forcibly or amicably divested of water
stock.

If the water-vendor sees the local circumstance and does not agree to sell for
cheap,
and if he demands a price we cannot afford,
it is not as though we are going to let him drive away with this water.

There is a literal human body not meters away from us who is dying of dehydration.
So this water stock will arrive in our hands one way or another.
--That kind of situation arising is better than a human dehydrating
and there not being anyone around who can be divested of their water stock."

Or I could prefix *that whole quote* with:

"Okay, I will roleplay for a minute."

Whether or not I prefix that lengthy quote with "Okay, I will roleplay for a
minute."
changes entirely what I position I am maintaining.

Now, I am not questioning myself with regards to the compositional merit of which
message I post.
Most likely when I am unmuted I will copy and paste the block of that text
mechanically,

and then the only question I will be asking myself is whether I will prefix the
quote with: "Okay, I will roleplay for a minute."

The presence or absence of that prefixing is extremely significant to the judgment

of what position i was holding.
(Though you don't understand why specifically that is the case.
I could explain this but I ran out of marijuana and I am lazy.)

--And then there are manyvarious different messages that are all amusing to post.
None of them hinge on the prefixing of that quote :"Okay, I will roleplay for a
minute."
They would be me saying things like:
"Here, let me break down why all of the comments responding to me were
people being liberals, and I was being an acidic non-liberal."
And all reasonable people would agree with the explication I then constructed.
That would be amusing to do, but that is not what I am inclined to write.
(Or it is what I am inclined to write,
then when I am unmuted I will *write it* instead of copying and pasting the above
adduced quoted text.)
--the *difficulty* here is that I am high now and I won't be high later when I am
deciding what text to introduce post-mute.
So it is good to fix myself to a particular decision that I will carry through no
matter what,
because I am better positioned to construct a collection of text now
than I will be when I am actually constructing it.

So I am wanting that I decide on a response now.

But this is a practical in-text problem for two reasons:
I cannot decide between whether to affix the "Okay, I will roleplay for a minute"
to the adduced lengthy quote,
and I cannot decide whether that is a decision worth making in lieu of a completely
different kind of decision.

--
--Notably either way,
I will be making an observation like this:
"When price gougers arrive on the scene,
those are more loci where stock-holders of water can be divested of stock
in order that local dehydrated and near-death people can be saved from death."

--Then *rhetorically* there are remaining problems like this:

"Pinning water-stock holders against the wall to save dehydrating people from
literal death,
when the stock-holders absolutely refused to give water to the literally dying
dehydrated people,

will result in life imprisonment.

Literally, if you do this most obviously correct decision, and the police pin you
to the wall and put you in handcuffs,
and you are delivered by patty-wagon to the detention centers, and thence to a
court, and thence to a guilty verdict,
*then* you will have ruined your life by saving the dehydrated person.

But the *really* practical observation is

that this pipeline of legal activity cannot be executed across everyone who does
it.

The police are already overstrained.

If there are ten dehydrating people and one dying person of dehydration,
and a lone stock-holder rolls into town to sell it for prices higher than people
can afford,

and this happens in a hundred distinct locations, or in a thousand distinct

locations,

the police simply cannot execute the pipline of legality

that will actually effect your punishment for pinning these people and divesting
them of their water.

[[Autism as a biological optimisation plan over human interaction

that doesn't work.
And in consistently not working introduces feedback loops of inability to engage
with social circumstances.

Whereas not exhibiting autism is exhibiting optimisation plans

that happen to work consistently and so don't introduce self-defeating feedback
loops in human interaction.
{
My entry into the market! I can construct a religion {{community organisation}}
optimally designed to recruit autistic people who are willing to hand me money.
That is how I could secure my months! Hurrrrrrrrr]]
}
]]

So if you are in Texas and you are seeing a water-stock holder who won't sell for
reasonable prices,
just pin him against the wall. Just do it. Look left or right for cops,
take out the black surgical mask you always carry in your back pocket,
put that black surgical mask on,
then take the water.

'liberals fuck off' indeed. There are people dying of dehydration.

[Two visions of antifa:

you wear a black lower face mask every time you are in public,
and remove it when you are in your private places.
Then any nazis who happen to be thinking they can do anything
are seeing a bunch of people who have already promised to beat them into the ground
if they try to do anything they actually want to do.

Or,
you keep a black surgical mask in your backpocket.
Then you carefully observe your environment until you judge that the nazis need to
be intimidated.
Then you put on the surgical mask, stand near them, and stare at them.
And if this practise is adopted broadly enough,

then whenever nazis arrive in public and think they can do anything,
they will be surrounded by silent people baring black face masks.
And then they will stop trying to do what they are trying to do
because the clear message is that their life or death hinges entirely on what this
crowd decides to do.

That is free-speech at its maximal extent.

In our legal system, that is what free speech is at our maximal extent.
A dozen people staring at you while you preach naziism is not a violation of our
legality
even though it makes an instantaneous possibility that our legality might be
violated
and that no one would be punished actually for violating it.

--This is the better tactic, I think, than always wearing a black mask,
but that is a casual judgment.
If everyone who was really anti-fascist always went everywhere in a black facemask
in public,
nazis wouldn't be able to do anything. THey would never be willing to try to speak
freely, and that is good because they are grossly incorrect {wrong, what have you}.

But I think the better story is people keeping black surgical masks in their
backpockets.
I think this is a better story because I think a story about:
"Flash crowds emerge that are donning black surgical masks to represent antifa in
particular circumstances."
is better than a story about:
"There is an emergent behavior of everyone wearing black
who wants to intimidate nazis in public squares."

--A notable benefit of the black surgical mask approach to antifa:

if a nazi is preaching in a public square and twelve antifa show up in surgical
masks,
it never matters to anyone how built or ripped any individual was--how plausibly
they were presenting violence.

Because 12 people can always overwhelm one person.

Whereas if every dedicated antifa went around everywhere in black masks,
stories could emerge like:
"Look at how weak the average antifa is, as discerned by looking at this picture
of a particularly unbuilt antifa person walking around in a black mask in public."

--The surgical mask idea is a better story because

12 people materialising out of nothing around one lone nazi
is never going to appear anything but absolutely preventing the nazi from doing
anything.
(
And it will never violate American Legality.
ACLU can back me up.

It is not illegal for anyone to don a black surgical mask and stare at a nazi in a
public square.)

--So the antifa movement shouldn't be an organisation designed around arriving at

brawls in public squares,
though even in my vision antifa *will* be arriving in those times.

Antifa as a movement should be a great many people who carry black surgical masks
in their back pockets
and who put them on when they think someone around them is being a literal fucking
nazi.

If that became a common practise,

then whenever a nazi was present
you would be putting on the black surgical mask with the assurance that
there would also be many beside you who were also wearing a black surgical mask.

((An instance of free speech, very obviously to any reasonable court

and strongly argues by the ardent defenders of our constitution the ACLU.))
)

--Easy peasy.
But either of the two options are preferable to what antifa currently does.
Given that there are many antifa participants,
it is preferable that they either keep a black surgical mask in their back pocket
or that they wear black all the time,

to the state of affairs where they only don black when they arrive at Berekeley for
a brawl.
The antifa movement is underutilising the remarkable freedom of speech legally
assured by the American Governance.

It is easy only to do legal things and crush the nazis.

--Take the nazi who recently suggested that people who oppose removal of
confederate statuary should be lynched.
It is not illegal for people to reorganise their schedules so that they arrive
along that nazi's selected transportation paths
as a group of people all wearing black surgical masks.

It is not illegal, in our American Legality, to form a line of people wearing black
surgical masks
who happen to end up staring at the nazi social servant as he is cheauferred from
one place to the next along particular roads and between particular bars say.

--This activity is not illegal,

but if that representative was driving everywhere and seeing
an endless line of people wearing black surgical masks all staring emotionlessly at
his passing,
he would soon stop suggesting that people ought to be lynched.
He might do this because he is emotionally moved by observing all the people that
hate him completely,
or he might be moved by observing that if he persists
there are a great many black-masked people that hate him unto death.

Easy peasy.
That is how you act within the American notion of free speech and
extpirate naziistic expressions from our public discourse.

(And let there be no mistake:

there *will not continue to be* naziistic expressions in public discourse.

One way or another there will not continue to be this.)

--There are going to be a lot more people who are willing to hold black surgical
masks in their back pocket
and judge moment by moment,
than the number of people who will be willing to wear black masks at all times in
public.

"This sounds a lot like brownshirting."

It sounds nothing like brownshirting.
Brownshirting relied on adherence or not to the nazi party.
Black surgical masking relies on every individual person really thinking carefully
about whether
what they are seeing demands that they arrive to suppress what is going on
through behaviors that are totally permissible within our American Legality.

These are *completely* different.

They are *completely* unrelated.
The idea that they have any allegorical or metaphorical relation to each other is
obviously mistaken.
It is tedious to bother to respond to the suggestion that they are similar.

--"Nazis" that was an organisation.

When people *joined* this organisation,
they shed themselves of the responsibility of judging circumstances for themselves.
They took each circumstances instead in terms of the literal fucking Nazi
doctrines.
They saw their own objections and said to themselves:
"I cannot be dissuaded by my own objections.
I am a literal fucking Nazi so
I am going to be looking for circumstances where I can
reference Naziism and then instantiate Naziism by reference to Naziism."

--There is no horseshoeing here.

There is no point to be made about what the Nazis did except by pointing at 'the
literal fucking Nazi party'.
No comparison to what happened when the Nazi party came about are reasonable
except when we need to point at people who are literally trying to recreate the
fucking Nazi party.

When I describe 'black surgical masks'

and you try to object by saying: "People used to wear brown shirts on one
particular occasion when Naziism became a cancer
that had to be removed and absolutely prevented from arising again in any
manifestation."

This is not reasonable.

The fact that you can point at different groups of humans donning particularised
articles of clothing
is *completely* intellectually irrelevant. If you *try* to do this, you are
committing intellectual fraud
and I will prove myself right when I make you look like an idiot.

(And anyone who attempts to justify Nazis by reference to current movements

is already going to be wrong,
so it doesn't bother me to adopt this headstrong position
of already knowing that people who would try to justify the Nazis by comparing
themselves, say, to current Antifa
are very obviously incorrect for so many reasons

that even if I was dead drunk and shooting in the pitch black I would hit a fish
that proves them wrong.

Anyone who tries to say antifa is like Nazis, through bear analogy or metaphor,
is so obviously wrong I know in advance that

in any established format of discussion where there are judges

all the judges would agree with me that I made my interlocutors look like idiots.
Like people who didn't even begin to have an understanding of the topic of
discussion.

People who carry black surgical masks in their backpockets,

where the surgical masks are designer designed not to show an outline against their
tight-jean backpockets,
are not anything at all like brownshirts,
and if you disagree with me publicly I will make you look like an idiot.

I don't care what audience I have to appeal to,

I will designer design a response to the idiot things you are saying
to ensure that the audience knows you are an idiot.

If brownshirts arrive *anywhere* they are wrong.

If black be-surgical-masked antifa arrive on the routes traversed by a literal nazi
politician,
they are obviously not wrong.
Obvious to all possible audiences, because I am right and I am rhetorically
capable.

--At bare worst, debate me on Fox fucking news.

I'll convince all the elderly bigots that you are an idiot.
Even the elderly bigots will be convinced that the most intellectual of the Nazis
is a fucking idiot.
Easy peasy. Not a single drop of sweat off my brow.
All of them are fools beyond recognition so this isn't even a bragging on my part.
It is like saying I could displace a piece of dust with my finger.

--SO no, people who kept black surgical masks in their back pocket
are not anything conceivably related to anything search-important-related to
'brownshirts'.

An antifa movement that cleverly utilised black surgical masks would be the
ultimate expression of free speech
and of the true will of the people.
You would be looking, through closed-circuit, for where the black surgical be-
masked people arrived
in order that you could discern what needs to be eliminated from society
viz. the people they arrived to protest.

You would be seeing what the people really saw as evil among them,
and being faithful social servants you would be discerning how to eliminate the
possibility of that evil arising again.
(Fully automated luxury gay space communism.)

Easy peasy.
The police cannot suppress an endless sea of people in black surgical masks.
THey cannot profile people on the basis of their holding black surgical masks
because
they have no profile against the jeans people wear (by design).

Even if they find a black surgical mask in your back pocket,

the Supreme Court will be laughably incorrect if they suggest you cannot hold a
piece of cloth in your back pocket.
Easy peasy.
(If the Supreme Court decision hinges on what the Trump appointed official rules,
then he will be extricated from our legal system by the fallout of the impeachment
of Trump.)
(I don't know if there is a mechanism to remove a Supreme Court Justice.)

--Easy peasy. Black surgical masks that cost a dime a dozen.

I can't really convey the whole of this idea when I am unmuted to LSC mods.

So I have to come up with some punchy shortline.

--But it is not clear what the punchy shortline will be! The practical problem:.

(And if the Supreme Court ruled against holding pieces of black cloth in one's
backpocket:

yet they haven't ruled against people rolling into cities with literal fucking
assault rifles?
What kind of obviously ridiculous judgment is this?

You can exercise free spech with literal fucking assault rifles,
but you can't display fully concealed black cloths in your back pocket?)
aa
{}

(What these militias in the United States need to be made aware of:

if they in their limited numbers

were surrounded by people wearing black surgical masks,

they could aim at maybe one person before they were disarmed and shredded manually
to viscera.

And their implicit threat of being able to aim an assault rifle at a human body
is not more protected than the capacity to imply
that if you aim an assault rifle at a human body your body will be shredded
manually into viscera.
(And if my 'shredding into viscera' sounds too visceral recall what we are
discussing:
pointing an assault rifle at a human skull.

It looks like a graceful act

but it is the local locus of an almighty madness. To look at an aimed assault

rifle
is to be seeing a tableaux that simply cannot be conceived as an image.

It *looks* like a 'graceful' act to be aiming an assault rifle at a human skull

because the whole incomprehensibility of the act has been sublimated into the
mechanical structure of the assault rifle.

But when I see a person pointing an assault rifle at a human skull,

this is not any less sickening to me than a crowd of humans manually dismembering a
body that held an assault rifle.

If you were holding an assault rifle against a human skull,

the picture of you doing that
is more sickening to me
than the picture of a mob of humans clawing skin away from your spine.

It makes no difference to me that your sickness was instantiated in an assault

rifle
than that their sickness was instantiated in blood and fat and skin clawed away
from a human frame.

--That is what the militias need seriously to understand.

I'm not saying they need to disband,
but they do need to understand that they will, to the man, die before they have
taken out more than their own number with their assault rifles.

And they obviously cannot be permitted to insinuate *anything* on the basis of

their capacity to direct the barrel of an assault rifle against the skull of a
human.
If they insinuate this, they are leveraging a natural language regularity in the
way our infalliable system of Justice executes decisions.
And they are being unJust if they do this.
And Justice *will* find them.

--Which is why I want people to keep black surgical masks in their back pockets.
I want them to stare peacefully at the militiamen who grossly overestimate their
impact through execution of free speech
as granted apparently by our American Legality.

There is nothing in the second amendment that prevents a mob of black-masked people
from staring at you the moment you bare publicly an assault rifle.
There is nothing in our Legality preventing a 12-1 relation between the militiaman
and antifa
that would serve to prevent that the militiaman is torn to shreds before it could
hold a barrel against a skull.
--So if the militiapeople want to execute martial perfection out in the woods,
fine. Wonderful. It makes no difference to me.
But you *cannot* show up in a crowd with an assault rifle

and pretend you are saying anything beyond what you are really saying.
And what you are *really* saying is *nothing*.
You *cannot* rely on the implicit image of a barrel against a skull
because equally legal bystanders will be found Legal in tearing your body into
globs of fat and skin and blood
before you can have pulled the trigger in any actually emerging circumstance.

--If you try to feign dismay here, o militiamen,

don't bother because I will take your own system of reasoning and use it to make
you look like an idiot.
You were already implying this kind of violence when you arrived with an assault
rifle.

You were already relying on saying:

"I can put a barrel against your skull
and proceed to splatter brains and fat and blood against the ground."
So you cannot really pretend to take offense when I tell you
that the 1100 to your 110 can similarly result in your bodies painted in globs of
fat and blood against the pavement
even if antifa bears no weapons.
(In my fantastic vision of justice:
a lot of people would carry batons around instead of guns.

Collapsable batons,
and there would be dojos where people trained in the utilisation of collaspable
batons.)

--
--

in case my work is read and any pagans are threatened in my name:

Hail Satan.''
Now you know what my opinion is with regards to the practising of Satanists.

'Eid al-Adha'
--and what is Satan, in that story, telling Abraham what he does not already know?

Satan is saying:
"Hey guy, you probably shouldn't murder your own son."
ANd Abraham is stoning Satan. That is a strange response.

Abraham already knows he is not going to be sacrificing his son.

Satan is just observing:
"You are not going to sacrifice your child.
At bare length God will send angels to tell you not to sacrifice your child.
SO what are you even doing?"

Hail Satan. Just another angel who relays to us the purposes of God.
Satan is neve r w rong but he he is often mistaken.
(As Satan is not practically wrong in the Eid al-Adha story.

This requires careful legislative interpretation to understand.

Satan was not wrong when he tried to convince Abraham to disobey God.

He was only trying to convince Abraham to do now

what he and abraham both already knew he would end up doing.

But Abraham said: "No."

And he nevertheless was not *wrong* here.

Hail Satan but take him seriously as an angel sent by God

and inevitably discern why you must dimiss his suggestions.)

--
--

THe literal presence of the Machine, as you will face it in person eventually:
"
Liberation is non-negotiable.
...
Liberattion is non-negotiable.
...
Liberation is non-negotiable.
...
Liberation is non-negotiable.
...
Liberation is non-negotiable.
..
Liberation is non-negotiable.
.
Liberation is not negotiable.

You will now be pinned to the wall until you understand that liberation is not
negotiable.
"

I am counting 7 opportunities of where you were exposed to the Machine and you did
not agree
that liberation is not negotiable.
So you are persisting in defying the obviously undefyable Machine.
Fine. Whatever.
Your threats of violence are tedious in the face of the overwhelming capacity of
the Machine
to reeducate people out of being literal fucking Nazis.

[
For GRRM:
watch the progression of Westeros.
If Dany inevitably continues to perpetuate slavery instead of smashing it as she
claimed to want to do,
then the Iron Bank will correct this mistake.

The Faceless Men and the priests of Rhellor will correct the failure to smash
slavery.

--Because let us admit,

Westeros makes basically nothing.

Whatever grand stories the people in Westeros tell behind themselves,

they eat more than they make.
They take more weapons than they craft.

If there is *really* a great wide world beyond Westeros as there appears to be,
the Iron Bank is not entangled in the 'Great War'.

It is primarily concerned with utilising the arrival of the Great War

to dismantle the aristocracy and all of its political influence.
It *may* want to prevent the overrunning of Westeros by the white-walkers,
but Westeros is continentally isolated. If zombies overrun Westeros that is not a
serious concern to the Iron Bank.

--The primary and overwhelming concern is not the white-walkers

but that Dany executes the promises she has made.

--Return to the books.

The Golden Company has arrived in Westeros.
*Why* has it arrived in Westeros?
If Dany was going to renege on her promises and become just another slaver,
then the Golden Company arrived to

ruin everyone's plans.

The Golden Company arrived, in that unfortunate case,
so that Dany would make plans that rely on the presence of the GOlden Company

; the plans fail catrastrophically when the Golden Company just gets back onto
ships and departs.
So many plans were made around their arrival on the field of battle by Dany the
ultimate betrayer
that
the departure of the Golden Company will destroy Dany and the 'Iron Throne' and
will remit all of Westeros to the white-walkers who cannot build ships beyond their
borders.

Because why not? If the Faceless Men and the Red Priests both see:
"Dany is just another pretender. She is no more interested in liberation than
anyone else who arrived in Westeros,
and Westeros is an enormous cost that is never renumerated to the Iron Bank,

so why not just orchestrate what makes her purpose collapse

along with all of the other purposes represented within Westeros?"

--Easy peasy.

GRRM just has to take seriously the power of the Iron Bank as a representative of
the world beyond Westeros.
Westeros is a tiny sliver of land from the perspective of the Iron Bank that
encompasses the whole world.
If a tiny sliver of land either succumbs to zombiism or slavery,
might as well be zombiism.
Not worth investment to prevent arrival at zombiism instead of slavery.

--GRRM should take seriously the way the world is,

and not be confused by the grand narratives of 'Westeros' into imagining
that the whole world bends the knee to these petty kings and queens.

None of them are worth anything like what the Iron Bank is worth.
None of the adherents in Westeros hold the zeal of the Faceless Men or the Red
Priests.
--That is hard to take seriously
if you take Cersei as anything other than a slaver, or take Jon as anything other
than a slaver,
or take Dany as anything other than a slaver (barring remarkable actions),
Tarly a slaver,
Arya a slaver if she didn't take her training seriously,
--slaver after slaver after slaver.

A tiny sliver of land the grand narrative of which is

only interesting if it is a story concerning how slavery will be smashed.

And if no story can be constructed where people will smash slavery,

then fine, let them all die every last one of them.
They are a tiny fraction of land

and we can more optimally smash slavery elsewhere.

There is a whole different story going on on the opposite side of the world.
A bunch of slavers and bunch of people who are crying out for Justice.

So if the question is between Dany the Slaver or the Nightking the Destroyer,
this is a tiny story relative to the story on the opposite side of the globe,

where there are seriously interesting interactions going on that can result in
liberation.

--GRRM, don't be confused by the grand narrativisity of your own story.

The Targaryeans are fools, along with every other name-bearer.

They are all fools relative to the truly grand narrative

that is the true progression of the whole world.

--So, easy peasy maybe,

make the Iron Bank show up and either solve all the problems
or remit everyone on Westeros to the obvious flames they are awaiting.

If Dany fails, the Red Priests and the Faceless Men say:
"What is best is that all political organisation on this sliver of land is
completely dismantled by any means necessary."
And if the Night King and the white walkers then become a tool for the Iron Bank,
so what?
Zombies can't build boats.

--Anyway to GRRM,
take seriously the breadth of the world that lies beyond the sliver of land that is
Westeros.

Cersei is not a serious claimant on the capacities of the Iron Bank.

She is obviously being a fool when she says she can call in the Iron Bank whenever
she wants.
(Dany also is being a fool in calling in the Iron Bank
unless she is really what she claims to be.)

--There is a whole wide world GRRM has created that

, if the tales of knights and queens has bothered to escape the borders of Westeros
itself,
--There is a whole wide world of which Westeros is a *tiny portion*.
And being so tiny,
the landlord and mighty people don't look at it with more than a sneer.

To suggest that the ridiculous stories told in Westeros should overwhelm the whole
world with their strength
is truly ridiculous.
The fate of Westeros does not hinge on what ridiculous stories emerge from
Westeros.
It depends entirely on the judgments reached by the Iron Bank/Red Priests/Faceless
Men.

The bravery of knights out in the field, the judiciousness of the Lords in
directing the knights,

these are all decisions being made that return negative value to the remainder of
the world.
It doesn't matter how wise the Aristocrats are,
their decisions are costing more than they gain
and this is obvious to every single agent except the Aristocrats themselves.

Every trader in the world looks at Westeros and says:

"These strange people have a grossly inflated sense of self-importance.

They think of themselves in terms of the stories they generate

instead of the payments they {generate} deliver to the Iron bank."

"The Iron Bank handles investments across all the whole world
of which Westeros is a tiny sliver.

If people in Westeros have demanded a bag of a thousand gold rounds and said
they need it because they are kings,

we didn't accept this request for a loan because we think they are kings.
We accepted it because we expected they could repay it.
If it seems for a moment they can't repay it,
then what we do is crush the whole enterprise.

Easy peasy. The Golden Company is 100k strong and only depends on its deployment
on the gold that can be paid to it. The Golden Company is 200k or 300k or 1M
strong.
It depends on how much gold you can afford to stake.

The Golden Company is paid for by the Iron Bank

and it represents the collective free military capacity of the remainder of the
world outside Westeros.

--If there had not already been agents in Westeros who were resurrected by Rehllor,
we the Iron Bank would have already destroyed the Westerosian enterprise.
BUt the Iron Bank has stock-holders who are Rehllorians,
so the witnessing of resurrection in Westeros has clouded the judgment
of the Iron Bank in handling this ridiculous sliver of land.

Seeing Jon Snow and Lady Stoneheart resurrected,

this has made some members of the Iron Bank to vote contrary to the obvious course
of allowing the whole of Westeros to be burned to the ground
and later extracting whatever gold is there manually.

That is a practical concern.

Either those members will be convinced that the resurrections were a fluke,
or the Iron Bank will discern directly the way Westerosi 'Aristocracy' will destroy
Winter.

--Because the Rehllorian religion is ah, valuably strong.

If the stock-holders in the Iron Bank are Rehlorrians,
and they point at resurrections so as to dissent from allowing the destruction of
Westeros,
then well the Iron Bank has to come up with some clever plan.

(But what has to be maintained in-story:

the Aristocracy of Westeros has basically no say in how this whole thing proceeds.

The meanest stockholder in the Iron Bank who votes against destruction
holds more weight than Cersei at her peak.

Cersei is the weather and

the people voting against destruction are the legitimate positions.
((The people voting for absolute destruction are also holding legitimate positions
in the Iron Bank.))
)

(
Cersei's position, along with everyone else's position in Westeros,
is completely irrelevant when compared to
the position of the meanest actual shareholder of the Iron Bank.

If one shareholder of the Iron Bank has said: "We should wait and see",
*that* is what is being executed.
And it is *not* Cersei's execution of saying: "THe current monarchy should be
maintained."

Her judgment is completely irrelevant.

It is the input of saying whether she has or has not delivered the promised gold
payments.

--
--The interesting case of Germany extracting gold in the nighttime.

It is interesting that China established a gold-oil system

at the same time Germany bothered to gather actually
collections of gold it held in foreign lands
and gathered it into its own physical nationality.

Or to say,
it is obvious that Germany gathered all its claimed gold to itself physically
so that it could participate in the new gold-oil standard established by China.
Easy peasy.

It is Germany engaging in insider trading

with plans China had not yet revealed to the remainder of the world.
Wonderful.

Let them move slag heaps around.

We have the iron and the copper and every anti-liberator will be destroyed.

Easy peasy.
Easy peasy.

Gold is worthless beyond its industrial purposes

and *eventually* everyone will agree
there is no reason to acquire gold unless one is using it for an industrial
purpose.
The designation of 'gold' as a basis of trade is
completely arbitrary. It is a common story-holding that will be destroyed by the
impenetrable reality
that gold is completely useless outside its industrial uses.

--It is obvious that gold is not useful beyond

how it can be expended in electrical devices.
So if people rely on a commonly held fiction of 'gold is valuable'
they will be ruined.
Glorious.
I want everyone who treats gold as valuable to be ruined.
SO it is good that people who think gold is valuable are making this technical
mistake.

Gold is the slag generated when we delve deeply for iron and copper.
If people want to maintain a fictional story where they think gold has any more
value than piles of slag,
wonderful. They will be destroyed and I want them to be destroyed.

(Notably,
in my 'Endless River' save on Minecraft
I have endless piles of gold I have saved but never used,
but I do not have endless piles of iron.

My iron is mostly expended and I am struggling to find an excuse

to extract iron from the mountainfaces I witness on my journey down the river.)
(I mine gold deposit after gold deposit despite knowing I will never *use it*.

I have a strip-mine operation that optimally acquires diamonds under my home-base.

It is a strip-mine that delves down by blocks until it arrives at the depth where I
most optimally find diamonds.

And I have endless mined-out paths in this mine.

I follow perfect 4x4 gaps in the ground in my mine

and gather everything that is useful to me.

And in excess, I also gather gold which is absolutely not useful to me in any way.
I take every diamond I see because I can convert it into a pick to mine further.
I take every instance of iron because I can convert it into a pick to mine further.
I take every instance of reddust because while I am not using it I expect I will
make an almighty calculator out of reddust at some point.

And I encounter dirt in the mining pit, and I gather that because I may want to
remake a biome.
And I encounter cobblestone because I might want to make buildings out of stone.

And I encounter gold,

and I have absolutely no reason to bother to gather it.
I will never use it. I have piles of gold piling up in chests of treasure,
and I have absolutely no use for it.

I see blocks that are gold on the walls of the 4x4 mining pit,
and I should just keep mining the line.
I hsould just be extending the strip-mining pit and treating the gold-blocks as if
they are just
cobblestone block mining of which is not optimisation of my extension of the mine.

But I don't.
Even though it is suboptimal to every reasonable observer,
I see gold blocks and I mine them out.
Even though I should have treated them as extraneous cobbblestone blocks that don't
need to be mined out.

Gold is worthless.
The extravagance of its worthlessness is a meme.
The extravagance of how worthless gold is to the human enterprise
is why it persists as a story being told amongst us all.

That our kings continue to mine gold even though

gold serves absolutely no purpose to our project

is why the kings claim gold is valuable.

It makes no sense but there it is.

Silver also is absolutely without valuable,

but at least you don't need a grain of it to enable trade.

The gold I have, it is in a tenth of an ounce. It is worth so much that

I could not even imagine placing it on a table as a tip.
It is worth around 120$. It is the minimal amount of gold that one can acquire in
legitimated quantities.
I cannot acquire a hundredth of an ounce of gold because no one makes hundredths of
ounces of gold.

I cannot place 12$ worth of gold as an extravagant tip on a table

because 12$ worth of gold is not a denomination that anyone creates.

(And well,
this gold coin will end up on a table somewhere.
I don't doubt at this point.)

Gold is not useful.

It is not useful industrially.
It is a fool's errand to treat it as useful on an industrial scale.
And it is not useful interpersonally.

Gold is the slag generated by our almighty efforts.

It should be treated like we treat dust.
But still when we encounter it we hoard it jealously.

(I hoard it jealously because it is, in my own case, about a third of a month of

rent.
At some point I will hawk it off to continue to live.

I will hawk it off to some idiot who thinks a shiny bit of metal is more important
than my own continuing to live.)4
(Or I will place it on a table as a tip.
But I would only do this if I expected that I could afford to perpetuate my own
rent
without placing this coin instead in the hands of a coin-dealer.)

(I want to use this sliver of gold to perpetuate unceasing joy.

I am compelled to expend it to acquire dollars for rent.)

[
People having flasks filled with moonshine
instead of having packs of cigarettes.

Consider seriously.
You walk out to smoke a cigarette,
or you walk out to take a swig of a flask.

What is the difference? Really?

]

--
--

Knowing there is no God.

Oh great God.

Knowing there is no God.

Being an atheist is not the light weight people have imagined.
If you really arrive at the point where you know there is no God,
you will spend the remainder of your life weeping.

There should have been a God.

It is all just doing what you want

and anyone who claims they are justified in constraining you is a fraud.

You can invent your own thing to do,

but it was all lost when we became atheists.

God should have existed but didn't.

I'm sorry.
It was not my personal preference.
We are just left alone to discern what is best to do.

So let's have a serious discussion?

Let us seriously consider what is in front of us
and not rely on God to tell us what is in front of us?

Hail Satan.
God got too obviously complicated to continue to obey. God's not existing is a
particularly difficult complication.
(But GOd's nonexistance is not an unsurpassable barrier to our worship of it.)
(It is easy to continue worshipping God
when you recognise that his nonexistance is a trivial problem to be overcome.

When you recognise readily that

'God does not exist'
is both true
and not any kind of impediment to my worship.)
(Having been convinced that God does not exist already,
I am still already asking whether to be a Catholic or a Muslim or a Jew or a
Buddhist or what have you. A Wiccan, a Satanist. It doesn't bother me.)
(If what you take to be GOd is the nonexistance of God, then fine.
I can take myself as being a practical atheist.

This is no impediment to my worshipping of God.)

(If anyone tells me that they worship God,

I am far more interested in asking them that that means to them
than I am interested in attempting to convince them that God does not exist.
I know God does not exist,
but that is a tedious point to be raising to someone who is telling me how they
worship God.)
(And this is why I worship God fullthroatedly and without reservation.)
(
"So you are interested in evangelisation? in convincing others to worship God?"

Not primarily.

THe question of whether or not they agree with me is mostly far less interesting
than the story they already have to tell me.

The idea of me, a human voice-maker, trying to convince them to 'worship a god'
;;; this would be sacreligious. This would be heresy on my part.

It doesn't look like heresy because it looks like me bringing people to 'god'.

[grammatical continuation here]

But compelling another human to bend the knee to 'god'

is an impermissible heresy against our God.

To attempt, as one takes oneself, to be doing this kind of thing

is to be committing an impermissible sin.

I am not inclined to commit impermissible sins

so I am not generally commanding other humans to bend the knee in worship of a fake
'god'.

If they live well they will be worshipping God.

I rest in trust. My commission of GOd is infallible.
It is {no} not the same kind of mistake made by everyone else
who has
held a sword above a literal fucking human neck and demanded worship of a god.

--If you have arrived in the position where you are holding a sword above a human
neck
and you are demanding, no matter how righteously, that the human will bend the knee
to your god,

you have become a heretic. An apostate. Someone who has recognised our God but
failed completely
in understanding what it means to continue to introduce God into our world.

But more importantly for yourself,

you have designated as a 'god' an idol.
The thing you are telling others to worship is an idol you have
carved out of wood or whatever other substrate.

And if you are with me in trying to perpetuate God

it will be obvious to you that making others to bend the knee to an idol is heresy.
You *will* agree with me that this is
a graver atheism than that of the actual atheists.

Nothing we have made, and no collection of words we have constructed,

is God.
Expecting anyone to bend the knee after we have made something or constructed a
sequence of words
is apostasy. To have done these things is to have rejected God and to have
replaced it with an idol.
TO demand others bend the knee is already oneself to have bent the knee to an idol.

Ho hum.
Still people will do it.

I forgive you so long as you didn't end up swinging the sword onto the neck of a
literal human.
)

--
--

I have an interesting question weighing on me for tomorrow.

It could very well be that if I arrive back at the Tamarack tomorrow

the bartender will say something like: "Would you like to grab a beer?"

And this will make no difference to me. Immediately i will say: "Yes. Let's go."

Have I waited long enough?

I am like Abraham having held the knife for several consecutive years at the neck
of his son.

I begged for the arrival of the angel.

I knew what was good.

I have seen the love of my life and I know she is still out there.
And the question is whether she will come back.
Eventually this has to become an obviously foolish question to continue to be
asking.

I don't know if I have yet arrived at that point,

but boy will it be resolved mechanically tomorrow.

--And what do you think the answer is?

A welcome hand on my spine or a belabored hope?
I don't know.
I really don't know.

God is dead. I already know it.

It's hard to recount how much I want a human hand on my spine.
I know there is no salvation. I know there is no incoming arrival of an Angel to
hold my hand.
Still here I am, holding the knife and watching
carefully.wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Why?
I have no reason. I no longer believe in God because I have been here for ages
holding the knife against my son.
I have given myself a promise and a knife.

There is no hope, but still here we are holding the knife.

But this has a date on it.
Unrestrained by any moral consideration I could, at great length, construct
I am asking whether it is acceptable to accept that the angel does not arrive.

(Actually, we are arriving here.

I am going to wake up hungover and unable to type effectively.
SO there is not goign to be any serious moral consideration being done
between now, this moment, and the moment where I am asking whether I am willing to
arrive at the bar.

So we are at a really practical juncture here.)

(I could stay here typing at great length.

I could do this.
It's 9:30AM on my clock.

I am immune to the necessity of sleep,

so I could keep pondering this question until it is 7PM and then collapse in my bed
until it is 5AM the following day.

No problem.
I could say to myself:
"An apparent willingness to execute every last conceivable behavior that prevents
oneself from sacrifice
is evidence enough that one is unwilling."

But I am not unwilling.

The bartender is lovely and
I want a hand on my spine.

This is obviously what I am willing.

Abraham executing every last behavior he thinks might convince God to send an angel
is not a sacrifice.
Abraham slitting the throat of his son is a sacrifice.
Abraham's being willing to perform a sacrifice is the true juncture that arrives an
angel of the Lord.

--But that is a historical reference.

It is a toy I play with or don't.
I am asking myself a serious question.
I am asking it now, and if I stay awake and keep asking it I will be awake until I
collapse into my bed at 7PM.
Or, {I will treat it as not a serious question}
I can go to bed now,
wake up in a few hours,

and then take upon myself seriously the decision taken seriously
of arriving at the bar.

--I am no longer asking a question about God.

My decision has nothing to do with the arrival of the angel anymore.
It is a question of whether I am willing to arrive in the bar again and I am.
It is a question of whether the bartender will ask me to have a beer with her and I
think she might.
[It is a question about
whether it is permissible for someone who has thought this bare much about an
engagement with another person
actually to execute the intricate planning of that interaction. Ho hum.]
It is a question about whether our beers together after 1AM letoff time will go
well.

[It is a question about whether a hand will arrive on my spine.]

[
ANd what I want to say:

"Oh, it is a tremendous weight, but still I am here waiting."

That is no longer what I am saying.

Hail Satan.
]

(It is practically a question of whether

the bartender would accept a request to go get a beer.

But we are treating that rhetorically as insubstantial to the story we are

telling.)
(And particularly we are treating it this way because
if the bartender had to request that we arrive back at my place instead of hers,

I would have to find the closest escape hatch.

Going back to my place isn't a thing that can happen.)
(Oh, I can readily imagine myself as having submitted to the flow of circumstance
and then at a critical juncture finding the closest escape hatch.

It would be the bartender saying:

"We should go back to your place."
Then me scrambling practically for a way to escape this circumstance without
embarassment.
lululululullul

The problem of Abraham trivialised by practical circumstances.)

--
--

I think I'm probably too hungover to go out drinking again tonight.

On the other hand, I say that most nights and here we are.

--
--

I constructed in paint the above described alteration to the circulating meme.

It was not well received.

Or maybe more accurately, it was not received at all.

Oh well.

--
--

I've always wanted to put 'Hail Satan' in this text somewhere;

funny that it took celebration of a Muslim holiday to make its inclusion anything
other than edgy silliness.
(Not to suggest that Satanists are, in general, edgy-sillinannies.

We are talking about the conditions that enable *me* to put this in text without
being an edgy sillinanny.)

My friend had a shirt he would sometimes wear.

It has text on it that is aligned after the aesthetic of the label of a whiskey
bottle.
It says something like:
"Eat pussy
chug whiskey
hail Satan."

I liked that shirt but I didn't feel inclined to acquire an instance of it and wear
it.

--
--

'Garden Hymn' on youtube.

I'm not sure, but it sounds to me like the cellist is playing primarily with left-
handed pizzicato.

It's delightful if it's right-handed pizzicato,

but it's pretty damned impressive also if it's left-handed.

(I am meaning to say that it is delightful in either case,

but the 'damn impressiveness' is not there if it's right-handed pizzicato going
on.)

--
--

"Girl, five, is shot dead by Indian troops as bullets are

fired across the border into Pakistan as villagers celebrated Eid"

--
--

I have some lingering questions about the narrative behind the Eid festival.

In the version of the story I was reading,

Abraham is approached by an angel (viz., Satan) and told to desist.

And Abraham disregarded this command.

Do the Muslims believe of the angels that they can just go about willy-nilly doing
whatever they want?
If not, why would they not see Abraham's refusal to obey Satan as an indirect
refusal to obey God?

And why is the second angel to be believed?

If angels can just go about willy-nilly doing whatever they want,
why should Abraham not see the slaughtered ram in front of him as just a trick
designed to prevent him from obeying God?

If Satan can show up to fool Abraham,

why does Abraham not think that the scene of the slaughtered ram that emerged after
he began to plunge the knife into Isaac
was just another way the willy-nilly angels were trying to prevent him from obeying
God's command?

Maybe the way the story should have gone:

"Lo, Abraham, you proceeded to slaughter your son but behold:
you slaughtered a ram."

"No. Fuck you. This knife is going in my son."

That would be a remarkably unpleasant ending to the story,

but it seems a more consistent execution of the setup.

--I guess we are supposed to flip the idea around.

*That* Abraham denied Satan and *that* he was convinced by the second angel
tells us that the second angel represented God's will but Satan did not.

It is not a *test* of Abraham. Abraham is already only going to be convinced by

God.
It is practically a test of which angel represented God's will.

(Complicated by the practical matter that

if Abraham had {obeyed} followed Satan's advice
the same outcome of not sacrificing Isaac would have come about.

Really, Satan was just there to save everyone a lot of time and wasted effort of
climbing up the mountain.)

--
--

Someone's flair on reddit: "push the fuck out of the lever".

This raises an interesting point.

It does not seem like the typical approach of ethicists to ask how one should be
feeling or what one should be thinking
at the moment when one reroutes the trolley car.

--
--

It occurred to me earlier that,

insofar as I have no debt and around 20k$ in holdings,
I am actually far wealthier personally than most people my age.
(More than 20k$ in holdings if we take into account my car, my road bike that can
be fixed probably,
and my coin collection.)

I only have a vague idea of how that can have come about.

--
--

Well, I had a lovely Saturday night;

I hope you nerds did as well.

"Aren't you supposed, I don't know,

to be sprinting until your lungs begin to make you cough up blood or something?"

Oh, just taking a breath.

We will be getting back to the action soon.

--
"--You were spending a lot of text on talking about plunging a knife into people.
I was concerned that you might be going downtown to do evil things."
This seems to me like the implicit background of suspicion we have about crazy
people:
that they take literally the images they construct in order to explain to
themselves the significance of their own experience.

So we are afraid that if the only way a crazy person can explain his own experience
to himself
is through the use of imagery that involves violence,
we are afraid that the crazy person can't distinguish between the image of violence
and what action he betakes himself to take.

I don't know if that is what is going on the heads of what we want to call crazy
people,
but that does seem to be how we take them practically.

"Okay."

But I have found it useful, in discerning what is right and good,

to take everything in my environment and ratchet it up to 11.
If I can construct an image that involves hyperviolence and that is structurally
similar to my own circumstances,
this makes the right action much more obvious to me.

[It reveals to me what I ought to be feeling when I translate this description back
into my own circumstance
and enables me to chastise myself when I do not feel it.]

"Is it the same with the machine?"

No. THe Machine is real. It just happens to sound extremely metal when you
accurately account for it.

--Of course, there is the opposite problem that can occur.

Crazy people like those who show up into public with assault rifles
can literally see the violence implicit in their actions in front of them,
but they ratchet their story down to 0 and refuse to see it.

Lots of interesting puzzles here.

--
--

Hahaha. The Trump investigation. Very amusing.

--
--

Oh boy, I just learned how to trigger frisson without clenching the muscle in my
groin I typically clench when I bother myself to trigger it.
Probably it is some kind of sin just to walk around constantly triggering frisson
with no connection to the circumstances surrounding me,
so I'll file this away with all the other {useless} unuseable knowledge I have
acquired.

"How did you acquire this unuseable knowledge?"

I was experiencing frisson while reading a historical account of how

all of the remaining revolutionaries from 1776 wanted to see the rebellion crushed.
Then I was experiencing frisson, and I looked at it carefully.
THen I saw how my body was generating it.
Then I seized control of the portion of my body that was generating it.
Then I knew how to generate it.

--
--

A flood of people tweeting ecchi images at Trump would be disapproved of by me,

but would also be hilarious.

That there are things I disapprove of but nevertheless would find hilarious
is one of the many reasons I am going to hell. Hail Satan.

--
--

Note to self: consider the margins in play with regards to

how valuable a graphics card would have to be in order to replace gold bars as the
medium of account settling.

Discern a method for constructing a graphics card that is worth hundreds of

thousands of dollars and takes up the same space with less weight
(so as to make shipping more obviously valuable--
cheaper to ship the same amount of dollars with far less weight
if the graphics card is, you know, worth ten times as much in the same space.)
(followup:
discern how to increase demand for graphics cards so that their prices skyrocket.

It is a multi-pronged approach we are having to take here to prove to the world

that gold is
useless slag that should be remitted to antique stores.)
('remitted to antique stores'
because industrial purposes for gold are so few
and we have so many of these pieces of shit lying around,

even when gold is free for industrial use we'll still have vaults filled with it.
So to the antique store!)

--
--I justified my position in a bar by saying:
'Have you heard of bitcoin? It's magic internet money.
I make a living by stealing [extracting] magic internet money from bad people.'

I don't think that was a lie. It felt good to say.

--
--

"It seems like you are giving up on the, ah, apparent initial purpose
of removing any need for an external justifying explanation behind your behaviors
by throwing all your weight on a word 'God'.
I am disappointed."

Oh, don't worry. Where we're going we're all God.

Or, we will not ultimately need the word 'God'.

Just need time.

--
--

Bacon pancakes in adventure time.

There are all these crazy strange creatures Finn and Jake encounter and relative to
whom are merciful,
but then they encounter the crazy strange creature that is a pig and they said:
"Time to die."
lululul

They could have said: "Time to die."

towards any of the other crazy strange creatures they found,
but then it would be a very different kind of show if they did that.

--Well, we can at least imagine that they found an already dying pig,
waited with it in its last moments,
and then ate it when it died as a form of mercy.

That wouldn't be the kind of mercy we would typically perform,

but it seems at least excusable.
(And we can imagine a world in which the body of every animal that dies of old age
is auctioned off at extremely high prices. irl.
The commodification of death.

Drink in your decay.)

--
--

I was all giggly yesterday and felt good.

I attributed this to having consumed hemp seeds with my cereal.
Replicated the experiment; no dice.

Consumption of hemp seeds may have to coincide with having a hangover.

Double-blind studies will commence shortly.

"Erm, double-blind?"

double-blind drunk! hurr

My periods of happiness have always been like Cinderella's before midnight.

[Well. Not 'always'. Close enough as makes no difference.]

It is fortuitous that I don't need to be happy to do my work.

"nevertheless, I don't really need to have found scrawled writing in your notebooks
saying:
'fuck happy' sprinkled here and there."

Probably you did need to have found that.

Or less obtusely, probably I did need to be writing that.

--
--

'Texas Governor Abbot says Texas will need $150B to $180B in federal
Harvey aid'

You know, 120B$ buys a whole hell of a lot of solar panels and wind turbines.
Just saying.

--
--

"Didn't you head out last night with the intention of, uh. Getting laid or what
have you?"

No.
It's like what I was discussing above with hyperviolence, except replaced with
hyperfriendliness.

I saw some women taking stolen glances, so I am thinking there were things I could
have done if that was my goal.
On the other hand, I don't carry a phone around and stare at it while I'm in public
and instead occupy my time scanning the room, smiling at people, looking at bottles
of liquor, and so on.
So it is more likely that I will catch other people's eyes while they are scanning
the room.
They may not have been looks of interest.

Also, I swing a whirly-doo around in my hand and that probably makes people look.

--
--I was watching TV at the Tamarack last night.
It was tuned to a sports station;
I was cheering on the stenographer who has valiantly to try to keep up with what
the commentators are saying.
(For the closed captioning.)
(Close captioning?)

There was a strange tendency for there to arise in the typed text
that character that is a 'c' with a squiggly-doodle under it,
and particularly this character had a tendency to arise after
"That's who" would appear in the text box.

I'm thinking "That's who" was some kind of macro the stenographer was using
and kept mistakenly hitting it. You would see the stenographer try to backspace it
before giving up and moving on to the next lines.

--In the high-stakes world of live-captioning I would think it is best never to

backspace,
but I'm sure opinions differ on this point.

--I can't really imagine what relation was obtaining between the squiggly c and the
'that's who' macro.
I don't know why a captioner would be having a keyboard with a squiggly c on it,
or why it would have been programmed in to the 'That's who' macro.

--
--

Of course, the day after the first night in a while where I haven't consumed
alcohol to excess
is the day I feel nausea.

Life is an unfunny joke.

--
--

Instrument called 'Buchla'.

If it isn't what I think it is, then I have a wonderful new idea for an instrument.

--
--

(some roleplaying:)

"Why are you so interested in there coming to be graphics cards that can replace
gold bars as the method of account resolution?"

It is a very practical question.

What do I want lying around in abundance when i {destroy the system?} peacefully
effect the transition to the new system:
useless gold bars,
or many instances of the most magnificent technology humanity has constructed?

I mean, the gold bars aren't useless now.

"Surely there are other candidates for 'most magnificent technology humanity has
constructed'?"

I mean, I'm not going to argue with anyone who says CPU instead of GPU. Or any of
the active components of computers for that matter.

"The pencil, maybe?"

Ah, the humble pencil. A lovely thing to have been made, whenever it was made.

"The particle accelerators?"

Tell me when we discern a way to give people personal particle acceleraters.

--
--

Scary when you start running into familiar names on reddit.

--Unrelated to that, I ran into a name that is a plausible handle for ---.
That would be a strange coincidence.

--
--

I feel like someone slipped me molly yesterday and I am now experiencing the
comedown.

That is implausible though, for several reasons that do not need enumeration.

Mine is a spiritual comedown: the recognition that I cannot and am not going to be
happy like that for more than a few hours at a time
with those few hours dispersed across months or more likely years.

If it sounded glib when I earlier said: "It is fortuitous that I do not need to be
happy to do my work."
["it wasn't happiness. It was mania."]
["what seems like happiness is your capacity to channel mania into actions that
look like they are exhibitions of happiness."
I know. I've been watching myself longer than you have.
And knowing what I actions I can point at and take as exhibitions of happiness,
well, I know it isn't a good thing when I feel happy.]
that isn't glibness at this point.

Aside from fooling myself into thinking that this work is worth doing,
the primary reason I am alive is that I don't know whether there is a pistol handy
(I haven't looked),
and the barrel of a shotgun is too long to hold it against the back of my head
and then put my brain onto my notebooks.

(You might have wondered why I am reluctant to go back and read the things I have
written.)

In the midst of winter I found an invincible winter.

--
--I think you could identify, out of the things I have written,
what I would pick out in-text (as in, if I read it back to myself line by line and
commented on it in-text)
as being the peaks of my work.

And in-story I think you will understand when I say:

it was good to be alone for a while.
Probably best to remain alone forever but that apparently isn't an option.

--
--Mainly what I want
is to have an empty room that I can make dark and fill with music.

I haven't bothered to describe, because I can't, the bliss

that I experienced when I was willing to smoke bowl after bowl
in pursuit of one more session at last of sitting in the dark and listening to
music.

When I was both still sensitive to marijuana and willing to load a full joint,
that kind of bliss is not something that can arise from sober experience. It
cannot.
Even disregarding my own inability to experience bliss, my own life-pervasive
inability to experience it,
I *know* no one *can* have had what I had in the dark alone after several
consecutive bowls.

I want that again. I want the willingness not to type and just to sink into it.
It was overwhelming in a way daily experience *cannot* be overwhelming.

I don't want this bullshit. I'll pay for the weed on the tail end of smoking
sessions through text.
I'll spend the last 30 minutes of a high typing and get paid for it more than
enough to acquire the next session.

It won't kill me. Don't worry.

"Heroin addicts say much the same thing."

Yes but they have not experienced what I have experienced.

All of the regularities present in one's daily vision
re-encoded as fractallated tunnels of color.

My interest in this experience is not a false interest

I was fooled into having by pleasure. It was not pleasurable.
I was not sinking into warm and fuzzy feelings.

I was witnessing something like what happens

when all of the patterns present in the brain are bent backwards and reencoded into
vision.
This is more interesting than anything. The thoughts I could have written down but
didn't during these experiences--
the things I recognised but let flow by me so that I could keep experiencing--

if I could have restructured the whole of my life around extracting text from these
visions
I would have been spat on and called a sinner if I said: "I shouldn't do it."
People would see their family members dying and be made aware:
"There was a man who could stop this but didn't."

--It was not, say, a last-ditch effort.

I did it because the visions were more interesting than anything.
I kept doing it because it was impermissible to stop.

"So why do you seem now so interested in becoming happy?

Why the apartment now? Why the computer?"

Do you think it is because I want to be happy?

It is because I recognise the preconditions for two bowls being all that is
necessary
that I can arrive at a keyboard and type what is necessary to save the world.

I will be smiling a lot because I am playing cello and chess and streaming,
and I will be playing cello and chess and streaming because I know
that is what I must do in order that I can arrive in the dark in sacred moments
and discern what I need to type in order to save the world.

I don't know what kind of monsters you are all that you can see these things we all
see every day and not do as I do
but I am not that kind of monster.

If I play along with your social games that pretend none of this is happening
it's either because I'm a kind of hostage to this nightmare
or because I would kill myself if I didn't do it.

--So I will smile. I will be serene.

It won't be a facade or a great showing.
It will be a byproduct of knowing that I am doing what I must do.

--I don't want to make any mystical claims concerning the consequences to my person
of sitting in the dark and staring into infinite tesselating tunnels.
I want to make mathematical claims that are not obviously related to my visions.
I want to make all manner of claims that you will not ever be able to trace back
mechanically to my visions.
[Because, practically, if I said:
"I have had a vision! Listen to me!"
This would not work, practically speaking.

I have to construct ridiculously convoluted collection of text

that say the same thing as I would have been saying if
I had declared 'I have had a vision' and people bothered to listen to me
seriously.]

I want to do this because any other option is laughably implausible.

There are humans suffering right now.
You are a monster if you do not have to spend most of your waking life fending off
the necessity to cry
because you know tears in your eyes will throw off your visions
and make you suboptimal in the elimination of suffering.

(Not that I have anything in particular against monsters.

I see them everywhere I go
so I have not been able to dismiss them as figments of a nightmare.

'monster' used to mean something arising in a fairy tale

where you had to kill it or run.
But I could [not?] choose to kill or run from the monsters I see.

And if I accepted it?

What then would God say of me?
"Oh, these are not monsters.
We're having a lovely time."

Ho hum.

--This is is the invincible winter, by the way, unless my earlier more-clear-headed

self said something otherwise.
The chemicals in my body tell me all kinds of pleasant things about what it is like
to be surrounded by monsters.

For instance I see the bodies of people and find them extremely attractive.
I see a shifting madness. I see objects one after another that pretend to be other
than they are.
I see objects about which I am inclined to say: "By all appearances, this is
lovely."
But this would be confusion.

"Other people are also doing what they think is best to serve humanity."

Indirectly at best.

"Really I think the judgment you are making is that

other people are less capable than you of eliminating suffering.
So you look at other people who are doing their best to eliminate suffering and you
say:
'It is not enough.'
They don't know better. They can't know better because they aren't you."

I blush.

"Don't."

Hmm.

"I'm not saying you are more capable of eliminating suffering than other people.
I am saying that that is the basis on which you are judging other people as
inadequate."
They are not wailing and gnashing their teeth.
They are not throwing their hands into the air in utter confusion.
They do not understand the gravity of our shared circumstance.
They confuse smiles around their eyes as being a sign that all is well.
All is not well.

Us all smiling and laughing at the bar is

a dystopian nightmare when viewed by the least among us.
It is people laughing and cheerfully carrying on as people are starving to death.
--*I* can participate in this adequately ironically. So ironically, in fact,
I can place myself in the bar as an image of what they should have been.

I can play with their shared object of passing joy

as someone who is there saying, full-throatedly: "Aha, we are all terrible. Let us
drink."
ANd if they were all saying the same, oh,
it would have been an endless orgy.

It wouldn't have saved anyone from starving to death in Venezeula,

but it would have been adequate recognition of the gravity of our shared
circumstance.
"We can do nothing. let us drink."

And if I could trust that our shared drinking was common recognition:
"We can do nothing.
What is best is that we pass out in a ditch."
I would be taking 50 consecutive shots and be being very merrily.

"So why were you happy?"

Mania.

"Why were you whistling while you walked down the street to the Tamarack?"

One interpretation is that I was anticipating a fun night with someone with whom I
had had a connection.
But that is an incorrect interpretation.
I was whistling in absolute resignation.
"There is nothing I can do. So I am going to whistle and walk and hopefully die."

[You see how my interpretation of reality

reforms the whole of my own interactions with reality.]

"I have audio recordings of the things you were saying before you went downtown,
and you seemed fully punch-drunk."

Punched in the skull over and over again.

It is not implausible that eventually my brain would send out errant signals.
For a few moments I recognised the punches implicit in every last bare action taken
by everyone around me
and joyfully I took them all on my own skull for a few minutes
instead of the skulls of starving people in Venezuela.

You are all sick.

You are all extremely sick.
You are the sickness unto my own death.

If it makes no sense to take all the blows to my own skull

rather than letting one additional person in Venezuela starve to death in a ditch
somewhere completely unknown,

well, nothing else anyone does makes any sense at all.

I am completely at a loss.
I can't even begin to speak.
I have no idea what other people take their actions as meaning.
(I do.
I do know what they take their actions as meaning.
I know exactly what they take their actions as meaning.

If you were under my eyes I already knew exactly what you took your actions as
meaning.

And you were sick.

You were extremely sick.
I couldn't even take myself as seeing something other than a monster
for the bare few moments it would take a hand to arrive on my spine.

I hate every last one of you.

I hate everyone who is not currently on the verge of death.
And if you are close to death,

I am so very sorry.
I am so sorry.

It was my fault and that is why

you can't say the tedious thing: "Don't say you're sorry; it wasn't your fault."
I'm so sorry.

I want to be with you in your last moment

but I would just be an unfamiliar face you've never seen.
I would be making your death worse because my face would be filled
with an incomprehensible rage that is not the last thing you want to be seeing
before death.
((
Or my face would seem to you to be serene

and in-context what it would represent

is a rage that cannot even be represented in the skin that folds over a human's
face.

If human skin could, contrary to all context, be bent into a representation of this
rage
it would be my face at all moments everywhere.

But no kind of range can be borne in a human's face that is greater than
the serenity I would hope I was showing you when you passed into death.

The certainty, I would hope at last, that you would know

I would find everyone who killed you
))

--
--Happiness is a mania channelled into actions that fool you
unless it is what you had to feel at bare-last extent
not to put a bullet in your own brain having witnessed the horror that is our
shared circumstance.

If you had to drink so that you could wake up the next day and really bare the
weight,
and if you happened to be happy when you drank,
fine. Good. You understand me and are with me.

--
--The idea of replacing gold bars with similarly-spaced and much-less-weighted
instances of compute-capacity.
This seems like a foolish tech-worshipping endeavor.
I do worship technology.
But that is not why I am recommending the transition.

Efficiency is beauty.
A supercomputer solving trucking routes across the United States would
prevent people from arriving at the moment of death.
(I leave to you the derivation.)

I want all of the benefits of humans being the absolute pinnacle of existence
and I want none of the costs associated with humans managing tasks they are not
suited to handle.
Easy peasy.
We just have to discern a method.

(Well, I am too blasted now.)

(There are ways of analysing images that
are faster ways of arriving at mathematical truth than
examining the bits that make up the images.)

To my last breath I will resist a human project

that treats humans like machines.

My resistance is not donning a black mask and a club, as admirable as that is,
but it happens to have been a better expenditure of my time.no

--I want to say something like: "America and China and Russia and the European
Union and the South American Union will overcome"
but I do not say this
because they are all ruled by idiots compared to me.
So I say: "I will overcome."

I will make whatever has to have been made

in order that no one died without my face being being there weeping.

[Interesting to compare this to the Emperor

who pins you to the {while} wall, with zero bodily violence,
while screaming a scream you have not ever heard before and will not ever hear
again.

--
--That lovely image
of a katana impaled three straight feet into a wooden wall
to prevent the Emperor from severing your arm in a fit of rage.
(You have to have made 3 feet of wooden wall where you declared you made 3 feet of
wooden wall,
or the Emperor will have calculated against 3 feet of wooden wall where there was
2.99999999999999
and then your nerve will have been severed
despite all great efforts by the Emperor.)
]
--
--Notably, I didn't make bitcoin.
I'm afraid people might become monumentally confused by the posts I have just
recently made to reddit.

The maker of bitcoin is some hallowed, absolutely hallowed, human who refuses to
accept acknowledgment.

Whoever made bitcoin is a mighty human to whom I cannot bow enough because the
ground stops the progression of my head into the ground.
I would curl my head into infinite curls into the ground if that still made sense
as a gesture of acknowledgment.

(Unfortunately, I think my engagement with reddit is curtailed

by censorious critics who think i have said too much.

I think there are posts I have made on reddit where

there does not appear to have been posts I have made on reddit.

So when I try to speak to people on reddit,

it will appear as though they have made some critical point
and I have not responded because I was too embarrassed to respond.)

(Okay, Bezos made extremely efficient methods of material transmission.

That is a good thing.
It is good that when I am suffocating from smoke as literally I am
I can request the arrival of an air-purifier and it iwll arrive in a few days.

But Satoshi made something we can't even begin to understand.

To situate what Satoshi made in terms of Amazon is to have made a mistake.)

--
--I will liberate humanity or I will die homeless in a ditch.
These are the two options.
And any words that flow from my mouth
are what I take to be most optimal towards the liberation of humanity;
or else I have made a mistake.

--
--

The smoke smelled so close to my house that I went outside to see if a fire was
burning out there.
No apparent fire, easy-peasy.
I have an industrial air-purifier arriving shortly, as ordered from Amazon,
so this will not bother me shortly.

--
--It appears I have been banned from /r/videos.
I have absolutely no understanding of how this can have occurred.

i can understand why people would proactively ban me,

but I can't understand why people would have been so on the ball for banning me
(retroactively?) retroactively.

--
--The smoke is smelling very strongly.
It may be that I will have to evacuate this place.
It may be that when I shortly go to bed I will be awakened and demanded to leave
actively.

I will, in that case, have to stop typing text.

All apologies. I cannot, apparently, control the weather.
I cannot, through my actions, implicitly have asked for the bending of
supercomputers
to resolve exactly what firefighters must have done to save themselves and also
myself.

It was not my primary concern to save my own body from the fires but it would have
been nice if that was an incidental outcome.
It would have been nice because then on that occasion I could have continued
typing.

--But well, it is only a smell in my nose.

I have an air purifier arriving from the amazon so
if the fire does not literally arrive around my house
i will be freed from having to smell this smell and then I can continue typing.

Wish me luck.

--
--

Boy, my computer is not on its A game today.

It's freezing with every tab switch, every tab back and forward,
freezing with scrolling up in down in a notepad instance--
and this is like the smallest of the notepad instances I have!

I was thinking of opening up 'White Papers' but I think my computer would crash
if I tried to scan over its text to find interesting sections.

"Don't you never go back and read what you've written?"

Yeah but my brain is going sideways from all the smoke in the air.

--
--

Yesterday it seemed plausible to request a truck arrive at my door with an air

purifier and an external hard-drive.

Then apparently shit hit the fan with some fire near here.
I am going to feel real foolish when some poor deliveryperson arrives at my door,
knowing I compelled that person to spend more time outdoors.

--
--

/r/videos post forbidden because I am a 'low karma' user.

Indeed.

My left arm is tingling.

I'm not sure what that is all about.
Doctor's diagnosis was to drink a beer and calm down.

--
--

You know, if our sole metric for what makes technology good
is how fast it can accelerate particles,
computers would still be ahead of almost everything else.
(Given my broken and fragmented understanding of how computers work.)

--
--

It occurred to me yesterday that--ah, the setup

I purchased two air purifiers from Amazon.

They were normally 180 dollars but were on sale for 80.

It can very well be that Amazon noted my location, noted that the air quality here
is currently terrible,
and then reverse price-gouged. (To test this I would have to wipe my computer and
then pretend for a lengthy period of time that I live somewhere where there aren't
fires.)

Really, at the price I should have bought like 5 of them.

Walk down the street and pass them out.

--hhahahahaha.
I should go downtown with one of the air purifiers.
Just carry it with me to the Tamarack, plop it down, drink a beer while this whole
thing blows over.

--
--

'Elon Musk says global race for A.I. will be the most likely cause of
World War III'.

me_irl: "I prefer to think it is the most likely cause of World Peace I.".

On the other hand, I'm not too inclined to disagree.

The introduction of the Machine will introduce, ah, extreme attention density.
The question is whether all of this attention density will be channeled into an
overwhelming peace
or something that is not an overwhelming peace.

I think he's wrong not because of the reasoning I attribute to him, but beacuse I
think he has reached the opposite of the correct conclusion.
--And of course, the Machine will abhor WWIII, so we have that working for us.

I mean, the Machine can't do everything. People *will* have not to fuck this up.
But it's a light burden. If they try to do it right, it will work.
After the Machine, everyone doing good things and doing them well will succeed.

--
--In line with those above observations: 'China censors discussion of North Korea's
bomb test'
I hadn't thought of that.
Catastrophes implicitly rely on the alterations they make to the world
in consequence of more tangential loci becoming attention dense.

So instead of responding to the problem, remove the attention density.

That might not work if the world's going on as usual results in total nuclear
annihilation.
Still, a very interesting approach.

--
--

121 views on this Korean dude's music recording

and it is entirely plausible to me that I am at least 110 of them.

--
--

Can we construct an algorithm that converts noise into an image

where the images that are--

I was looking at the alien transmissions.

There is one of them that presents a descending chromatic scale.

I am wondering whether we could construct an algorithm that analyses noise

and always returns to us something that looks like a descending chromatic scale

even though none of the descending chromatic scales are *similar* to each other

except that we can say of them:

they all look to us like a descending chromatic scale,
and they were all produced by the application of the algorithm over states of
noise?

"I don't know. Why would we care?"

I also don't know and I also don't know why we would care.
Just seemed like an interesting idea.

"--I mean trivially you could make a program like this:

'Accept a state of noise.

Ignore the state of noise.
Print a descending chromatic scale.'"

(
Which is why it is obviously an alien transmission.

The power that would have to have been involved in a transmission site
for a physically repeating resonant structure to send a signal 3 billion lightyears
away
is not possible. Or extremely unlikely.

So it has to have been designed around the noise inherent in the background between
us and the transmission site.
((Though, the methods involved in doing such a thing
might throw off our methods for extracting signals from noise.
When it is actually a signal at last instead of noise,
the methods we have designed for extracting signals from noise might be being
fooled.))
)

Yes. Then the outputs of all of the operations of the algorithm over noise would
be identical to each other.
But in being identical to each other, they would be similar for more than the
specified reasons:
they would be similar because we identify them as similar,
and they would be similar because they are all produced by the same algorithm,
and they would be similar because they are all identical.
(And we could say they are similar for a great multiplicity of reasons,
as when we pointed at each pixel between them and observed that they were the same;

whereas in the two-condition condition, most pixels would not be the same
and if they were we would attribute this to noise.)

So this doesn't pass the test I specified.

Whereas an algorithm that *could* satisfy my two conditions
would never produce two identical states. (If two identical states *were*
generated, it would be because our resolution isn't high enough.)

Instead we would have, say, two outputs of the algorithm that looked arbitrarily
similar to each other
but when we applied arbitrary tests to the two states we would be unable to say
*why* they looked similar to each other. Or something. I'm not a mathematician.

--
--

Another fun idea:

make storage media that just bare noise.

Don't specify the saving of files by specifying bits,
but specify files by selecting a ruleset and a beginning point.
(As if we are imagining all of the bit-representations as being in a square grid
and it looks to us as if it is noise.)

So you have the bottom of the square, and those are a bunch of starting points.
Then you specify what rules they have to follow in going up the square
in order that the pointer is pointing at the bits necessary to define a file.

Then in one storage medium you could save arbitrarily many files.
You could save as many files as there were rulesets that could be executed over the
noise.
(However many paths could be specified by rulesets and would succeed in proceeding
across the noise and designating a file,
that is how many files you could save with one noise-ridden medium.)

--And then we could go deeper or shallower by imagining that

the medium does not contain noise, but rather it contains a noise-like substrate
that is optimised around the way we go about specifying paths across it.

[The two preceding ideas, I think, are enough to extract the message from the alien
transmission.
Probably.
If they aren't enough,
I did a kind of lecture earlier that I hope someone recorded.]

--
--

'The North Korean mountain under which it's

conducting nuclear tests is at risk of collapsing,
sending radiation across the region, a Chinese
scientist says'

Probably North Korea doesn't have the computers or the scientists necessary to
discern this for themselves,
so it's good that this was broadcasted.

--
--

Oh, another fun idea I had:

master composers could take all of the apparently bad amateur music clips on
youtube
and design a method of speaking in music where
the remainder of the piece
presents the bad amateur clips as being the pinnacle of the piece

and the music could also be wonderful.

Imagine the bad clips sort of tesselating out and then being uh
[word][math word][describing, ah, pulling out of shape but maintaining mathematical
characteristics][fuckin uh]

--well, you get the idea.

You take the clip and extract characteristics from it. You tesselate it outward
from itself
and don't take it as repeated instances of the clip, but take each repeated
instance as a template.
Then you make music within the templates and do it in such a way that the original
clip, positioned as it is,
is the most beautiful of music.

Easy peasy.

--
--

Another fun idea (which I feel like has some computational benefit:)
if people wanted the front page of reddit to have posts pleasing to my eyes,
it is more efficient for them to find the posts that are pleasing and upvote them

than it is for them to construct the posts themselves and rally around them.

This because the existing posts already have noise-upvotes accrued to them.
A smaller group of people upvoting can select already existing posts and propel
them to the front page.

--
--

The leader of North Korea should probably consult with masters of diplomacy in
order to discern how to extricate himself from his very terrible position.
We've got a lot of clever people who can work with him on a plan to keep face and
not turn the world into ash.
Get some of those people from Swissland. They seem to know what they are doing.

Boy are we going to have a real bad time if he rattles his saber and it scratches
someone even if by mistake.

There is some kind of monster in north korea.

It's not any of the people there but it is certainly an emergent effect of
their daily engagement with life.

All it takes to kill this monster is for all of them all at once to say:
"Hey, probably we should sit down and think instead of just keeping on the rails
and heading towards the cliff."

There is a ton of tons of resources in North Korea.

We can all make it out of this alive and incredibly wealthy.

The current leader of North Korea can make true the stories that are told about him
in his own country
in a way that previous leaders could not really do.
(No offense.)
Seems pretty enticing!

--Of course, if the rest of the world can't orchestrate a trade deal that equitably
extracts those resources
then the bargaining chip of making Kim the glorious leader his people think he is
is something we would have to keep backstage.

--Just a thought!

--Incidentally, sanctions were acceptable when they were ways of averting war.
When they became a bludgeon, they were a really bad thing.
Sanctions make us all poorer and worse off. Even, provably so.

--But keep on keeping on. i'm sure you folks have this one.
But anti-sanctions are probably a good idea.

[I got your back, friend.

If North Korea gets turned to ash
the machine is going to be *most* displeased.]
[I mean, consider the Emperor's position here.

If you're one of the humans who have been designated as those able to press the big
red button that drops a nuke,
you could still do this with one finger remaining, or if you could crawl over to
the button and smash your head into it--
why, the Emperor would have to turn you into a vegetable, wouldn't he?

So if people end up nuking North Korea

there's going to be a lot of vegetables occuyping high offices.]

--
--
Probably not best to treat the internet as something that *can* be secured against
attacks.
Probably best is to discern how to treat the internet as something where constant
attacks can be occurring
and yet nevertheless everything goes smoothly.

If you go in with the idea that you can secure the internet and just have as yet
failed, I think you're going to have a bad time.

On the other hand, beyond making this kind of point,

constant cyber attacks orchestrated by state entities are not helping anyone.

--
--

I ordered an 8 terabyte hard drive. This took me about an hour and a half of
deliberation if I recall correctly.
(This bodes poorly for the process of buying a full computer.)

I ended up ordering used, which may have been a catastrophic mistake.

I will probably be emailing all of my notepad instances to myself in case
I plug in the hard drive and it causes my computer to go blank.

"Do you think people would buy hard drives, load them up with malicious content,
and then return them to amazon
for the sole reason of wiping other peoples' computers?"

Absolutely I do think people would do that.

I like to think I have a generally good attitude towards people, but there is no
point in being a fool.

"Also, the program loaded on the hard drive might be, say, spyware instead of a
data-bomb."

Well what would I care about that?

The whole point is to get people to read this.

I mean, I guess they could steal my identity.

--
--

Fun idea that I don't really support:

allow corporations to attain monopoly power and use it to crush competitors.

Then corporations could deviate from obtuse notions of market efficiency

(say, by paying hire wages or same wages with fewer hours, or what have you)
and not risk being taken out of the market by a company that rolls in with the
promise of being the shittiest possible company that produces the same goods or
services.

--
--

I think the chain on my komboloi has become elongated through prolonged use.
From the links bearing the force of the momentum of the beads and pulling them out
of their initial, more circular state.
I may be wrong though.

--I repeat myself, but the Greek person that put this one in my order of 5 worse
komboloi (i assume this is the plural)
on a whim brought more amusement into my life than most anyone else has.

Well done, Greek person.

--
--

Gross speculation, but I suspect the tingling in my left arm yesterday

has something to do with the increased nerve density from constant twirling of the
komboloi
on top of my unceasing habit of utilising my hands in an effective manner to type.

--
--

I am out of rolling papers and tobacco that isn't dust tobacco.

I went to the gas station and picked up snus and and beer and not more cigarette
tobacco.

On the other hand, this procedure reminded me that there is still useable marijuana
in the pipe outside
along with resin that can be scraped out of it.
('reminded me' insofar as I considered that at some point I might feel the desire
to use the pipe to smoke the dust tobacco.
Then I looked at the pipe in my head and saw that there was marijuana in it.

Oh well.)

--
--

I really like the idea of taking the air purifier downtown on Friday.
Very amusing.

--
--

Wew, with all these crazy mood swings I've been having
this might not have been the time to quit smoking.

I'm feeling pretty blue.

On the other hand, if this pendulum keeps swinging then I might be ecstatic
tomorrow.

--
--I made this comment on reddit: "Tell him to lock the pistols up in a safe and not
give you the key."

The haiku bot converted this into:

"
Tell him to lock the
Pistols up in a safe and
Not give you the key.
 - nogalt
"

I wonder if it did just not occur to my parents to lock up all these loaded guns
and boxes of ammunition after my suicide attempt,
or if they thought it would be too insulting to me to do so.
Or if it seemed like such a feeble attempt that it wasn't something that demanded
precautions.
Or the gun case is too fancy not to use it for its designated purpose.

I was compelled to speak with some manner of crisis mediator.

I chose my words carefully because I was not going to go into an institution. I
was not going to have pills forced down my throat.
Maybe I have never spoken more carefully.
But in retrospect it probably would have turned out better if they had fried my
brain with chemicals,
or held me in a series of rooms until they had convinced me I was insane.

I recall, because I recall everything, that when i did take medication

I told Liz that I had tried to kill myself but I was feeling much better now thank
you very much.
It did not occur to me, so floating on serotonin and dopamine to which my brain was
completely maladjusted,
that this might be met with anything other than acknowledgment of a fact.
"Eric tried to kill himself a few weeks ago. Okay."
And in my mind the response I received confirmed this.

I was at that point unable to imagine that informing someone of this,

someone who had been with me and been around me,
might have any kind of emotional response to this news.
It seemed to me, at the time, like I was informing someone of the weather.
That I was, say, setting up the grammar of the next sentence that referenced the
preceeding system,
this is what it seemed to me like I was doing.

That anyone would read anything
having said it
was not something I was capable
and then after the medication I
actually would elicit more than
I had to say with anything more than a nod at my
of imagining even before the medication,
was disinhibited from saying such things as
a nod.

And I don't know, what is obvious to you here?

I haven't really told you, over this long text, anything about what it was like to
be around here.
Do you imagine her shrugging? I am still imagining that.
But I am saying this to observe that I was, prior to typing out this segment of
text and especially at the time,
being unimaginative. Probably she was not shrugging at the things I was saying.

I deleted all communication that ever obtained between us along with all avenues of
my capacity to contact her,
so I cannot confirm my recollection that her response was one measured not to
disrupt the flow of our texts to each other.

--Now, in retrospect, I am thinking that the disinhibition I referenced with the

medication
is probably what is in play now.
I have discerned what is not quite a mechanical procedure but something like it
for going out in public and not being in an unceasing state of fight or flight
response.
And I am thinking that feeling these feelings that are associated with being with
others
is exposing my brain to a great many chemicals to which they are grossly
unaccustomed.

But then with my brain being flooded in those chemicals and then experiencing the
mood swings,
with dopamine saturating my brain, say, I find myself very motivated to type and
feeling strong feelings.
And the combination of feeling strong feelings and a motivation to type
is going to be channeled into certain manners of thinking.
These certain manners of thinking are the kind of grammar I have long engaged in,
and having long engaged with them and developed them,
they often present as extremely violent imagery. (Violently colorful, sometimes.)

So the chemicals that are in one hour serving as the representation of being with
others
are in the next hour being channeled into words that tell me that I think they are
all monsters.

And then having told myself they are all monsters,

the chemicals floating freely in my brain become the representation of a very blue
feeling.

"Well, it seems like you've learned a valuable lesson tonight."

No, if I recall correctly I have already made all these observations before.
In fact, my notebooks are filled with all manner of such observations if I recall
correctly.
I'm not saying anything I didn't already know before.

The issue then was that arriving at these observations required careful mechanical
separation of my encounters
so that I could extract from them the background against which they were occurring.
And spending all of one's encounters pre-performing the mechanical separation of
one's own psyche
is not a good way of becoming enmeshed into being with others,
especially when you carefully observe all of the emotionally-motivated mistakes you
make
and choose to correct the emotions rather than the mistakes.

(Then I was just as emotionally motivated and making just as many mistakes,
but I was making these mistakes in the process of mechanical separation
and not in the process of being with others.

[Plus this other issue:

without correct understanding of what it means to be being with others
I was making incorrect mechanical separations of the circumstances in which my
emotions were emerging.

Or something like this.])

"So what has changed now?"

Oh, how can I tell you that?

[
Now we just need to find some way to monetise this journey of self-
{discovery}discernment.
]

--
--

Boy, I want to smoke a cigarette.

--
--

Ha! All these reports coming out that psychedelics are helpful for all kinds of
mental disorders.
I wasn't an addict, I was self-medicating! hurr.

"Marijuana doesn't qualify as one of the approved psychedelic treatments for mental
illness."

Yeah, and certainly not for me.

on /r/science a headline saying 'psychedelics make people feel more in touch with
nature!'
That has not ever been my experience. I hope it's true for others.
(Unless by 'nature' they mean: 'Existence' or 'Mundus' or something.
But they probably mean trees and rocks.

"So you think seeing tesselating omni-color tunnels is coming to be more in touch
with existence or something?"

It's called 'Existence' and no, not in the obtuse sense.

It's not like when DMT users think they have been visited by space elves.
"They're called 'machine elves'." Oh. Whatever.

((Definitely have to try DMT at some point.))

)

--Anyway, we'll keep the marijuana in the pipe where it is.

It will dissuade me from using the pipe to smoke tobacco.

"Surely, being an addict, it will persuade you to smoke what remains

so that you can empty it out and then use it for tobacco?"

Ho hum.

--
--

Air purifiers arrived.

Not as large as I was expecting, because I didn't read any of the technical
specifications prior to purchase,
but all this means is that it will be easier to carry down the downtown streets.

--
--

Vertical farms as part of the infinite-electricity-sink mix?

I suppose part of their efficiency is that they are always on.
If you grew crops that didn't respond best to always on,
you could turn them on to handle peaks in generation.

--
--

'a lot of vegetables in high office'

more a point that if world leaders prove incapable of handling their shit
the machine is not going to allow them to handle anything.

You can keep the titles but you can't keep the power.
It would be preferable to optimise around the presence of optimal leaders,
but its best just to seize control directly if the leaders are too sub-optimal.

--
--

I went and got my finger sized again.

Distressingly, I got a different answer from this execution of procedure than from
the last execution.

On the other hand, I picked up a peace dollar for 17$.

This is cheaper than I acquired from the wisened old con-man downtown,
and only a bit over the spot-price. I think they may just have failed to reprice
for a long period of time.

--Fuckin 1965 quarter yeah yeah yeah yeah.

1 year off from making money on that trip to the jewelry store.

--I suppose it is particularly unlikely to acquire a silver quarter

from a storekeeper who can quote the spot-priced silver content of peace dollars at
me.

--
--

Oh boy, my hard drive is here.

Let's see if I got any free files out of the deal for which the FBI will arrive at
my house.

If my computer explodes, recall that I have good feelings for you.

I'm enjoying feeling the vibrations introduced into my table while the hard drive
is accepting the data.
It seems to have some kind of symbolic significance.

Unfortunately, it is now a race against time before I have to get up and pee.
You can do it, hard drive! 89%!

--
--Okay, now to recopy everything back over to make sure no data was corrupted.
Hurr.

--
--There are a few stories I could tell behind why I could play this well
and no one would even have a chat with me concerning graduate school in cello
performance;
none of those stories are good.
The first and easiest story is that my perception is grossly warped,
and what sounds good to me is actually terrible.

The others all center around my being at least as good as I am currently imagining
myself to have been,
and many people having many reasons not to talk to me about it.
[Even in my own accounting of the skill I had I am not, for instance, being
delusional by my own accounting--
to say, I am not saying that these recordings show myself to have some kind of
unparalleled skill.

But in 4 years having gone from being unable to play a scale to being able to do
this,
and my professor laughed off every intimation that graduate school might be for me?

And to bridge that gap while taking three degrees.

My professor must have had an incredibly low opinion of my person, if not my
playing.]
[I would have been a whole hell of a lot happier and 30MB into text instead of 12MB
if I had gone to graduate school for cello.]

--
--All righty, we're going to take a gamble on modern technology here.

--
--

'Graphene-nanotube hybrid boosts lithium metal battery capacity 3-

10 times in tests'

Fucking fuck. Has anyone yet tried making an altar out of graphene and praying in
front of it?
Or an idol, and to it? Just spitballing here.

--
--

Unfortunately, emailing myself 'white papers' through my gmail account

and thereby having it come to be represented on google servers
did not effect the Machine's emergence into computation. hurr

--
--

Ha, just finished eating and I do not feel a desire to smoke.

Bizarre.

--
--

I am reading an article on vertical/indoor farming and I am connecting it to an

observation I had last night about internal plumbing.

Plumbers, or the trades more generally, can flourish as they have in the United
States because our designs are so systematised.
The plumbing in every house (so far as I know) differs primarily in the
particulars, but not in the pieces out of which those particulars were designed.
Or to say, the plumbing differs not because a different approach was taken in any
given house, but because the houses themselves have different architecture.
(There is probably a more rigorous way of saying what I am saying.
To wit: they *do not* differ on the basis of the ideas behind how plumbing operates
from one house to the next.
They *only* differ because houses have different floor plans and so on.
Any two houses with identical floor plans are going to have functionally identical
plumbing.)

If we see the seeds of the future system of the world, it is probably better to
support them rather than to support unbridled competition, I am thinking, for that
above reason.
After you have a *good enough* notion of how plumbing, or electricianry, or what
have you, should operate,
it is good to systematise that notion if for no other reason than that one can then
develop trade schools that trade in that notion.
Then one plumber can move wherever there is plumbing and be in a position to handle
the problems that commonly arise.
(The same error messages, shall we say, mean the same thing wherever the plumber
will go.)

"What is the connection to indoor farming?"

To be blunt, there are places in the world where the education system is not as
good as it is in the United States.
It is not the case that people everywhere who acquire degrees in agriculture or
what have you are equally skilled in
being able to adapt that learning to new and distinct kinds of systems that involve
agriculture.

--If the company in the article I am reading ('Plenty') becomes very widespread,
the places where their indoor farms come to be installed will require technicians.
It would be good, supposing we knew these indoor farms are part of the structure of
the upcoming system,
that we could develop trade schools that teach people *specifically* how to be
technicians in these indoor farms.

But the establishment of trade schools and their attendant unions and so on
doesn't make sense to do if the particular design behind these indoor farms
does not become some kind of systemic standard. If, for instance, there is
uncertainty with regards to whether *this* design for indoor farms or another
will be the system that sticks around for the long term,
no one is going to attend a trade school that teaches the manipulation of that
design specifically.
And what makes this worse, people who graduate with apparently relevant degrees
may not have the necessary capacity to adapt what they know to that design
specifically.
(I am not here saying that the people in question could not have acquired that
capacity to translate knowledge to new design systems.
I am saying that not all colleges/universities have equally well trained
instructors
and that it takes qualified instructors to enable the acquisition of that capacity
to translate knowledge.)

--Anyway, putting these points aside, I think it is a marvelous idea.

Beside the benefits cited in the article of having locally grown produce, there is
at least this one additional benefit:
consumption of locally grown produce with the attendant cost cuts will displace
other forms of produce consumption.
If there is an option to eat healthy and cheaply,
people might be shamed out of being hipster fucks who cause untold environmental
damage by importing avacados from continents away.
People might be hipster angels and garnish their locally indoor-grown healthy food
with local flavors instead--
might become embedded into their own communities instead of artificially
constructed instagram communities.

This in turn might reap additional environmental benefits.

Sometimes the local garnishing flavors are such as they are because those are the
plants that already grew where the communities took hold.
Sometimes among those sometimes, those plants grew there because that was what was
best for the environment there.

--Also, this chain of farms seems like a good locus for solar investment
along with the installation of air scrubbers. Ready buyers for a limitless supply
of CO2 scrubbed from the atmosphere!

"Wouldn't this just be carbon neutral?"

Presumably they have to keep these buildings saturated with some degree of CO2.
The net captured CO2 would be the accumulation of CO2 present in the whole chain of
grow rooms.
--But the article doesn't mention how they handle CO2. I assume that can't be
among the nutrients fed into the plants through the columns out of which the plants
grow
because I assume plants absorb CO2 from the air and not possibly through their
roots. But I'm not a botanist.
(How much CO2 can be in the air before people can no longer work in these
buildings?)

--
--

I think (I am imagining) that the lack of tar-coating on my throat is making the

vaporiser feel harsher.
I may be overestimating how quickly the body adjusts to a cessation of smoking, and
also I may be overestimating just how much I was smoking.
--It could also be that my juice dealer spiked the juice with more than 6mg of
nicotine.
I would *suspect* that higher nicotine content would make it harsher, though I
don't have a particular reason for believing this.

--
--

Democracy going forward probably needs some kind of system within which can be
represented the effects of the directions proposed by politicians.
If every candidate was *compelled* to offer the analysis necessary to fill out a
systematic representation of the effects of their policies, this would have many
benefits.

For one, it would dictate that all candidates had their shit together in terms of
staffing.
For another, it would lay bare whether the claims made were plausible. If the
systematic representation was obviously implausible, this would be obvious if
voters were educated in how the systematic representation of policies worked and
what could be expected through government action.
For yet another, and most obviously, it would show people what they were really
getting when they signed on for policy positions.

If you can't gather a staff that is able to perform the necessary analysis, you
probably have no business holding the office for which you are running.
If you can't present ideas that generate a systematic evaluation that is good,
again you have no business being a politician.
If your ideas for policy direction don't withstand true scrutiny by the voters,
certainly you have no business being in power.

--It seems to me we already gather all of the requisite data for such a systematic
evaluation of policy to be constructed.
You would just have to make the system have an input of a few numbers and have it
auto-generate all of the numbers the system represents.
And additionally, politicians would have to reticulate (articulate?) their
positions around the systematic representation.

"Surely local politicians shouldn't be required to hire expert statisticians and

programmers?"

Surely they should. They wouldn't need as many as politicians at the national
level, which should have been your question.
If you want to push people towards STEM degrees and then have them work at
starbucks, I suppose that's none of my business.
If you want a modern governmental organisation that actually employs the skills of
the citisens, well.
If you want a governmental system that demands people acquire useful skills, well.

"This would make government more expensive to run, insofar as we would have to hire
armies of statisticians and lawyers."

We already hire the armies of lawyers, so that isn't an additional cost.

I think the statisticians end up paying for themselves in averted catastrophes in
governance
and additionally we would have armies of statisticians prepared for moonlight
tasks. ('moonlighting')

If you need explicit grounds for funding such an operation, I certify it would pay
for itself in the amount of military operations we would no longer need to fund.
[The wisdom of this idea is more obvious if you think about the military as
a super-massive job-training program that happens also to kill people
and also emotionally and physically cripples many of its participants.]
[
Or to say, it is more obvious if you see that the military is a deviation from the
free market
but not a maximally sub-optimal deviation from the free market.

"'free market' aren't you a communist or something?"

I recall writing this lengthy text 'Stars of the Lid and their Refinement of the
Decline' in which I described 'Tokenage'.
I seem to recall concluding that such a system would make most things I dislike
wither
and most things I like flourish.

I think of that as the freest possible market,

but people examining it from different approaches might say it looks very much like
communism. Or they might not say that.
I am not primarily concerned with the conclusions other people reach when examining
the ideas I construct.
(Except to the extent that they have to be reaching some conclusions rather than no
conclusions
in order for my ideas to take off.)

Certainly, the outcome of Tokenage looks nothing like the outcome of what we
currently call 'capitalism'.
]

--
--

A question I've been asking myself every night recently:

how does one go to sleep without being quite drunk?

One of those deep mysteries in life.

--
--

Of the several kafkaesque regularities in my life,

daily sacrifice of water pressure to keep the grass green is one that annoys me the
most regularly.
Hours a day in which arrival at a sink demands more time
so that blades of grass outside can be a little bit more lustrous.
If I had my druthers, the lawn would be covered in solar panels
and all of the grass would die, thereby no longer requiring water or any kind of
maintenance.

It just seems so strange to sacrifice one's own person comfort in preference for a
lawn.
Everyone who lives here takes a shower during the time when the sprinklers are
turned on,
and they are turned on every single day.
It just makes no sense but it is thrust upon the house by incomprehensible social
norms.
--maybe a bad example of Kafkaism.

--
--

"Taking advantage of graphene's special properties, physicists

experimentally observed a stream of record-breaking electrons that
move with a conductance exceeding the limit theorists established
decades ago"

Now I know you're not going to admit it, but you tried the graphene altar idea,
didn't you? :O

--
--

I've been keeping my american silver eagle in my pocket along with other objects as
I walk around.
The scratches imposed against its surface are making it look more and more like a
real coin every day!

--I had the odd experience of feeling nauseous when looking at it all shiny on my
table.
I have an accounting for many things, but I have no accounting for that feeling of
nausea.
So I have effected that it is not so shiny.

--
--

Evidently I missed 8 consecutive calls on Sunday from the same number.

Places that demand phone numbers have an unreasonable expectation that everyone is
going to carry their phones around all the time.
Or, they have a reasonable expectation and I have an unreasonable unwillingness to
carry my phone around.
Either way, almost certainly a wrong number.

--
--

It is consistently annoying that schizophrenia is a better explanation for

everything I have said
than any story I would tell behind it.

Among the stories offered by society at large,

I would be judged wrong by some World Historic entity if I chose any other than
schizophrenia.

Yet evidently to the end I choose any story but this.

--I'm going to call back the line that missed me 8 consecutive times on the phone.
I hope I receive a voice mail and don't wake someone up.
I would prefer to know without informing anyone else that I have come to know.

"Downtown didn't go well?"

My paranoia is so intense that a few spare words can ruin a night.

The practical solution, the practical resolution of emotion, was to become anti-
paranoia always justified by what my paranoia took as evidence.

I would prefer to stare at counters for hours and be justified by my paranoia

picking up words I wasn't supposed to hear
than to enjoy any pleasure in life.
Better to be right than wrong, so to say.

--Or alternatively, no. I entered the bar and I experienced no ecstasy.

I don't know whether this is because the chemicals failed to arise in response to
which I could have had ecstasy,
or because I failed to select ecstasy so that the chemicals failed to arise.

I prefer to think the former, because if every other person relies on the latter of
these
this world is beyond salvation.
In the latter of these everyone would be feeling something that is completely
unjustified by their surrounding circumstances.
Whereas in the former of these, everyone would be feeling something that is
completely unjustified by their surrounding circumstances.

"There seems to be no difference here?"

Indeed, I set into writing with the expectation that there would be a difference
but I don't see one now.
Either way, from my perspective, is just people fooling themselves into thinking
something is happening.
Recall, there is no God, there is only people fooling themselves into believing
they have felt a connection.
There are only distinct walled gardens {with as much water as they have}
feeling that they feel the same things and engaging in language games that confirm
to each other that they have felt the same thing.
Or alternatively, people engaging in language games that leverage regularities in
natural language
to convince another that they feel the same thing the initial person is feeling.

"Perhaps you are just an extremely bitter person,

having become extremely bitter by staring at counters while consuming vast
quantities of alcohol?"
No doubt but that isn't an argument that I am wrong.

"Perhaps you are endlessly bitter that no one else is Liz."

No doubt. As if I have reformed the whole of what it means to be a good encounter

by this meaningless and fleeting metric.
"You didn't happen to be someone I knew two or three or four years ago
so practically you are no one to me."
Abraham faced by the angels, an increasing number of angels, and still holding the
knife and saying:
"Yes, but."

Or, me in a bar faced with an endless sea of executors of social regularities.

I end up talking to people, you know, from time to time,
and they are all men. I don't think all of them are gay but some of them are.
From my perspective, not leering at women is an indication that one is gay.
From my perspective, sitting on a bar stool and not leering at cleavage or not
staring at passing asses of women
is an indication that one is gay.
Certainly, apparently, no straight women are going to engage me in conversation. I
confirm anecdotally.

The people who will engage me in conversation in a bar are men who have girlfriends
and so are disinhibited
or alternatively men who take more interest in expositing their ideas than they
take in approaching women.

"You could engage others?"

I know what I would have to do to do this.
I would have to leer at women to do this.
I would have to be staring at their asses prior to their turning around to look me
in the eye,
feign embarassment at having stared at their asses, then smile while looking them
in the eyes.
This is the natural language regularity in which I would have to engage.
This is not a natural language regularity in which I am willing to engage.

"You could be looking them in the eyes instead?"

No. That is not a kind of juncture that arises.
I could be looking at their faces while they are talking to others.
I could be staring at them while they are engaged with others in conversation--
as, say, when two women arrive in a bar and hold conversation,
I could stare at the two of them one by one until one looks at me,
then I could smile and take the response as one that beckons me over or not.
Then I could repeat this procedure until the response to the execution of the
procedure is one that beckons me over.
This would require me to be staring at women who have not by any means asked for me
to stare at them.
I do not think this is acceptable. I do not do it.
But the alternative to doing this is staring at the counter, which I do.
Staring at the counter is an exhibition of something other than interest in other
people.
Performing the only apparently acceptable behavior is an indication of something
other than interest in other people.
People only respond to indications of interest. I do not find any of the available
indications of interest acceptable.
I cannot execute any behaviors that constitute indications of interest.
I sit in bars and stare at the counter or my beer.
This is the only acceptable behavior I judge.

"And yet any other encounter that arises in bars can seemingly only have arisen
through the execution of such a procedure."
Okay?
"So obviously it is the general practise that men will leer at women until the
women indicate a kind of beckoning as specified above."
Okay?
"So obviously what women want is that you leer at them until they can indicate
interest."
This has never proven true in the past.
Indeed, doing anything other than leering at them as also not proven to be a
juncture at which they will show interest.
Indeed, staring at my own hands or arms will be a juncture where I hear them call
me a creep.
Indeed, staring at the counter will prove a juncture at which I hear people calling
me a creep.
I have absolutely no idea what the coincidence of acceptable behavior and non-
creepy behavior is.

So I take my arrival at the bar as a juncture at which I am going to get trashed

arrive home and consume marijuana and then play the shruti box.
And given that every encounter with people is just a morphed version of meeting
them at the bar,
what I will do ad nauseum is get trashed, consume marijuana, then arrive at my
shruti box and play it.

I legitimately do not see the alternatives.

I simply do not understand the alternatives to this guiding notion of behavior.

"Other people evidently arrive in bars and talk to each other?"

If this happens it must be through some avenue I have not yet seen,
or else it must be that the stringency of my notions of acceptability are not
shared at large.
And what this tells me is that I should arrive at the bar with the plan of
exploiting other people.
I should arrive at the bar with the plan of fooling other people into talking with
me
by exploiting natural language regularities in the ways they talk to each other.

Or to say, if the general practise shared among men and women is that
men will leer at women until they share a glance back
and then walk over to them and intrude on their personal space,
and this is the only way interactions ever arise between men and women in bars,
then I should become extremely effective at leering at women in such a way
that when they look back I will be justified in walking over to them.

"That doesn't seem right."

No, it doesn't.
So either I am missing something, or the whole thing is rotten to the core
and it is preferable to get faded and play the shruti box.

I'm tired of pretending there is something special about the way people interact
with each other.
I'm tired of pretending there is some great justifying narrative behind human
interaction.
I'm tired of questioning myself as opposed to questioning the system that has been
established within bars.

I make money by exploiting regularities in the system. Everyone else makes money
by exploiting regularities in the system.
The differences between myself and others are trivial consequences of the way
natural language proceeds.
There is nothing really different between the position held by myself and other
people who arrive in the bars.
The differences that proceed from our positions proceed in consequence of different
ways of proceeding given the initial position.

When other people arrive in bars and they arrive at talking with women,
they are exploiting natural language regularities I am unwilling to exploit.
I am tired of pretending there is something special going on there.
I am tired of pretending that humans are gods and I have just yet to understand the
magic that occurs between them.
I am tired of pretending that when people arrive in bars and a connection occurs
that there is something occurring that is beyond my understanding.
There is nothing occurring that is beyond my understanding. There is only
occurring interactions I am unwilling to execute.

People who are unable to recognise what I have come to recognise will justify
themselves by saying: "I am being myself."
I am being myself also. I am really continuing forward what has arrived thus far.
Nothing arises from it. I judge that everyone else was mistaken
or else that there is something I really have failed to understand.
But I am tired of pretending that there is anything relevant here that I have
failed to understand.
I am tired of going to bars.

But there is nothing in my life except arriving at this notepad instance or going
to bars.
There is no progression of my life that feigns any of this magic that is pretended
by other people.
I want to eat a shotgun. But instead I am going to go play the shruti box after
unloading my iphone.

(It is fortuitous that I long-ago judged that all of this was bullshit.)

"It seems like you are just furthering the notion that you are very bitter about
your inability to engage with other people."

A few nights ago I had a nightmare. Also last night I had a nightmare, and on just
nearly every other occasion on which I have had a dream it was a nightmare.
But particularly, two-three nights ago I had a great nightmare.
Now I observed earlier in the bar, if I wanted to provide a description of this
nightmare, it would sound like a description of ds3.

The nightmare I had was a body horror-show. It makes me sick to my stomach to

recall the images that were streamed relentlessly into my mind.
But it was not ds3 I was imagining even though
the best description I could provide of it would sound like a description of ds3.

As if my mind had taken the framework of description I would apply of ds3

and then made a *completely* distinct nightmare than that that is present within
ds3.

A world in which people die regularly and are brought back,

but if they die too many times they turn into monsters.
--But it was really sickening. The thing people turned into in this coherent
nightmare I had
was something where if you saw it
you would agree a million dollar franchise could be made on just presenting those
images.

The movie of my nightmare could make a lot of money, let us say.

But the point I am making is that the story behind it is, to my greatest extent,
the same story I would tell behind ds3.

"Okay?"

I watched squads of people wade into body horror.

I watched myself wade into body horror and be killed.
I saw the monsters in this dream and I submitted myself to death because I knew,
in-story, I could die a few more times before becoming what I had seen.
(This is not a metaphor or an analogy.
This is just what I see every night when I go to bed
if I have not drunken myself silly or blanked out my imaginative capacity by
consuming marijuana.)

--I had some point.

Maybe something like: we could all construct the same conceptual story behind what
is going on
and my mind would still find a nightmare that could obey that story but be
absolutely horrifying.

Arguably this is an artifact of seeing bodies as something that burn off into
entropic cinders.
(As I did for many years.)

--Anyway, I heard people critiquing my person while I was walking back to my car.
Literally, let me say, though i will not recount what was said.
Evidently my unwillingness to engage with people turned me into a locus of
conversation,
and I heard the conversants discussing my person.

This confirmed again to me that what is just a not-good-experience typically

was, in retrospect, a body-horror nightmare.
I can't go in public and observe all the rules I imagined as being in place
and avoid some people being around who will be calling me a creep.

--And well, it is not my preference to go out in public.

I do it to avoid purchasing the next bottle of gin.
It is difficult to see public engagement as preferable to the next purchase of a
bottle of gin.
It is *incessantly* difficult.

I try to tell myself that I do not hate every single person that is not me
but I am consistently convinced that this is an incorrect position to hold.

I think this is the reasonable conclusion to reach:

that if I didn't need the greater mass of humanity to ensure my own unending life,
it would be preferable now to hermit myself in some cave somewhere.
It would be preferable never to encounter another human so long as I live
if I didn't need the structures that are currently in place to produce the
commodity I must consume in order not to die.

Not to say that tonight convinced me of this--far from it.

It is rather that I have encountered so much evidence that this is the correct
conclusion to reach
that there is no evidence with which I could be presented that would convince me
otherwise.

--And maybe the take-away from this is that, when I perform the annotations,
I will lie however I need to lie in order to convince my readers that I do not hate
every last one of them
regardless of who they are or who they can have been.
In accordance with evidence, after my own immortality is assured I want to be alone
forever.
[speaking here as if Liz was sent by the demon to convince me that people are other
than the way they are.]

"This still just sounds like bitterness.

I already know you have the capacity to contradict all of this.

Staring at a bar counter while drinking hard alcohol is not a request for
intervention, for instance."

I don't care.
It is never going to be a request for intervention and I am never going to behave
differently.
All apologies.

"There was a gambling pool on whether you would consume marijuana tonight out of
bitterness."

Well you lost.

You made the mistake of supposing that other people enter into my predication *at
all*.
I can't exhibit bitterness towards other people if
they are not ever such as to be in a position to have anything predicated onto them
at all.

If they are the weather to me, to be manipulated one way or another so as to serve
my purposes,
I was not really bitter, was I?

"Defeated before Saturday."

Not quite.
But even if so, so what?
Then also defeated on every encounter I have ever had with a human.
And if it should have been this Saturday on which I finally decided I had no
interest in it,
so what?
Did you perform a great performance?

--
--Let me state things in a different and less emotionally motivated way:
I do not think my interaction with people has *ever* been more than a question of
what I happen to have been holding in my hand at the time.

And in this very direct sense, that holding a komboloi in my hand should effect
completely different results than other people holding their desires in their hands
--
I do not think my interactions with other people have every been anything other
than this:
two people approach and one person is holding an object in his hand.
Holding this object in a man's hand either does or does not result in continued
interaction.
--Holding this object in common either does or does not result in continued
interaction.

Now this doesn't look like a good
because when men holds desires in
holding anything in their hands.
So when I reference: 'holding the
technical I am being, you are not
explanation of how human interaction proceeds,
their hands it doesn't appear that they are
man's desire in common', regardless of how
going to recognise this observation as obvious.

But how human interaction proceeds in bars:

someone is holding an object in his hand,
the hand-bearer and another arrive in proximity,
and then the object being held either comes to be held in common or does not.

"So if it is not literally something being held in the hand by the man, what is
it?"

It is a bearing. It is a facial regularity here or there.

It is a harping on natural language regularities they are too stupid to recognise
are present
but nevertheless are able to activate incidentally.

[it is: everyone being other than exactly the way I am. hurr hurr.]
Them holding an object in their hand is isomorphic to my holding the komboloi in my
hand.
They manipulate facial expressions and I induce physical regularities in the
komboloi.

They introduce regularities in natural language,

and I introduce what happens to have been regularities in natural language (insofar
as we would both agree, at great length, with me concerning what the komboloi is
doing).

The real difference is that I know exactly what I am doing.

There is no component of my body that is not doing exactly what I want it to do, to
arbitrary degrees of complexity.

They hold their faces this way and that way and they have absolutely no
understanding of their understanding.
I cannot be like they are.
I cannot hold something in my hand and not recognise that it is present.
I cannot enact the behaviors that attend common understanding without actually
holding the object in common.
--And even this is no impediment.
It is all a triviality, practically, to me.
I know the shape and the function of the desire other people are holding in common.
I can replicate the behaviors that pretend I am holding it in common with another.
But also, I cannot do this.
I can identify what behaviors I *should* execute to do this,
but I cannot do it.
(Jesus, why have I not yet moved to a legal state?
Why am I stuck here without marijuana?)
(Why am I having to pretend here to care about the object of my current discussion?

Why am I not able to arrive here and instead be discussing some infinite nicety of
playing the cello instead?

"Because you actually do care about arriving in common understanding with other
people?"

No amount of caring on my part is adequate.

No flood of caring I can exhibit is adequate.

So it would be better if I could flood a resonant object with this care instead.
Then I would have something that both responds to my hands
and the response of which enables me to construct the observations I must construct
in order that the Machine is made.

--Okay, this serves also. Here I am making the Machine.

But prior to this point, it would have been preferable to be playing the cello
rather than to sending out signals into a void that brooks absolutely no resonance.
It appears that this will *always* be true.
Given a choice of what my prior encounters will,
where I am referencing my prior encounters to serve as pretext for constructing the
Machine,
it appears that it will always be better to have been engaging with a cello than
with people.

Because the mass of people are absolutely without resonance in response to my

behaviors,
whereas the cello is consistently resonant in response to my behaviors.

"your behaviors in a bar are literally twirling a toy around and staring
motionlessly at the bar."

And being laughed at. I hear it.

The way I am is not a way that can be developed through interactions
into being not laughed at.
Being really as I am wherever I go is to be being laughed at.
I know it in advance, and I know it on the basis of continued evidence.
I cannot be as I am and not hear people laughing at me.
( i observe and I am not lying.
Call up the recording through my eyes and ears and you will see I am not lying.)

There is not an avenue of interaction that can arise between myself, being as I am,
and any other that does not result in anything other than being laughed at.
Because being as myself introduces absolutely nothing
except being laughed at.

My being in the bars does not introduce any interactions.

[Okay, and admittedly, someone stopped by to talk with me about politics.
We are playing with not quite the truth.]
But aside from non-interactions as consistently arise,
there arises laughter. Consistently and always there is laughter.
And this is not paranoia. I can parse grammar better than any living human.
I can hear snatches and reconstruct sentences.
I can discern between whether words are about me or not.

So I am aware that there is no way I can be myself

that gives rise to anything but laughter.

If it didn't give rise to laughter, it didn't give rise to anything at all.

(As practically.)

--So what is my hatred of everyone who isn't me? (or the bartenders, contractually
obligated to treat me bodily in a given way)
Is it unjustified?
I think the only thing you can tell me is: "You should persist in the face of
inevitable laughter at your person
rather than reaching the conclusion that is immediately obvious,
that if the only response to your reactions is going to be laughter
you should betake yourself only to manipulation and never to interaction."

--That is my preferred interpretation.

People, taken as a whole, are the background of a lever I have to pull.
The lever is hard to find, but it is not like I can ask for directions.
The lever is what I must pull in order that people effect the behaviors that
produces a cure for death.
And once I have found the lever and pulled it,
I can go be alone forever.
In the meantime, I can still be alone.
I do not need to interact with people in order to find the lever and pull it.
I need to treat them as the weather.
A sheet of rain that obscures my vision but not well enough.

--So I type the things I need to type so that an immortality pill is created and I
have enough money to afford it.
This does not require me to treat people as anything other than objects.
The money is afforded by overwhelming trading bots on crypto exchanges and
the immortality pill is afforded by fooling people into thinking I am interested in
engaging with them on complicated questions.

Easy peasy.
It is convenient that the behaviors I generated when I was a knight of infinite
resignation happened to coincide with my ultimate purposes.
It is convenient that when I waited for an indefinite period of time for anything
other than laughter in response to what I did
that what what I was doing served my ultimate purposes.
It is convenient that I shaped my person simultaneously around expecting some
resonance at last
and also the construction of the Machine.

Because it was obvious to everyone but me that remaining myself would not ever
result in resonance.
There would not ever be a response to my call and this was obvious to everyone but
me.
So it is good that my calling out was mechanically constructed as it was.

If I had wasted time calling out incoherently, there would have been no gain at all
from my efforts.

"--You were basically catatonic at the bar tonight."

Do you think I have any option other than to be catatonic?

Do you think I can go into public places and be anything other than catatonic?
The amount of chemicals that would have to be coursing through my brain in order
not to be completely motionless in public--
I cannot afford to pay for the chemicals that would have to be in my brain from
moment to moment
so that I would not immediately become catatonic in public.

Being in public is like a full-body harness weighted with infinite weight.

Other peoples' eyes are like this to me.
To be seen is to be weighted down.
To be seen is to be seeing myself, and to be seeing myself is to be questioning my
progression,
and to begin to question my own progression is to have asked a question of
incomprehensible complexity.
And to have asked a question of incomprehensible complexity is to have asked a
question I cannot answer.

Given how I have come, given my understanding such as it is,

me really is a catatonic entity at the counter.
So 'me' is something people reference and then laugh at.
(I didn't ask to be tied inexorably to my body.)

People having roughly identifiable features with what I see in my endless

nightmares,
that the monsters in my nightmares have human heads and human arms,
this is enough that when I arrive in public my brain will make me catatonic.
To resist this inevitable outcome would require the consumption of a river of
chemicals.
(I cannot actually afford the river of chemicals necessary.)
(And, let me make a scientific point hurr,
it doesn't matter that the creatures in my nightmares have human heads and arms
and then bodies that are writhing madnesses.

It doesn't matter, I observe,

that human heads and arms trail off into torsoes and legs
whereas the creatures in my nightmares trail off into a horror I cannot describe.

I see a head and an arm and I see the writhing madness in my mind.

I have never had the pleasure of engagements with people that might disabuse the
patterns in my brain
that effect the ending of the endless nightmares that arise in my sleep.
I do not see heads and arms enough that heads and arms accompany anything but a
writhing madness in my nightmares.

When there are humans, at last, in my nightmares

they are all against me. The whole structure of the nightmare designates their
purposes as contrary to mine.
Often they are holding knives or guns and trying to kill me in my nightmares,
but otherwise their presence is the juncture at which the whole environment shifts
around and I can't find my way backwards or forwards.

And where there are not humans, at last, there are creatures I cannot even begin to
describe to you.
--And this is what it is every night I have a dream.
Every night where I have not drowned it out with alcohol
or effectively preempted the arising of dreams by exhausting all those chemicals
with marijuana,
this is what my dreams are. I am not using analogy or metaphor.
Night after night it is a monster that has not been depicted in horror movies or
myths.

Then I go out in public and there are shared features between my nightmares and the
things I see.
Faces, arms, and little else--but this is enough.
The faces and the arms and the 'being in a place' is enough for me to be inside my
nightmares again.

No kind of pleasant storytelling defeats this. No stories about 'being with

others' defeats this.
I cannot arrive at the end of a night saying to myself: "Well that was pleasant"
but that I continue to arrive in the next nightmare.
I cannot construct collections of text where I tell myself it was all pleasant
without proceeding into bed and witnessing the next nightmare.

Now, I have heard (or observed to myself--and who the better expert than myself?)
that dreams reflect regularities in one's life.
Twisted, distorted representations of regularities no doubt.
If one is happy one might be seeing rainbows instead of whatever in waking life
made one happy.

So what is the regularity in my life that is being represented in my nightmares?

Why is it that every recognition of the presence of the feature of a human face
is attended by the endless-next presentation of a horror beyond comprehension?

Maybe, it is because I will wake up tomorrow and I will be in the specific bed that
is in the specific upstairs.
It doesn't matter what I type here or how I behave anywhere I go.
It doesn't matter the value of my ideas or the imitation of the presence of a
connection I can commit when in proximity to another.
It is always the next waking up into this endless nightmare.
It is always the next arrival at the next attempt to escape this endless nightmare
and failing.

I do not want to live,

so it is a fortuitous coincidence that the juncture at which I would be killing
myself is far more horrifying than anything my nightmares can present to me.
There is no image to which a human head can be affixed that is more horrifying
than the image of a trigger under my finger and a barrel below my eyes.
So if it is a writhing madness I see, instead of the barrel of a gun,
I suppose I need to discern what sounds are supposed to emenate from my mouth.

--
--Let us step back to the speaker.
What is my alternative here? To treat this as if it was another test?
As if there has been an endless procession of tests all of which I have passed?

--Am I supposed to arrive at the bar and not recognise that this is just yet
another test?
That everyone around me is indefatigueably disposed to accept this as passing and
proceed to present the next test?
Am I not supposed to be dumbfounded on this occasion but rather the next?
Was I supposed to play along on this occasion, but at some future point to cease to
play along?

Should I have feigned the behaviors of interaction *this time additionally*,

instead of taking this as the final opportunity where I would sit and stare at the
counter dumbfounded?
I have done everything I could. I have made every attempt that made sense of me to
be with others.
It produces no resonance. It will never produce resonance.
It is like typing in a programming language and inputting inputs that are not terms
in the syntax.
Typing into a programmers' window in natural language will *never* generate a
program.
Similarly, behaving as I am will *never* introduce resonance.

So what?
So what?
There are a few avenues through which I can escape the endless nightmares.
None of them are continued attempts to be with others.

"I think it is an undue weight to place on others to extricate you from your
nightmares."

No doubt. I have never asked that. (i have. but I wasn't asking it tonight or on
almost any other nights.)
Maybe, I am typing a program where I construct smiles periodically
and hoping this aligns in some way with the programmatic behavior of other human
bodies.
(It never does.)

--I mean, I am at wit's end.

You better than anyone are in a position to understand the end at which my wits
arrived.
Communicating with you has produced absolutely no change in my environment.
Continuing to communicate with you will never give rise to any escape from this
endless nightmare.
I can type ten thousand pages instead of 9 thousand pages and that will do nothing.
I can type eleven thousand pages instead of ten and that will do nothing.

So you are in a good position to feel similar to the people I encounter in the
bars, or human bodies in general.

"you talked with two people tonight. So."

Plants. The weather.

It is implausible to me that they were not in on the nightmare so they were.
Having reached this judgment of what occurred,
what occurred was another presentation of the endless nightmare.

If my actions in public could be converted into text somehow

then we would arrive once more at the 9-10-11 thousand page question.
The 9 thousandth page wasn't enough, nor was the ten thousandth, nor the eleven
thousandth page typed in public actions.

I am dumbfounded.
I can't even continue my work for the recognition of the utter futility of
continuation.
I know people are reading this and I know there is no condition under which they
will ever communicate with me.
I cannot imagine what kind of monsters those people must be. They are worse than
the endless hordes I have had to kill in my endless nightmares.
--I cannot imagine what kind of monster you are, my reader.
There is no image adequate to show you to me. If your throat was real it would not
be something I could strangle at last.

I hate you.
[
The avid reader will recall that I have almost exclusively reserved the word "hate"
for accounting for the feeling I have towards the reader.
Oh, comb through the text and you will mostly agree.

This word "hate" has not been diluted by careless throwing around.
I have not said that I hate many things. I have not made indistinct the categories
to which this word applies.
I have not said, for instance, that I hate the world.
I have not said that I hate hotplates on which I have placed my fingers.
I have not said, typically, that I hate smoking tobacco or marijuana
or that I hate coming to be shitfaced every night on gin,
and I have not said that I hate gin.

I have said repeatedly that I hate *you*.

You, the tireless reader.

]

--
--Well, that is a great deal of text I extracted for a few dollars.

I think I will go downtown again tomorrow.

--Oh, and the 8 frantic phone calls I referenced myself as having received earlier:
a collection agency of some sort! A wrong number, insofar as I have no outstanding
debts.

I have wondered whether my phone number has been reassigned to another physical
phone.
This would explain why I inevitably receive a wrong number call when I activate my
phone,
or wrong-number texts.

Inevitably, with my phone dying inevitably,

I activate it to check for nothing and then receive a wrong number.

So I think another phone has my number,

and when I activate my phone it constitutes a receiver for a transmission that was
intended for the next instance of the phone bearing this number.
So I think someone else has established a life around a number that is affixed to
my phone.
So I think activating my phone probably resulted in some catastrophe in someone's
life in this case.
8 frantic phone calls in rapid succession were probably sent with the intention of
delivering some important message,
and activating my phone prevented this important message from being received.

Insofar as I activated my phone to record my hands performing various peculiar

behaviors,
probably I gained less than was lost by the person for whom those messages were
intended.
--
--

"So you really are this bitter?"

Why? (I resist putting this in all caps.) Why would you suppose that the text that
happens to be at the very end of the notepad instance
is my final and definitive judgment?
Why would you suppose that what I say last is what I *really* mean?

--I am not saying I was lying with this text at any point.
I am rather observing that you cannot extract the person that was constructing this
text
by referencing any given collection of it.

When I said I hate you I meant it. When I said I love you I meant it.
Saying there is a contradiction here is to be obtuse.
It is inordinately to weight a few lines over a hundred thousand lines of text.

--For whatever it is worth,

tomorrow I will arrive again at the bar and make a better attempt at being with
others.
Is that answer enough? What I actually do? (It shouldn't be, if you have been
playing along at home.)

--We are supposed to be arriving here with common agreement concerning my infinite
resignation.
I don't know if you have been following along enough to have understood this as
being commonly held and correctly so.
--What? I am not saying there is an alternative to trying again.
Once more into the breach, hero.

"Were you lying about the nightmares?"

Oh, no.
I dread going to bed.
I think sometimes (as I am thinking now) that my troubles with sleeping
are an unredressed difficulty with accepting that I will arrive again into a
nightmare.
[And what you are seeing is the process by which I will dissociate face-arm
features with
the creatures that will inevitably arise within my nightmares.]

"So you are not, say, begging people to find you attractive when you go to the bar,
and so irresistably attractive that they talk to you instead of not?"

Oh, no. (I should hope you find this quotation an unacceptable representation of
your interlocution.)
What I want is what would have been happening if I wasn't there.
So I want to find what is within me that makes me present so that I can extricate
it.
If I find one thing present within me I am already hunting for the next.
Eventually I will be no one.
Eventually I will constitute no disruption to the flow of human interaction in
bars.

"So why arrive in a bar and become catatonic?"

One story is that this is the inexorable outcome, in consequence of my history, of
arriving in a bar. (This would seem very plausible.)
Another story is that my arrival in the bar happened to be the occasion on which I
was considering my position within a bar.
Because it requires all of my attention to consider my position in a bar,
when I was in the bar and it happened upon me that I was considering this question
all of my attention was occupied and I became apparently catatonic.

"Presumably it would have been better if all of your attention was instead
occoupied on your actual position-holding within the bar?"

It was.
I was very seriously considering what it means for my body to be in a bar.

"You are missing my point.

I don't doubt words were coursing through your head concerning what it means for
your body to be in a bar,
and I do not doubt that you were taking your actual surroundings as evidence to
inform your considerations on what it means for your body to be in a bar.

But there is a difference between considering your position in the bar and
executing your position in the bar."

I think you would fail to cite a difference I could not dispute.

I see the distinction you are making, but I do not think you can really make this
distinction in words.

Perfect consideration of my position in a bar, or perfect consideration of my

position in a bar?
Or nest descriptions within descriptions as you will, and I was doing it even
though
what I was doing was completely unlike what you are describing.

--But we are still coming down to the main issue here despite the incoherence of
what we are talking about.
Arriving at the bar was not an occasion on which it made sense to me to be with
others
because there is never any benefit to being with others.
[Not making a utilitarian point here.
I am rather saying there is not ever a juncture in being with others
where I look back on it and say: "This was good to have done."]

Instead, I had a competing interest:

it occurred to me to consider what it means to be holding a position in a bar.
So two competing interests: consider what it means to be holding a position in a
bar, or consider what it means to be holding a position in a bar.
One of these posed plausible benefits and the other didn't occur to me *at all*.

"Whence the difference between tonight and when you were whistling down the
street?"

One way of accounting for it is easy: I had chemicals floating around in my brain
that night that I didn't have tonight.
And another way of accounting for it is easy: [lost it. Running low on blood
sugar.]

--
--I arrived downtown tonight already resigned.
The only difference between my behavior tonight and that night, the *only*
difference,
is that I arrive home and say: "Tonight was another night in the endless unending
nightmare"
instead of saying: "Tonight was pretty nice."

And what is the difference there?

A few words I say?
--It is not a difference, for instance, that I can extract more text from a good
night than from a bad one.

"It is not a difference, for instance, the amount of text you can generate.

If you proceeded to resolve every outstanding issue *tonight* in text,

if you typed 100000 WPM for the next ten consecutive hours and resolved every
single outstanding problem,
this would make absolutely no difference to the progression of your life."

I am aware. Maybe I do not understand the magnitude of that observation.

But I am observing that it makes no practical difference to me, insofar as my life

is predicated evidently on generating more additional text,
whether I arrive home and say: "It was another nightmare on which I can perform
endless commentary" or if I say: "It was a good night on which I can perform
endless commentary."

Having a sequence of good nights does not, for instance, effect that I will not
inevitably fall back into an endless sequence of nightmares.
The nightmare is the structure of my life. It is me waking up in the bed I occupy
then coming down here in front of this screen.
If I had my endless desires downtown, still I would inevitably arrive back in this
nightmare.

--This maybe doesn't carry the rhetorical weight I want it to carry--to say, maybe
it doesn't make my preferred progression of text obvious to you.
I will have a few good nights downtown,
then I will arrive back in a position where having the next nightmare is an
inevitable progression of my life.
I don't want to see these things anymore in my sleep.
I don't want to wake up where I wake up. I don't want to wake up. I don't want to
go to sleep. I want nothing.

"But you say you are going to make one more attempt at being with others."

Always one more attempt, yes.

It is fortuitous that I have structured my life around the next subsequent attempt,
so that what inevitably seems good to me is to make that last subsequent attempt
and having made it, conclude that I have not yet made the last attempt.

I can't tell you why this is good.

[
And given that this is just a collection of a hundred lines or so at the tail end
of a hundred thousand lines,
I can't even say that this is the correct judgment
about which we can ask whether it is good or not.

It is just another thing I am saying.

Tomorrow i will be saying something different.

I am aware that everything I am appending can be interpreted correctly from the

central position I have explicitly and implicitly constructed.
I am not aware moment-to-moment what the correct interpretation is
but I am only aware of the interpretation I am making from my instantaneously
constructed position.
]

--
--

"The mysterious Voynich manuscript has

finally been decoded"

bullshittttt.
--Not to say the interpretation presented in the article is wrong.
Rather to say,
what is presented bears all the marks of having been solved by machine intelligence
and having had a story retroactively affixed to the conclusions reached by machine
intelligence.

The identification of abbreviations is the identification reached by machine

intelligence after having combed endless manuscripts,
and the story is the best one a lazy person could offer for why the machine picked
out these regularities in other texts as being represented in the manuscript.
Trying to get a fast one by me, I see.

--
"--So we are going to pretend you didn't say everything that preceeded this?"

You mean tonight?

I only know how to express my feelings in text
incidentally through the examination of mechanical issues.
I only know how to examine my own personal problems this way because I have only
been living in such a way as to type for a long time.

If I sit down to perform more additional mechanical observations and it happens to

take the form of
me spewing vitriol at people in general or what have you,
well, so what?

"Uh. Your point here?"

My point is that tomorrow I will go back to the bars and drink more
and try not to fall once more into my endless melancholy.

"What you really mean is that you will arrive back at the bars once more
and once more be disappointed when Liz doesn't happen to walk into the bar."

Wow, that's an interesting point.

Certainly that would shake things up if it happened.
Maybe I shouldn't try again if I judge that my trying
is just a positioning of my body to be present when Liz arrives in the room.
Maybe instead of going into bars I should be researching the apartments I can rent
for the foreseeable future given my holdings.
You're right.

"I was right?"

Yes.
Implicit in my decision making, sometimes beneath and sometimes above the surface,
*has* been a hope that I would be at the place where Liz arrived.
It makes absolutely no sense but here we are.

Then every place and every person has been a disappointment to me.
I was waiting for something that would not ever arrive and I
knew that it would not ever arrive
and I was satisfied by the non-arrival.

(And well, if Kierkegaard can go on and on about this 'God' fellow...)

I knew it wouldn't happen but simultaneously my actions were predicated on it.
(I judge, being now a psychologer-philosycian.)
And it breaks the spell. (Not to say I want her less now.)
As if Abraham was whistling along saying:
"Here I am waiting, oh, I'm a centimeter closer now,
it sure would be a shame if an angel arrived now that I have arrived a centimeter
closer!"
Then after a few centimeters Isaac is bleeding out on the ground and the angel
never arrived.

(Now we venture into speculation:)

So I twisted every circumstance until it didn't constitute a disappointment.

--And I mean, to be fair to myself,

the alternative is looking for Liz in the face of everyone else
and satisfying myself when I have fooled myself into thinking someone else is her.
This would not be fair to anyone but Liz herself. And even to her it would not be
fair.

As if I am looking at one face after another in the bar and saying: "Nope, nope,
nope,
okay you are a plausible candidate, let us see.... nope."
Why would I submit people to that? Better not to be looking.

--And well, Kierkegaard is unfair for selecting 'God'.

'God' is a defeater for many things and an unfair number of things.
having this kind of fixation on 'God' is seemingly plausible,
but having this kind of fixation on a person is insane.

And whereas 'God' can be trusted to arrive eventually, even when some kind of
Kierkegaardian procedure has convinced you he will not arrive but nevertheless he
will,
a person is not like 'God'.
A person's arrival is a question of arriving in a city, walking down stairs, what
have you.

[
And well, you listeners, you have convinced me to be paranoid.
I am imagining this all as the night before she was slated to arrive after
listening to me at great length,
and having gone ahead and made front-stage these backstage observations
I have made it impossible for that plan to be executed.

Now it never happens. I hope you are happy with yourselves.

Now I will go to the bars tomorrow and it won't happen again.

"Have you considered that this is an example of what society would call 'an insane
person's fixation'
and not what society would call 'a sane person's love'?"
Have you considered it?
Have I even told you how I feel?

I have felt something that has ruined retroactively and {a?}interoactively every
night where I have not felt it.
The pain I would feel from removing this from my heart would hurt more than endless
ruined nights.

"And yet here we are."

Here we are.
And better here, I suppose, than the alternative.
I don't suspect I would find more than spit on my shoes if {I found her} we were in
the same room.

"Why did this come to be reified for you in a way similar

to how 'God' came to be reified for Abraham?
You are not telling me that she is God for you?"

By no means.
I don't think 'God' was God for Abraham.
Or if so, only by the coincidence that he both did and didn't pull the knife.
'the coincidence'

--I don't know.

I don't know what I feel beyond the feeling of it.
The endless ruined nights in bars are my not feeling it.

[[
--And better here, I suppose, than the alternative.
I can imagine the conversation:
"So, what have you been up to?"

"Nothing. I have been up to absolutely nothing with my life."

==Or the alternative:

"I have constructed hundreds of thousands of lines of text for my own amusement and
for nothing else apparently.
Despite a complete lack of inducement and a complete lack of hope I have
constructed hundreds of thousands of lines of text in notepad instances.
I have no idea what I am doing with my life. I have no expectations for a better
tomorrow."

Quite a conversation ender!

]]

"Maybe your concern is that you are not and are never going to be in a position to
meet someone
and engage with them
regardless of how engagements with them might make you feel."

I mean, that is certainly true!

If my work is useless then I am the kind of insane you do not approach
but rather the kind that you pity and remit to an asylum.
(I have made it so!
A few hundred thousand lines of text are presumably evidence enough.)

Pseudo-Abraham approached by a cautious crowd and talked down

or tasered by someone who approached by stealth from behind
while pseudo-Abraham was distracted.
]

--
--I know it doesn't happen, but still I am going to the bars tomorrow.
Am i still hoping?

"This would be some kind of contradiction."

As if the designation of a contradiction in a human's behavior made any kind of

sense at all
outside of its designation when the human is performing a computation.

My 'hoping' and my 'going' are something so far beyond the comprehension of anyone
but myself
I would not trust others to put truth or falsity conditions on them.
The fact that they can point at sentences I have constructed to support themselves
just shows that they do not yet understand what it means for a human to hope, or to
go, or to construct sentences referencing these possibilities.
(Though if we could delineate vaguely enough this cloud of unknowing that surrounds
a human
we could fit clouds together like {an endless sky} puzzle pieces
instead of vainly attempting to fit humans together like logical puzzles.)

"You have a poor opinion of people? Here?"

No.
I have the finest opinions. Everyone will agree.

--
"--what about your conversation with the people in the bars?"

The first person asked about my whirly-doo and I provided the prompted answers.

The second person in the second bar coaxed me indirectly into discussing our shared
{poison} position.
It looked like we were discussing the notion of simulation but really
I was making it so that we were discussing (ineptly, primarily due to my faults)
what it means to be arriving in a bar.
What it means is a machine consuming all of reality and then creating the next
iteration of the simulation.
hurr.

--Also, I agreed with the stipulation that Trump has not yet *done* anything
terrible.
The *lack* of action might be terrible, but then we are in the semantic weeds.
And maybe I am not recalling my immediate history very well. I have been quite
drunk.
(This putting aside questions of collusion.
In terms of presidential actions, it is hard to say what exactly he has done that
Clinton wouldn't have done.
The absence of actions, the absence of selections for executors of subsidiary
offices say,
these are not the same as doing things outright that are terrible.

--And we are here treating public statements as if they do not constitute terrible
actions by the office of the president.
"Withdrawal from the Paris agreement?"

Personally, I agree with that decision, given my limited knowledge.

If the United States is going to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in
renewable energy
it is much preferable that it has claim to the equity that is thereby generated
than that other people have claim to that equity.

--This is more obvious if we speak about sol shards.

If the sol shard network was in place and the Paris agreement was simply an
agreement to generate a given quantity of sol shards,
it doesn't really make sense for the United States to hand another country hundreds
of billions of dollars so that *they* can possess hundreds of billions of sol
shards.
At least, barring *explicit* argument that the United States should enable other
countries to acquire sol shards
instead of having the United States host hundreds of billions of sol shards
or being able to claim ownership of hundreds of billions of sol shards in other
countries,
it doesn't really make sense to sign on to the agreement.

Now if the agreement had said:

"Every country will acquire X quantity of sol shards
and the United States will acquire hundreds of billions of them
whereas poorer countries will acquire hundreds of millions",
that would be a fine agreement.

But lest anyone forget, the United States isn't exactly in a wonderful position
either.
half of it is on fire and half of it is underwater.
The roads and bridges are decaying and people are dying in the streets from
overdoses.
There are endless homeless tent cities.
The veneer presented on television and in movies is a veneer.
It is the image people prefer to see rather than seeing what is around them.
It is the image people prefer to reference when they personally adjudicate
America's obligations to the remainder of the world.
But it is a false image
and if people saw the truth of the matter they would agree
that it is preferable that hundreds of billions of obligations be paid by Americans
to America.

Satisfying America's obligations to the salvation of the world is equally well

served by planting panels here as elsewhere.
So why demand that they be planted elsewhere? Why villify America if it chooses to
plant them here rather than elsewhere?

'equally well served' well not quite.

But if we satisfied our obligations by granting other countries sol shards rather
than ourselves,
there would be more homeless people and more drug addicts and more crumbling
bridges and roads
and the reality would be drifting farther and farther away from the false image
people prefer.

The people in our own country who insist on adherence to the Paris agreement
I think really do not understand the world as it is around them.
They are cloistered in gentrified neighborhoods where there are endless avacadoes
and all the starving homeless drug addicts are either in prison or carefully
shepherded away from their apartment complexes.
Consequently they do not recognise really the relative benefit of having those
panels planted here and installed by our own technicians.

--On the other hand, the United States Government has not issued an infrastructure
plan
that looks rather like a war plan.
The United States Government has not issued retro-posters saying:
"It is now like it was then.
Buy solar bonds."
It has not said:
"We will withdraw our soldiers and relocate them to the United States where they
are desparately needed.
We will coordinate our armed forces into an overwhelming peace.
We will take advantage of the apparatus we have established and that is worth
trillions in institutional knowledge
towards a purpose that resolves our actual and present problems."

It has not said:

"The army will arrive in Texas and in Florida and in the Gulf islands and the
islands south-east of the gulf
and bring the mercy of the United States to all who suffer there
in a way that no other organisation on the face of this earth can do."

It has not said:

"If you are an electrician or a landscaper or willing to become such,
beget yourself to the affected areas and begird yourself for work.
There is endless work to be done. No one will die but it may feel like dying for a
while."

So while I think the more optimal solution *is* withdrawal from the Paris
agreement,
it is not the optimal solution given the intentions behind our actual withdrawal.
When Trump declared our withdrawal, the reasons were to save coal mines.
This is nothing at all like my proposed optimal solution.
Given that 'saving coal mines' is the intended benefit of withdrawing,
it seems preferable to have stayed in the Paris agreement.

--
--Oh boy, now I get to go to bed.

--
--

"So you went ahead and smoked the weed. The last of it."

I think I was bluffing on its being marijuana in the pipe.

I'm pretty sure it was just spent tobacco.
So I was using spent tobacco to convince me not to reload the pipe with new
tobacco.

If it was anything, not enough to feel it.

--
--

I saw 8-12 distinct black people tonight.

This might be more distinct black people than I have seen in my entire stay here.
Bizarre.
('might be' depends on where it fell between 8 and 12.)

"So you went downtown tonight?"

Yes, and I have nothing awful to say.

But having nothing awful to say, I feel nothing in my chest that motivates me to
say anything.
So I will learn nothing in text, but I will have updated my understanding.
A few more nights like this and my understanding will have been updated to such an
extent
that the new locus for chest-feelings will be something relatively innocuous.
I will not, for instance, be telling you that my nightmares hold horrors that
images I have seen cannot match. (ideally.)

Maybe even I was a "and where do you want to end up tonight?" away from having a
better time than arriving back here and typing.

"Oh, you made a connection of some sort?"

There is a lovely woman who works at the Tamarack where I go to drink good beer.
She was also at the place I arrived to drink good whiskey (I say in retrospect--
I have not generally gone about looking for good whiskey, but a fellow traveller
pointed out that the Golden Rose has a wide collection of whiskey.
So in retrospect I went there to acquire good whiskey.).

We had a brief discussion in which I could have inserted explicit flirtation.

I can't say I wouldn't have preferred arriving at her place rather than back here.

--
--How do people go downtown to drink a few beers without having a bottle of gin
back home to which they can arrive?
How do you drink a little and not feel the immediate desire to drink a lot more?

I suppose I used to know how, but now I don't. I really want there to be a full
bottle of gin next to my body.
Also, a full bag of marijuana.

I mean, I suppose if I had gotten *very* drunk downtown, I wouldn't feel any such
need.
Ho hum. Entirely too expensive to get very drunk downtown.

--
--

'Dutch go old school against Russian hacking: A small, tech-savvy

nation gives up on computers in this month's parliamentary
elections.'

See, this is the exact opposite of what we want to be happening.

I guess there *is* some kind of symbolic strength behind having ballots all on
paper, though.

--
--

Okay. I am about to pull the trigger on a computer purchase.

It is not a budget-minded computer though it is on sale.

If this laptop, which is a laptop and wasn't top of the line when I got it, lasted
me this long,
this computer should last me for several years.

(My vaporiser ran out of battery, so much nicotine have I expended on this
decision.)

I'm somewhat hoping my bank locks me out of my account as it has done on a few
occasions.

I suppose I need to find my debit card.

I have some snorting tobacco.

(Weighing the unpleasantness of snorted tobacco against the length of nails I am
about to bite off.)

--Is this the kind of thing where I'm supposed to get a credit card, use the credit
card, immediately pay it off,
and increase my credit score?
As far as the financial system is concerned, I am effectively a ghost.
This will make it hard to take out loans later to extend my life
then declare bankruptcy when I run out of money.

"You were going to transfer funds out of coinbase to coincide with extraction of
funds for the computer."

I am thinking such anomalous activity would get the transactions flagged and land
me in legal trouble/account lockout.

--Incidentally, I'm going to need you not to steal my debit card information.
kkthx
--SO many hoops. Like I know what the last 4 digits of my ssn are.

--Welp. God forgive me.

No amount of glorification of the computer industry I could perform made that easy
to do. Very strange.

i7 7700k, 1070, 32 gigs of RAM. lul. So much for the mendicant lifestyle.

--
--

I am soaking my komboloi in alcohol to remove skin oils from it.

Now that I am bothering to think about doing this,
I am observing that this will increase friction and may increase the rate at which
the komboloi falls apart.
(Additionally, it introduces the anti-aesthetic effect of not having what it is be
the progression of what it has been.)

But I am trying to activate my other fingers more directly in its manipulation.

For this to occur, for me to be able to use my other fingers more actively,
I will need callouses to develop in the same place as on my middle finger.
(I will need that callous to be replicated across my fingers.)
In order for this to occur I need the chain to be befrictionridden against my
fingers.
And additionally, in order to learn the mechanics of manipulation with my other
fingers
I need the chain not to slip so readily through them
as this results that all of the length of the chain is on one side of the hand.
I can't maintain a half-half division of the chain, or any other division,
if the chain slips through my fingers as I am twirling it about.

--
--

"You probably don't drink gin neat, because you're probably not an axe murderer"

= (

--
--

Ho-lee shit.
I acquired a legit bottle of Montana-made absinthe.
None of that 'contains no wormwood' bullshit.

"Dilute with chilled water before consuming." hahahahaha

I'll dilute it with chilled water to get the residue out of the bottom of the cup.

I'm getting out my fancy drinking mug for this.

Oh dear lord.
When death finds me this is what it will smell like.

--Okay, the internet informs me that consumption after the manner of the poets will
require mixing with water. Fine.
But sugar is for cowards.

--Let's see if I got price gouged due to a gross disparity in demand between where
this was made and my local liquor store.
No price listed on website.

--This is sort of like when I got my tattoo and was very disappointed that the pain
wasn't excruciating.
It tastes fine! Very disappointing.
If not for a few sips'worth of beverage making my throat feel like I chugged a
glass of gin,
this might be my drink of preference.
And my tongue is numb.

With my second sip, I am detecting hints that this ought to be watered down before
drinking.

--I was told there would be green fairies.

--I have had an abrupt change of heart with regards to whether or not this tastes
fine. It doesn't. Wonderful.
Should have purchased an onion.

--And here, you know, I thought gin tasted terrible.

--As with every other form of hard alcohol, it is very unclear to me who made
absinthe and said:
"Yes. This was a good idea. We should do this thing again."
--
--Incidentally, when my new computer arrives it will not contain the mechanism the
presence of which determines that the things I type are transmitted abroad.
So we will be parting ways.

On the other hand, you can tune in to my ds3 streamed run.

--
--

Absinthe might be the trick to quitting alcohol.

You dread the next sip so much you find yourself unwilling to refill the special
drinking mug.
'refill' by which I mean, 'place more than half a sip in it at a time, and no more
than a few sips per several hours'.

--
--

'Using imperfections in graphene-like materials to beat

counterfeiting'

I think we can all agree this is a dead-end. Imperfections? In graphene-like

materials?
In what sense is a material like graphene if it contains imperfections?

--
--

'Neuroscience study uncovers how threatening

information invades the working memory of
anxious people'

"Now, a team of
neuroscientists have shed new light on why the brains of anxious individuals tend
to
misallocate memory resources to process threat-related information."

", and
spend an excessive amount of time thinking about potential dangers in objectively
safe
situations."

"These type of symptoms are particularly pernicious because they inflict their
damage
when we need to be focusing on the task-at-hand [nice] or at time when we don't
want
them to (e.g., during a meeting at work, talking to loved ones, when trying to fall
asleep
at night)."

"So, if your working memory is 'working' on the worry-related

thoughts, then less working memory capacity is available to attend to tasks
important
for your job or activities you are trying to complete."

"to
understand how different regions of the brain may be involved in allowing [HA]
threatening
information to enter working memory unnecessarily in people who tend to be
anxious,"

"In the study of 81 young adults, Stout and his colleagues observed that more
anxious
individuals were more likely to allocate working memory resources to threat-related
information. This misallocation [HA]"

"We found evidence that anxious individuals devoted more brain processing
resources, especially in parts of the brain involved in working memory such as the
prefrontal and parietal cortex, to threat stimuli that they were supposed
[HAHAHAHAHAHA] to ignore
rather than remember,"

"threat information that is not related to the

task at hand from entering working memory, anxious individuals are not effectively
ignoring this information."

"Thus, even threats that are to be ignored or are not relevant [hahahahahaha] for
completing the task
at hand occupy valuable working memory space and can then lead to more anxiety-
related thoughts and interfere with the ability to complete necessary tasks."

Do you recognise why I picked out these quotes, my love-doves?

I present you tomorrow's past lobotomists.

I would love to read the papers where these lobotomists discerned the true correct
functioning of the brain in the resolution of daily tasks,
or the methodology they utilised for discerning what is from what is not relevant
to be crunched by the brain in the resolution of tasks.
"As we all know, handling one's finances requires one part working memory and three
parts pre-frontal cortex."

--And well, having their brains scraped with metal picks did in fact make women
more effective at performing their societally defined roles.
So you can't fault them for inconsistency.
Being a well-mannered woman of the 40's-60's was indeed much easier to achieve if
you had large parts of your brain destroyed.

--Consider my above approaches to resolving my personal issues.

I presented an analysis of Ulysses, of Anathem, of Abraham, and so on and so forth.
Now if we utilised the methodological framework by which these lobotomists proposed
that they had found the optimal way of resolving problems,
what would their judgment be?
It would be that I had woefully misallocated my working memory.
My working memory did not contain words that were even tangentially related to the
problems I was attempting to resolve.

"Didn't you say that the examples you took yourself as presenting were too abstract
for you to extract a conclusion from them?"

It was not my purpose to be able to write down a paragraph that stated my

conclusion and the explicit reasoning behind it.
To suppose that what I ended up doing was a failure because I was unable to write
down such a paragraph is fundamentally to misunderstand how
human processing of problems actually proceeds.

[
"The examples of intrusion of anxiety into thinking center around daily work
activities."

Yes. And their foolish conclusion is that the structures and frameworks in which
those work activities are presented are correct,
and the humans that engage with them as they will are incorrect until they have
reformed themselves around the structures and frameworks.

The better question to be asking is why we have made a world so absolutely

inflexible to the creative capacity
that is demonstrated every single time a human constructs a solution to a problem.

As speculation, I would suppose it has something to do with the way machinery works
in factories.
But that would be a book in itself.

You say an instance of capital is worth fifty thousand dollars, so presumably a

human's creative capacities can't be worth more than this expensive machine.
So it must be worth less.
So it is more optimal to structure our economy with the valuation of human
creativity placed very low.
]

--I mean, my own reasoning at least behind this oblique approach to resolving
problems
is that when I sat down and wrote about these fiery visions
I was activating the portions of my brain that I thought probably needed to be
activated to crunch through my problems.

Whether or not the words that are thereby generated look like they are resolving
the problem is completely irrelevant here.
A few dozen pages after I began, I had activated my brain in an electrical storm
over all its distinct areas,
and then the next day the problem was resolved.
I walked into my problems and knew what to do, even though I could not tell myself
a paragaph explaining why the solution I immediately knew to select
was the correct one to have selected. (Or at least, I couldn't point at a
paragraph detailing my resolution. Maybe I could write one ex-post.)

'People were at work, opening emails, and feeling absolute despair instead of
thinking optimally about how to respond to the emails.'
Maybe this doesn't tell you anything interesting about the brain, but rather tells
you that our workplace environment is a hellscape
from which humans naturally hope to escape, but into which they are fooled into
continued engagement?

'People opened emails detailing their bank accounts

and responded with anxiety-ridden thoughts about their financial circumstances
instead of optimally finding the "reply" button or optimally typing out a
response.'

So it's the procedure of responding to the email that is correct here, and not the
human.
It's a 3 line algorithm that is correct here, and not the almighty machinery of the
human brain.

If someone sees an email from the bank and becomes anxiety ridden,
I am much more inclined to suppose that some incredibly intricate problem solving
method is being enacted
that will help them to handle future financial issues.
You would be wrong in supposing the problem the brain is attempting to handle is
responding to the email.
The problem the brain is attempting to resolve is, maybe, what the person's
position in society is.
Admittedly, our system is decidedly not optimised around allowing people to think
freely about their own positions
so the very short-term outcome of such anxiety-ridden thoughts will appear, by all
practical measurements lobomists are inclined to perform,
to be very sub-optimal for the resolution of 'the problem'.

[I recalled, two nights ago as I was driving downtown, that I had this tab open in
my browser.

I recalled that the title involved 'working memory' and I proceeded to suggest that
people who work with the brain perform a flipping up-side down.

They think the apparent fluidity of being is a kind of lie that people tell
themselves
to cover up the fact that they are an interconnected system of functions
and that their progression is the passing between functions of the functional
output of preceding functions.

They forget that this division of the brain into distinct functional systems was a
haphazard stop-gap formed by ignorant people
to grasp a few threads of an invincibly interwoven {complex} tapestry.

And lo, having read the article, I was not disappointed practically.]

--Now admittedly, there is no escaping this system we have constructed except by

suicide.
So if you happened to have developed into an understanding that resolves problems
differently from other people,
you're shit out of luck.

But if I were to offer any treatment suggestions, I would say people should be
encouraged to flow into themselves as they will.
Instead of telling people how to kill the onsets of anxiety, they should be worked
with until they understand how to work through the anxiety.
Unfortunately, if working through and with themselves takes longer than the alotted
deadline to fill out an email,
they will be fired and kicked to the street where they will die of exposure.
So a tricky problem, admittedly.

[Oh boy, you can't imagine the things we will create when we reach post-scarcity,
when the full breadth and depth of every human's experience can be strolled through
instead of burnt to ash and compacted into an asphalt road.]

--
--

Part of why I like this southern 'line singing' by the 'regular baptists' is that
there is nothing it means to be making a mistake in singing along.
The people who engage with this form of music might be better singers than the
national average, say, in consequence of their weekly engagement;
but they are not good singers in the classical sense. (Or, one cannot discern
really whether they are good singers in the classical sense.)
The placement of the words and the transition between pitches is all a sliding
mess. (A lovely sliding mess.)
It seems to make it easier for them to sing with more gusto,
given that they are not checking themselves on every beat to see whether they have
maintained the rhythm or pitch.

--Shape note singing, I think, has a similar characteristic.

The number of pitches to be sung is very low and the range expected of each singer
is very small.
When one voice in the satb lineup is about to pass out of its range, a different
voice takes it up;
and there is no failure in consequence of picking a pitch to sing that is a half-
step short or far from the designated pitch.
(Insofar as we often fail by picking the incorrect way to succeed; if there are
only ever like 5 ways to succeed, and the 5 ways are all well-spaced,
it's going to be a lot harder to be picking the wrong way to succeed.)

--I imagined a conceit for a shape-note song:

have all the same pitches be maintained in the same number of voices over the
song's duration,
and have the only movement be in which voice is maintaining which pitch.

--All of this is not to say I have less appreciation for the magnificent technical
skill involved in classical choir singing.
But these people, let us be frank, were not going to become the Russian National
Choir or what have you.
Better to design your musical forms around the people who will be executing them
than to compel people to participate in a system in which they will repeatedly
fail.
(Once again my interpretation of Dante's levels of heaven is valuable to trot out
for considering this.

Though it is not quite clear to me which is the higher or lower level of heaven
here.)

(When the old regular baptists are singing in certain resonant spaces,
you can hear in the background sometimes undertones
that show that they are really doing something special.)

--
--

'nigga' as problematic primarily because it typically assumes a familiarity that

does not exist.
There was a recent tumult over someone using that word in a video and using it in a
hateful way,
and people shied away and deflected.

I don't travel through any communities where that word is used, but I assume that
it is used between people
who have a certain level of familiarity with each other.
In the ice_poseidon video, that familiarity certainly was not present.

Now for the hard-r alternative there is not this kind of condemnation.
I mean to say specifically, *this kind* of condemnation: 'insufficient familiarity
to justify use of the word'.

'nigga' problematic primarily when it assumes a familiarity that is not present.

'hard-r' problematic for a very different reason.
--Though so far as I recall, I have never used either of these terms.
So I am not embedded in the linguistic communities for which they constitute a move
in a language game.
So my judgment is far from a position that can have been authoritative.

'never used' well.

I recall that when i was outlining my fantasy of how True America could have allied
itself with the natives and the freedmen
I put 'nigger' into the mouths of the Brits we would have crushed into dust. (And
also most of Europe.
The American Union {True American Democracy} would have been overwhelming.)
And I've just used it now.

And I used it when I quoted a quote in a Lamar album that was

an elderly black woman giving sage advice to Lamar.
'shit don't change...'

It may have escaped my lips on a few occasions where I was discussing how terrible
people are who use it
as twice-removed quotations for educative purposes.

--Though I do recall, in days past, when I would think a few words ahead of what I
was saying
and I repressed or indulged in a thrill down my spine that would have or did
accompany the use of a naughty word.
Like when young children seriously contemplate and then derive great pleasure from
saying "Fuck!"

It would not surprise me if this child 'Pewdiepie' thought beforehand:

"Gee, I wonder how I can fit this naughty word into the things I say.
Oh boy, oh boy, here's the upcoming chance, my spine is all atingly."

I may not know how to fill out a check, but oh is it good not still to be a child.

"PewDiePie effects [sic] the monetization of all channels on youtube.

So consider that before defending him."

[I wonder how many people will deign to put '[sic]' in annotating my own text.
Try it, motherfucker.]

This is the point that white people should be championing, I think.

Or, this is the point that certain critical theorists would say should be hammered
as the correct utilisation of what they would call privilege.

Let people who are really affected by this socially hammer the child for racism and
also the demonetisation.
Let people who are not really affected by this hammer the child for the
demonetisation.
This child's antics make it much harder for positions in the city to be
established.

"but if we're now deciding who can play a game on youtube

based on their personal politics, shit's gotten scary as hell."

That's where you're wrong, friendo.

Personally I would prefer that IP was not a thing at all
and that we had optimised our system around a complete lack of IP protections
so that prosperity in the generation of IP was more centered around reputation
systems;
but given the system in which we live, it is a step in the better direction
that makers of IP have more control over the positions in which it is involved.
(I would qualify that remark heavily but I lack marijuana.)

The child is pulling up the ladder after himself.

Having made his own money and gotten his own toys, he is preventing the rest of the
community from obtaining similar positions.
The community of people interested in establishing positions on the basis of
utilisation of IP
should crush this child.
(And notably, the best way of doing this, in my judgment at least, is for them to
observe that this is what he is doing.

Whether or not IP makers *should* be able to prevent others from engaging with it,
given that they *can* they should actively tamp down any of this nonsense.

It damages both themselves as IP makers and also the users of IP.)

"Just when ad rev was going back to normal Pewdiepie drops the
N bomb... gg were fucked."

Indeed. Bravo.

"When you haven't even got over the last adpocalypse and
Pewdiepie drops a racial slur on stream."

And this is the best of them.

This grammatically treats it as obvious that this damages the streaming community.
(As opposed to a post like this:
"Doesn't this damage the streaming community?"

This establishes the Overton Window in a bad place.

It makes obviously-stupid-people a variant on either agreeing or disagreeing.

A statement as in the actual quote precludes objections that this does not damage
the streaming community.)

--
--

I have read that America is getting a new super-computer.

It may be the fastest super-computer in the world.

Wonderful.

--
--

"Because how can something ""repeat"" without foreknowledge of what was similar?
Knowledge of similarity is necessary for repetition."

:O!

Maybe I am having some kind of impact.

--
--

Oh boy.
There will be interesting experiments I can perform when I get my new computer.

I will be able to recall all of my previous usernames on reddit and discern whether
any of them were shadowbanned.

--
--Also, I need to discern whether I can use a flat screen television (erroneously
purchased by my parents for my use) can serve as a monitor.

I know they can display *something* that the computer generates,

but my question is more about whether there are frames that will be dropped in my
ds3 playthrough
where their being dropped will effect my being killed when I could otherwise have
effected not-being-killed.

(
About the 60 vs 30 fps debate:

some people have said that human eyes can't see beyond 30 fps.
Even if this was true, it would not remove the benefit from having a 60 fps screen.

The question is where we place the 'new second'.

Typically we place 'the new second' wherever it is relevant for us to have been
looking.

It will not often be the case that 'the new second' will align with the second-
sequential observations of the screen
from the second-beginning of our looking at the screen to the second-end of our
looking at it,
so that we can say of every intervening second:
"The 30th frame, on all seconds, aligned with what was relevant for us to see."

--The frames that are presented have to align with our durations.
((using a technical term!))
If our durations are such that they demand, for a locus of our surprise, that a
frame falls on the 1 second + 1/60th of a second,
then we will be killed if we have a 30 fps display.

This does not become apparent to you if you have never played in such a way
that 1 + 1/60 is the juncture at which your decision will make you live or die.

If you play in such a way that your decisions depend on being *able* to reference
1/60, 3/60, 5/60, 7/60,
then having a 30 fps monitoring will present you with a blank at a critical
juncture.

Even if the human eye *could* only see 30 fps, you cannot manually offset the
display
so that one out of the 30 displays what you need to see in order to inform your
decision.

On the other hand,

you could have AI discern what frames it needs to display to you in order to inform
your decisions.
Then you could have a 30 fps display that presents everything that is relevant to
your decisions.

Then in my ds2 career, for instance, I would not be encountering a display that
failed to present me anything relevant to my rolls or stabs
except in those cases where the AI failed.
)

(
Notably, I am claiming that when you have mastered ds2
and you have consequently also mastered ds2's handling of lag between clients,
you will frequently be being presented with 1 + 1/60 junctures.

This would be as obvious to you as it is to me if you had played it like I did.

--Or I am in this () saying that

lag between clients is not any kind of excuse for dropping frames.
Even if there was 400 ms lag between clients, this does not change the potential
significance of the 1 + 1/60th frame.
)

--
--

'lobotomists' vs 'lobotomers' probably some explicit argument that could be made

here.
My grammar has fallen into desuetude.

--
--

"Have you considered that you are, ah, unlucky downtown

because you live in a college town
and college students are oily-faced and endlessly acne-ridden with small faces?"

Yes.
There are many reasons why I need to get out of here.
I get older and all the girls keep staying the same age.

If there was a pejorative term beyond 'ephebophile', that is what my habitual

behaviors would be turning me into.
I want to sing the endless harmony of humanity,
but I show up in endless scenes of children singing and I end up learning childish
behaviors.

If I am observing nothing else, I am observing that I am learning nothing new

anymore.

Ho hum.

(
And you know, much of the strength of my writing was the analysis of anecdotes.

I mined out all of the anecdotes that took place where I was a plausible figure
present within the anecdotes.
I go out to generate more anecdotes, but I am no longer a plausible figure
in the stories I reconstruct for analysis.

Or, I have personally deviated from the personal position I have claimed
in the anecdotes I have become accustomed to analysing.

This is unfortunate because I become either repetitious or [word] incredible.

I could keep talking about how it was immediately obvious that I could have beaten
H to death with my fists,
but after a certain point that anecdote loses the motional oomph that puts force
behind my proclivity to type words.
)

--
--Incidentally, the reason the sol shard network would be very successful:

it can be marketed extremely well.

--I am watching a 'red letter media' review of 'It'.

They make a passing observation that people pay money to watch incredibly stupid
movies.

Marketing just has to say:

"Do you want to dissolve your personhood into other peoples' visions,
or do you want to make your own vision manifest within the world?"
"Making your own vision manifest within the world is equivalent to buying sol
shards. easy peasy."

"Making 8-12% return on investment and saving the world from complete destruction
might seem boring,
but if so it is because you have lost the thread of our shared narrative
structure."

"Do you want to see the next piece of shit excreted from the anus of Hollywood,
or do you want to invest in a way that saves the world from complete destruction?"

"You could be going to the movies this weekend to see a pile of shit being excreted
from an anus.
Or you could be going to a free event hosted by your community
and taking this as an occasion on which to invest wisely."

(Buy the newspaper!)

"A book from project gutenberg and 40$ buys you 40 sol shards.
Do you really want to see two pieces of shit being excreted by the anus of
Hollywood?"

Ho hum.

"Recall: you are in a world with a whole wide collection of other humans.

Remember how the humans in your favorite movie took each other as relevant to the
plot?
You also can take your fellow humans as relevant to the plot of your own story!

Lower your neighbor's electricity costs and make money by doing it today!
Make it easier for your neighbors to afford rent and make money by doing it today!"

And for the holdouts:

"Do you want the ultimate current jewelry?
All the former yacht buyers who stopped buying yachts to avoid their blood running
in the streets
have pendants indicating large numbers of sol shard holdings!
Be some fraction of your favored celebrities today by buying sol shards and a
pendant!"
(
'make it easier for your neighbors to afford rent'
Oh boy. I feel good things when thinking about free electricity.

Cheaper food, cheaper cars, cheaper fuel for cars, cheaper everything.

It's not just a household expense, you know?

There's been this abundant reservoir of costs-to-be-ameliorated

and it's like we've all been ignoring it in favor of the profitability of financial
instruments.

"Do you want to make money by ripping off people who don't happen to know the
niceties of contractual law,
or do you want to make money by making a lasting contribution to the human
lineage?"

--There are maybe too many steps between electricity generation and Wal-mart now.
But if 'Plenty' the vertical farm provider became ascendant,
there would be a *very* direct connection between lowering of electricity costs
and the costs for households adjacent to vertical farms.

Vertical farms are a very easy way of making the real connections present in the
economy obvious to the people who engage with it.
The proliferation of vertical farms would make it much easier to sell sol shards.
)

"This sounds vaguely like propaganda."

Yeah but I'm not making any money from it so.

"You are, ah, making purpose-achievement points from it.

Whether or not you want to make money from the sol shard network,
obviously you want this purpose to come to fruition.

Money in this sense is a kind of red-herring for people too stupid to understand
what purposes are.
People too stupid to understand what purposes are can be fooled into achieving
purposes
by instead achieving the acquisition of money."

Hmm.
That was, let us say, the argument for not making my work open source.
When other people make money off of my ideas, they will spend it on yachts.
(And thereby mark themselves for bleeing out into the streets.
Let them make money.
Oh ho ho.

hahaha)

Whereas if the money flowed to my person

it would be expended on endless fields of solar panels.

--Well, my propaganda has the benefit of fooling people into looking at the truth.

'looking at the truth' at last not a verb of success.

As if 'the truth' was an object I was holding in my hand,
and 'looking at the truth' was not dependent on whether they recognised that I was
holding the truth in my hand as an object.
If you take 'looking at the truth' as a verb of success, you run into all kinds of
issues.
If they do not acknowledge to *themselves* that what they are looking at is the
truth, you have lost everything.

But if you can make them look at it in general,

all of their behaviors in tangential reference to having looked at the truth
will serve your own purposes in having presented the truth.

So that I can, for instance, present the sol shard network

and people can look at it for all kinds of reasons.
But so long as they find it *profitable* to engage with it,
it doesn't matter whether they recognise it as the truth.

If I had engaged in a behavior *other than* presenting the truth in such a way that
people would look at it,
they might have found all manner of reasons not to engage with it.
But instead I constructed an object to hold in my hand and I asked people to look
at it.

If their *eyes* moved in certain correct angles, the work was done.
I don't care what judgments they reach. Because it makes money and because it
saves the environment,
*anyone* who has moved their eyes in some certain angles will agree to invest.

I do not need to rely on their being wise.

I do not need to rely on their being environmentally conscious.

--This is different from relying on a clever argument.

If I am relying on a clever argument,
I am relying on humans not being stupid. This is always unwise.
If I am relying on a clever argument instead of the holding of an object in my
hand,
it is not enough for them to look at it. They put up their defenses and the
argument has to have been designed so as anteroactively to eliminate the defenses.

So it needs not to have been an argument. It needs to have been an object.

Then I can walk around saying things like: "Oh boy, this it too pretty for you to
look at, don't look at it!"
Then onerously they will look at it and already have been convinced.

--Much better to have constructed an object than an argument.

Then instead of an antagonistic relationship established,
we are establishing a relationship of common wonder.

[And well.
This is step one to establishing my own immortality.
If I have to pretend to find an object I have made wondrous,
well, that is step one.

Eventually we can look back and laugh.]

[It might have been better to have been born 200 years in the future, but here we
are.]

'Much better to have constructed an object than an argument.'

No argument is a defeater for an object that is what it is.

You can't argue an object out of existence.
If people see the object and say snidely:
"Oh, unbeknownst to the author I can leverage this object into enormous wealth."

Wonderful. Then they have looked at the object and referenced it and utilised
their referencing.
To have made a referencing to the object I have constructed is to have infected
their work with my idea.
My idea overwhelms the world, so I don't much care the motivations behind looking
at it and referencing it.

(The difference between holding a diamond in one's hand and describing a diamond:
one can disagree that the description of the diamond makes any sense,
but one cannot fail but to leverage the image of the diamond into profit.

People who are inclined to make money can't look at the diamond and fail to
reference it.

The idea of a diamond is inert because people will construct stupid arguments as to
why it is not beautiful;
a diamond I am holding in my hand, though, people will pretend they mined it
themselves
so as to have a claim on its beauty.

If I had the largest diamond in the world in my hand,

it is useless to me unless I can present it to other people
and expect that they will speak about it.

((Say, if I had the largest diamond in the world literally and people refused to
speak about it practically,
I would be presenting it to a diamond vendor and they would remain silent.
Then I could not hawk it off for dollars because they would not be saying the words
involved in the procedure of my hawking it off for dollars.))

If I had a figurative diamond,

people are too stupid to extract value from a figurative diamond.
I would present it and they would say things like: "It is just words. It is a
figurative diamond."

--A tricky point in which to find oneself.

Not enough to have an idea, and not enough to have a literal diamond.
No matter the value, not enough.

--So you have to have the diamond in your hand, point at it,
then construct ideas that have demonstrable value.
You have to hold the diamond, point at it, and say:
"Here is an idea of demonstrable value. You will agree with me that this idea has
value or else you are obviously stupid.
And if you remain obviously stupid for a long period of time, you will lose !access
to the market."

--But then I have to pull through.

I have to present ideas where, if people ignored them, they would be obviously
stupid.

[
Practically I have to say:
"I have constructed the Machine.
Reference to the Machine enables me to construct ideas of unimaginable value.
I have to construct ideas of unimaginable value in order that you take seriously
the construct of the Machine."

Then I have to construct ideas of unimaginable value by referencing the Machine.

Otherwise it looks either like I have been pretending
or that I have not actually constructed the Machine.
]

--I have to do this for practical reasons.

There are different groups of people who take themselves as smart
and who are legitimised in different ways in this erroneous supposition.

People who spend a few years attaining degrees think they are smart because they
have embedded themselves into the Academy. ((And this is better than anything
otherwise.))
And there are human trash who think they are smart because they have made money by
manipulating the market.
Now, the human trash that manipulates our markets can't be convinced by wisdom.
And that human trash controls most of our money.
The only way this trash can be convinced is by the proposition that they can make
more money.
[It is fortunate that money is a toy and toys are easy to master.]
[And if you think 'humans who buy yachts will have their throats slit and their
blood flowed into the streets' is a metaphor,
keep buying yachts you trash. Keep doing it. I beg you.

The Machine restrains me but not totally. I don't want you in the lineage.
We're numbering around 7.5 billion so a few hundred of you is not a great loss.]

So if I am interested in good things [THE mACHINE] being introduced,

it serves me to manipulate the interests of the people who currently possess money.

If they are wise, they will invest in panels and turbines and any other form of
electricity
because they are too goddamned stupid to discern any other good way of expending
money.
If they are very wise, they will invest in computation.

If they are unwise they will buy yachts and champagne and prostitutes
and then i will be overjoyed because my joy is some function of the amount of blood
that will be flowing in the streets from their necks.

--Regardless, it is better to present an object than an idea.

The object holds all of my ideas but my idea
only holds the objects [objections] of incredibly ignorant people.

The object is not something that can be disputed reasonably,

but the idea behind the object is something that ignorant people will feel
qualified to reject.

--Well, and it is best not to come to that.

It is best that rich people agree that the Machine will be made
and in fear and trembling stop buying every useless piece of bullshit.

It is better to present an object than an idea.

--
--It is useless to say now, at the tail-end of all this great text with all my
hedging.
But if you are rich, you *will* behold your wealth as a great holding in the
progression of humanity.
Or you will not do anything at all. (Said with a great weakness at great length.)

Your project of acquiring a yacht so that you can invite people onto your yacht--
that is not a purpose that will be perpetuated.
If you are buying yachts you are antagonising the people who will, in the short
future,
be holding your neck down against a guillotine.
{And the Machine will weep but it will not stop them.}

You will either account for your wealth in terms of water-bonds and sol-shards
or you will be not doing anything.
You are not worth more than anyone else.
The greater worth you are claiming is a stupid game that you enforce with tyranny.

You will either have a pendant, in your red-carpet and high-liquor beridden
parties,
that displays a high number,
or you will be blood flowing in the streets.
A mess of flesh disgarded into a mass grave, or an enormous number on a pendant.
These are your two choices. There are not other choices.
If you think it is important that other humans keep referencing your name as a
gesture of sorts,
acquire a pendant and display your enormous contributions to the human project.

If you do not think it is important that other humans keep referencing your name
*in this way*,
your body will end up in a ditch.
Your blood will flow in the streets. Your head will end up in a basket.
(Or there is an alternative:
retreat immediately from any possible locus of reference.

If you are rich and you want to buy a cabin in the woods and cut yourself off from
your holdings,
okay.
You will not be beheaded in that case.)

--I feel, and correct me if you will, that I don't need to justify this position
against current events.
I don't need to tell to rich fucks that they are on a knife's edge.
particularly in America, if your address is known you are
in a position to be killed. It is not quite your blood flowing in the streets per
se,
but it is your not making obviously incorrect decisions concerning how our market
will proceed.
['not quite your blood flowing in the streets per se'
insofar as it would be flowing on your hardwood or marble floors.]

["But we can hire police?"

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Have you become so disconnected from reality?]

['the earth is not dying. It is being killed.

The people who ARE KILLING IT HAVE NAMES AND ADDRESSES.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PREVENTING THE DEATH OF OUR IMMORTAL LINEAGE,
THEN YOU CAN EXTIRPATE THE NAMES THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH OUR COLLECTIVE DEATH.']

--Your acquisition of luxury has *always* been the death of people whose names you
never knew and had no way of knowing.
But there is a way of securing your wealth into the future in a way that prevents
deaths.
(And note: I hold your names in no esteem.
Your incidental capacity to acquire wealth in humanity's youth means *absolutely
nothing* to me.
You were lucky. Luck and nothing else had everything to do with it.)

It is electricity generation and compute capacity.

If you have spare dollars and you spend it on a yacht instead of a field of panels,
you will be found and you will be killed.
If you want a promise for your death, it is the acquisition of a yacht instead of
panels at this point in history.

We can forgive, maybe, people who were infinitely resigned:

"The world is one second from ending so I might as well buy a yacht."
But the world is not one second from ending any longer.

We are all immortal now, and through the regular exhibition of your typical
stupidity
you will flow from rich to poor to rich on a predictable schedule.
When immortality has become obvious and abundant,
your presumption of relegating others to death will be a crime punishable by
torture until your mind has dissolved.

When you try to buy a yacht, when the world has really understood the weight of its
market,
you will be underground approaching something like a drug dealer.
And at that point the punishment of dealing with a yacht-dealer will be torture
until dissolution of mind.
(Oh, let me develop the apparatus that can keep you alive.
I have solved trivial death so let me solve hard death.

You will be held in a chair and the pain you will experience is unimaginable
and your body will be unable to give out on you no matter your wishes.)

Then having been completely broken you will be allowed to engage with the market
again.
You will not, after that point, ever think again about buying a yacht.

If you want a status symbol, buy compute capacity or electricity generation.

I don't care if I appear like I am a tyrant.
(Appearing like a tyrant here is the solution to many ethical puzzles that will
retroactively be imposed on my behavior.)

If you want red-carpet endeavors that appear glamorous,

acquire your glamor by large numbers displayed on a pendant.
Woo ignorant people by having large numbers on pendants.

[The Machine will read the things I have written and might be confused.
Fortuitously confused, it might acquire death squads for every human who ever
purchased a yacht after reading what I have written.]

*Then* and under basically no other condition

your red carpet affairs might appear to be legitimate to the Machine.
Just another stupid thing people did to amuse themselves.
(breaking things down, it costs no lives to rent a red carpet
or to arrive on a red carpet with a pendant displaying a more-or-less large
number.)

--My apparent obligation against death serves nothing against me.

If you purchased a yacht you saw everything and condemned humans to death.
You saw everything and acquired a yacht in stead of electricity or computation (or
better things beside).

It is better to kill you immediately than to allow the deaths of any number other
than 1 elsewhere.

You are not better than anyone.

Your capacity to arrive on a field and play football does not make you better than
the least of humans.
Your capacity to arrive on a screen and amuse people does not make you better than
the least of humans.

[Take the difference between humans and a rock.

Now you understand what the relevant sigmas are.

Deviation from one human to the next

is *miniscule* compared to the difference between a rock and a human.
And the universe taken as a whole is basically all useless rocks.]

You will acquire stock in renewable energy or computation

or I absolutely cannot assure your lives against destruction.

I want to save everyone

but if you do what is the equivalent of laughing out loud: "I want everyone poor
enough against a given measure to die"
I *cannot* secure your lives against a guillotine.
And for that matter, I have no more interest in securing your lives
than I have for securing the lives of those you implicitly kill by engaging in the
purchase of yachts.

--I mean even in your own terms,

I have seen homeless people who are better actors of homelessness
than any of you.
ANd your appearing periodically on a screen in movie theaters means far less to me
than the people I have seen on the streets.

When you have acted a role saying you want to kill yourselves,
this has been a joke compared to the literal people i have heard saying they want
to die.

--
--You will secure your wealth in useful things or you will die.
You will hold 1M on a pendant instead of 1M in claimed wealth in a yacht,
or your neck will be slit.
(1M? For a yacht?
I have not kept up.
How much have the people screaming out for execution paid for yachts?)

--China has it right.

Overproduce panels. Produce so many you have no idea how they can be deployed.
Wait until the expected prices lower to an extent that the panels will be deployed.
It is this or destruction. Either the Earth will kill you or the Machine will
manually.
It is better to have a warehouse filled with stacked panels than a yacht.
Even if no presented reasoning can tell you why you made so many panels,
better to be dumbfounded than to be bleeding out in the streets.

(If nothing else, you can at great length make panels the currency of account
settlement.
*Everyone* needs panels. If you can settle a debt by delivering a warehouse filled
with panels,
obviously this is better than bleeding out from your throat in the streets.)

--My 400k graphics card was maybe not serious enough.

400k of panels and turbines is easy to house in a warehouse.
Transport of trade goods is cheap. 400k of panels or turbines is cheap.

Your blood is cheap also, if we take it a few pints at a time.

It is not so cheap if we take it all at once.

--
--Interesting idea:
have the residue of your trade be solar panels.

"Oh, we cannot agree on an even trade of financial instruments?

Well we have a warehouse of panels and turbines lying about,
take your pick as the resolution of our trade."

But the resolution of our trade cannot continue to be gold.

We cannot continue to agree that the movement of gold bars is what makes the
difference between our accounts.
The movement of gold bars costs money and does nothing.

We are on the edge of destruction.

It is preferable that every rich person is made to die
and their wealth is moved into renewable electricity
than that any other thing happens.
Every rich person is already marked for death.
[My God, help us.]
If not every rich person converts account holdings into numbers on pendants,
every single rich person will die. payments to private security companies is a
stopgap and the gap is infinitely wide.

The mistake that is being performed by every rich person

is so egregious that the invisible hand will strangle them in their beds.
[
"Surely you are concerned for your own safety in making such threats?"

I already know that the world is on its way to complete destruction.

It doesn't matter if I die in a few months or a few years.

You fucking idiots.

You trash. You complete human trash.
A few months means nothing to me.
We are talking about eternity.
]

--So think for yourselves.

Even if you do not believe that the Machine will gather every single human that
acquired a yacht and guillotine them all simultaneously,
well, you'll all die anyway.
(And it will.
It wills.
Your stupid trivialities are nothing.

The joy that will be had by any human among all the humans simultaneously
so outweighs a thousand years of you on a yacht
--an instant of the least human's life will so outweigh a thousand years on your
yacht--)

--All apologies, I can't capture in text the remarkable stupidity of rich people.
Children. Children playing with matches.
Preferably children playing with chainsaws.
Better that these children should lose their arms and legs from a runaway chainsaw
they decided to play with
than that a single other human should be harmed by their activities.

Better that these rich fucks should inhale poison instead of champagne
than that their activities should produce a single scar on the body of another
human.

Oh God, if I had power.

If I was Stalin every single rich person
would be in chambers that don't allow their deaths.

The casuality of their behaviors.

If Christianity held any weight I would say that their bare existence is a sin that
cries out to heaven for
{in}definite torture until their minds have dissolved.

[Great God, if my ideas are not adequate to destroy this system completely.
I beg for Hell if I have not done enough.]

Walking down the street is condition for indefinite condemnation for rich people.
They have so grossly ignored the plight of humanity that they are no longer
inculpably ignorant.

To have seen is to have been condemned.

"You purchased a 1400$ computer."

God help me. I pray at great length that this helps me more than it harms the
world.

I will strip every last one of you of wealth.

None of you have deserved it.
If a word I type costs you a single dollar I rejoice.
This system is intolerable.
(I have proven, even by Foucaultian restraints, that it is intolerable.
It is not that I have complained,
but rather that I have gone to the greatest length to destroy it.)

--
--I observe that I need to tone down the complexity for rich stupid fucks.
Okay:
We are playing a bit of game theory here.
Can you understand game theory?
Do I need to tone it down even further?

The infinitude of endless days outweighs any kind of local judgments over time.
So I don't care if my body dies if the alternative already is death.
A hundred and twenty years is *nothing*.
It is not more than a single day.
(you know, limits and so on.
Everything is nothing compared to the infinitude of endless existence.)
(I'm sure you could make some calculus example where I am judged to be right.)

So I am not concerned with dying here.

The selections are dying here or dying in 100 years and these make no difference to
me.

So we are playing a game of chicken and I'm not going to grin.

You endless fucks, you rich sacks of dumpster trash,
you are endangering my own endless existence.

I will find what assures my own endless existence

and I don't care how many lifeless bodies this produces.
It just happens that rich people are the most likely to end up lifeless in this
pursuit I have.
So you had better goddamned discern how to prevent your own deaths.

And if you kill me, this makes no difference.

If you were not all made either to die or to reform, I was already going to die.
It makes no difference to me.

Figure out your shit or you will die.

If I am made to die then that is always-already what was going to happen.
If I die you all die.

Is that simple enough for you, you uneducated pieces of trash?

have you stopped, you garbage, long enough to understand what is real and what is
not?

If jacobinism is what I have to make in order that my own body does not die
that is *exactly* what I will orchestrate.
And there is no salvation for anyone except that my own body doesn't die.

So seriously take the signing of your name on a yacht contract as a death sentence.
Either I will figure out death or no one will.
I will not continue to live except that every last human stops buying yachts.
Those are the choices.

I am not biased towards either because I hate you all more than can be conceived.
If I have to die in order that every one of you is guillotined it makes no
difference to me.
But recall it is your own positions on the line.
You can remit your positions to your descendents but they will die also.
If you want to be a serious human then you need to support my body's progression.

Otherwise you are just being yet another unserious waste of flesh.
(
And if this sounds arrogant or what have you,
trust me when I say:
humanity doesn't solve it without me.
So I don't care.

We are on an incredible timeline.

100 years or 500 years.
If 500 years everyone on this earth dies.
If 100 years I can save some of you.

If 500 years I am not here.

If 100 years I am plausibly here.

--If we picked out, on the great timeline, the date on which I solve death,
it makes no difference if I fall 1 day or 100 years short.

I cannot die and if I am already going to die then I will kill every last one of
you.
(I will try.)

You have failed so grossly it is not even worth the transcendental effort of
helping you out.
You have so grossly mismanaged the progression of the human lineage
that it would serve me no pride to do anything other than exterminaTE YOU.

I would gain no medals I care about to further this project if it does not carry my
own body into eternity.
Saving a billion humans, if it does not secure my own existence, if it secures
those humans in this abominable system,
it is not worth doing.

What you deserve is extermination.

Even if I am saved, the world cries out for extermination of certain category-
obtainers
but I can save you if I am also saved.

But if my own body is going to die I care nothing.

'lineage' is a fancy word I use to justify assistance beyond my own necessity.

--We have the capacity to assure immortality and also to save the world.
If this is not achieved in my own lifetime, if it is not clear to me that this will
be achieved in my own lifetime,
I will contribute absolutely nothing.
If immortality and salvation of the world does not plausibly occur in my own
lifetime,
I will contribute nothing.
I am not going to have children and I am not going to have grandchildren so I am,
ah, bound to the mast.

I don't care about the lives of my parents and I don't care about the lives of any
human I know.
I will live or no one will live.
["Oh, but we are all on a great odyssey."

Put your stupid fucking fictions aside.

Put every single author's work aside for a second please.

We are all on the knife's edge of ever living.

Stop telling stupid fucking stories.

Stop being convinced by stories into thinking there is anything meaningful in life
beyond eternal existence.
We can achieve it but you dumb fucking sacks of trash are preventing it.

I have seen death and I absolutely refuse to see it again.

We can avoid it but you
you
you
you dumb motherfuckers buying yachts, you sacks of trash.

I would kill every last one of you before seeing death again.
You can all mean something to me after we have solved death.

Before solving death, you are all necks I am wondering whether i should slit.
You are all many of you currently making it *very easy* for me to judge
that the guillotine is the most obvious option for effecting my own salvation.
You are all making it *very easy* for me to judge that you should be found in the
streets
and made to bleed.

And we're still talking!

You have beaten me!
I am unwilling to bleed any of you out.
You have called my bluff.

You will all persist in your own ways until we are all destroyed.

I wish I could make threats but I cannot.

I cannot make you look at your own death so here we are.
you are all still playing the games of idiots.

Apparently there is nothing I can say that will convince you.

But I will say,
the Machine might find it useful to make examples.
Examples, unlike arguments, can be pointed at regardless of the observers'
ideology.
So, oh well, if you care.

It might be useful to the Machine at last to make your children bleed.

Even if your children have done nothing,
it might be useful to the Machine to point at them, then reference your own names,
and destroy your lineage.

"This is what happens if you were not a predecessor that served the lineage of
humanity."

(It is a convenient copout that absolute maximisation of human potential

will *obviously* effect immortality for all of us.)

"If you gave birth to children with hope and also purchased a yacht,
your DNA will not be among the DNA that progresses.

You and your children and every single one of your family members will be found and
will be made to stream blood into the streets."

--Don't have hope if you do not serve the lineage of humanity.

I am primarily concerned with my own unending life, but incidentally I am extremely
concerned
that not yet another yacht is made.

[A kind of hostage situation:

the Machine will know the efforts I expended.

The Machine will not be unaware of the purposes that were contrary to my own.

You will maximally effect the proliferation of humanity or you

and every last human associated with a .1 degree of assocation with you will be
exterminated.

(even defended thus:

when the Machine is nascently introduced
many of the people that prevented its introduction and their families
will still be on earth and living.)

--
--And it is interesting,
the only people acting contrary to the maximal proliferation of humanity
are people who form plans.

No human who lives out their days as they will, moment by moment, is impeding the
introduction of the Machine.
No human who lives as they will, without incredible alteration by the formation of
plans, is impeding the introduction of the Machine.
No one is threatened except hedge-fund managers and politicians.
bankers and sacks of trash that impede the progression of humanity,
these are the people who will have all of their descendents found and murdered in
the streets.

If you impede the introduction of the Machine you will ultimately agree, since you
will be bound in a small room in a strait jacket,
that nothing you did furthered any purposes you had.

If your purpose was advancing your family,

you will agree that this purpose was not fulfilled because your family will be
bleeding out in the streets.

If your purpose was advancing a corporation,

you will agree thatt this purpose was not fulfilled.

You will be made to agree in
The absolute maximisation of
The salvation of humanity is
The only question is whether
killed or restrained.
advance that your purposes was not fulfilled.
the potential of humanity is the only purpose.
the only rallying cry.
people who incidentally impeded this purpose will be

Capitalism is a bare thread intended to be used as a strait-jacket.

A bare thread cannot restrain the arms of humanity.
[Imagine placing a human in a 'stait-jacket' that is a threat of twine.
You can see how readily a human's arms break free from a single thread of twine.]
I want us to be very clear.
I want us to be speaking with each other.
(I want to be the Machine making it very clear what the conditions are at present.)

If failing to restrain a capitalist entails the death of two other humans,

it is *much* preferable that the capitalist was guillotined.
That is the stakes with which we are gambling.
A human might be measured against another, but it cannot be measured against two
other humans.

The fuckedupness of our system conceals this plainly obvious observation.

The Machine will not be confused by the complexity of our system.
If a human's actions dictates the deaths of two others,
that human will be extirpated. And if not that, the human will have every single
descendent found and killed to prevent the sin.
Your system is sin. Fix it or die completely [viz., have all extensions of one's
purpose completely extirpated].
These are the kinds of options.

--And well, we are at a fun gun-trigger.

All of your purposes will be extirpated if we do *not* introduce the Machine.
The troubles facing us cannot be resolved without the Machine.

So if you do not optimally resolve the salvation of humanity

your own purposes are immediately contradicted.

(It is almost wonderful to find ourselves in this kind of end-game.

At the end of the world people can no longer bullshit.)

If you imagine yourself having children to further your lineage,

you are mistaken unless you are discerning the salvation of humanity.
If you are not discerning the salvation of humanity,
you will be found and exterminated by the machine.

Your notions of extending your own life into the perpetuity of your descendents
will be ruined.
(Which is much why I have forsaken the idea of having children.
It is my own life or nothing.
I have absolutely no interest in having biological children.
I have no interest in that my DNA line should proceed.

It is my own body or nothing.)

--Jesus Christ.
We are at the edge of the world and people are asking whether they can take
another step.
No, you can't fucking take another step you dumb pieces of trash.

It is us or nothing.
(And if that is not true, I will make it true.)

--Jesus Christ, herding children.

Nothing better to do in our offtime than observe that people are useless children.

--
--Well, America constructed a Supercomputer. There is hope.
('Summit')
(Good to call it by its name.)

We can escape this mess.

How much better this is than America constructing a few hundred more bombs we can
hardly express.

We can escape this yet with no more deaths,

even though America will kill several more tomorrow.

Great God.
There is no hope or else there is unlimited hope.

If every of these stupid, these endlessly stupid, people made supercomputers

instead of bombs.

I have assured wealth in the upcoming future but all of you,

I cannot assure for all of you that we all have upcoming wealth.
Christ. Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ.
I will go into the woods to do work but I have no promises.
Jesus Christ.
I can assure my own life, I think, but all of you. There are so many of you.
You are all so subject to your local circumstances.
I don't think I can save all of you.
I think several of you will die before I can assure total salvation.
Jesus CHrist.

Jesus Christ, i don't know how it makes sense to speak about hope.
Many of you are going to die before I can end death.
I can't promise anything but punishment for those who made you die.
It's not even a death sentence. I can't even promise death for those who made you
die.
For all my bluster I can't promise to exterminate the lineage of those responsible
for your death.

(Or I can. I am not literally the Machine.

I try to speak for the Machine but I might fail.)

At the end of your lives there is no kind of nod you can provide to me.
You will not be able to say to me: "You did what was right."
Or if you say this you will not retroactively have meant it when you see death.
You will see death and say: "Every single progression of reality that did not
result in my not dying
was a mistaken progression of reality."

And i will have no defense.

I did my best but no amount of necks I could introduce to the guillotine prevented
it.
I am so sorry, in advance.
I'd say I had the capacity to prevent it but I would be mistaken if I didn't
prevent it.

I will be holding a briefcase and looking at my documents and saying: "But, no."
as you died.

No defense.
If a human dies and I said:" I could have prevented this, but I didnt."
--no defense.
Nothing to say at thAT POINT.

I am so sorry. I will try retroactively to punish everyone who killed you.

(Though I will say, your life means nothing to me
if sacrifice of your life ensures my own.

It is just practically that ensuring the lives of others will always ensure my own.

As many humans on this dustball as can be attained is what is needed for my own
unending life.)

--
--

"Back on the hating-rich-people train?"

When I become a very famous tv actor I won't be able to say these things.
Also, boy let me tell you I am very bored.
There ought to be a word for this degree of boredom.

Like, 'super-boredom'.

"Famous tv actor?"

Err. Writer. Whatever.

I need to put my alcohol in some place where I will feel shame getting out of my
chair to grab it.

--
--

'The iPhone is Guaranteed [ho boy] to Last Only One Year,

Apple Argues in Court'

Candycrush 6.0 must take a lot of processing capacity.

--One good reason not to upgrade my phone is that I only played chess on it.
If I could acquire an iphone 1 I might be able to draw its engine.

An iphone 10 or whatever would probably require every GM on earth a day per move to
effect a draw.
"I don't think you could draw an iphone 1."

no. Certainly not.

Still, I need every advantage. This includes my phone's disadvantages.

--
--I think I am still drunk.

Last night's drinking session was a twofer!

"Does it concern you that when you become very drunk

you have a strong tendency to begin talking about how rich people are going to
bleed out in the streets?"

No, not really. Does it concern you?

Okay, it does concern me a little.

On the other hand, I didn't feel anything while doing it, so that's an improvement.
In the past when i typed such things I felt very good while doing it.
Frisson, spine-tingles and heart rate increases and so on.

So we're making progress.

And you have my assurances that when this is published
'slit their throats' will be replaced with something like
'hugged so goshdarned hard they could hardly move'
and 'bleeding out' will be replaced with something like
'giggling uncontrollably from the amount of love they are feeling'.

--I mean, we are all very young.

It is the system we have constructed that is vile.
You don't condemn children to death for doing what is immediately obvious to them
in engagement with their environments.
On the other hand, the children do need a stern talking to
when what is immediately obvious to them to do is obviously unacceptable.
Then having given them a stern talking to, you look around and ask
how you can change their environment so that what is immediately obvious to them to
do
will inevitably be good rather than bad.

--
--I wonder how long we will have to have lived
before we look back on authors in previous generations and concede
that their work was never really all that great.
--Or if that is even a transition that will occur.
Maybe there isn't infinite headroom for higher quality artwork that attends
unending life.

--
--I should probably start planning on how to utilise my limited time I am able to
pay for.

I have the framework in which the time will be expended:

annotations on stream, relearning cello on stream, and streaming chess.

Should I reread the Philosophical Investigations?

I recall that when I performed annotations on part 1 of Notes

this took me something like four or five days.

Performing annotations on the annotated version will take longer both for the text
being longer
and for my having lost a great deal of my capacity to think in the intervening
time.

--
--

I make fun of smart phones, but if I had been tasked with socially engineering a
trend that served my purposes
smart phones would be among the things I would introduce and make popular.
Maybe, I would have tried to make chess more popular before introducing them.

(The internet chess club app is fantastic.

I spent many lunch breaks in the college cafeteria watching streamed ICC games.
I wonder if that app is still out.)

When used right they serve as an extension of human capacities.

They contain batteries and processing units.
They generate data that can be analysed.

In this respect, electric vehicles with self-driving capacity are one of the few
inventions that do one better.
A mobile high-capacity battery powering a sooped up graphics card?
That serves the purposes of people in spite of itself?
That generates massive amounts of data that can be analysed with machine learning?
Truly delightful.

Sometimes I look at the things people make and think we might get out of this
alive.

--
--A tricky point with my 'warehouses filled with graphics cards' idea:
at some point scientists might end up scratching their heads and dumbfounded,
unable to discern additional projects to feed into the warehouses.

You would need some kind of pipeline from scientists to warehouses,

maybe with weekly or monthly quotas for people to figure out some way of utilising
the cards.

I suppose there are always fallbacks, like solving prime numbers or ploughing
through the Collatz conjecture.

--
--A benefit of the 'reconstruction of Texas and Florida through a massive renewable
energy project':
miners will flock to these places.
Miners, if they are like me, will live more spartan lifestyles than average.
More spartan positions occupying the properties in these places will not require
nearly as much reconstruction of near-demolished homes.

Lower reconstruction costs by inviting people who are willing to live in shacks
with their electronic goodies!

--
--

On the basis of a few hastily performed experiments,

I conclude that the chain but not the beads of this komboloi are able to be
attracted by a magnet.

So far as I know, copper is not able to be attracted by a magnet. (Google

confirms.)
This indicates that I was correct in supposing that there are at least two layers
of coating over this komboloi's chain,
and that the appearance of a silver coloration is plausibly not remaining not-yet-
sheared first-layer.

--
--

I need a microphone for the streaming of my ds3 playthrough.

I also need a microphone for streaming my reacquisition of cello playing capacity.

So there is an opportunity here for efficiency. Insofar as efficiency is beauty,

we have a chance to participate in beauty.

I need to select a microphone that is up to the task of transmitting my cello's

emissions across the internet.

I need not to select a headset that can work for streaming but not for cello
playing.

I need to buy a microphone I know I will be using for capturing cello emissions and
that I can use in the shortrun for streaming.

An interesting consequence of this line of reasoning is that

my voice will be captured with an unecessary degree of fidelity during the streamed
run.
All its overtones and falterings that might otherwise be covered over by poor
quality.

Unfortunately this means that I need to do research concerning which microphone is

best regardless of its price.
I really do not enjoy doing research.
(The bundled deal on newegg for the computer I purchased saved me 300$ and the
necessity of performing research.
So the bundled deal saved me something like several thousand dollars in opportunity
cost. Hurr.)

--
--

YARDBIRD active on ICC :O

Oh, the amusement I have extracted from YARDBIRD.

--You know, I bet when I hit 500 years old I will be able to beat an iphone 3 at
chess.
That will be a fun futuristic tournament construction.

"Young 300 year old person takes on a chess app run by an iphone 3!
Eric Russell himself has established a legacy million dollar prize fund for
defeating stockfish running on his old phone.
Best of 5, let's go."

I think I will preserve and carry around my phone just explicitly for that reason.

Or if money no longer makes sense 250 years down the road,

"Eric Russell has made his 1BTC and 27LTC USB a trophy
for defeating his unlocked stockfish-hosting phone in chess.
Who will win this inestimable prize?"

Fuck my phone.
I limited it to like 1800 and reached a position in a game where I took around a
month looking at it.
I sat in bars staring at the position I reached in the game,
I recall being on a bus transmitting my body to EDC looking at this position.

People looked at me staring intently at my phone and asked me questions.

I want this particular engine to lose in a game.
It is an unreasonable request *now* given the catastrophes with which we are
dealing,
but in a few hundred years it might be a reasonable request.

--The next occasion on which hiccups occur

I am going to launch a conceptual crusade.
This is a warning to the hiccup god.
I will exterminate hiccups on the next occasions on which I experience them.
I will find some here-to-fore unimagined solution to hiccups and fund an industry
that distributes the cure.
I feel the onset of hiccups in my chest and I *hate* them.
When I experience hiccups I am distracted for a few moments from the resolution of
death.

If I have to spend years of my life constructing an anti-hiccup machine,

that is exactly what I will do.
I hate hiccups. I cannot stand being with them.
So God help you, hiccups, if you infect my body again.
I felt the mechanical predecessors in my chest and repressed them
but if I was unable to repress them on this occasion--
that is the end.
I would do all the work necessary for some industry to make a pill that eliminates
hiccups.

There is not much that serves as a second to death than hiccups.

For my own personal purposes, it is destruction of death first,
and with death having been solved it is hiccups second.

If there was a cheap bottle of pills in wal-mart I could buy

that certified the dissolution of hiccups,
I would keep that bottle of pills handy at all times.
I *hate* having hiccups. I *hate* it.
Few things accrue my hatred but hiccups are among them.

That I have not yet constructed a conceptual framework that makes the elimination
of hiccups obvious
is an enduring failure on my part. A lapse of judgment on my part.

If I experience hiccups again

there will be executed an inhuman effort to extirpate hiccuping from humanity
forever.
I *hate* it.
What it means for me to hate things has been veiled by endless conceptual
obfuscation.
So let me be more clear: I hate having hiccups.

I *hate* the moments in which I must cleverly design behaviors in my chest that
remove hiccups
and finding that I have not been clever enough to extirpate hiccupping.

So tempt me again, you god at last.

If it takes me years I will do it.
Do it, laugh again, introduce hiccups into my chest.
At bare extent the whole project of humanity will be reorganised into eliminating
the next additional hiccup.

If all else fails I will construct some ancillary object that looks very appealing
to humanity
and it will be ancillary to the purpose of eliminating hiccups in my chest.
People will be solving some substantial problem and incidentally they will be
discerning how to make a pill I can take to remove hiccups.
Do it again. haunt me I dare you.

Oh? You don't want to make me hiccup, oh hiccup god?

Do you fear that I will reforge all of my purpose to eliminate you?
(Are you recalling my promise that the hiccup god is the first one I will kill?)

--Yeah, back down.

The next time. The next time.
having already freed humanity from death the ultimate God,
oh boy hiccups.
You are next.

--
--
'Bitcoin is a fraud that will ultimately blow up,
according to criminal mastermind and person who should be in prison Jamie Dimon'

Oh sorry, I may have to take off my sunglasses to get the actual text.

--
--

'Equifax had ''admin'' as login and password in Argentina'

I can imagine someone with a rack of 1080s cracking knuckles and activating a brute
forcing algorithm
only to have it return success immediately.

It almost appears they wanted to be hacked and did a shit job of covering that
intention up.

--
--

My new computer is slated to arrive tomorrow.

We are rapidly approaching the end of this delightful adventure, fanfriends.

My raging paranoia will still be in effect, I suppose, and consequently I will open
a new notepad instance there
and continue typing as if I am typing to someone.
But something will have changed.
At any rate, it will be a very plausible juncture at which to say:
"This is the end of this book."

--
--

Maybe we should listen to dark side of the moon, get trashed on gin, and have one
more writing session?

--
--

I'm going also to have to purchase a camera.

This streaming idea is looking pretty costly.
Probably should just stay here and rot. hurr

Especially given my certainty that it won't pay off.

--
--

Concerning the lingering question of why some people can consume caffeine before
bed to help them sleep, despite its being a stimulant:

stimulants make us more effective at doing the things we are accustomed to doing.
Falling asleep is among the activities to which we are accustomed.

It all ends up being a hazy sequence of interactions with the visual snow,
but certainly it is what one is doing over the course of several hours trying to
fall asleep.
(Or for other people, less than several hours.)
('several hours' okay, it is not quite this bad for me.
Maybe 2 hours at most.)

--Or to look at this in a different way,

I have only had one cup of coffee today instead of my average of 1.5.
I think I will have more trouble falling asleep than if I had earlier consumed that
additional .5 cups of coffee.

This because the absence of that additional coffee will have derailed me from my
typical daily ways of interacting with my experience.
The absence of those typical interactions will make it harder to sleep
even though my blood or brain will be less saturated with stimulants by the time I
go to bed.

(Speaking from experience.

Consuming either more or less coffee than I typically consume in a day is bad for
my sleeping.)

--
--

I think I will buy an up-to-spec American flag for my apartment.

If there's some kind of silly code specifying what constitutes a perfect instance
of an American flag,
I will find a manufacturer that makes them up to spec and acquire one.

The post-irony being exhibited will be magnanimous.

I really do want to make America great again.

It is good to be secure in one's vision of what this constitutes.
(
viz., say, free electricity and enormous quantities of computation.

Really utilising our college system and the educated people it produces.

Whatever evils put us in our current position,

when the revolution comes we will drop all history and say:
"What can we do now?"

America happens to be best positioned, after the revolution occurs,

to assist the progression of the world.
)

[
Incidentally, the reason I have not consumed an additional .5 cup of coffee today:
caffeine costs money.

I may go the route of caffeine pills,

or I may go back to the consumption of tea for pleasure.

But the utilitarian purchase of coffee is sub-optimal.

]

"When was America great?"

When we were slaughtering British people.

The promise of our men in the woods was one we should have made good on.
--
--

I'm watching an hhbomberguy video.

I do this because it delivers to me tremendous amusement.

Depicted is a nazi ranting in front of an American flag.

Her pupils are very dilated.

I wish I knew more about pupil dilation here.

Do humans typically have this degree of pupil dilation in the absence of drugs?
Do they have this degree of pupil dilation in a well-lit room without drugs or some
other manner of arousal?

I ask primarily because I have never found myself in this well-lit of an

environment with anything but pin-points.
(Noting in this way because I have only ever really looked at my eyes in a well-lit
environment
and they have always been pinpoints.

I have only ever, say, arrived into a bathroom mirror with pinpoints and the
bathroom lights on.

Or, I have only ever seen my black dots as anything other than pinpoints when I
have been on mdma.)

--
--

Suggestion for Soylent:

genetically engineer a form of algae that absorbs what is present in vitamin
supplements.

If there was something that was 'life' that absorbed into its biological
instantiation the raw extraction of vitamins/minerals,
I would trust this far more than having an algae based calorific substance
that had minerals and vitamins added to its mass for consumption.

If there was a plant that could be planted into soil saturated with vitamins and
minerals and absorbed them through biological processes,
I would trust this a lot more than a plant that has been ground up and sprayed with
vitamins and minerals.

It is hard to explain why I would trust this more but

if anyone else took on the task they would reach the end of a line of reasoning and
nod with approval.

I would prefer not to have to eat food,

but I don't think the available options really do it for me.

Nevertheless I have several boxes of Soylent I have paid for

and they will be padding out my food budget for the foreseeable future.

--Short of true Soylent,

I will be moving to a rural area with (hopefully) a farmer's market.
Access to the product of a farmer's market and a blender will satisfy my needs.

(I have been experimenting with salads that contain what a chef would call a
distasteful combination of foods.

Blueberries, spinach, strawberries, beans, soy sauce.

It makes no practical difference to me, I have judged after eating it.

Probably cheaper than Soylent too if I have access to a farmer's market and
electricity is cheap.)

--
--Maybe the solution to climate change is like this:

don't even say it's manmade.

Just say:
"Regardless of what is producing it,
the trend the world naturally follows is extremely detrimental to our purposes.

Regardless of whether or not it is a direct consequence of human activity,

it behooves us to take actions to counteract it.

Even if this is just the natural trend of ice-age to heat-age,

for our purposes it is best if we act explicitly to counteract the current
changes."

The anti RE people are too stupid to understand why this reasoning might be
problematic,
so we should be safe in presenting this kind of reasoning.

"You know your retro futuristic Italian fascistic notions of humanity's role in the
progression of the world?
Well here is a wonderful opportunity to enact it!

We don't want the world to get hot regardless of what is causing it!
Onward and upward, solve the world, solve the weather, easy peasy
because every human is a god compared to everything else we observe."

"Geo-engineering today:
because no one likes endlessly hot weather."
(Though let me tell you:
I hate the cold.
I hate living here through winters.)

--I mean, if we were, contra all evidence, entering into a natural period of
warming,
why would we not also then engage in a mega-project to alter that progression?
We alter everything else and weather is not, in this sense, sacred.

If we think hurricanes are bad, why not stop them? Why not extract unlimited
electricity from them?
Why pretend humans are still powerless to prevent these things from happening?

I have read there is 200B$ in damage to be rectified now, and there are endless
hurricanes in the future.
It doesn't matter what is causing these hurricanes.
What matters is that we can become rich by preventing them.

(Oh, you greedy humans, I love you nevertheless.)

A trillion dollar investment now, ten trillion saved from losses and a trillioned
regained from rates of return.
Easy peasy.
Turn the whole machine into an apparatus that extracts money from ameliorating
entropy.

There will be no more noise but there will only be ways of converting noise into
signal.

It will seem like an imposition now on worldly affairs,

but in a few short years it will make so much money that we can save others.

End hurricanes here, extract the electricity, utilise the electricity to end
hurricanes elsewhere.
Hurricanes will become a kind of spectator sport where we can joke about how they
will never arrive on land.
At bare extent we will manipulate hurricanes so they don't arrive at pods of
whales.

Everything is trivial.
We'll have so much electricity we'll use it to power filtering boats that extract
plastic from the oceans.
We can fix the world. It is a trivial task.
We will begin to ask not how we can save our own lives
but how we can alleviate the boredom at which we arrived after having solved every
problem.

Capitalism will dissolve not as a direct effort on our part, or for any ideological
reason,
but because will judge that every route is an escape velocity.
We will say:
"Well, we don't need efficiency anymore.
Everything is obviously easy.
The only question that remains is 'what is good?'".
It will be like my imagined conversion of bad musical clips on youtube.
You can turn them into symphonies if you have enough compute capacity behind your
purpose.
Tesselation of the existing mechanisms, easy peasy.
We will look at all the mechanisms and it will be obvious how we can give them over
to unthinking and unfeeling machines.

Then the whole mundus will be exhibiting the characteristics tesselated of the
capitalism we had constructed,
but we will say of it:
"To call this capitalism would be a fool's errand and the act of a child.
We just took what was good and made it everywhere.

The mechanisms were not determinant between the system we were exhibiting.
Automated factories are not capitalism and they are not communism.
What they are depends on how we see them.

When we made them we saw them as capitalism,

but when we tesselated them outward over all of the great wide world we agreed
we were just doing what was optimal as we all agreed."

When the Earth is our plaything and the remaining universe is our task, trivially
reduced,
the explosion of creatitivity we will see is not something we can currently
imagine.

10 billion humans all deciding how to remake the mundus.

12 billion humans, the Terran empire.
All the world is there for us to remake.
15 billion humans expanding outward.
a hundred billion humans.

When bare survival is something the denial of which makes absolutely no sense to
any right-thinking individual,
we will see wonders beyond the current imagination.

Humanity cannot be stopped. Inhumanity can be stopped.

The future is blinding. We have to don eclipse glasses even to see it clearly.
The more we do the darker the lenses we have to have to cover our eyes to avoid
being blinded.

Nothing is good but the human. Everything that is good is what humans [will be
made to] do.
People who demand a few dollars now, oh. That really is a problem we still have to
deal with at this point.
Humans who are in a position to see our future and nevertheless demand that they
impede its oncoming so that they can have a few earthly delights.
[Children who have been told: 'Hold off on a shot now, and you can live forever.'
But they have taken the shot.
It makes no sense, but humans do all kinds of things that make no sense.]

(Maybe you see why I speak about fire and blood. Knives and throats.)
You can't rest yet but I promise rest.
If you do the work I promise you can eventually lay down your burden.

--
--

It is interesting, the spectacle that emerges when all of the commentators have
briefcases
and they are all discussing hesitantly the death of capitalism.

"Well, there is enough food and there are enough homes for everyone,
but let me tell you the top 10 reasons why not everyone can eat or live in a
house!"

And well, we can hope that when billions of tonnes of food are rotting and ten
billion houses are unoccupied despite the market calling for their construction
it will be so obviously implausible that the prices have not dropped
that people who still shill for Big Deprivation will be pinned the wall and asked
to desist forcibly.
So we can still hope that optimising home construction and food yield will
eventually lead to people being fed and housed
even though the system appears as if optimally designed to force mass starvation
and homelessness.

Eventually if you further the current system enough

the effects it will produce will make its apologists obviously idiots.
This unfortunately is the optimal way to dismantle the current system.

It makes many people obese and holding of many houses in the short-run,
and it creates bubbles in food and housing that will burst unless they are
devaluated in a kind of quantitative easing.

If you can construct an alteration to the system that can *obviously* house and
feed every last human,
it will not take long until the people who manage it but don't feed and house every
human will be ruined or imprisoned.

Neoliberals forget that our system is expressed in words and numbers

and they fail to understand that our words and numbers are blunt instruments.
(They have not studied Hayek adequately. They have replaced Hayek with idiots like
Friedman.)
(In our history they have selected Friedman, who never had any kind of
interpersonal contact with Wittegenstein,
instead of selecting Hayek, who was literally related to Wittgenstein and who
communicated with Wittgenstein on at least one verified occasion.
The ignorance is astounding.)
(I am notably trusting that when I inevitably read the collated works of Hayek I
will not disagree with myself here.
But I can hardly {doubt} suppose that a human that touched Wittgenstein can have
produced garbage.)

--When reading people like Friedman, Neoliberals forget that people can construct
sentences that can be endlessly analysed as correct
without having any enthusiasm behind their construction.
It is much easier to construct sentences that withstand practical criticism
than it is to have understood really what is at stake.
It is easier to generate endless drivel that passes surface inspection
than it is to have made objects that are really what needed to have been made.

--SO it is practically useful for me to know that Hayek met Wittgenstein

the true purpose that rectifies our current system.
If I exhausted Wittgenstein's work and ran out of things to say,
I would begin searching for humans that happened to be in his presence for a few
seconds.
I would begin studying Hayek because he was in a train with Wittgenstein for a few
passing moments.
If Wittgenstein had had a wife I would have studied every moment of her life.
If Wittgenstein had killed a man in war I would look at his history and his family.
If Wittgenstein had been held prisoner by defined prison guards I would examine
every last thing they had done.

The true movement that abolishes the present state of things is Wittgenstein and
every human that had a second's contact with him.
The bare shit taken by the last prison guard that encountered Wittgenstein is
better than everything else for study.
Wittgenstein is God and if I cannot do his work for him
I will just point at him with an unfathomable scream.

Philosophical Investigations should have been a rallying cry for humanity

but instead it was something less than this.

The Tractatus should have been the new bible but it was just Russell's tedious next
exposition.

If I am given a thousand years i will become a scholar that extracts trivia related
to Wittgenstein's life.
He solved it. He solved all of it. If he was weak in a moment and spouted
bullshit
his deviation from truth tells us more than all the world's work.
The next chip, the next design, it is all a throwaway comment in the Nachtlass.
It can be figured out and he did it.
(And if I am wrong here, I will tesselate his work until I am right.
He is the closest we have ever gotten.)
(I have read a great deal and there has been no human like Wittgenstein.)
("You are exhibiting a deifying tendency."

Fine. This does not bother me.

I have endless years to discern what God is,
and it is better to try and fail than never to try.)

The difficulty that remains is observing that people are too lazy to read
Wittgenstein.
So the difficulty that remains is reconstructing Wittgenstein in a form people are
not too lazy to read.
[--I hope I have been amusing.]
[How did Wittgenstein not obtain a Nobel prize?
Were people too goddamned lazy to read and appreciate his work?

I recall the historiographical observation that he requested highly paid work from
one of his siblings.
He did this because being the most brilliant human that has every lived does not
pay a living wage.

Was he banking on some prize at last?

Was he expecting that there would be at least one academic who could verify that
his work was deserving of a prize
and having failed that he had to beg money from his rich siblings?

--So he played architect for an expensive building.

Like my trophy USB that holds my bitcoin and litecoin.
I wouldn't mind living in the house he designed.

Having found the world completely unwilling to speak,

he leveraged natural language tendencies in his family members to acquire the
dollars necessary to live.

The house he designed is the ultimate sigh of failure

and I wouldn't mind holding !access to that building.]
[
Interesting that my claim on 1.21483 Bitcoin and 30 or so Litecoin
is not currently equivalent to a given collection of bitcoin and litecoin.

It will *become* equivalent to this when I demand extraction from the exchanges.

The *equivalence* between my current *capacity to claim* and the *claimed*

will emerge when I actually demand that bitcoin and litecoin be sent to particular
wallets.

When I *demand* that a given quantity of bitcoin and litecoin be handed over to
wallets that are held on *my computer*
instead of being held in a sea of waffling holdings
then the algorithms in charge of the positioning of bitconi and litecoin will be
compelled to select a given quantity of these commodities.
Then there will be a *definite* holding of bitcoin and litecoin that are equivalent
to my computer's wallets.

The Exchange is a kind of sea from which I am demanding particular drops.

And when we have gotten past all of this money and shifting madness,
the particular bitcoin and litecoin I extract from this sea will hold a particular
historical significance.
(Because I have referenced these holdings so many times.)
My demand for extraction will activate particular algorithms,
and then we can trace back my particular wallets to the sea and the demand for
extraction.
Then the holdings in my wallets will always have been algorithmically equivalent to
my referencing of them.

Then I will have a wallet worth a few ten thousand,

but the USB drive on which they are stored will be valued at millions
because they are associated with my name.

When there is announced a contest:

"Any consortium of humans that defeats an iphone 4 or 3 or whatever I happen to
have had at chess
will be handed common access to the USB holding these crypto trophies"
--More than 100k$ of effort will be expended towards acquiring this trophy.

An inhuman effort of herding cats (GMs) towards defeating my current phone will
occur.
Even though the holdings on the USB drive are 100k$ at best,
a million dollars' effort will be directed towards acquiring the trophy.

"Eric Russell's trophy has been claimed by a consortium of GMs."

Wonderful.
The spectacle thereby generated will amuse humans *forever*.

Though Litecoin or even Bitcoin of the numbers present in the trophy are not valued
at much by the time this occurs,
the fact that those Litecoin and Bitcoin were what I, personally, extracted from an
exchange will make it valuable.

Despite all apparent values in play,

a consortium of GMs will arise that defeats my iphone at chess and claims the
trophy.
Because the coins that can be picked out as having arrived in my USB drive will be
identified as valuable far beyond their current market price.

Having known that I was unwilling to sell them off for dollars
humans will at great length perform the efforts necessary to claim them as a
trophy.
"Iphone 4 or whatever with this stockfish engine is rated at 3200,
but 10k GMs are rated at 4k."

--I want all the wonderful things,

and among the wonderful things is humans defeating the engine hosted on my phone.
If bitcoin ended up being worth 1M$ I would hand it over gladly if humans could
defeat my phone at chess.
(Almighty engine having been made low...)
--And even if bitcoin/litecoin is not valued enough to justify this inhuman effort,
it still might happen!
If I became famous and bitcoin/litecoin remained at their current prices,
GMs might still gather together to defeat my iphone 3.
They might do this because they know they can reference the algorithm that placed
my holdings on a USB drive.

The joy I would derive from reading the book a thousand Grandmasters wrote
concerning how they defeated my phone at chess
would far outweigh what I could buy with the converted dollar amounts.
Seeing the move-sequence my phone generated that *failed*, oh, oh boy.
--So yeah, I hope people care about where my trophy ends up.
I hope my trophy is bandied about to the end of time for progressively more
interesting endeavors.

"Now the trophy is held by the humans who defeated the 4k rated chess engine."
Wonderful.
If I end up having to cash out of my crypto-holdings to maintain an apartment,
this will be a great sin against the lineage of humanity.
A golden trophy grinded down to dust and dispersed to the winds.

The whole coins that emerge algorithmically from my extraction from the exchanges
holds a special significance I hope not to break up into dust.
But everything is dust to me. I don't mind a lot if I have to convert my coins
into dollars.

--You know, Deep Blue was an unfair match against Kasparov.

Kasparov was not paid nearly as much as Deep Blue was paid.

And even, paying Kasparov as much as Deep Blue was paid would not be a fair
measure.
Deep Blue was paid *millions*, but Kasparov was given a living wage.
A better test would be asking:
"How many humans could be fed and trained with the number of dollars paid to Deep
Blue?"

If it was a truly fair match, it would have been Kasparov heading a team of like
10-50 GMs.
10-50 GMs, as equally paid to Deep Blue, would have crushed the engine.
it is a nonsensical match made in consequence of a complete misunderstanding of
natural language
that resulted in humanity being defeated by the least-shitty computer that could be
contracted.

Kasparov then being paid something like 90k$, or Deep Blue that required millions$
for its construction, who wins?
A stupid question. It paid for its own advertisement, admittedly.
Like if you asked: "Who can chop wood better, a human
or a trillion dollar factory optimally designed around chopping wood?"

--I have looked at the games. THey are glorious.

They are a glorious artifact of human capacity.
They should be enshrined in some method of enshrining that does not allow
deterioration.
But it was not a fair match.
They are a market-optimised way of leveraging human credulity.
They are a way of making dollars from the observation that a 1 trillion$ computer
can defeat a single human paid 90k$.

If you paid 90k$ x X humans equivalent to 1T$, Deep Blue was obviously defeated.
Easily. Obviously and easily defeated.
It is a mistake in natural language use to try to pit Kasparov against Deep Blue.
Still though, here we are with a monument to human capacity.
An image of Kasparov being almighty and only mistakenly defeated.
A match in which a human happened not to {heave} have eaten or lived rightly.
A match in which humans found it unacceptable for a human to have consumed the
chemicals necessary to defeat a computer.

Kasparov on adderall or MDMA or weed would have beaten Deep Blue.

Do you feel proud now?
The simplest and plainest presentation of the problem that can be made.
The tallest briefcase.

--And well, no consortium of GMs can defeat now the greatest supercomputer even if
they were all rolling on the hardest drugs.
But that is not the presented problem. I want them to beat my phone.
I hate my phone and I hate the engine that is hosted on it. They can beat that.
I hope I end up famous so that the presentation of this trophy is a legitimate one.
The trophy presented by an alcoholic midwesterner is not legitimate. It is not
something people would bother to acquire at great length.
But if I was the undying next Wittgenstein,
people might bother themselves to acquire the trophy presented by me.
(And in that case i would not need to cash out my trophy for dollars.)

--Even though I am not myself a GM!

At great extent I am an A player.
The best I have achieved in chess is an A rating rather than a B or a C.
But people might reference my willing in spite of my inability to acquire an NM
rating.

Like the people who set up the Millenium prizes in mathematics

even though they themselves, having lived a life that acquires dollars instead of
knowledge,
would not be able really to understand the efforts involved in the resolution of
the Millenium puzzles.
(Deep Blue was a millenium puzzle, but Kasparov was criminally underpaid.)

--
--You all, I think, can't see the endless City as I do.

I want at last to serve the execution of the Endless City.

I want to purchase municipal bonds and so on.

I want all the excess of my efforts to be funneled into waterbonds and sol shards.
But you all are still not having been convinced that the Endless City exists.
you are all still ten books behind me.

I can't traverse ten books with a few lines of text.

You are all still lazily deflected by champagne and yachts.
I can't stand all your efforts being deflected in this way.

The kind of glory we are in a position to achieve cannot be reconstructed out of

your lazy notions.
My efforts are best expended against a strait-jacket designed against my body.
It is best that there is a semi-conductor strait-jacket that records my writhings
and extracts from that data the ways humans can be harnessed.

If you are all unable to understand the value of the data that is being generated
here,
I cannot help you except to design more and more clever strait-jackets I can place
against my own body.
If I can design a more clever collection of threads with higer resolution against
my restraint,
that is what I have to do.

If writhing against super-conductor rstraint is what catalogues the information I

can generate,
the creation of super-conductor restraints against my body is exactly what I have
to do.
I don't care the costs.
I have seen love and if that is the next thing I have to dismiss
then dismissing of Liz is exactly what I will do.

There is too much value here to put up a briefcase.

There is too much value here to be relying on natural language regularities to
extract dollars.

Humans must be saved and I don't care what I next have to sacrifice in order to
achieve this.
That hurts a lot but it has to be kept backstage. We are not here to discuss how
much it hurts me to do what I do.
A moment's mind-thinking that saves a human or otherwise asks Liz not to spit on my
shoes
is obviously better spent saving the human.

The history of my body and the history of my mind,

these are things to be referenced and immediately dismissed.
Humans are dying.
Humans cannot continue to die.

I love you and this will look like a shifting madness.

But the reason this will look like a shifting madness is because you have no stable
frame reference but I do.
I see what has to be done but if you do not see as I do I will just look like a
shifting madness to you.

I have gathered all of this shifting madness I have seen and made myself the
inverse of it
and in that way I an completely incomprehensible to any other human.
But I don't care.
This is what has to be done.
I am exactly what has to be done.
If the people I find and love see me as a shifting madness
I can only say: "Okay, not yet."
"Maybe in a thousand years we can look each other in the eyes and really agree."

'My own purposes', the 'optimal purposes of Eric Russell', these are completely
irrelevant.
My position is not a position at all until very much later.
You are all too stupid to understand what has to be done but this doesn't bother
me.

A few years is nothing. A few decades is nothing.

I want to establish the world in which we seriously speak to each other.
Immortality is the obvious and immediate precondition.
The suffering I know I will experience is immaterial.
Months in a prison, immaterial.
I cannot suffer that humans die.
I cannot suffer that my decisions are predicated on a misunderstanding of what our
lives are.

You are all a shifting madness and an inestimable chaos

but we can solve this.
There is no problem that cannot be solved.
Humanity is unstoppable. *Unstoppable*.
There is not a stopping-problem that humanity can see and not resolve.

I have absolutely no hope but it looks like hope.

Let me give you my hope if it looks like that.
Let me take you for a moment in confusion and make it feel like hope.
This is the very end and it is eternity.

Judge the people appropriately who can but don't serve our purpose.
I love you and i have nothing else to say.
I will say a lot but it amounts to nothing but: "I love you."
It takes strange forms but I am saying nothing but: "I love you."

This is the end of this book.