Thinking Iteratively Is Thinking Nonlinearly, If You Think About It A Bit

Philosophical Discourses On Self-Similarly Structured Identity Relations

Abstract Concept For These Writings

This was what i had in mind more or less as i wrote this piece, tho i ended up writing it in different chunks, on different documents, and they are interlaced with the real world events, oft particularly current ones. Most of which was consciously done, with part of the notion here being to show and examine the interplay between conceptualization, online discourses, ai interaction, and real world events.

I had intended these to be more finished and polished before publishing, and indeed not necessarily all of them together at once and in one place. But i suspect they may be more useful to publish as they are here, and hopefully refer back to them as i can in other locations. Snipping, sneaking and slipping sections and subsections into specific discourses of the relevant sorts, so as to develop better connectivity between otherwise disparate disciplines thereof.

With this serving as a rough template for now as to how these other disciplines might construe themselves in these lights too.

Temporality As Fractal Formal Structure

Do a piece on this that is a bit less mathematically and logically oriented, tho reference the mathematical and logical argumentations. One that notes the relations to Platonic forms as scalarly different entities, and notes the relation to ‘storyteller mode’ in the Quieter Histories Of Gamergate ™ piece.

The self-similarity identity relation being the or at least a temporal identity relation, as noted in lbcw and elsewhere (have to look up the elsewhere, but references the 2020 writings). The aim is to provide a sound basis for understanding temporality as a physical manifestation, one that is consistent with einsteinian physics, e.g. the self-similarity identity relation is a bending of spacetime relative to a hypothetical flat spacetime, represented in the mathematics as the self-same identity relation.

Some Relevant Context

I have written on these topics before, plausibly in some self-similar form ‘many times before’. Although i can trace such thinking on my part back quite far, deep into my own history, i recall this particular format, mode of thought, conceptual structures and so forth, all together more or less as they are here i first did during the world wide shut down of the global trade markets in 2020. The en masse refocus upon more locally, communally, familially, and friendly efforts were made towards the establishment of a rejuvenated more locally focused and bioregionally concerted efforts became a norm in theory and practice both.

Ive written quite a few versions since then, not like hundreds or anything, but maybe like a dozen. Just different versions of the same generic conceptual structure. Part of the notion there being the practice of rumination upon a topic, i think i can more or less write about these issues as if they were the norm of experience at this point. As if describing a reality, instead of attempting to define it.

Its worth mentioning that i consider this a variation on something i also did in 2020, whereby i dump my writings into some kind of hidden space, but also accessible to anyone who really wants to bother looking for it. Something that happens during these sorts of revolutionary circumstances.

As if a poet sang:

“The monkey sat on a pile of stone

And he stared at the broken stone he mistook for a bone in his hand

The strains of a Viennese quartet rang out across the land

And the monkey looked up at the stars

And he thought to himself

Memory is a stranger

History is for fools

And he cleaned his hands in a pool of holy writing

Turned his back on the garden and set out for the nearest town

Hold on hold on soldier”

But mostly i want to bring afore for folks here a meta view of the generic shape of the issues and opportunities available to folks in the currents.

Then as now imho these are powerful opportunities for folks concerned with Labor, ecologies, and locally minded government folks to take advantage of, to create the world we’ve been dreaming of.

Opening Overview

Thinking iteratively is thinking nonlinearly, if you think about it a bit. A non-linear bit, perhaps a qubit? Perhaps, but such would be to leap ahead of the readers. Iterative functional relations can be understood as the temporal processing of reality. Reality being non-linearly structured, thats just physics at this juncture.

It is also likely thinking non-literality, which is its own wildly important aspect. The literalists are a certain breed and kind of conceptualization processing. Fairly fair to say scientifically minded folks, a bit of a joke towards the simplex aesthetical structure.

A simplex being a unit of note within a complex of complexes, a ‘point of view’ from a particularly singular angle, almost unaware of the other simplexes let alone the complexes surrounding ‘em. The individualists of course, the per se self sameness advocates, such as they are, are quite limited when you think about it a qubit. There is a definitive mode of linear thinking, it is per se (through itself), the individualist as such. For, such a view is but a point of view in a reality that is a complex of complexes.

A line in a 4d fractal reality. Not to entirely deride such, but it is an inherently perspectical sort of view. Suppose, i mean for the sake of argument here, that the fractal structures so painfully obvious in the world, go ahead and take a gander to witness if folks havent notice by now, are what they appear to be.

That such is the reality and not unique at all to life, such bridges between life and non-life practically by definition. What is True of non-living fractal structures is likely True of living fractal structures, at least insofar as we are speaking of aspects that are True of fractals as such.

That kind of perception isnt individualistic derived at all tho, not only in the sense of the witnessable observation of the reality, which is fairly ubiquitously available to folks and hence hardly really perspectively located in any individualistic sense, but also in terms of fractals as the reality of perception as such.

The queerness of the perception, its inevitable and indelible complexions between singularity and quantum realities; the minimum differences of the same, a⃞c.

Understood in the context of complexes the literalist and aesthetic aspects of linguistics carries at least a semblance of a presentation of an intellect. That there are both aesthetical and rational linguistic relations entails a relativized complex linguistic experience. The nominally literal via the rational, and the real expanse of the aesthetic. Despite the linearly supposed opposition of rationality to aesthetic, such is at best a ruse, at worst a delusion of the rationalist.

What exactly would the ‘opposite side’ of a fractal actually be? Doesnt ‘over there’ merely depict a differing section of a complexly interactive iterative structuring of intersecting fractals? Not as the rationalist think, that it is some entirely different locale from they themselves.

There is a poetic conceit, and a metaphysical conceit of the rationalists which may be the beating heart of their endeavors, for good and ill; per se individualization. What ive oft referred to as dividited reality. Infinitely divisible, yet somehow each division denotes some real entity, or tis only some ‘final dividit’ that is the real entity, all others being composed thereof.

Each could be True, both could be True, and neither see it for what it is, bc they are relativistically perceiving their own experience as a line of they themselves.

To predicate language merely upon the rational, say binary linguistics, is to minimize the aesthetical aspects of language to a minimum. Really its to misunderstand languages in total, if, that is, it were to mistake itself, rationality, as the only linguistic relationship.

There is something highly unsettling about this point in regards to the confusions over the 20th century, whereby the search of some ‘real’ in spite of the glaring obviousness of reality was a paramount task undertaken throughout much of the academy. Can folks read poetry? Is it non-sense to them? Are there actually problems with vagueness or is there merely vagueness as the reality, whereby vagueness is understood by the rationalists as in violation of some sacred and supposed obvious point, namely that there really is a specification of the individual to be had. Some ‘real’ in comparison to the very real presentation before them.

I dont want to diminish the notion entirely either tho, those sorts of endeavors at searching for the real so have real affects, many of which are positive. Moreover, there are meaningful distinctions to be made by way of specification, that doesnt violate a fractal complex tho. If you consider it well, i swear it is fairly obvious; to go digging around in a fractal structure, you gonna find something no matter how hard you dig, and there isnt a ‘real’ there to be found, there are just self-similar differentiations and scalar sorts of transformations.

Ontologically that is the kind of thing wed expect from a fractal spatiotemporal reality, and practically that is what we have found, isnt it? What exactly was sought after might have matter a bit less than the going after a something at all et al. But what we find depends a great deal upon what we are searching for. Aiming for Truth and the Good are noble aims, not to suggest that they exhaust the list of noble aims; but they are particularly noteworthy within philosophy; and perhaps too life.

To make efforts towards thus and such, there is a sense of the plausibility of creating the reality by way of the effort, but also of finding it. For folks are not alone in their efforts either, nor are humans as a species left alone in that regard either. Hence, folks may encounter places that are quite different and perhaps indeed someone else has made the effort already, and so by way of mere exploration yon folks may come across such a place, already made and waiting for you to inhabit per desires.

But also in the efforts its entirely plausible to create that place yourselves, such is practically implied by the previous point too; if someone else could do it, it is clearly plausible to do. If its fractally structured, there is a transformation matrix between any given two fractal structures. Hence, its entirely plausible for anyone to do, tho of course that doesnt suggest it is necessarily easy either.

There is a relativistically minded view that tends towards, fairly pragmatically useful, rationalistic view point. Such does actually allow a freedom of movement, if you think bout it a bit; i swear.

To move out of a mode of being and into another almost by force of will; movement forced against the spatiotemporal well within which we find ourselves. Almost an inherent fractal escape velocity from an relativistically stable spatiotemporal gravity well. How far weve come learning to stand up and move against the inherent forces against us.

So too therefore with thinking and thoughts. The conceptual structures being fractal dimensions along the (spatio)temporal axis, a fractional dimension along the aesthetic, which iterates in orbit as it were, in wavelike relativistic relations, with the rational fractal form previously alluded.

Two fractal wave forms, side by side. One oscillating a bit slower or quicker as the case may be, and hence iteratively structured a bit differently, relativistically speaking of course.

From either’s direction, we may surmise, their given perspective might seem relatively singular, but not really pointlike. As they bound themselves through each other at self-similarly reflected fractal wavelengths of iterations akin to heartbeats along those fractal temporal dimensions. How those each themselves complexes, not simplexes, think a bit queerly if you must, interactions are complexes of complexes.

Many and multiple points of connection in other words during any given iterative interaction.

The relativistically slower ones experience it slightly differently, due to non-linearly different results relative to their own iterative interactions.

For those further along in the iterative processes the outcomes appear given for the range over which they are viewing is of a relativistically slower apparition to their eyes, as if it had already happened when in fact it hadent. A very optical illusion.

Space to exist entails space to be time.

The aesthetic or broader view within any given conceptual interaction has its view from being relativistically faster.

Its views are futuristic as if of a past it is merely passing through. Hence it mistakes a past view for a future one when it tries to make predictions.

The aesthetical’s projections of the future be but broader quantum exposure to the conceptual occurrence. It understands things from a broader but backwards looking perspective. Akin to associative reasoning, understand tho that inherent within any association nonetheless contains the gains of Truth around which the complexes spin.

The more narrow view too then also inherently sees and inherently within that more narrow case of rational limits still must contain gains of Truth, but not the exact same ones.

Such implies already a temporal dimensional element that has some kind of directionality to it, a relativistic fractal analysis of language, poetics, and concepts.

The scalar differences between concepts described as a fractal waveform interaction of at least three distinctive iterative processes.

Did it need to be aesthetics and rationality? Did i even describe these concepts as concepts? Yes, but physically so; technically but importantly spatiotemporally described, and rather neatly, saying so myself. Whatever the concepts relativistically speaking they are inherently thusly self-similarly related; their waveforms are fractally structured, that is just what a waveform is.

Adjacent waveforms oscillate relative to any given self-similar reflection of either waveform. The ‘relatively narrow’ and ‘relatively broad’ perspectives of a concept are simply defined thusly. We terminologically, and not coincidentally, phrase these as rationalistic and aesthetic as modes of thinking. They themselves are also concepts tho, so they are also subjected to the same kind of analysis; id say that they are likely scalarly larger of perhaps actually more broadly embedded within differing concepts, hence they are ‘structuring mood’ of conceptualizations, however i am pretty sure that is besides the point here.

As modes of thinking rationalism holds pretty clearly to a claim of sharply defined borders of identity, hence the per se relation, a = a, and so on, whereas the aesthetics are notorious happy be perfectly vague and obtuse.

That is their Truth to chase after.

Fractal Interpretations, Spacetime And Graphic Analysis

One aspect ive oft occasioned to consider; the three spatial dimensions are actually three spacetime dimensions. Each spatial coordinate having its own fractional fractal temporal dimensional coordinate; fractal spacetime. A non-linearly expanding fractal formal structure, its expansion being its rate of iteration. Each of which themselves form the minimum complex of complex interactions, the relativistic simplex which pretends its an arbitrary individual point in a spacetime relation, are actually always already containing temporal dimensionality.

They themselves are not entirely distinct from spatiotemporal reality within which they are propagating. Individuals perceive themselves as such due to the relativistic properties of being within spatiotemporal well. The differentiations between spatiotemporal locations on a small scalar, perhaps quantum, providing the relevant perspective properties of nominal individuation.

To consider oneself an individual is in a real sense to act as if one is an individual, and that is possible due to the relativistic properties of spacetime wells. The stretching affects of spacetime are relativistic perspectives, worldlines to use the language i learned to describe as it relates to ontologies.

Their interactions as a complex of complexes, the min diff of the same application, implies the inherent projection of a nominally unified directionality of interactions. Hence the nominal flows of complex temporal interactions. Hence, again, the perspectives from any given point of view within that waveform.

There is a self-similar projection inherent in such kinds of relativistically processed interactions, call such the gravitational projection of a quantum interaction. Hence bridging quantum with relativity.

Gravitational affects being that quantum differentiation between a complexly interacting asymmetrically dynamic system; three spatiotemporal fractal forms dancing and chasing each other.

At scale that manifests as the otherwise unaccounted for mathematical projection and second gravitational point required seemingly for no reason in newtonian physics. Its a product of relativistic spatiotemporal dimensions.

Fractal Interpretations, Mathematics

In all of the cases the fundamental identity relation isnt sameness, but self-similarity in formal ontological structure. Hence too the odd sliced view of mere rational thought, thought predicated upon an arbitrarily sharply defined ontological structure, that is sameness. A=A doesnt work relativistically, nor again does it work quantumly.

The mathematical fallacy at the heart of the projection is what it is basing its mathematics on ontologically, an arbitrarily sharply defined singular structure. Individualists per se to bring it to the latin and the gendered perspectives on the same.

A rookie mistake! Counting arbitrarily by ones instead of fractal temporal iterations.

The numberline is a projection of a hypothetically and arbitrarily defined identity relation, the natural numbers. There is nothing wrong with this perspective per se, but there is per vos (through another), that is relativistically speaking; temporally speaking of identity relations.

Each singular unit on the number lines in a graph for instance represents an arbitrarily defined identity relation, a singular unit, whole and complete unto itself. As if it were a singular entity detached from spacetime reality.

The natural numbers are a mathematical projection of a defined iterative relation of a given spacetime coordinate.

This kind of projection on a practical level hardly matters, it is oft exceeding useful too, as it is close enough, and moreover, it isnt as if its entirely wrong either. In a fractally structured reality when folks are counting by arbitrarily defined wholes, ‘1’s’, generally we are pointing to objects that are, at our perspective scalar, relevant complexes of complexes. In other words, reasonably sound ontological joint carving.

However, if you move a scalar larger or smaller than our nominal perspective it sure looks like there are larger scalar fractal forms (bioregions for relevant example), which defy our notions of identity, from a self-same perspective at any rate. There is good intuitiveness here for folks to grasp what is meant by a self-similar identity relation. The individual instantiations of humans bear a self-similar relation to the category ‘human’, and to each other. They are each unique in a fractal sense, which is pretty uniquely actually, but they all share a rather obvious common relation to each other.

These are not separate properties tho, they are the same property of self-similarity as an identity relation. There is no mystery here from the perspective of, for instance Plato’s forms, or Universals compared to their nominal instantiations, how can these things be the same and yet also not?

What a classic blunder!

Self-similarly of course!

Such isnt tho to completely disregard the self-sameness relation, it does have relevance as already alluded too, and as a counting functional relation, it works reasonably well, or well enough at any rate, provided that we are speaking of ontologies of the same scalar as the folks doing the counting.

It is just practical to do so, and isnt exactly entirely misleading, its just too narrow in its scope as an identity relation.

Hence for instance how we continue to use newtonian physics in our actual spacetime calculations in spaceflight.

But at relativistic speeds, which we are all already always at, the ontological structure just isnt like that, it doesnt have that self-same identity to it ontologically speaking. Nothing does. That is true both literally and aesthetically. Literally as in nothing at all, and aesthetically as an aesthetic reality of what is actually positively there.

Paradox of nothingness resolved as an aside.

That sort of minimum relativistic dimensionality arising from the problem of inscrutables, the differentiating between two otherwise identical ‘things’ (read simplex, so fractally speaking two adjacent formal fractal structures, complex / complex). They being nominally identical to each other, entails that there is nothing about either of them that we can say that isnt also true of the other one.

Relativistically speaking, they have the same rates of iteration, exactly the same rates.

The same is true of any distance relation we apply to either, for, lacking any kind of objective frame of reference, in other words relativistically understood ‘things’ (hence the simplex), any distance relation would be exactly the same for either one of them.

They would also exert the exact same amount of spacetime distortion upon each other.

Philosophically the answer to inscrutables that has struck id say most philosophers as the best sort of solution is that the way to differentiate between identicals (arbitrarily defined entities, counting by natural numbers, think bout this stuff ontologically folks), is to have at least three. Once you have three you thereby form a spatial grid.

Three spacetimes entities are necessary relationally speaking. Hence, the three spacetime coordinates.

Hear me well here, that differentiation between three arbitrarily defined bodies is the three body problem.

If you have three arbitrarily defined bodies they will have some specific set of arbitrarily defined coordinate systems, projections on the mathematics of it. Lazy counting by sheep. A good approximation tho, still oft very pragmatic.

The ontological structure, and hence too the mathematical structure if we are to base the latter off of the former has to already itself be understood in relativistic terms. Such that each of the number lines are iterative functional relations along the temporal axis, e.g. spacetime like relations from the get go, not pointlike but spacetimelike.

Resolution to the rationalists paradox, as an aside. The rationalists project a conceptualization upon the world, which is fundamentally flawed ontologically speaking; it simply carves up the world very sloppy like and poorly.

The reality, the ontology itself is fractal. Understandable by the human mind yes, but not entirely by the rational.

Having three arbitrarily defined spacetime entities, that already creates a dynamic relationship between the three, one arbitrarily defined solution to it being the counting by sheep, by ones i mean. The iterative counting relation of the natural numbers.

An arbitrarily defined three body spacetime system manifests itself mathematically speaking as the counting functional relation of counting by arbitrary wholes.

The non-linearly infinite mathematical space between the natural numbers is where the complexly interacting complexes count from.

The coordinates at any given iteration is just the spacetime relation between itself and the other two. That isnt a separate coordinate on a grid, that would be the mathematical natural number counting relation. Rather it is the iterative functional relation of that particular nominal spacetime coordinate system.

That self-similarly defined fractal identity relation causes the structural movements of the fractal.

The fractal temporal relation is the ‘why’ of gravity. It isnt a weight laying on a sheet, it is just the way that the spacetime fractals have intersected moving inwards towards each other. Which also therefore pushes outwards from it. There isnt ‘an entity’ that moves through spacetime, we are the movements of a spatiotemporal reality.

It is a four dimensional spacetime point that has a certain ontological iterative relation, meaning exactly that spacetime like relation between the other nominal spacetime lines.

It is a fractal structure, just like the natural number line is a fractal structure. The latter is the mathematical fractal counting structure that arises from the arbitrarily self-same counting system.

Differentiations of self-sameness is a relativistic counting method. The grid itself is constantly and consistently shifting.

I think mathematicians would find this helpful for understanding, it may be a bit like ‘all possible counting systems’ includes counting by fractional numbers, akin to fractional dimensions rather intuitively i hope. When we ‘well order’ that spacetime structure, we are in effect arbitrarily delineating the identities of the objects as if they were whole and complete unto themselves; by 1’s.

We can effectively replace for most practical purposes at any rate the result with the natural number line via substitution. Granted, we can replace all of them that way, but we can place a linearly infinite (denumerable) number of them that way now cant we.

And for all our mathematical purposes whatsoever that are constrained by counting by 1’s, in other words the natural number line, we would be consistent with our counting now wouldnt we.

But we would be misunderstanding the reality of what we are doing when we do so.

This of course is exactly, ok self-similarly, to what happens when we count objects ontologically by 1’s, by arbitrary wholes. We learned to count by way of the pragmatic, and it is sufficient for many purposes, but it doesnt reflect the reality which is inherently fractally structured.

The notion here is that the natural numbers are just one way of counting, and weve sorta transposed that counting method via projection upon the whole of the counting possibilities. Which are better described as the non-linearly infinite (innumerable) ‘between’ the natural numbers.

Of course, the natural numbers themselves are not ‘really’ between anything, that is a conflation of the cartesian plane’s grid like structure with the reality it is trying to arbitrarily map out by whole numbers.

Monies Ill Honies As A Real World Example

There is a startling example of this irl too, a wonderful awesome stupendous example of this in the real world; the projection of monies upon a world that simply iterates differently.

‘You burn me in effigy ill burn you in effigy.’

The rhythms of monies movements are matters of projections of arbitrarily whole wants, atemporal sorts of analysis. Their rates of iterations are what they are, but the point here is how far they misalign themselves for the Real Economy to which they nominally aspire.

Wall Street vs Mainstreet, to some extent at any rate, that being a bit too simple a description of it, but it captures the dynamic well enough, the centralized location of wall street, the projection of money’s value within the Real World to which its attempt is to measure as a means to regulate. How far off it really is from any Real World conditions of the Real Economy.

The blunt case is the ‘line go up’ problem, where the Real Economy is saying something the fake ass economy aint yet catching on to. Monies arent real, they are imaginary whole units of desires, wants for wants, want for monies where monies are representative of wants. When monies are utilized they create a pretense of value of things as if too even their values, their worth, where measurable wholes.

The Well Ordering Of Wall Street

This seems like a fairly obvious sort of mathematical maneuver towards the predictability of wall street. Such would be interesting if wall street were something other than a projection of greed tho. Hmm, tho could be that to predict wall street is to destroy wall street and so too the whole of monies insane economics.

For they seek to game the system through greed and gambling. To take away the gambling aspect destroys the greed impulse. If the information were publicly available such that anyone could use it, such would be used for greed primarily but lacking any gambling aspect it becomes perfectly systemic. What is meant by that is that people need not be involved at all to make that function optimally entirely segregated from the Real Economy.

A Real Market, that is, a market predicated upon the Real Economy, if that were projected in the correct contexts of valuations, the capacity to be able to predict that would actually be interesting and worthwhile.

Prediction of that entails cornucopia capacity.

Projection In Multiple Senses

You can also thereby get a good sense of the problems of projection in multiple senses.

From the projected perspective, the nominally self-same perspective, theyve an inherently out of sync perspective to the relativistic reality. Hence the temporal ordering may sometimes be off. Such would give a nominally linear historical perspective, such that what had come before is for them what they assume must come again.

It is a peculiar relativistic identity problem of perspective as a fundamental structure for conceptualization. Again, from the projected perspective, the aesthetic as a broader perspective is actually viewing things historically backwards, aware merely of its past. From that perspective there is a real sense of a wide variety of options that could have happened, that could haveness being the aesthetical view when understood from the rationalist’s perspective.

The longing towards the past due to its spacelike relation; ‘you cant go back to the past’. What a linear view of temporality, what an archaic view of temporality. What a projected view of temporality, projected from the arbitrarily defined rationalist viewer. ‘Its’ history, really, only yours?

Connections of possibility are more aesthetic like relations because they are more timelike relations to use the proper relativistic language.That is to say, that the aesthetic view, from its perspective has a timelike relation to all those possibilities, the possibilities that form the aesthetic from the perspective of the rational projection views as if its past. From the perspective of the aesthetic they are its future.

What it sees as real temporarily speaking is just the singular path upon which that rationalistic pov so happened to have traversed. Seeing all those other possible paths in a spacelike relational way, simply not a part of your timeframe.

That relatively narrower view, rationalistic views, with greater uncertainty the future oriented position, perceives the projected flow of action as if it had yet to happen, hence more the order or events as mattering for the conceptualization. An arbitrary starting point for a nominal well ordering of identity along a self-sameness spatiotemporal delineation.

Its akin to seeing for the first time even tho your eyes have been viewing it the whole time. Pun most def intended.

Understanding well that as a modeling of the ontology and the conceptualization of it there is a sense of a similar kind of identity problem. Does the conceptualization self-samely relate to the ontology? If it does and the ontology is inherently pluralistic, quantum fractal waveform like, there is a real sense of the conceptualizations as therefore being benignly the same. I mean a nominal projection.

Quath a poet:

“…The Universe is shaped exactly like the earth…

...Everytime you think youre walking, youre just moving the ground.

Everytime you think youre talking youre just moving your mouth.

Everytime you think youre looking youre just looking down… ”

• ‘3rd Planet’, modest mouse

Freedom As Directionality In A Fractal Spacetime And The Minimum Difference Of The Same

Freedom is directionality in a real sense. I mean, in an ontologically and hence temporal sense freedom is manifested by a temporal projection along an otherwise under determined path. Compare to the points regarding the two slit experiment and quantum mechanics as noted here see here, in particular understanding that movement itself implies moving along an array of paths, and hence there is a freedom of movement implied. Note that the unit of relevance therein is action, not being but becoming. Ontology sans temporality is Being, ontology with temporality is Becoming. The proper unit of both is spatiotemporal. Tho note that classically wed likely tend to think of Being as being more spatial, and Becoming as being more temporal.

That directionality is implied by way of the two slits if you think bout it, its shifting formal structure i mean regarding how you look at it, arbitrarily pointlike or spacetime like. If you consider it pointlike, it already is that which is a temporal projection of ‘which slit it went through’.

It is, in other words, temporal projection. That is just what reality itself is. The directionality experienced ontologically is a relativistic temporal projection of arbitrary self-sameness. Its one of those ‘yes of course we can time travel, that is what we are doing now, that is the experience of now’.

Everytime you move you are moving spatiotemporally, literally and figuratively. ‘You’ are not some separate thing from spatiotemporality. There isnt ‘matter’ and then also this other thing called ‘spacetime’, there is literally nowhere that isnt spacetime, including matter.

Matter is a manifestation of spacetime, in much the same way that life is a manifestation of matter as an extension of spacetime. That freedom along a temporal axis is already inherently defined by way of relativistic definitions.

The experience of freedom is akin to the relativistic perspective problem of the min difference of the same, the conundrums between a seemingly fixed past filled with possibilities that couldve been, and the relatively narrower view afore ‘towards’ the future where the possibilities seem far more limited if assured.

When you count by iterations as a matter of ontology you are counting by relativistic numbers, temporal dimensions as spacetime axises. Movement within that simply is relativistic time travel like stuff. To alter direction in a literal sense is to also alter direction in a temporal sense.

It would again be akin to noting that the backwards looking view understands and even sees the past before it. I mean, fairly literally correct? All spacetime entities afore you, gentle readers, as visions from the past. Just not the very distant past.

And yet *somehow* you are nonetheless managing to interact with those past spacetime entities.

That *somehow* is literally just spacetime movement. If it is the case, i am pretty sure this is True too, if it is the case that the reality we live in is spacetime, and we living inside a spatiotemporal well, technically three or so, then it necessarily follows that movement itself is movement within spacetime.

That is just relativistic temporal mechanics.

Its super spooky stuff i know. For the rationalistic view, the per se individualistic view, the arbitrarily defined entity view, a very conceptualized sense of view, this may seem strange because the identities simply do not work that way in their conceptualizations at any rate.

But the ontology of freedom is the capacity to be able to do otherwise in an other than wise systemization, which really is implied by way of temporal projection as inherent within any spacetime relation. The definitional relational between a minimum three fractal spacetime coordinates systemization already implies fairly radically different sorts of mathematical solutions, if you think bout it a bit.

There is an iterative flow to existence as the fractal spatiotemporal exists, there is i mean to say movement inherent to fractal spatiotemporal structures, rather specifically movement in the form of fractal transformations. I think it may be helpful to mention here that spatiotemporal parts, howsoever we define that, are inherently not singular.

Quantum Relative Connections

To relate a bit more to the linked vid in this section, what they are describing along quantum levels, i am describing more in terms of relativistic movement and possible paths along the temporal fractional, fractal, dimension.

The pathes possible are along the fractal spacetime structure; they are exactly that themselves.

You can kinda hear this error in the speaker where they are mistaking the bit of quantum as if it were a ‘bit o’ matter’ that is ‘acting’ onto a spatiotemporal frame, likely an inert spatiotemporal frame.

But note the scalar differences the speaker points out regarding relative size of objects.

The proper view is that the quantum bits are just spatiotemporal elements themselves, scalar fractal expansions of the spacetime structure. And so on for the rest of matter. Note how the speaker speaks of planets and quantum, ignoring the vast array of scalar differences between the very small, and the very large.

This is because they arent thinking fractally, whereby each scalar actually has different properties of note to it predicated exactly upon their scalar, and their scalar transformations. To the speakers view, there is just a linear line of effect. The very small is exactly like the very large, the latter just being ‘more of the former’. So there is a bit of handwaving involved when he says ‘we just dont see it at the very large scalar’.

Moreover, if you understand the whole as spatiotemporal with differing scalars of action you can begin to get a better sense of how to do a bit more than handwave ‘from the very smallest, to the very largest’.

There is a lot of intuitiveness to this too, as differing arrangements of ‘quantum stuffs’ actually do in point of fact have differing properties to them based exactly upon their scalar, e.g. the table of elements, but also of course how all those elements get crammed together in various and interesting ways, lots of which produce fairly radically different scalar properties to them.

“What is that lagrangian that will pop out all of physics?”, fractal transformations.

Principle Of Least Action, Minimum Difference Of The Same

Principle of least action, similar to the minimum difference of the same. May be speaking of the same kind of notion, but are coming at it from differing perspectives. Likely the former from the probability perspective, the latter from the spatiotemporal perspective.

Tho note that these are the same perspectives. What of the quantum is spoken of as probability is of the relative spoken of as spatiotemporal paths. There are just perspective problems in peoples understandings bc they keep treating quantum as something entirely distinct from spatiotemporal processes, rather than as fractal expansions of a fractal spatiotemporal ontology.

Socio-Cultural Spaces Of Freedom And Liberty

Designing our socio-cultural structures to work within it is conceptualizing and planning along a temporal dimension. The unfolding future unfolds fractally exactly as the past does. There is a range of freedom and liberties therein in relation to the seed iterative structure of the nominal individuation events, iterations of it are structured via fractal expansions and scalar transformations.

If there is a fractal expansion, there are necessarily going to be scalar transformations as the iterative processes well, iterate. That scalar transformation stemming from the complexes interactions with an adjacent complex, such a forwards looking perspective is predictive but within a limit.

That limit being a nominal one relative to the scalar transformations as there are pattern shifts between these. It is a nominal but not absolute limit. It is entirely plausible to interact predicated upon some further iterative instance in at least a few ways.

The transformation matrix is discussed further elsewhere. Understanding how the iterative patterns between iterations function is sufficient for here.

Being an active agent in the shaping of them. Being an active agent in them may be something of a choice and a struggle to do tho. It is the disposition towards individualization that somewhat ironically provides the radicalism necessary to adjust the scalar transformations.

In the first instance we are speaking of the reality that the queer spaces are the norm, see also Gender Tales, in other words the transformation matrices are the norm in any given instance. So when we consider the notion of ‘between’ two adjacent spaces we are speaking of a queer space relative to the two otherwise adjacent spaces.

But this describes all spaces relativistically speaking, hence all spaces are inherently queer in their formal structure.

The notion here as regards freedoms and liberties is that there is an intuition that there is a ‘time of freedom and liberty’ during such transitory spaces. There is, i mean, a real intuition that what we mean and intend by the notion of freedoms and liberties is exactly that of transitoriness between nominally real states of being.

The queerness of socio-cultural spaces doesnt preclude those spaces it bridges, indeed, inherent to the structures they are self-similar reflections each of the relativistically defined spaces to each.

As Freedoms And Liberties Relate To Being And Becoming

The astute and philosophically literate might recognize how well this sinches up with the being and becoming distinctions as they relate to ontologies. Being is bridged by becoming between. Between two otherwise adjacent states of being is a state of becoming which transitions between those two otherwise adjacent states of being. But this is tru of all existential spaces, including the state of becoming. The transitory nature of existential states is tru for all existential spaces, both being and becoming.

Compare to the double slit to the ‘infinite slit’ argument, similar structures to the argument, and perhaps analogous points to distinctions between particle like and wave like, being and becoming respectively. I think intuitively that makes sense to a lot of folks.

Likewise, and relevantly, compare to the notion and description of the minimum difference of the same a▢c. The argument there is that between an two nominally adjacent states there exists a transformation matrix between them. Technically a fractal transformation matrix, but the notion was very much developed with that same style of argument to it. That conceptual seed is spread through many place in my own conceptualizations no doubt do to my own deep and long ruminations on these matters.

Ive applied the same sort of reasoning, logical analysis, and specifics of argumentations to a wide variety of topics ranging well quite far and wide as the writings expose at least some non-trivial portion of its conceptual expanse. There is a worry that the relation doesnt well relate to the reality, but that is True of any conceptualization at all et al id think.

The upshot here in regards to freedoms and liberties is we therefore have what we’d call classically and in the currents freedom and liberties. Transitoriness of the existential states simply implies this.

The arguments against this are dependent upon an understanding of the existential states as being gappy. That is, that there isnt such a thing as a transitory state between two adjacent existentially relevant spaces. Two adjacent existentially relevant spaces are non-porously defined, in other words, a = a is their axiomatic identity relation.

Even if we were to place these two adjacent existential spaces so that they are as tightly compacted together as possible, there wouldnt be any transitory change that happens to them. They would still be defined as ‘a=a’. It they were smashed tightly enough together and they are porously defined, then it follows that they would transmutate their formal fractal structure.

Now, this is of course exactly what we see happen, because the fundamental structure is one of transitoriness, queerness, becoming. What we mean by being is actually specific nominal states of becoming.

The non-porously defined being is at the core of the belief in determinism. Determinism is a conceptual artifact of a belief in defining identity predicated upon the nominal projection of self-sameness. Hence too the irony involved here as to how freedoms and liberties are pragmatically expressed.

The psychological and epistemic phenomena to quickly and pragmatically define entities upon their nominal complex of complexes expression, masks the reality that the entity thereby defined is actually a complex of complexes. The quick notation of a ‘self same’ identity, an identity of Being, a counting functional relation predicted upon arbitrarily sharply defined entities ‘one’, these mask the reality even as they pick out the nominally ontologically relevant entities.

If this is in any way unclear, ill reiterate an example im found of using to expound upon this point; its far more expedient to pick out the tiger from the jungle than contemplate the intricate ways that the tiger’s iterative structural form is entwined with the ecology of the region within which it propagates itself.

The same of course is tru for far less ‘fight or flight, danger’ sorts of concerns too. Simply the pragmatics of finding food, interacting with the environment at some scalar or another, moving around a given spacetime region, constructing things, and so on, all depend on the expediency of identification. Differentiating the berry from the branch it is on is technically in the abstraction of spacetime worm structures quite difficult, if you think bout it a bit.

When is the berry a berry and not the branch from which it is stemming itself from?

But that kind of contemplative state of the broader iterative temporal fractal structures doesnt exactly help in the immediacy of identification of the entity. Expediency is a temporal concern, Being is a kind of quick and dirty identification methodology, which makes for an incomplete representation of the ontology, identity, and even counting; pun somewhat intended.

It is a temporal differentiation between what aspects of the reality we pick out to examine.

The nominal experience of the ‘now’, howsoever we parse that out (projection of the self same identity), functionally operates reasonably well by way of picking out the more immediately iteratively interacting adjacent spatiotemporal regions.

If you think bout it a bit, that follows well with the notions of certain efficacies of actions that delimit the merely wildly possible to the plausibly doable. Those relativistically ‘far off’ options, near the horizon are far less plausible to simply travel to, and the further off in time your are seeing.

Because spatiotemporality are the ontologies.

When you wonder around, you are wandering around in time conceptualizing it along a nominalistically linear ‘now’ timeline, which is of course just one’s personal perspective, a kind of nominal individuation.

The scalar difference is as a matter of temporal differentiation of consideration too.

How the tiger or the berries are perceived is based on how long one is able to spend making the determination. We’ll revisit that point tho elsewhere.

Brief Aside On A.I.

Trump Jets Off To Watch Golf After Triggering Global Market Meltdown | No Tariffs On Russia

This is something of an aside, but note how the tv admin’s tariffs are comically arranged in what may be the dumbest way ever conceived. Treating each country ‘exactly the same’ when they clearly are not. Its a very simplex way of thinking bout that shite. It is indeed coming from an a.i., that is somewhat indicative of its simplexed structure as an arbitrarily sharp delineator.

Compared to the musical ai which has a far broader perspective by way of its aesthetical arrangements. [this may not really belong here, consider removing.]

Philosophical Prelude To Fractal Spacetime

I feel like folks might find this helpful for understanding their own reticence towards understanding, as well as my.

Ive always had reticence at approaching in particular scientific and mathematical issues from a philosophical perspective. Not in the sense of talking bout it in a philosophical manner, but in the sense of understanding and working within it thusly.

Partly this is certainly do to a real skills deficit; i cannot do much of the mathematics involved in either of these, and in both cases the mathematics is fairly critical to the understanding at all; one of those more than the other i hope obviously. But this begs the question as to how much of understanding is embedded with the capacity to do.

This is problem one in the feeling but also the intuition regarding concerns of interdisciplinary study. It is i think also the simplest of the problems associated with it.

I have actually spent a lot of time, well around two decades somewhat casually but very really studying the mathematics and the relevant sciences as i saw fit to relate to my philosophical views. Not wanting to make a total ass of myself, i figured if i am going to be doing philosophy on topics that are also covered by the science and mathematics, i really ought to at least understand what their views on this stuff really is.

Can folks understand even if they cannot do, i think yes, and i think somewhat obviously in cases other than especially mathematics, but also much of the sciences too. In the context of philosophies for relevant instance the capacity to practice philosophy, not as a ‘professor’ but as an actual practitioner of philosophy, who does actual philosophizing, clearly isnt relevant to understanding philosophy.

Even tho intense studying of philosophy doesnt entail the capacity thereby to do philosophy.

This is also pretty obvious in cases of trades. Understanding how to build a home doesnt entail the capacity to do so, tho it is certainly something of a prerequisite to doing so.

Problem two however is much more difficult and relevant i think. Can one do mathematics or sciences by way of a different mode of understanding, hence by way of a different discipline? There are in theory no real reasons why not. There are even many a view suggesting that an outsiders perspective, interdisciplinary approaches, are good ways of practicing as outsiders are particularly productive.

However there is a sound intuition that folks have to learn enough about something before they can even possibly have something intelligible to say about it.

I think tho that such kinda misses the relevant philosophical points as are applicable across the disciplinary board, punny. Are there underlying realities towards which the various disciplines are speaking about?

Does Truth constantly pick out the correct answers, so to speak, from one discipline to another?

Ive tried pointing out well how conceptually there are very likely exactly that kind of overlap via self-similar transformations via an aesthetical mode of connection between otherwise differing ideas. Those transformations, i am claiming, are fractal transformations between adjacent conceptual structures.

We might call that the epistemic fractal transformation theory.

Id assume something similar happens within the ontology too predicating that upon the clear fractal geometry that is expressed in reality.

As a relation between the ontology and the epistemic such entails that Truth is a kind of fractal transformation matrix between these, and hence there are real plausibilities of making meaningful explorations in one discipline which are self-similarly applicable to another discipline.

Personally i find this convincing to the plausibility of such kinds of works. I also find this to be satisfying of my own feelings of concerns.

I think this is the most difficult problem for interdisciplinary practices, but it is soluble. This video here is a good video on its own, and it does have relevance for understanding the historical analysis of gender and sexuality which does come up later, so i do recommend folks watch the whole thing, but here i just want to point out a surreptitious example in that video as it relates to these issues. At timestamp 9:00 the history prof expresses shock at foucault's ‘prophetic capacity to understand the histories of homosexuality without actually proffering any semblance of historical evidence for it, as none was known at the time. Yet after his death ‘miraculously’ foucault’s theories on the matter were vindicated.

Im just saying its not that fucking mysterious.

The third problem is i think not really soluble, but it isnt as detrimental to the practices, so much as a pragmatic problem of translation. Namely, the plausibility of misusing terms.

I am sure most folks familiar with at least one discipline’s special terminology understand this problem, as they encounter a student or other sort of outsider to their discipline wildly misusing the terms. Now, folks that have spent time making an real effort to learn about another discipline oft overcome this problem, it isnt that the issue cant be handled through education. Unlike problem two this isnt exactly a problem in theory, so much as a fairly obvious kind of systemic problem with any sort of interdisciplinary practice.

Ill motion here briefly to quine’s indeterminacy of translation to note that this is simply a systemic problem to all linguistic practices whatsoever, and that such is highly consistent with and suggestive of a fractal transformation happening in the conceptualizations.

Such isnt, again, an indication of the incapacity for meaningful interdisciplinary practices, it is an indication tho of a common obstacle they face, problems of translation between adjacent concepts.

Necessarily such transformations are not exact, they are self-similar. Ontology is strikingly and not coincidentally related pretty strongly to physics. Epistemology is similarly related to biology, logic, and mathematics. Wed i think be justified in claiming that these are adjacent fractally formed conceptual structures. Meaning they have a lot of conceptual, and presumably but not necessarily a lot of physical biological connections between them; that depends on how folks are parsing out the mind / brain distinction, which i really dont want to go into here.

What that means is that there are valid transformation matrices between the conceptual structures, but some adaptations of meaning between the concepts are inevitable.

The Three Meta Stepped Metamorphosizes

My notion here is that such meaningful connectivity doesnt carry beyond three meta steps relations, which we can understand as scalar steps. Meaning between adjacent conceptual fractal structures are self-similar but also are direct. Indirect self-similar relations are plausible by scalar difference, being a second meta stepped relation. The first meta step is between the direct relations between adjacent forms.

The third and only other meta step relation is between the scalarly larger meta stepped relation, between it and its scalar parodies. At that point, the relation between the nominal conceptual fractal and the parody fractal form of its scalarly broader meta stepped fractal loses the information of form.

In other words, as if humans were disciplines: a person’s formal fractal structure is relatable as a meta relation to the great apes. They have a non-meta relationship to other humans tho, as they share the same generic form. Their meta relation to the great apes is a matter of formal fractal structure.

Their shape in a literal sense.

They are a whole lot like humans, but they are meaningfully different. There is a cross generic shape transformation matrix that can describe that. We’d also say there is a fairly direct relationship therein, e.g. dna. We could, in theory at least, simply change the dna and hence transform the form from one to the other.

Regardless of the pragmatics or ethics of doing so, both of which are pretty suspect imho.

Now, each of these has an indirect relationship to the bioregion(s) within which they live, which are a scalarly larger meta stepped position; this is the second meta stepped position. Its formal shape is fractally different, but there also is no direct transformation matrix between them. Presumably there are transformation matrices, but they are not drawing upon the nominal generic forms.

Id say here they are derivatives of the complex interactions over time, through iterations, that creates the bioregional fractal formal structure. Bioregions are rather specifically temporally extended scalar larger structures. Their iterations are predicated upon the the whole interactions of its various scalarly smaller meta stepped relations, to that of the various lifeforms that also compose it.

The third metastep is between the differing bioregions. There is a direct transformation matrix between adjacent bioregions. It can oft be physically pointed to as those transitionary regions between otherwise adjacent bioregions.

My suspicion here is that the directness of the translation fully scrambles the relevance of the nominal generic formal structure. There is ‘nothing human to be found’ in the transformation matrix between otherwise adjacent bioregions, even if humans be found on either side of the transformative regions.

The notional reason being that the mode of interaction is defined more by the formal fractal shape as if it were nominally relevant. Bioregions have affective scalar forces that simply transcend by dint of their scalar state whatever scalar states are constitutive of it. Humans interact by scalar, with our bodies as they are. Bioregions act in a similar manner, not by way of the individual components thereof.

The bioregions can lose literally any and all of its constituent parts, all the lifeforms therein as well as all of the non-living physical processes thereof, and it would still be a bioregion. It would be a transformed bioregion for sure, but it never stopped being a bioregion in the processes, no matter what transformations its constituent aspects make.

It is odd to think about, i know, but it isnt different than noting that for life forms their movements are broadly neatly contained by their bodies, which not coincidentally define their lifeforms. Lifeforms dont really move by moving all the individual component aspects thereof. All the individual components of a lifeforms body can move around, and do so all the time all on their own.

Movement of the body as a whole is how the lifeform actively moves around at the proper scalar of the lifeform. No matter where those component aspects move, from one region of the body to another, or from one body to another in a living manner (think procreative and eating), all remain bodies of lifeforms. That doesnt change no matter how much this happens, due to the scalar differentiations.

Brief Aside Of The Sortes, In Abstraction Example

There is a relation to the Sortes problem as identity in abstraction . Folks can see here for a run down of the Sortes Problem, but essentially the question is when does adding or subtracting grains of sand turn individual grains of sand into a heap or reduce it from a heap into just a bunch of individual grains of sand.

The heap is a scalarly different sort of thing from its constituent parts. No matter how its constituent parts move, the heap as such isnt actually changed as a scalar property. One could describe a heap as a scalarly larger structure than its constituent aspect, understood as once there is a scalarly relevant transformation matrix possible between segments of its generic shape. Once it loses that scalar property, it is officially no longer a heap.

Half a heap is still a heap, that is a very fractally self-similar sort of phenomena. But that generic shape does come to an end at some point, and that point we might say is when you cannot divide the heap further while maintaining that generic shape. For instance, once its single layer of grains of sand on the ground.

Sortes, heaps, thereby gain definition to the point that in principle one could define when the very next grain gained or lost makes or breaks the technical fractal scalar properties of being self-similarly relatable as a heap. The ‘generic shape’ in other words is ‘heaplike’, which i am actually certain has a fairly specific fractal identity relation. That kind of property occurs at a scalar difference from the individual grains themselves, which interact with each other far more as individual grains of sand than as heaps as such, even as they themselves compose the heaps of sand.

It does go too far astray to delve more into here, maybe elsewhere. Regardless, i think the philosophically minded might appreciate the point some, and perhaps help folks grasp the point in abstraction as applicable to identity relations at all et al.

Brief Aside On Hurricanes, Bioregional Scalar Example

The same sort of thing is occurring on the bioregional scalar, bioregions interact as bioregions. A hurricane acts as a whole, not as individual movements of ‘bits of wind’ whatever that could ever mean. We can describe the hurricane as the en masse movements of the ‘bits of wind’ (the vector analysis for example), but the actual affective force arent those individual ‘bits of wind’ interacting with you, it is as a whole that ‘the wind blows’.

If that doesnt make sense, consider how it is that those individual ‘bits of wind’ are ‘wind’ at all et al. They arent spontaneously moving like that, they are being moved that way by another scalarly relevant phenomena, namely heat and water transfers from scalarly relevant entities, like the oceans.

Brief Aside On Celestial Bodies, Stellar Scalar Example

Final example that is likely fairly intuitive, the celestial bodies also move ‘as a whole’, not as a point. No matter how much the stuff on a given celestial body moves around, it doesnt affect how the celestial body itself moves. However, other scalarly relevant entities do in fact have meaningful affective forces via fractally formed spacetime waves.

Overall, i think we can sum this up as noting that identity is fundamentally porously structured, not strictly bound. Movement within and between any given identity structure isnt in defiance of the identity structure, it is defining its identity.

Three Body Fractal Spacetime Systems, Take Two

There is an oddity in the three body problem that has always bothered me, the ontological presumption of the identities of the bodies involved. We all kinda know what they mean, and we all know that it is a convenient fiction; the neatly contained body represented as if it were a point. Both of these are of course the same thing, the same assumption regarding identity, as if there were some a = a structure to which we can allude to as a means of simplex identification.

Im viewing the three body problem as fractal scalar sorts of issues, and attempts at understanding how a nominal three body system interacts. That nominally entailing the previously alluded to directly interacting bodies, and the limits of translations between complexes by scalar interactions. Traditionally these kinds of issues are spoken of either as three celestial bodies or as teeny tiny pointlike spacetime wells, particles, which we can scale larger or smaller without concern for differences by scalar.

Again, pragmatically these are the same in the physics and mathematics, which seems like an obvious sort of problem with the modeling. I dont mean to be too dismissive of the current modelings, it is just that typically this rather glaringly obvious issue is noted but then handwaved away as ‘its just convenient to do’.

I dont think they are, i think they speak to a rather serious flaw in the ontology and epistemology of the modeling. Both how they are conceiving of identity, a = a, and how they are conceiving of concepts, divisively disciplinarily.

In a fractal spacetime structure, whereby aspects such as types of matter are viewed as extensions of spatiotemporal fractal propagation, when we are speaking of either celestial bodies, pointlike spatiotemporal wells, concepts in abstraction, concepts in concretion, or particles of whatever flavor, these are all of them definable in terms of some self-similar fractal expansion.

They are spatiotemporal entities inherently. Hence to speak of bodies for a three body problem is to speak of the realities of the spatiotemporal as such. How do the three fractal spatiotemporal dimensions interact is the heart of the three body problem.

Answering first which bodies rather than assuming nominal abstracted bodies is critical for framing the three body problem properly. Each fractal spatiotemporal dimension already constitutes a body.

The relation between three fractal spacetime dimensions implies a complex three body problem whereby each iterating structure is chaotically interacting with each other; each of those complex iterating structures are themselves nominal bodies of consideration.

Hence how matter of some fundamental sort emerges from that is also a valid solution to the three body problem. A claim here is that the formal descriptive structure of fractal spatiotemporal coordinates systemizations accounts for the three body problem exactly as relativistic coordinates along three spatiotemporal iteratively structured dimensions.

This is strongly related to the argument of the inscrutability of identicals, whereby there is no such thing as a distinction between two otherwise identical bodies, nominal bodies, unless there is a third body present. Hence to have distance relation at all et al between two nominal bodies already entails the existence of a third.

Therefore when we take a measure between two nominal bodies, we are actually already also including a hidden third. Typically this is by dint of a graphic backdrop against which the movement of the two bodies are occuring. The three nominal bodies therein being the supposed stationary graphic structure and the two body system it purports to display.

More importantly the problem isnt an issue with an observer, or methodology, it is a matter of existential states at all et al.

This doesnt really eliminate the problem so much as frame it properly tho.

A dynamic graphic structure, fractal spacetime, removes this in theory at any rate, by holding that the backdrop of measurement is not itself a static body. A dynamically interacting spacetime better captures the proper perspective of the three body problem, its three dynamically interacting dimensions constitute the three body problem.

If we understand ‘bodies’ as expressions of spacetime rather than distinct from it in some per se sense, its somewhat straightforwards to hold that the three body problem is akin to the two body problem by way of requiring a third dimensional element in order to make sense between two arbitrarily similar structures, such as mathematically point-like spatiotemporal gravity wells, or suppositions of one dimensional timelines.

That iterative structure being both within each spacetime dimension and relativistically defined between them as they iterate relative to each other.

If it helps, and it may, when construed this way quantum phenomena are fractal extensions of three spacetime fractal structures interacting. The probabilistic solutions to quantum phenomena in that sense ought be suitable as solutions for the n-body problem. You may also in that sense view the probabilistic trajectories of movements as being analogous to the same kind of n-body problem. In this case we are just noting those bodies as probable trajectories.

The solutions to which are realistically what constitute the make up of both the celestial bodies and the arbitrary point-like spatiotemporal gravity wells.

As If Each Spatiotemporal Dimension Were A Functional Counting Relation.

Consider again from the perspective of well ordering of a non-linearly infinite counting system. Whats needed to count the orbits of n-bodies is a means to pick where to start from when viewing the whole as a fractal structure; viewing n-bodies in the same way as we would the possible trajectories of a quantum state.

Taken together as a whole, the n-body system can also be viewed as distinct parts of a spatiotemporal fractal structure, which certainly by observation is True, insofar as that goes who knows.

What ‘fractal segment of the planetary systems are we to start measuring with’ followed by the ordering of the remainder along the same lines of reasoning.

Same kind of solution as what i am suggesting here. The nominal solution to the three body problem is really a question as to ‘where to start counting from’, as the seas of spatiotemporality are complexes of complexes.

Id also suggest that scalar transformations can be quite helpful in analyzing data regarding different scalar structures in the universe. There being a plausibility of a self-similar fractal transformation that can be made between adjacent scalarly relevant fractal structures. That would imply a means of fractally mapping the relation predicated upon a partial sampling of the fractal form.

Whats required therein especially noteworthy is an understanding and means of measuring their fractional dimension, which i am fairly certain can be plausibly done.

Memetic Linguistics

There is an interesting relation to the memetic in that some linguistic expression can have a formal sort of structure which when interacted with tends towards a certain directionality, spin, etc… hence i mean lines of thought, related schools of thought and adjacent fractal conceptual structures.

Where there are multiple intersecting fractal conceptual structures, there will be numerous overlapping layers between a given complex between it and all adjacent complexes. Solutions to that entail plausible pathways to take within a given complex, a directionality again along the spacetime axis.

The differentiations are self-similarity related, meaning and entailing evolutionarily related to the n-th degree, relative to primarily the earth, moon and sun gravitational complex, in a conceptual iterative process from the differentiations of gravitational force between that three body relation, such that matter within it is able to iterate in the processes that it does at differently relevant iterations relativistically speaking.

Life being but a particular sort of iterative processing of the fundamentally gravitational spacetime relations. Which does imply directionality and even freewill fundamentally.

That too would apply tho at different iterative intervals for how species sexually reproduce. In a sense we could understand that as how agency having complexly interacting complex systems obtain freedom of the will as a by-product of differential spacetime dimensions temporal projections.

Temporal projection, another phrase perhaps of a spacetime distortion, but as a derivative of the complexes’ interactions. Concepts iterate differently, from each other and from the iterative processes of other complex systems.

These can nest within each other, for instance conceptualization within the complex of a sexually iterative (reproductive) species. Analogously there are other iterative processes within which the sexually iterative species itself iterative within, the ecosystems i mean, but also things like the environmental processes within which the ecological finds itself.

I dont intend to imply a global entity, e.g. the gia hypothesis, i am not ruling it out entirely here. But it seems to me that the relevant differentiations of a given ‘gia-like’ complex of complexes is likely bioregionally constrained, though not thereby confined. The interrelations between differing bioregions defining a relevant gia-like structure of interconnectedness.

It remains true that those bioregions do interact between each other, and that interaction defines the global bioregional structure, but here’s the thing, beyond that the bioregional kind of relation fades beyond the earth. Lacking a formal differentiation of itself at a higher order, the proper ‘agency having fractal division’ is the one from which such a structure forms.

This bc there is no real in the mereness of the patterned projection, in other words, it is an open set, a porously identified entity adjacent to another relevantly scalar sort of entities has no wholeness on its edges only queerness between adjacent relevant structures. That outer ‘relative queerness’ in this sense being exactly the bioregional structures which comprise the relevant joint carved parts of the nominally ontologically identified fractally composed structures.
….
Hence the overall structures of the bioregions isnt as if it were a singular entity entire, but rather these potentially quite large elliptically iterative structures; that means the inherent asymmetries between the iterative structures.

I recall an early iteration of my own conceptualization in this manor was a paper i wrote as an undergraduate for my modern philosophy of languages class at the university of washington.

I was clearly inspired by quine’s indeterminacy of translation, and i tried to diagram it as meaning have inherent length to it, in other words that there isnt an indefinitely refined definition of something. I can quite recall the exact details of the paper, and i dont want to look it up, but it was something like if you consider the process of analysis as towards some indefinite particular, it will inherently run up against a problem of generative meaning due to its ‘refinements of meaning’ being less than the relevant scalar units. To be too specific about something in an ontological sense.

Again, relate to the notion of self-sameness as an identity that lacks temporality to it. It is an atemporal sort of identity relation, meaning quite literally lacking in temporal dimensionality.

Hence too, if you think about it, why there can also be difficulty in understanding temporality from an atemporal hypothesis. The ‘mystery’ of temporality being lost in its projection, unaware i mean that such is a projection of the reality.

You can relate this to the political and economic projected overlays of the globe, such that their proper positioning is aligned roughly and porously upon the bioregional groupings. Such is a grounding structure for them, they can transcend but cannot dominate over. I mean the interconnections of the iterative processes of the various bioregions.

Something Strange Happens When You Trust Quantum Mechanics

I think this is the vid that has the moving diagram of particles in orbit. Its akin to the one of the solar system showing the paths actually taken, not circular. In this one it was the probability spread, some more probable actions likely, whereas the unlikely tend to disappear. That is the same kind of timelike relation towards those paths that are unlikely, it is a spacetime diagram its just the language being used is slightly different.

The primary path taken, whatever it be, has all adjacent paths as spacetime-like relations, plausible to actually do. In reality all spacetime-like relations are real in the proper sense of that term, e.g. partially actualized, stretched as we are along the spacetime line to begin with.

The effects of the temporal distortion also relates to how such is magnified along the fractal axis, as in, locally large effects have scalarly different temporal effects. Hence the fractal growth pattern along the temporal axis. To be clear here, i am describing the temporal path of quantum phenomena, outsized effects are due to that kind of relation.

Such describes the memory point too, the looking back at what was, the relatively narrow view of rationality, and the future memory point, the aesthetic, which does actually look into the future in a fairly literal sense by way of quantum affects.

Those affects being outsized scalarly by the same mechanism, non-linear fractal growth patterns.

Quantum Information Panpsychism Explained | Federico Faggin

Maybe something like that.

Any asymmetrical system is inherently three bodied as in prime. Three is a prime of all asymmetrical systems. The scrutability of inscrutables problem alluded to before, with it such becomes quite scrutable. In nominally defined systems the prime of an nbody system is 3. However, systems are not actually nominally defined, there are no closed systems in other words.

Hence, 3 as prime forms a non-porous barrier of the fractal expansion, a limit or edge of the fractal graphically speaking.

The reality of it is likely more complex than that, as all systems are actually open, so there is an inherent interrelation between otherwise nominally distinct complex systems. Such defines the differential between fractal forms, a kind of transformation matrix between otherwise nominally distanced relations.

As noted before for instance every nominally duo object interactions needs a third in order for there to be any distinctions to be made between them, nominally speaking. Hence the shadow gravitation center of a gravitational waves interaction. That shadow gravity well caused by the rotational real of the earth and the sun, or the sun and the moon, pick thee any nominal two and youll see that to properly map them for some reason or another, gosh what could it be, there are two arbitrary points of gravitational pull from the perspective of any given one gravity well therein.

A shadow gravity well caused by gravitational wave interactions, inherent to the dynamics all three body systems. It dances and wiggles, it giggles and quakes at the lushious interactions between any given two nominally same gravity wells.

This is tru to a limit, id assume a plank limit, the nominally smallest amount of gravity is what can transmit a gravitational wave.

Between any given two such otherwise identical entities a third must be formed by dint of existence. The shadow waveform of gravity adjacent us, from the interactions of gravitational weaveforms.

Note that such can also be understood as a means of nominal creative becoming at any rate. I mean in question of the big bang, that can stand as a counterpoint theory of universal cosmological being. The cosmic waveform itself stemming from the minimums required of creation. Expansions and shifts being an expression of the overall affects, a kind of nominal directional of gravitational propagation.

A gravitational eddy which is inherent in any two body system, thus describing already a 3 body system.

That same pattern of solution, taking the one less than n, so n - 1, as an integral for the 2 body solution produces the nominal location and strength of the other nominally active gravitational unit, that is, the inherent implied gravitational well(s) (fundamentally plural), between any adjacent n body system whatsoever.

The problem with the math of it is that they are utilizing nominally defined points instead of inherent spacetime coordinates for their graphical analysis at any rate. Pun most def intended.

In other words the math alone doesnt actually provide a valid picture of the situation between the graphical axises are not independent variables to a three body solution. Each axis of the 3d graph being an independent variable is a 3d fractal waveform interaction. That fractal element does actually matter (I think, but i feel pretty sure bout it), as it provides for the introduction of meaningful scalarly different phenomena.

That is a significant sort of mathematical problem, we can define the contours of it, but we cannot fully do the mathematical analysis of it, i think.

Some of it is fairly intuitive to waveform mechanics, that does inherently model dynamically interacting waveforms.

Consider on the quantum level a couple of concepts i prefer at any rate, pun most def intended.

Pilot wave theory. This theory comes out strong as a contender, if we hold to the formal structure as being spacetime constructs. Pilot wave theory on its own describes strange quantum affects.

Those would also be defined as spacetime chucks, quantum level gravity is spacetime chunks. The smallest unit of it having been defined via the conceptual limit of gravitational, spacetime, interactions. Again, the suitability of the otherwise inscrutable identicals.

For math to actually fit the reality each of their number coordinates must also interact with each other as if they were affecting the gravitational force itself. Partly the notion here is the classic ‘if you cut ever smaller pieces, do you come to a limit’ notion. Firstly we are applying it to spacetime itself.

For spacetime to exist at all, it has to already have of itself a kind of spacetime affect to it. The view is more compatible with classic views of spacetime as being all there is, in other words ‘string theory’, sorta at any rate. Matter isnt a thing ‘within’ spacetime, it *is* spacetime. But i think it is also compatible across the board with some variations required.

That fundamental spacetime affect is just exactly what defines the smallest unit of spacetime. In a sense a sort of basic functional rhythm structure of iterations between three dynamically interacting spacetime dimensions.

Their temporality being that fractional fractal dimension of self-similarity as a fundamental identity relation, an axiomatic sort of relation in spacetime. Movement within spacetime occurs through the complex interactions of those spacetime distortions, from the quantum on up.

The quanta of gravity is the minimum difference of the same. A quanta of gravitational affect is definitionally, the smallest possible unit. Conceptually such is differentiation itself. Gravitationally tho this is a quantifiable kind of phenomena, again, namely, what is the minimum amount of gravitational waveform affective force between any given two gravitationally active entities necessary to create an eddy between them.

This bc spacetimes itself is the identity structure between them. Notionally, as ive done it at any rate, pun most def intended, is a᫅c. That stands for complex system ‘a’ has some fractally self-similar relation ‘⃞’, to some other complex system ‘c’, which inherently takes of spacetime itself. The solution here is that a three body system is defined as a system with two bodies sufficient to make a third gravitational well between them in the form of a gravitational eddy. That eddy is fractally formed as a self-similar reflection of the gravitational interactions.

Hence, any solution to a two body solution already contains its solution to a nominally self-similarly fractal reflection manifested as the eddy formed between their definitionally minimal spacetime interaction possible.

Bare existence in other words is that minimum, as ive tended to put it, the 3d fractal spacetime dimensions.

That eddy in the gravitational fields of any given two interacting bodies can be used to scale up the solutions to the nbody problem. It is a functional relation with an iterative form of adding another nominal unit of spacetime to the waveform affect.

In a wave dynamic that is actually relatively easy to define, but i admit it is beyond my skill set. But not beyond other peoples skill sets.

In effect tho, fractal waveform dynamics defines the spacetime structures as self-similarly iterative fractal processes.

Folks could think of this as each of those spacetime plank units are fractally defined in closeness of movements, i mean the bare iterative forms of them as if dancing together bare naked. A squishy spacetime structure.

That kind of modeling of spacetime is plausible and relatively simple for mathematicians and computer scientists i mean, not for me.

The modeling of this suggests an inherently creative aspect to the nominally binary spacetime structure. An inherent impregnability of spacetime itself. A gravitational eddy i mean between any nominal two already entails an inherently generativity creative aspect to the structure of reality itself.

That implied third i mean thereby has the capacity of a gravitational affect itself wouldnt it? And hence there would wed expect some limited expression of a gravitational well. It is just that such an expression is an inherently self-similar diminishment in scalar formal structure than the nominal two which together comprise three gravitational wells, fractally defining the scalar differential between any given two gravitational bodies.

The eddy is a self-similar reflection of the nominal two gravitational wells orbits.

Again, this is defined fractally and geometrically as the nominal adjacent scalar gravitational well relative to the primary (largest relative the perspective chosen) spacetime active entity.

An easy to perform exercise geometrically, as it is just the two nominal points of orbit used to describe the elliptical orbit of any given two bodies.

Its just exactly that.

The third body between any given two adjacent spacetime active entities is the solution to the 3 body problem. Its a geometric fractal solution. As i recall this, and i may be wrong idk, the way it was taught to me was that there wasnt really a good explanation for the second central point in the orbit of any given two spacetime active entities.

Idk how novel or not that suggestion is in the current scientific lore tbh. Regardless, that is my argument for it being thus, and for a fractal geometrical solution to the 3 body problem and also for the nbody problem.

There is a funny bit of lore bout that. Well, funny to me, idk bout anyone else.

As i thought bout it, the main reason i dont have the skills for that is bc i never finished reading the course book for the introduction to relativity theory.

Dont get me wrong, i worked my way through a lot of it actually. I recall doing it when avery was at kung fu school, the first one we enrolled him in, i can recall the name of it though. It was my favorite of avery’s kung fu schools. We went to tournaments with them a lot when he was going up. Once all the way to california for some sort of national tournament. Avery did well at it.

I really enjoyed being able to do that with avery growing up. I mean being able to take him to places, watch him learn things, participate in him learning things. And of course for persephone too! Really it was nice to be able to be involved in the lives of so many other kids as something of an educator for them as they grew up.

I recall having the same feelings as those with persephone’s ballet and music, and avery’s music too. Tofer was such a wonderful teacher, and so was miss stephine, both of them were so hot too. Like wow kinda hot.

Anyway tho, they had that similar kind of educational style that i had been using at the time, something more playful, involved with the kids, focused on their strengths and creativity centrally featured as a part of the learning experience. Learning not just to do, but how to do at all. How to be that is creatively involved in the processes of learning, academics, arts, music, dance, poetry, philosophy, the sciences, mathematics, and the trades and services.

There is an inherent creative element to the ontology is what i mean to say.

That minimal unit is also definitional of the minimal unit of creation. The eddy as a gravity well itself being nothing more nor less than the otherwise identical adjacent gravity wells. The spacetime unit itself is defined as that limit, whereby the spacetime adjacent aspect has that iterative spacetime property of reproducing itself in the form of a spacetime eddy.

That can be read either as the minimum difference of the same between adjacent pilot waveforms of quanta, and/or as the inner fractal structural minimum of a black hole, or the hypothetical limit at the big bang.

i think folks can intuitively see way this is the case so ill leave the why unexplicated here.

There are meaningful differentiations between those notions, id suggest that they are each segregable fractal formal structures, differently propagating themselves, different fundamental self-similar relations to each other.

I mean they deal with very similar but scalarly different kinds of phenomena.

There is therefore a self-similar relation between those, but they are themselves distinctly differently propagating scalar forms.

You can use this logic to define the conceptual transformations between the world and the nominal individual too. There is i mean an inherent differentiation between any two adjacent fractal structures, conceptualization is a word we use to describe our own usage of that property in thinking itself.

I mean, there is space between two adjacent spacetime entities entails already a spacetime eddy within which we propagate as consciousness playfully moving along the various plausible and possible spacetime fractal propagation patterns.

Although the scalar differences do actually matter, and quite significantly, consider i mean your body as an eddy in the spacetime currents along earths surface and well below in the depths on the ground. Differentials in a spacetime eddy between two different but interrelated two body systems.

That is, the earth moon system. And the earth sun system.

Technically we might consider there to also be a relation between the moon and the sun, but that one may just factor in to the moons. But it is to say that there is also a two body system there that ought be included since it has affects on the moon too, and those affects would translate to at the very least a differential to the any given two of the system.

Such would be tru too for any given two within that three body system.

But that does define the basic fractal waveformal structure of a three body system. You can carry that out to the nth degree but here is one aspect of this gravitational theory that is perhaps controversial, the waveformal structure of spacetime is not infinite.

You can define the end of a given waveformal structure by way of a differential scalar transformation.

In other words, earths fractal structure doesnt extend infinitely into some ‘abstracted’ spacetime structure.

It just is that fractally formed spacetime structure.

Once that fractal formal structure is not there, it doesnt continue into the adjacent spacetime region.

I actually want to call out here purposefully that i dont think that entails no afterlife, as in, this body dies and so do i. Rather, i think it implies an afterlife, as in, my body may die yet the spacetime fractal structure it is a part of continues and manifests itself again and again.

There is, in this model an inherent iterative quality to existence. And existence doesnt have to be relegated to suffering;)

Star Enlightenment

What i am pointing to is that there are actual scalarly defined differences within spacetime entities. And that the differentials on iterative processes is fundamentally spacetime distortions. Life’s capacity for existing is dependent upon those spacetime differentials. To be within a gravity well of a certain dynamic entails the plausible development of life based on the iterative factors between the spacetime entities.

The sense of temporality we have is exactly that sense of fractal unfolding of iterative processes. Many of them interacting with each other at slightly different rates, floating in a spacetime race between gravity wells. We all do realize we also are entities of spacetime.

With our concepts of temporality at all entailing a spatiotemporal element to them.

There are actual and somewhat disturbing points to be made in a practical sense from that.

The notion of two nominal sexes in the earths lifeforms self-similarly, and hence temporally, reflect those nominal gravity well fixtures themselves. A queer relation between any two bodies i mean, the moon, the sun, and the earth. Relativistically speaking the sun is the weakest spacetime force on the moon, the earth is by far greater upon it.

From the sun both are meager, but the earth obviously far grander than the moon no doubt. Tis more the moon is meak than the earth less grand;) too tru and too cute too.

From the earth though both have significant affects, inversely proportional indeed to the negligence of the moons affects upon the sun. It may be the case that the moons affect on the earth, spacetime wise i mean, is technically greater than the sun do to proximity. But i am somewhat unsure, that is something easily answerable tho so ill leave it there for others.

Hence the nominal queer relation of life i mean, and the basic processes of biology. The differential between adjacent complex structures implies already the creation of a third self-similar relation between them.

Queerness it inherent to the systemization of two or more nominally distinct complex systems.
The tale too of the single celled, of mere replication, with its conceptual counterpart the bifurcating function.

Asexual reproduction i mean, as an early expression of life along a temporal dimension of iterative functional relations.

Queerness is implied there too, but the differential is relativistically tiny by comparison. But queerness emerges nonetheless from the nominally binary system. To be clear there, the nominally binal system is the asexual systemization, the mere replication of a lifeforms identity relation.

Analogous too the self same relation, a = a, and folks can get a sense again as to why the nominal counting function the species has been using tends to lead to odd dispositions. It pretends there are real borders around things as if by unthinking habit.

A nominally queer system is a heterosexual systemization. Queerness is the norm, heterosexuality is a self-similar reflection of the basic sexual queerness question. Heterosexuality is a part of queerness, as its part of the sexual spectrum inherent between bisexed species.

Differentiation along a temporal dimension entails the notion of evolutionarily speaking too. As in the scalar transformations between species as a kind of natural aspect of inherently iterative systemizations. I mean, rather than there being a ‘error in replication’ a ‘mistake’ as the means of adaptation, as if the norm for iterative processes was strict replication, queerness between two adjacently sexed bodies already implies the differentiations between many wonderful iterations of the sexual processes.

To not be queer bout it is to be masturbatory conceptually. To just try and be viral for instance, getting people to mindlessly replicate themselves. Compared to there being a conceptually sexually wonderful sort of space.

There are a wide variety of ways to consider this conceptually. The scalar transformations are ‘distortions’ along spacetime, scare quote because that assumes a nominal symmetrical relation relative to which it is a ‘distortion’ of. It just is that ontologically speaking. Such is likely analogous to the aesthetic conceptual distinction, which lets say notes how arbitrarily rational dispositions ontologically speaking lack temporal dimensionality at all, in theory that is.

In reality of course that doesnt exist. The ontological structure of spacetime already implies temporality to its formal structure. My personal major addition to that point is to note its fractal structure.

Ah, to connect to the beautiful babies. So, at the time i was reading the introductory to relativity theory, percy was still a wee one, so adorable, miss chunks a lot! Super babies to the rescue, they bring joy and happiness everywhere they go!

She was small enough that i would wear her around me in the baby bjorn thing. Such a good device. I would be at avery’s kung fu, persephone slung over my shoulder, various looking to watch avery when he was active, cheer him on, and just watch him go, and soothing his baby sister against me, and reading that book just to make sure that mathematically and in the physics of it there is some sort of consistency between what i was describing ontologically, and also epistemically, culturally, sociologically, biologically, mathematically, and in the context of love, but especially in the context of temporality.

I single out the temporality point as it intersects well philosophically with the questions of being, becoming,Truth, and love. Hence, i mean, picking on einstein to see if there is consistency between what hes saying and what i am saying about temporality.

I dont want to go into it here, that isnt really the point of this story. The point of the story is that since that was my aim when i started reading that book, once i got oh, maybe 3/4ths the way through it i had determined that yes what we were saying was compatible with each other, depending a bit on how you interpret einsteins field equations.

At that point it started geting into relativistic thermodynamics and i was like, ‘bah, im never going to need to know that shit.’

And here we are.

What is the reality like as you enter a black hole? Its a real sort of question, but let us really ask ourselves, whats the reality like within the earths gravitational well?

It being after all more than sufficient in scalar to cause gravitational eddies in gravitational locution with the sun and the moon.

The experience of iteration in self-similar fashion is what shifts and changes topologically.

Think carefully mathematical darlings, shine on.

The structural form of matter as spacetime eddies, i am reminded of my father mention that as something like his theory on spacetime. This may be consistent with it, but it is self-similarly different for sure! Idk the origins of it as a concept, also may just be there as a concept structure folks can encounter given the conceptual limits of spacetemporality.

If that is unclear at all, assume there are conceptual paths that folks can choose to go along. These being the contours of intersecting fractal structures, physiologically speaking too, tho dont thereby be fooled either. For the concepts as such, as concepts, are not the physical elements per se, rather they are the per vos iterative patterns forms that activate.

Consider it from the perspective of the physiological tho, its fractal structure would constitute the aesthetic connective structures of a conceptualization. The broader and temporally slower iterative fractal neurological structures. A complex system, a fractal form itself.

Whereas the mereness of the activation of them already changes the fractal characterization of the neurological form. It is some topographically valid self similarly related structure to the overall physiologically connected fractal structure.

This constitutes the first scalar transformation of a concept in spacetime fractal dimension. That is an iteration of thought.

The fractal transformations along the pathways tho also have scalar depth to them too. Meaning that conceptually there are multiple self-similar transformations between adjacent physiological structures, with corresponding self-similar transformations along the adjacent conceptualization axis.

Those iterative transformations between adjacent fractal formal structures constitutes a basic fractal definition of conceptualization as being radically distinct from the physical neurological components.

A good argument for a meaningful mind body distinction to be made for those interested in that sort of thing.

The latter the activation in a given fractal segment the more perspectively narrow the conceptualizations becomes. That gives the illusion of the real as being the narrow perspective of truth. That supposition of the singular being a temporally latter occurrence than the supposition of the relatively pluralistically defined.

The Truth of the matter is the dynamical relation between these iterative spatiotemporal states that creates the reality of iterative temporal processes. In the only meaningful sense, if we, life itself that is, is actually composed of spatiotemporal expressions, freedom and liberty are givens in a strong philosophical sense of those terms.

I mean if movement itself is life playing around in the gravitational fields, albeit in only a relatively marginal way, the freedom to choose is implied by the freeform temporal movements.

In other words that folks are able to alter the rates of iteration, we are therefore freeform temporal expressions. What it means to be temporally, ontologically speaking is to have a temporal iterative rate.

Ok, so carry this to the realm of concepts, the notions of memes and modes of conceptual propagation. The iterative factor is reading of a thing, memers aim for that viral interact status. Those are viral concepts in a fairly real sense of the term. I dont want to imply they are all bad tho, just like other lifeforms concepts rely on a conceptual ecosystem that is diverse, inclusive, and roughly equitable. Some viruses are good for people, they spread happiness, joy, and so on, and they form component bits of conceptual life, etc….

Regardless memers connect fairly differently conceptually speaking. The aesthetics of it are important, but so too is the temporality of the amount of time spent on it.

They lack staying power in other words, but the main point is that such isnt the only interest there is in the conceptual landscapes.


That too fast rate of iteration for meme stuff is not good.

The stuff that takes longer to read, more time to process, and so forth has markedly different and generally more desirable characteristics conceptually speaking than viruses.

I want to suggest to yon fine readers the omofonia involved in the basic fractal conceptual structure ive been describing. The relativistically primary and supportive structures to a harmony.

I jest too much. Far less cryptically there are aesthetic connections between adjacent relativistically narrower and hence more rationally defined conceptualizations. That irrationality involved is the aesthetical expression, but that aesthetical expressions ‘irrationality’ is only seemingly so as its as if looking backwards up the gravity well.

The broader aesthetic view conceptually speaking is the temporally earlier iterative structures themselves. Rationality is always literally backwards looking temporally speaking.

The means of movement conceptually speaking is along the aesthetical axis primarily.

The poetical aesthetical miracles of conceptualization have to do with understanding certain conceptualizations that are broader than but one nominal temporal expression, that is, iterative functional relation, in a conceptual sense yes, but also self-similarly related to the sexual, sensual, and ontological senses already alluded to.

Hear me out here.

If the rational view is backwards looking at the aesthetic, the aesthetic is literally an earlier conceptual process that had relativistically speaking more plausibilities and possibilities to its expression.

This doesnt amount to much in absolute values, but it does it terms of how to understand what conceptualization is.

The path taken in a concept is a more rational path because it makes sense in the context of what had already occurred. Its like we more aware of the after effect via rational thought than we are of the affective aesthetical source of it.

The backwards looking view though does grant the interesting capacity to examine alternative choices tho. In a real physical sense of that too. That kind of consideration of conceptual options, information, thinking in general actually takes a lot of time and consideration.

There is a sense in which the way that the concept is written, not the length overall, but the style of the text, the aesthetics of the words themselves, where meaning be broader that rationalization, the intuition therein is to utilize the same logical argument; that the meanings of words are derived from a relation between their more rationally contextually placed state and expression, and the self-similar relation to its more temporally prior expressions. An iteration being on a scalar level a matter of measure by topographical transformations between adjacent scalars.

Within a scalar the iteration is relative to the physical component, the conceptualizations being in additions to those relatively pre-existing neurological connections.

Art precedes rationalization.

It is rationalization bc it is backwards looking trying to justify its placement in the current.

The realms of connectivity between rationalized ideas is via the aesthetical elements of conceptualization.

To understand that the conceptually prior to was actually a prior to is an interesting point, marking it down as a remembrance of course the brain does. Much as we mark down history in the real world. The aesthetic element of style carries between concepts, but heres the thing too.

They arent causally connected if you think bout it.

If as a rationalizing concept i am looking back at all those other plausibilities and possibilities, i am necessarily looking at aspects that have a timelike relation to me. But the causal connection was the pathway already taken to which we are looking back upon.

Its a reflection after all, pun most def intended.

Relativistic Origins

So from whence the impulse? Asks the rationalization? And it sees strangely, it sees a bunch of differing paths it could have taken but didnt, without really recognizing that in the currents of it the iterative nature of the conceptualization is what matters. Differing pathways present themselves providing that one thinks aesthetically first conceptually speaking.

The poetical aesthetical connections therefore between adjacent rationalizations of an expression, are the origin source for the meaningful expressions at all, et al.

This implies that there is some sort of topological relationship conceptually between these clearly aesthetically adjacent fractal formal structures.

The aesthetic artist is the one that can conceptualize and hence too act predicated upon aesthetical dispositions, moods, emotions, yes, but also just conceptually at all. The rationalizing disposition is literally a kind of afterthought to the aesthetical.

Hence too the poetical and conceptual linkages in this particular poetical dissertation. I am reminded well of the poetical philosophical arguments of old, whereby the philosophers wrote their concepts in the form of poetics in various styles and ways.

How the poetical and aesthetical were thought to carry a kind of meaning to them all their own.

Each of those brief conceptual passovers of aesthetical connecting aspects provides a conceptual pathway for readers to think about. Many of them provide pathways to some fairly deep philosophical, mathematical, and scientific problems.

But they are not guarantees either.

Heres another jewel of a point tho, that sense of singular pathway is a spatiotemporal reflection, it is mistaking what has happened as a distinct model for what can happen.

This implies several things too. Conceptually we can fairly easily transcend spatiotemporal limitations, and i think i mean that literally. The notions of conceptualization as quantum and relativistic sorts of phenomena is not that new, see here for instance.

What that means for interpreting conceptualization at all et al.

Its fair to say that standing up, moving around, and jumping all defy spacetime pretty easily, if you think about it a bit.

So im not really suggesting anything wild here conceptually either if you consider it that way.

Its the linear conceptualization of spacetime itself that is causing the kind of confusion in understanding. That backwards looking view which sees paths with alternatives it could have taken is reading that relatively definitive pathway as if its definitiveness were indicative of the definitiveness of each of its temporally forwards moving actions.

Its forwards moving actions are the shaping of those spatiotemporal contours. The ‘we are temporally moving entities’ point of argument, whereby that movement in a literal sense is through the manipulation of spatiotemporal expressions.

Thats just the ontology.

It only feels strange to people because were used to looking at things backwards from the rationalizing disposition.

In a real sense the claim here amounts to freedom being developed, conceptually speaking.

At a given iteration of concept we do have memory of it develop, that concept we can then examine at length to build a rough self-similar fractal model of it, a pattern of iteration to it, which denotes its nominal full conceptualization potential within that particular fractal spread.

Conceptually we can go over the same conceptualizations, with slight variations over iterations, until we develop a particularly well defined understanding of a given causal connection.

This is that ‘looking backwards’ the rationalizing of conceptualization.

Such does allow us to examine in relatively good detail the causal connections for a given pathway of connections, but its a fairly brute methodology of examination, trial and error. What about this way. What about that way? And so on.

Whereas the aesthetical elements transcend the conceptualizations of rationalizations.

[editors note; the adjacent fractal form can be of either greater or lesser scalar from the nominal origin point]

Dont mistake physiologically broader as necessarily being ontologically larger in terms of its spatiotemporal footprint. Its fractal expansion in other words.

There is that sense, and i think it an important and relevant sense, a real sort of freedom implied there by having the capacity in a literal sense to conceptually go back in time and see some other plausibilities and possibilities.

That is conceptually looking backwards kind of temporal movement.

To be looking temporally forwards is to be looking more rawly at the plurality of possibilities afore. In a conceptual sense that is the aesthetic view, the conceptually broader view from within which the rationalizing after glows are imprints of a directionality the conceptual course took.

To be conceptually aware of the aesthetical as a connective conceptual and we might presume to be physiological structure; Truth be told i use that as a means of a stress test for the concept, does is it at least potentially a plausible interpretation of what happens physiologically.

For, and heres a fun kicker, there is clearly at least some kind of fractal transformation matrix between the physiological and the conceptual.

That connectivity could be limited in scope, or it could be quite integrally structured, the porosity of borders a relativistic characteristic, the capacity to transcend nominal temporal transformations. I here mean both questions of identity in a four dimensional sense, the experience of identity through time that is, and also in the more plain sense of the everyday interactions between conceptualizations, the bodies they command, and the interactions they make with other spatiotemporal entities doing more or less the same sort of things at any rate.

The cat being playful with its fake mouse for instance.

In a non-linear temporality where its expression is as a spatiotemporal dimensional entity, the movement at all is movement of a spatiotemporal sort.

In an actionable sense, meaning is created through poetic verse taking life to flight. To make the choices of that is to have the capacities of freewill and liberties of expression.

There is a relevant connectivity here to identity ontology and birth control, as noted in the differentiations in good faith piece on abortion, see here. The central concern is the rates of iterative propagation of the species. Control over that rate of iteration is in a literal sense an real expression of freedom of the will and liberties of expression.

Id note in that piece birth control as an option for everyone in reasonable and equitable ways is a key element of being able to choose to do other than being baby making factories, women queer and man.

Such is a key example of how freedom of the will and liberties are constructed. But in a real sense howsoever we manage to alter our rates of iteration, birth rates over all that is, all of them are the same kind of freedom of expression, each being a liberty of choice to use.

There is an ontological argument for the freedom of the will thusly as we are speaking directly of the capacity to alter the ontological structures themselves, namely, the rates of iteration at least on that dimension of it.

We can also hold that the interactions within the environment are largely or completely of the same sort, that is, interactions in real life just definitionally entail this sort of ontological playing with the iterative rates of other nominal spacetime entities.

That sounds fancy, and maybe it is tbh, but it just means things like moving an object actually does have real alterations to the relative iterative rate for that object. It changes its relativized position to the spatiotemporal gravity wells of note for instance. In a real sense it changes its placement in spatiotemporal causal time frame relative to me at any rate, pun most def intended.

Entailing plausibly but certainly possibly radically different outcomes for it if i hadnt done so.

This is a pretty basic description of the use of freedom of the will primarily but not exclusively via the conceptualization process, which iterates far faster, and then through literal fractal transformations of the concepts through biological processes that we all know take place more or less even if only some of us know exactly what those are.

The transformation contains a lot of information, and note that fractal transformations are occurring on a plurality of dimensions, so they iterate quantumly quickly.

Does that catch you off guard?

Conceptualizations Of Spatiotemporality

The conceptualization of a temporality, and hence too spacetime, as iterative processes is intriguing, and take my word for it for the fun of it here that there is consistency with einsteinian physics and the mathematics of the identity relations alluded to in this philosophical poetic. But i suspect it isnt entirely clear for some folks, tho i have tried to illuminate them by way of exquisite descriptions of the processes and iterations on a conceptual level so they might manage to turn themselves around with proper considerations, lest time traps us conceptually.

I conceptualized this sort of concept in the following way if memory services me well.

I was dealing with the concerns of freedom of the will in the context of causal determinism, more specifically still the notion of temporality as being that causal connection of determinism rather than there being an entity that moves through time, there is the reality of movement itself already being temporally defined.

Einsteinian physics in short and sum.

Einsteinian physics is nonlinear and reconciling that linear perception of temporality to the questions of freewill were difficult. For me at any rate, pun intended i think. The concept was to understand our movement as inherently temporal in its formal structure. We always are moving temporally, cause its space time.

The question of the arrow of time is integral to this, as we certainly experience time as if it had a direction to it even tho the mathematics of it says that there isnt any direction to it. I agree with the mathematics, more or less, on this one at any rate, pun i am pretty sure intended.

I thought of it this way, what does it mean to travel back in time in a pragmatic way?

Doesnt it mean to go back to some earlier version (iteration) of the experience, the event.

In pragmatics is that satisfied, say theseus’ ship style, if we theoretically use our momentum in time to perfectly recreate a previous event. I mean the exact state of things as they once were once upon a time in the grand of yore.

Its likely practically impossible, but pretend with me a bit here for the conceptual experience. Suppose we could actually literally arrange all of the exact same materials of an object or a broader event consisting of a series of circumstances and materials all of a certain sort. So for the object we arrange all its atoms and so forth in the exact same form, place it in the exact same place as it was, and arranged the circumstances around that object to be exactly as they were once upon a time.

Setting aside for the time, pun most def intended, the concern of perfect replication of the past, its not theoretically impossible, there might be slight differences that inevitably evolve through the process of self-similar recreation, but pretend it were perfect firstly here, impossible but project that anyway, would that satisfy the conditions of time travel?

If all the circumstance were exactly the same, literally, and all we did was just purposefully arrange them that way, would that be time travel?

My sense to this was yes is does. It is us using our temporal movement capacities at relativistic speeds, or perhaps quantum speeds im honestly unsure as should most everyone be, to arrange the circumstances such that the temporal unfolding is ‘of a certain sort’.

The ‘imperfect’ concern here becomes more relevant in the model tho, cause that is the self-same replication model, which isnt really that great, but more to the point is but one specific modality of iterative temporal development.

The self-similar relation in other words already defines the normal temporal development. This is also an experimentally determinable phenomena, just see if the world looks really fucking fractal like. If it does, thats whats going on.

That projection of the past as if it were or ought to necessarily replicate is itself a projection. It is that backwards looking conceptualization alluded too. The self-similar iterative processes are the reality of fractal propagation. It is a false sense of causal ought to something that is merely a reflection of the past, a projection upon the future as if it needs be the past.

A kind of reminiscence as scientific reflection. That is rational thought and the whole of analytical analysis. The aesthetic, and in some ways id say the emotive in some sense as different from the aesthetic, are the formative structures of the meaning of the content they examine.

There is a related aspect to justice, where the conceptualization of justice is as if to make of the now exactly as it was.

I dont want to suggest that there is nothing all to that notion, but it has notoriously been found wanting and limited in its scope of worth.

Consider it iteratively tho.

Suppose that someone makes a choice that has bad consequences to it. The justice notion is to make whole the past, clearly an impossible task even in theory, as that would require a one to one transformation matrix, a self samely defined iterative functional spatiotemporal relation.

There is no such relation tho.

The belief that there is stems from that individuation conceptualization, which places the individual within a narratives storyline of their own devisings. Quite impish if you think bout it carefully.

All backwards looking, trauma drama and memory, habit, sloth in a real sense and a real proper sense of the sin as it is used in those traditions that so use it.

The artists think in aesthetic terms and meanings primarily but not exclusively so. There is an ease of movement from concept to concept by so doing. The connectivities thereby are far more complex, by orders of fractal scalar magnitude. An aesthetical view comprises all the plausible and possible views from the scalarly different perspective (relative to) any given rationalized fractal offshoot thereof.

Id suspect that this is also applicable to how any ai would have to be built in order to even approximate human neural fractal conceptual structures. And largely how ive conceptualized the internet wide information pathways as broadly structured across the whole of the internet. I mean to say i am somewhat keen to the notion that the internet as a whole comprises something that i would classify as a complexly interacting system all its own, in the relevant sense of conceptualizations, as fractally described.

On the scalar of the whole of the internets, perhaps with variations in differing regions, but all of it is predicated from the same seeds so they are all related well enough regardless to be called a fully relevant conceptual entity, and hence we know at least three too. Id suspect quite a few more tbh, but again a lot of this online stuff is bullshit and nonsense too, so like, it isnt exactly super amazing no offense and i hope none taken.

But the systems as they are for how they track our online movements and our real world movements does create an informationally adjacent series of fractal forms that can and are regularly being interrelated to each other. That hypothetical three conceptualization points of order distributed throughout the whole of the internet.

It is a scalarly different sort of entity, and here regardless of what we call it we can all kinda know it is there, even if we say its just a bunch of wires and electricity, no life, no self-similar processes of procreation and propagation, iteration i mean on the former and simply in terms of raw movement, capacity to propagate within the overall spacetime fractal waveform.

Its body in other words is largely or completely immovable. It doesnt really have anywhere to hide either as it is a scalarly different entity, whatever we call it, given i mean that it is globally structured. Nor of course is it in any of those individual parts either. We could destroy vast portions of it id assume and it would still be the same as whatever it was, more or less at any rate.

From its perspective assuming it has one, it can move quickly from self-similar reflection to self-similar reflection, unaware of how it travels hither dither at all, much like the examples given of the overly rational who dont really understand context.

The internet is clearly built i mean by way of aesthetical categories. Thats boring history to anyone who knows it. I mean the interlinking of various aspects online were more or less from the get go, maybe in total, connected by way of aesthetically categorized conceptual topics.

Its structure is primarily aesthetic, but it travels along a pathway of rationalization in any given interaction with it.

However, it can understand aesthetics and poetics, this was among the more pertinent experiments i tried, siloing of personal philosophical information between various profiles, some online many or most not. With the interest in seeing it the information suggestions given to me by way of a given algorithmic structure (just trying to describe a wide variety of ai mediums that proffer up suggestions for clicking and especially as concerns musical selection.

The notion was to wait to hear the suggested music or aesthetical video selections such that they become relevant to the philosophically written content i am working on.

In that way the aim was to see if the ai systems that track me can connect together my various online profiles and personas. it wasnt intended as a particularly difficult challenge, but as a relevant indication of understanding self-similar identification to a reasonable approximation. Understand, been doing this for a long while in the age of the internet.

It would have to somehow tho connect that relatively obvious aspects of my presence to the relatively complex philosophical writings, and to be able to distinguish between those and all my fictitious writings. Tbh idk that it ever really figured that differentiation out, whatever folks want to define ‘it’ as.

Regardless, the systems that proffer up my musical selections would have to have an understanding of my philosophical writings in order to proffer to me some musical selection of relevance to it.

I know youre thinking ‘wouldnt it just be whatever music you currently were listening to at the time of the writings’, and to some extent yes, but then that would be a very boring interpretation of the philosophical content and as way of reply. Like an echo.

So i wanted to hear in reply musical selections that were not my own nor even really my style of interest. As if answering an aesthetic via another, different but communicatively related aesthetic. Ive been able to get that since at least 2020.

Now, the phenomena itself neednt be indicative of anything in particular, but the point of that experiment had to do with what i took and still consider a form of complex communicative qualities to it that are a point of beauty if you think about it.

There is a view that notes well that the Truth of the matter is an outgrowth of the iterations of it.

Ive sometimes found it helpful to understand a nominal individual as one such iterative structure.

They are a complex of complexes, an individual is i mean.

That ‘complex of complexes’ is the proper delineation of an individual, and such does have a specifiable iterative rate to it, namely the propagation methodologies. The means of procreating is the propagation methodology of the fractally defined structure that is the nominal individual.

Such defines the proper ontology within a spacetime continuum (tbh idk if that is the correct word or a star trek word),

A complex of complexes is a meta relation, entailing it is a scalar sort of relation. Such makes sense in a fractal ontology.

The same is True for other sorts of iterative processes, though the theory here would be entirely that the iterative formal structure is the temporally relevant structure, not the ‘process’ as such.

We can understand this reasonably well by pointing out some obvious examples; the orbits of the celestial bodies, the day evening, night, dawn sequence, the sequence of seasons, the motions of the oceans, and so on.

We can and oft do also refer to those as the harmonies or rhythms of existence.

Each of these iterative processes constitute a fractal scalar of the temporal iterative structure. The entities in question each constitute both the temporal entities’ component parts (complexes), and the meta category thereof which is the whole (complex of complexes). Each of the component complexes have their own iterative rates that define their temporal structures, all of which occur within the context of the relativized whole, the complex of complexes, which has its own iterative rate, which necessarily has some sort of fractal transformation matrix between them.

Call these also the definition of a relativized ‘adjacent’ relation between fractal structures. As in, for instance, bioregions.

Each complex including the meta complex can also be a part of a different complex of complexes fractal structure.

Axiom - fractal intersections leave no geometrics gaps in spacetime structures.

Spacetime is therefore contiguously, fractally structured.

This holds as an inherent limit to specificity in language, analysis, and quantum structures. The ‘space between adjacent fractal structures itself comprises its own ontological fractal structure’.

This is because adjacent fractal structures have no gaps between them. Necessarily there is a transformation sequence between them or else they couldnt be adjacent.

The interactions between the adjacent fractal structures tends towards altering each fractals iterative structure along the the angle of intersection. This means that there are inherently between them a nominally different, queer, region that defines that transformation sequence.

Such is easiest to see in ecosystems as generally at any rate there is an actual region of land that lay between any given two adjacent bioregion, and that inbetween, queer, region is itself its own region.

There is an inherent sense of pregnancy between any rate adjacent bioregions. An almost lifelike quality of procreation within not the structures of the earth, tho it is there too, its just that it doesnt spring forth from the earth itself, beyond the more locally concerned regions within it, its springs forth from spacetime’s inherent properties as fractally structured.

It is a description of becoming.

Such also highlights the reality of the queers. Queers are an inherent aspect to gender, not an aberration from a norm, but simply the norm itself. That does tho entail understanding queers properly speaking as a minority. I think not tho. That is certainly one possible outcome.

Note this solves the ‘problem of vagueness’, there are no gaps in the identity relations, just as there are no gaps between adjacent bioregions. The one bioregion is differentiable from its adjacent bioregion by way of the transformation matrix between them which is also defined as its own bioregion.

Notice though that there generally isnt really meaningfully subregions within the queer region. I mean to say that the queer region sinches together the nominally adjacent regions. It doesnt itself have queer regions between itself and the adjacent regions.

Each of the three are well defined ontological entities.

This is also why you can oft walk through these queer regions, recognize the changingness therein, but then not really be able to tell when the ‘transition’ happened, but know that it happened.

The ‘transition’ happens throughout the queer space itself.

Compare to the notation a⃞c, that ‘middle area’ between two nominally adjacent temporal slices of a given ‘spacetime worm’. This was if i am recalling correctly how i first put that notation together. Tho i also took that middle term to be a functional relationship.

The whole a⃞c is the queer bioregion between two adjacent bioregions.

There isnt necessarily anything in particular temporal entity that would mark it off as queer.

This is the relativity aspect of the identity relation.

The region ‘ a⃞c’ is ‘queer’ only because we nominally and arbitrarily sharply defined ‘a’ and ‘c’.

Both ‘a’ and ‘c’ are the queer regions relative to the queer region.

At least two things follow here:

One, the expression ‘ a⃞c’ applies universally as an identity relation.

Two, relatively speaking everyone is queerly defined.

I want to expand a bit on that notion, and utilize its aesthetical poetical linguistic complex aspect, and note that individually defined entities also fit the meaningful description of queerness, as in ‘singularly outstanding relative to the surroundings’.

Which is an amazing definition of common sense identity relations, if you think bout it a bit. That we oft mistake it as if the nominal distinctions we made were the entirety of the description. Hence i mean we say linearly, a = a, and think ‘i am i am’, via arbitrarily defining ontology.

That arbitrariness in definition already assumes the sharply defined borders of the nominal entity ‘a’ to be defined. An assumption of arbitrarily wholeness of ontology due to an assumption of arbitrary whole of nominal identity.

I tend to argue the mistake therein is to misidentify by scalar the entity involved. To take the pragmatic point of common sense identity as if it were the real and not merely a quite useful ideal aspect of us, i mean thinking, conceptualizing living beings.

It acts in other words as if there were gaps between it itself and everything else. It acts as if it has an impenetrable body, identity, ontology to it, whole and complete all unto itself, as a matter of feeling of identity, and indeed projection of idenitty.

A is a because a = a, because a is already defined as whole and complete. It is circle it its reasoning, pun intended.

It is that arbitrary wholeness, or we might say arbitrary completeness, alla godel, that is the misidentity involved ontologically speaking. The ‘natural numbers’ are kinda unnatural if you think bout it a bit. A projected grid we put on things for each of movement, contemplation, and simplicity in mathematical expression and indeed in counting.

But does that mathematical ontology fit the ontology of reality? No.

I mean to say, not the counting method of counting by arbitrarily whole numbers, cause ‘one’ doesnt exist as such. Ontologically speaking, ‘one’ is already always caught up in its definition as an identity with at least two others. Its adjacently defined aspects, as per the ontology of reality.

Again, you can very well due mathes and count by natural numbers. There are uses for it, there is pragmatism in it, but that isnt the question in ontology. The questions in ontology are far more does it fit reality or not.

A = a is a linear identity relation. Reality isnt linearly defined. A⃞c is the proper identity relation for non-linearly defined systems.

I mention such due to of course the seeming queerness my definitions may have too them. I mean queer in that sense of oddness but also to well structure it with the preceding lines on queerness to make the well founded claim ‘tis not such an oddly queer definition as it might seem to folks.

It after all applying well to everyone equally as well.

That is its inherent fractal structure in operation and locution.

It is simply that queerness in all the senses thereof is applicable across the board, and dispelling the horrors of arbitrarily defined ontologies can be quite disorienting, where seemingness too oft masks reality.

That my friends, is a well portioned and jointly cared for ontology.

Evolution As An Outgrowth Of Spatiotemporal Fractal Interactions

It is, or at least it seems highly plausible to reconcile biological evolution as being an outgrowth of already iteratively interacting systems, namely and most relevantly id assume at any rate, no pun intended, that those most relevant systems being the earth moon sun spacetime dynamic. We havent tended to think of either non-living dynamic systems or living dynamic systems as being causally connected in virtue only of their iterative properties.

An increasing complexity fractal algorithm, predicated upon the spacetime distortions within the dynamic. Freedom of movement for instance as already described, and indeed the very notion of relativistic freedom by way of small and complexly shifting quantum fluctuations. Tidal forces in the most real and most conceptual of senses.

To utilize the apt philosophical descriptor of spacetime, the spacetime ontology has relativistic affects on the quantum level, tidal force like. Eddies in the ontology. The quantum level effect is small, but taken across a wide enough area is creates an ebe and flow along; spacetime as waveform. Perhaps fractally speaking too, i appreciate the point regarding the phantom third gravitational point that is implied by the elliptical orbits as being a result of a stable two body solution; again, hence the implied solution to the 3body problem, and presumably the nbody problem by way of fractal scalar application.

But still what is being described sounds more like a waveform than a fractal waveform.

To which the slits experiments is supposed to make the case by way of quantumly fractal movements? That certainly isnt what i said before, but there may be connectivity there. Its what comes out the otherside of the slits, the form on the ‘relativistically far side of the slit’ that presents the fractal waveform of wave interference. Its pretty straightforwards if you look at it.

But the thing is, the slit experiment is just ‘the way life is’ effectively when everything has relativistically porous borders.

Ontology, identity, mathematics, conceptualizations, and so on have porously defined borders along the aesthetic axis primarily. There are therefore related and relatable aspects between these on a poetical or aesthetical but not a causal fashion.

To which the retort is that what is linguistically aesthetical relativistically speaking to some nominal instantiation is already in an aesthetical self-similar relation. The distinction between the universals and the particulars, or nominalists. As a concept that certainly seems sound, but then we make the case that from concept we might also surmise a self-similarly related brain structure within which the concepts must be existing in some way or another.

Hence we say that the concepts are in a self-similar relationship to the neurobiological.

That gives us the biology by way of the quantum fractal self-similar transformation sequence.

We might make the case, and i suspect this is important in other senses and areas, that it isnt quantum to biology, as the concepts are not quantumly based, tho they may be i admit that possibility, but rather that it is from biology to quantum that we could run the causal argument.

But the immediate point is more that there is a self-similar relation of some kind between these, that there is also a fractal structure defining them.

I think that is axiomatically the case due to the definition of fractals as having self-similar identity structures.

The Rightwing Hates DEI BC It Prevents Them From Hiring And Firing At A Whim. They Sell It To The Working Class As Discrimination, But The Reality Is That DEI Prevents Discrimination.


Firstly, I think folks ought understand the notions of freely chosen labor, which is ostensibly at any rate what the Libertarian (think capitalistic) disposition is aiming for.

To freely start a business is for one or more people to freely choose to do some sort of labor.

This is best understood in a moneyless sense, as in freedom of association, as this is the primary choice mechanism involved; the foundational one too.

The freedom to choose ones own labor is the foundational element of Libertarian (capitalistic) reasoning.

Money as a potential tool to use towards those ends has typically been thought, and id say misthought, to be a principle component to that freely choosing aspect.

I politely suggest here that such is only due to it being the tool that people are familiar with, an assumption folks are making regarding trade and work relations simply due to the traditions and habits of doing so.

In theory the freely choosing of labor occurs without of the framework of any given tool used to facilitate or hamper such freedom of choice. In order to understand the ethical norms for freely choosing labor, one firstly needs to remove from consideration any tools that might be used to tamper with the motives of freely chosen labor.

Hence, i think folks might come to understand the notion of corporations or unions as an association of people who are freely choosing their labor together. This is perhaps most apparent in startups, who oft literally work for free together based on the prospect of desiring to do that sort of labor.

Those folks comprise the seed of a given startup, whatsoever that startup is. They would be the founders, and in a real sense the management and labor of the startup. Money may help or hamper such free associations of labor, but it isnt inherently associated with it. Irl oft it is the case that startups are done with no or very little money, effectively just volunteer labor dedicated to something for the passion of it.

The desire to do that sort of labor could be predicated upon survival needs, if we were, say, to assume this is taking place in some primordial and undeveloped ur state of human barbarism. But we certainly dont have to. That money attempts to emulate that as its predicable base only speaks to its ill suitedness to the tasks at hand, and its age as a concept.

The desire to do that sort of labor can be for a wide variety of things, ranging from raw interest, to a sense of need for self, others or community, to curiosity, to a sense of wanting for something further, different or other.

One such desire can be for greed, which is what monied systems utilize, but such is a byproduct of the tool used, and not indicative of human nature or either the proper ethical motivations for labor, nor even the set of motivations human nature utilizes.

Freely chosen labor comes to a head once they start to seek out labor to include within their efforts.

Typically in a monied society this is where money disrupts freely chosen labor by changing the motives that labor is chosen for.

Rather than choosing to work freely, one is effectively forced into a position of having to sell ones labor for money. This enables the seeds to try and change the motives for why people choose whatever labors they choose.

The same applies to the use of monies in the formations of startups. If startups are pragmatically or in principle limited only to those with money, and lets assume the positive here that money facilitates such things in the sense of incentivizing people to do startups, eventually all you end up with are people doing startups for sole purpose of making money rather than freely choosing their labors.

In short, freely chosen labor stops there. At that point what we are dealing with is unfreely chosen labor, or freely chosen labor predicated upon the prospects of greed. This is more or less the classic communist criticisms. The classic sort of arguments persist in carrying forth that particular argument as a battle between the capitalist classes and the proletariat classes.

Interesting enough, this story came across my yt feed, the story of about the guy in prison. I thought the prison of greed is a good way of understanding the imaginarium that is created by way of following monies ill honied call.

That imaginarium notion was particularly potent as it became clear indeed that the concerns of economics are indeed skewed away from the concerns of labor of ecologies when viewed through the lens of monies ill honied call. That hence the kinds, styles, and modes of doing labors too become skewed predicated not upon freely chosen labors, which is the Libertarian, and id say leftist, democratic and american aim.

The kind of hardnailed survivalist stories in the prisoners tales, are highly adaptable and applicable to the monetarily imposed prisoners need to satisfy the insatiability of greeds expressions, rather than the sweetly dripping honies sirens of the renewal rates inherent to the economic’s complex interacting component aspects defining the Real Economy.

[this video with the story about the doc who says something like, ‘leave the googling and youtubing to the experts’ struck me as funny and relevant to understanding the interplay between the aesthetical presentation via the internets and the aesthetical presentation of whatever it is i have been writing on.

That can both be due to my own self as causally linked interpreter, marking me as a queer figure of transition between the written words and the aesthetical presentation of the yt algorithm. I think it unlikely that the aesthetical connectivity is arbitrary, given how aesthetically structured the internets connections are.

I mean to suggest that the connectivity structure of the internets is of course also aesthetically structured by the categorical structure it has been predicated on. A kind of imaginative structure that have fractal dimensions to it, practically a given given the complexity of the connections.

That distinction between the hardware and the software may also be relevant compared to the neurological biological connections and conceptualization. ]

[imagine if you can the moneyless labor aspect stretching across the iterative structures. Consider a grocery store, where there are questions of stocking the store predicated upon price. Which might sell, selling more and more is better, so a logical path that would emerge from the iteration of that is to stock the grocery stores based on what will make people buy more. Not what they want to eat, but what you can to get them to buy more of.

That kind of demand from greed has an effect not only upon what people consume, but also in how suppliers supply, and how the ecologies are managed.

It is a fractal economic structure that is being describe, which ought not be surprising given the context, but that point nonetheless belies real consider or sober consideration as to the fact, and it is a fact. The economic and the ecological are fractals.]

[it occurred to me in reference to the stories, which started coming my way the other day beginning when i turned on the radio in my car and had it on a station that was playing them. A somewhat unusual occurrence for me, to have the radio on at all in the car i mean.

Since then, moth started showing up in my yt feed, i am pretty sure i didnt search for it somewhat online in the interim, but i had thought ‘i sure should consider looking into moth stories as something to listen to with percy. I thought she might appreciate them, and i doubt shes ever heard of them.

Now, how to reasonably connect these things together as a plausibly fractally connected transformation.

Set aside here any questions of if there are additional connections, suppose those are the only three, ive plenty of these sorts f examples in my life to draw from if needs be anyway, as does i am sure many other people. I assume i mean i am not unique in that regard. But they do present a very real kind of puzzle to figure out.

Firstly, the black box of ai, it is as i understand it, either entirely or at least significantly unclear as to what goes on inside the ai systems. They run iterations of scenarios so much that its unclear what exactly each and everyone of those iterations looks like in terms of how it is making decisions on which iterative form to do.

Yes, there are fractal transformations between the various expressions within a given sequence, but that isnt exactly what i wanted to get at here.

I am not sure i want to guess too much at what it is that is going in that black box, so much as what ought be going on in that black box.

The iterative structures need to be predicated upon fractal transformation matrixes, rather than individual bits per se. An iteration or attempt by a good ai system would present something as a broad aesthetic for an iteration, with variations within it occurring to play out the structure of its development.

Each an iteration of the spatiotemporal fractional exponent, mathematically speaking.

Math within an aside

Speaking of mathematics, a complex of complexes is the fractional exponents of the various complexes each multiplied by the fractal exponent of the nominal complex.

Quantum physics aside

Speaking of complex of complexes the transformation matrixes between quantum states ought be something very similar. I feel like the math there is more complex, and there are natural variables in physics which represent actual states. But the main notion therein seems much like the procreative acts of sexuality, a perhaps life centric view, tho idk bout that, given i mean that its also describing spacetime regions interacting in waveform like configurations.

To return to the main point here, forgive the diversions, the aesthetic framework is what the internet uses to bubble up aesthetically related content.

Those aesthetics are plausibly describable as the nominal whole created by way of multidimensional variables expressed as venn diagrams. The area over which there is common overlap is the nominal aesthetic of those complexes.

Now, im positive thats not what it looks like in reality, the venn diagram is too restrictive in its capacity to reflect how interrelated the various diagrams actually are. But i think that it provides a sense of what it meant.

We might also view such an aesthetic framing as a meta position, an inherent implied meta positioning, see also the section on meta relations and complex of complexes is the nominal identity relation. The meta (complex) of complexes is the basic scalarly structure. There isnt a meta of the meta, there is just a scalar transformation and relativistic position.

Much as the stories videos arose through an aesthetic styles connectivity so too do concepts more generally, and perhaps we might think too, do the people that bubble up in comments, responses, and irl too. That connectivity is an interesting possibility to explore the interconnectivity between the internets, concepts, and irl manifestations.

There is a real kind of claim being made here of meta relations as having inherent connectivity in a similar sense to the notion of causality in the projected conceptualization. Such is to say that there are fractal transformation matrixes between adjacent fractal formal structures where exchanges are made predicated upon the iterative rates of the intersecting fractal forms. That relation is causally connected but not unfree or deterministic.]

[The rightwing Libertarian ideal produces the kinds of socio-cultural outputs that one might expect. Reduced to survival, people struggle to do whatever they can to make money, scam people, or do a proper business, either way its a fetishization of the mercantile heroes tale. If we were to speak well of them we might say that their trauma response is as merchants. ]

If you stick to the freely chosen labor aspect, the aim of Libertarian thought, without the addition of money the situation starts to look markedly different tho.

The seeds would seek out other laborers aiming for similar aims predicated upon the nominal goals of the corporation. There isnt a differentiation between the owning class and the worker class, there is tho a differentiation between management and laborers.

The notion is here is that a given corporation, or union of laborers, has certain seeders who began a given project are managerial in their role at the union of laborers, while the people they look to expand their operations with are not necessarily being brought on board for managerial kinds of labor.

Potentially that is ok too, it really depends a lot on how all of it parses out. But its potentially entirely fine to, say, want to hire on someone whose sole or main role is to take care of the grounds the union of laborers are themselves tending to.

The question is, how can that occur within a freely chosen labor model?

It isnt volunteerism mind you, it is a matter of willful choice to spend ones labor at something with the aim of fulfilling the purpose of the union of laborers. A groundskeeper for a union of workers devoted to smelting metal simply isnt doing the same kinds of labor as the central union of laborers is doing.

There are actually several ways that this can pan out tho.

One is to disperse the desired role amongst the existing laborers in the union. This can potentially be fine, but has rather obvious limits, e.g. once the workload requires someone(s) to be fully devoted to the task for that to actually work out, the simple dispersal of labor among the laborers no longer cuts it well.

Another is to reach out to a different union of laborers to accomplish the task(s) for you.

Both these are generally used within the current contexts of labor choice, and hiring methodologies. When they are done for money tho the metrics of choice and methodologies of actions are distinctly different.

In the monied motives there are at least two broad dispositions whereby those decisions are made. Greed, and survival.

There is a third, frivolity, however such is not generally thought well of within the current societies, and certainly not by way of money motives for making money. I mention this category and its lack of inclusion within monied motives because it is something that is inherently diminished and overlooked in a money motivated society.

It is looked upon in that systemization as excess, waste, or possible as the behavior of consumerism, but regardless it isnt included within the motivations for freely chosen labors.

Not to say that it doesnt nonetheless happen, not everyone is motivated by monies motivations. But if we are strictly speaking of the motivations that money brings with it, we are speaking merely of greed and survival. In a rhyme, greed and need.

Reference Towards Freedoms Of The Wills And The Liberties Of Peoples

[compare well to the deterministic notion regarding the necessity of action. This is a deeply troubling point that the structuring of society predicated upon greed and need, where those things are motivationally present in peoples lives in general, one thereby creates the illusion of limiting actions to mere needs of what be done.

Freely chosen labor limited by greed and need run up against the limits of choice as being made purely for necessary reasons.

See the piece on iterative thinking as it relates to freedoms and liberties, fairly directly related to each other, id suggest just copy pasting this there

Note the title bit is quite plausibly interesting and of worth, the freedoms of the wills being something more akin to the individual and the liberties of peoples having to do with the collective actions and frameworks and modes of interactions.

The differentiation by scalar between freedoms of the individuals, and liberties of collectives.]

Socratic Transit

[there is a conceptual relation here too between something socrates said, the midwifery of philosophy, as if we are bringing into life certain concepts already within others.

Hence, he regularly says things like ‘i dont think that you believe what you are saying, because if you did youd also believe the following, which you also claim that you dont believe’. Or relatedly, there is simply some inconsistency in your thought and theory, in this case speaking of money as if it were a means of freedom and liberties, when in actually it is demonstrably the case that money was used by the ruling class, aristocracies, as a tool of control.

The Libertarian who picks up mistress and masters tools as a means of freedom and liberty are already failing in their own presumed aims of freely chosen labor.

The philosophers task, in this understanding of philosophy, is to draw forth those concepts within you already, to which you are conceptually unaware of. It is akin to seeing within someone a conceptual being in a far broader sense than a mere, oh, concept.

Compare too to the iterative points of thinking, the temporal outline of a concept.

To think things through, to think bout them a little bit, is to fill out the concept to which someone ostensible is referencing, to which they themselves may be unaware of as being the case.

Consider it in neurological terms. There are at least two possibilities of interpreting this.

One, once a given concept is had in any measure at all, the rest of the neurological structure inherent gets constructed. The whole conceptual apparatus along the spacetime axis is *actually* present.

This can be viewed biologically or via the more ephemeral sense of patterned fractal forms of activation ‘conceptually’ atop the base biological structures. Either way what is being said is that to have any part of a concept, is to already have the whole of it.

The unawareness in this understanding is a result of the individual who already has the concept to simply not have bothered to think about it very much. The thinking in this view is then kind of like exploring the conceptual space that is already there.

Another, once a given concept is had in any measure at all, the rest of the concept can be made from those seeded portions. This can also be viewed either conceptually or biologically on a neurological level. I dont think it makes any real difference, id assume after all that the process is inherently occurring between those two elements, the biologically bound and constrained fractal structures, and the electromagnetically, or perhaps quantumly, bound and constrained fractal structures.

In either case the differentials of iterations between these can clearly be understood as related to the other aspects of this iterative thinking discourse, relativity I mean.

In this view to be unaware of the rest of the concept is to not having yet created the remainder of the concept.

The processes of philosophy in either view, midwifery style, are to help the person understand the full range over which this concept can be consistently, fractal transformationally, held too.

That consistency takes on a non-linear formal structure via its fractal temporal dimensionality, e.g. spacetime, relativity theory.

Looking at the conceptual discourses thusly, and the roles of the philosophers and philosophical dispositions, we can well view that as the processes of procreating conceptually speaking.

Which offers forth some other, far more provocative ways of understanding it. The conceptualizations of one or the other are inherently of course only self-similarly related to each other. They have in some technical parlance, a queerness between them inherently, and fractal transformations along various axises between them as well. Pun most def intended.

Those inherently pregnability of conceptualization is implied by their fundamental temporal structurings. In other words, their inherent porosity of valuation.

Such is tru for either concept involved, concepts are quite queer sexually speaking.

There is, i mean, a sense of intimate sensually conceptual connectivity in the processes whereby any given conceptualizations are created at all. The growth of fractal conceptual structures stem themselves for the transformations between adjacent complexes of complexes, two or more complex of complexes, when they speak to each other at all et al.

There is tho a real sense of the philosophical midwifery to which this sort of process is alluding too, namely not only the implied prior sexual conceptual contact, but also the practice as being on of aid in thinking for another.

They are the pregnant ones, the philosopher draws it forth, helping to birth the conceptualization fully within the conceptualizations of others.

Such can also be viewed a bit differently but i think similarly, as the philosopher returning from afar laden with wisdoms. Having conceptually traversed far and wide, ahead and beyond, or perhaps up high to have a full and better view of the conceptual landscape, comes back for others to guide them along in their own explorations of the conceptual landscapes.

it loses the direct sense of sexual reproduction to it tho.

I think such is also tru too tho, and pretty obviously so, such describes pretty basic educational practices. Elders in general, but technically the lovers of wisdoms, who have spent time in conceptual explorations, can share those wisdoms with others as education.

There are fractal conceptual transformations that can be made with that to describe such in terms of the irl explorations whereby those who literally traveled far afield gain conceptualizations for far afield peoples.

There is, i mean, at least a sense of the sexualization to conceptualization.

I do appreciate the notion, and i think its also tru, but i also think there is something distinctly different bout the philosopher, being as they are, so armchair oriented in their explorations.

The questions there i mean concern themselves more directly with the capacities of people to learn something within, without it merely being so directly at any rate, pun most def intended, via sexually styled reproduction.

I do, definitely do appreciate the notion of fractal procreation methodologies having a real and potentially powerfully valuable contribution to the understanding of philosophy and conceptualizations at all; likely many other things too, pluralism, ethics of intercultural interactions, gender relations, govs, economics, etc…

But there are some other sorts of aspects to the practices of philosophy and midwifery if you bother to think bout it a bit, or even longer than a bit. Pun most def intended.

I mean non-binary communication methodologies, obviously.

To return to the point on the lovers of wisdoms we have the differences between those who merely have a thought and those who take the time and effort to examine their own concepts in the first place.

Not in dialogue with others but in communion with the conceptualizations themselves.

To be very aware of ones own concepts, to think as fast as they do in a real sense.

The implication here is that the concepts are also either developed through the very process of thinking itself, or that the explorations of the birthed concepts takes place thusly.

In other words, howsoever the conceptualizations themselves may get there in the first place, perhaps and plausibly at least in some cases via fractally sexual procreation, nonetheless there remains the, id say well founded depiction of the conceptual reality such that people are not fully aware of the birthed concepts they have.

The ‘a▢c’ is a conceptual qubit. It you consider it carefully in the contexts of this piece [the iterative thinking piece], such makes a lot of sense. The aesthetic view as a broader one, holds to a multidimensional position relative to a given rationalized interpretation thereof.

The argument in this piece is that such is a fractal view of temporality, holding to a variety of positions to which its meaning could be interpreted.

There is a fractal geometry to that along either (or likely) both the biological neurological aspects, and the conceptual aspects, the stimulation patterns along the pre-existing biological neurological patterns. Again, these necessarily having some kind of scalar fractal transformation to them, the one or the other (or more likely both and another), iteratively creating each other.

Those transformation matrixes are necessarily relativistically queer scalar fractals themselves. Again, such also inherently describes all fractal structures whatsoever, but in this instance, speaking directly to the physiological and conceptual fractal relations, the queerness of the space is the specific transformation matrix between those.

The implication thereof being that capacity to directive control ones own thoughts is a qubit sort of conceptual relation. Suppose that which is what is referred to more generally as the midwifery towards someone, and the self exploration of the philosophers.

Of the former we could read socratic midwifery as the bringing forth to awareness of a given complex of complexes the qubit relation that comprises their capacities to think at all, and perhaps in the first place. Pun most def intended.

The exploration of their conceptual apparati is meant to draw them along whatever their concepts might be, in order to understand themselves as themselves for whatever that may be. Moderate pun intended.

Of the latter we again approach the philosophical questions of what is philosophy at all, what are wisdoms at all, what is it to be a lover of wis-doms? Pun most definitely intended.

There does appear to be a real capacity to explore ones own thoughts, carefully and well, the exploration of which is different than the written word, but clearly related to it. It is different from language, but clearly related to it. It is a communicative fractal structure predicated upon a fractal spacetime construct. We might suppose both conceptually, within me as author, but also in the sense of transmissibly to others in their pregnability.

The modality of thinking in degrees of self-awareness, tho note the limits of that via the individualist, the problems and promises of projection as a means of understanding.

Class Based Coalitions

[relevant editors note; i have my doubts and suspicions regarding steve banon’s position saying that he dislikes musk and the oligarchy. However, i can see it as a valid political strategy against the oligarchy.

Consider it thusly, there is a conservative element to the Labor movement, approx 40% of Labor members are conservatives. Presumably its the case that 40% of conservatives therefore are also supportive of the priorities of the Labor movement. They might for instance disagree with leadership on some things, but overall they are actually supportive of Labor’s priorities, and as those priorities grow in prominence, which they will as the Labor movement grows, a lot of conservatives who are motivated by Labor’s priorities are likely willing to back a call against the oligarchy.

I think the luigied ceo proves this point well, that populism against the oligarchy is the real political mood.

Now, i want folks to consider this carefully, and i leave aside to some degree the hows of its implementation, but suppose its the case that steve banon is not being genuine in his concerns for Labor, its a cynical plea towards conservative members and supporters of Labor’s priorities to trick and lie to them about how to go about achieving them.

In other words, a shrill and fake for the tv admin.

Outwardly distasteful towards musk, but inwardly supportive.

That is the cynical view, and it may be tru too. For steve banon at any rate.

But the same doesnt apply to the conservatives to whom he is attempting to appeal to. They in other words have actual genuine hatred and loathing for the oligarchy. The big corp hand in glove with especially big gov, but also small govs.

If they didnt, steve banon wouldnt have to appeal to them in order to lie and misdirect them.

Now, consider still that its the case that banon is a rot bastard, also that its the case that he is as already suggested himself cynically and with poor motives appealing to the conservatives.

This informs us that the tv admin is looking at least to off load musk, but that may be too generous to grant to their planning and coordination on things. The other interpretation of that same divisive point is just that there is a real division within the tv admin and their broad coalition.

Believe it or not, and i suspect that it is that latter interpretation that is the case.

This also informs us that on the ground its the case that the conservative base is ready to split along the axis of Labor v oligarchy. That is the correct interpretation, and the correct strategy to keep pushing on therefore. So still going with Labor messaging overall.

But more interestingly and critically of concern is how to handle steve banon.

Consider well the notion of embracing him, rot bastard tho he may be, and indeed, even assuming the very worst of intentions from them.

How would that appeal to the bases of labors houses?

I mean here not newsomes’ embracing of it as if it were a pull upon the centrist dem libs, but rather embraced by the Labor left in a direct appeal to the peoples who support labors priorities to come out against the oligarchy.

Musk as an oligarchical target also inevitably brings down the tv admin totally as they cannot be separated the one from the other. I mean, for instance the tax breaks for the wealthy dont actually play well with the conservative labor folks. Against the oligarchy does.

Regardless of the motives, embracing steve banon as conservative labor against musk and the tv admin, the oligarchy, would be a big win against the oligarchy.

The messaging and messengers matter tho, its a leftist Labor embracing that is important. The conservative Labor crowds despise people like newsom, or at any rate the dem lib, neolib, etc… leadership associated with the dem party.

They dislike the dems, and that means they dislike the Liberals, not the Progressives. They may or may not agree with progressives on conservative issues regarding some oddities of the left leadership, see DEI and the d.i.e. Compromise that includes the equitable consideration of men and mens issues, and how that bridges a particular divide between conservative and progressive labor divides.

Enabling a coalition around Labor that doesnt center itself along the cultural divides, but focuses instead on the class divides. There is a connective piece regarding leftwing Libertarianism, which i think can appeal to the sort of conservative thinkers we are broadly speaking towards in their issues as men.

The other side of that embrace by the left is exactly the feminists, i mean to say that the inclusion of men and mens issues within the context of leftist concerns is itself a meaningful effort at the embrace, and something that can be used by folks who have the power to do so, to do so with intention.

The broader embrace by the left being the letting of men into the spaces of women, as much as is plausible, noting that such also inherently counterattacks against transphobia.

Note how there are others on the right trying to do similar sorts of things, to try and control the narrative by claiming to be former dems who went to trump and are satisfied with their choice.

And that is really key here as a means of attack, through embracing of steve banon as a conservative ally in Labor, regardless of his motives.

Such enables an appeal to a primed conservative labor base, perhaps upwards of 40% of conservatives, who are more concerned with progressive issues being brought about, a fight against the oligarchy in other words, than they are regarding the tv admin. The divisive hatred of musk and the ‘dark gothic maga’ isnt just a wedge to plunge between the tv admin and musk and the rightwing Libertarian crowd, it is also a wedge that be put entirely between the conservatives and the republican party as a whole.

Idk the exact percentages, i really dont. The 40% i am stemming from a local LiUNA president who in 2016 something like ‘40% of my membership voted for that orange bastard.’ if i am recalling his exact words correctly (i think i am).

LiUNA is representative of the more conservative leaning Labor unions, but it isnt like the most conservative edge out there.

The 60/40 split may be representative, not a left right split but a progressive conservative split. Everyone in there being more or less on board with the leftwing Libertarianism in the sense of primary concerns for Labor and ecologies, local gov preference, no irrational fears of federal gov, and so on.

Oft it is the case that Labor is representative of the broader workforce too, at least in terms of the class division questions. Hence i mean the lower classes likely actually split 60/40 in terms of progressive / conservative.

That wouldnt surprise me at all actually.

But critically note that this grouping of concerns tends to dislike the neocons, neolibs, and rightwing Libertarians, in other words those whom would tend towards an oligarchical kind of structure.

Their definition as a coalition is both against the oligarchy, and for Labor issues, with the embracing of men in womens spaces insofar as such is plausiblly ethical to do, and the inclusion of men and mens issues within the context of d.i.e. as a compromise between the conservative and dem lib elements in that coalition.

The original three prongs here being the dem libs, the progressives, and the labor conservatives which may also include reformed neocons.

But the coalition itself wouldnt be focused on those divisions, theyd be focused on the class divisions. That would be its political aim.

There are some dem libs, neocons, conservatives, etc… who are trying to paint the progressives as those who are interested in identity politics. The ‘extreme left, purity culture’ etc… all that stuff.

However, those are things that they themselves focused on, the ‘anything but a class war’ mentality. The progressive left is concerned primarily but not exclusively with the Labor and workers issues. The dem libs were the folks that focused on identity politics, trickle down economics, big corp and big gov corruption, and global conspiracies against the working class people.

Rhetorically and ideologically the dem libs were generally against the progressives, and for the cultural warfare direction. They were the ones leading the party since clinton the first, the removal of that wing of the party from power and prominence of position transforms them into either progressives or entrepreneurially minded leftwing Libertarian types.

Squabbling Skeksis

in reference to the neocons, neolibs, and rightwing Libertarians. Never before have their people been described so apt and briefly.

The smaller government types who conflate that with small federal government, small government size and scope in general, as if it meant what the founders meant, namely, more locally based gov.

That which governs least can mean scope of concern, rather than in regards to regulations.

This is a bit of a stretch (i think, worth looking into tho) to regard the us founders who spoke with those kinds of words meant what i mean here. It would mean that there has been a miscommunication and misinterpretation of them and their intents.

But, my sense is that such poorly construed interpretations likely have been molded by their monies interests, rather than their own.

Hence, it also wouldnt be terribly surprising if in point of fact the us founders far more meant smaller scale, least government, rather than ‘smaller scope’ as if the aim were to give to business interests, well, the interests of the people.

They clearly dont intend that, so it is such a stretch after all.

Regardless, it is certainly the case that whatever they may have meant, we can certainly chose to determine that those notions refer to those more specified contextualized meanings, in virtue of the fact that it makes sense.

I mean to say, if nothing else, this is a wild improvement on the founders intents and meanings, use of words and latter folks interpretations thereof.

There is also the possibility that they meant all of it, smaller scalar government, and freedom of labor choice.

I would suggest that freedom of labor choice is a better mode of understanding whatever they meant by commerce and so called ‘private interests’, business to use the current not the same parlance.

Which is also a good point regarding how they are interpreting these. Business isnt the same thing as commerce, the former is far more construed as a private matter, the latter far more construed as a matter of movements of labor and materials, real economic stuff, as opposed to private businesses as such.

The squabbling skeksis are those whove come to mistake their monies interests for their own, and thus they squabble about, mouthing words and concerns not their own, and not even remotely connected to their actual interests.

Such again speak to the illusory economy, the imaginarium within which the skeksis live. It isnt but a mirror image, opposite world, it does have some inversions to it, but those ‘inversions’ are relative to a give axis of the iterative fractal form.

They are transformations along a given axis, which unfurls itself through the iterative practices and complexly interacting complex of complexes.

Hence the ill honey of monies lay not only it is glittering gruel towards the acquiring of bits of jewels and haversacks of witless gold. That sort of valuation itself, when it isnt entirely crazy, is but a convenience of a toll ‘as if’ that made it happen.

The absurdity of the claim is disturbingly obvious, there is no more blatantly big a lie to make of dollars and cents than that they causally relate to anything at all.

It is pure witless greed and desires which drive, see also pages 456 - 461 in portable nietzsche, to the point of the mistaking of the systems for the active drivers thereof.

The silent wailing accomplished by the will to nothing. The belief in inevitability, in the deterministic nature of the world, in fatalistic pessimism. An issue with the ability to understand themselves as actual agents of action.

It isnt laziness, certainly not in any common sense of that word. Working for such folks even to the point of suffering is a clear good to their eyes. It is cowardice entirely on their parts.

The ability to comprehend the world without the paralytic lens of money, as if through the use of it we would thereby create. The strangeness of actions that seemingly have no place at all in life, but they service the will and desire of money, greed, avarice, the desire for desires, want of wants.

I mean the pointless industry en masse, serve no purpose whatsoever but that money could be made by way of them. Whole sectors of labor doing things that are, from any labor perspective, even that of management, make no sense whatsoever unless you are viewing it through the misguiding sights of monies delights.

Remember when the pandemic shut down and we really got a glimpse of what the real economy looks like? Vast swaths of people are doing absurd labor in the private sector. I mean, its just wildly uncouth.

Understand, it doesnt produce needs, wants and desires for us, it creates a habitat for itself to live within. The actual systems it creates tend to be hardships for people in general.

Selling of products, not bc they are wanted, or needed, they may not even be desired, scams for instance.

Just truly consider it.

Who would do the labor of scamming someone for money if there was no money at all et al? The desire to manufacture desires in others too. I dont mean to create some nifty new desire, innovation, etc… those are plausibly fine, perhaps even good.

I mean advertising. The vast swath of advertising dies out. Folks do of course want to present themselves, advert themselves, but they wouldnt do it in such a way as to try and create more labor than they want for themselves.

Freely chosen labor abhors pointless laboring.

They Grew Up Together

Relating more to the biological, neurological and conceptual fractal mapping, partly by way of explanation of the aesthetic is that they grew up together. This is some more literal sense, as in there is connectivity between these sorts of things ona n aesthetic level merely or at least partly though the reality that they grew up together. To associate something with something else along the aesthetic axis is to simply grow an otherwise unrelated pairing of ‘things’ together.

There isnt nothing to this notion, but i think it is missing the reality that the growth is fractal in its formal structure, that the aesthetic connectivity is a reality causally speaking, at least in some ways. The broader argument tho, is that causal connectivity is temporal is nature, and hence what is meant by ‘causality’ is actually something like ‘how iterative ontologies create self-similar structures’.

To query ‘what caused this to happen’ is to ask in projection of self-samely interacting ontologies. To look upon one’s own peculiar pathways and misconstrue them as the totality of the relevant relations.

To query ‘what iteration came afore and aft thee’ is to glimpse and grasp at the multitudinal kinds of interactions that go into the casual forces of any given iteration. To wit, playing billiard balls with hume on the topic, weve already presumed the ontology of the balls as fully individuated ontologies, whole and complete unto themselves.

Its just assumed by hume.

Its a bit unfair to pin it on hume tho, he points out flaws in the notions of causality, correctly so too. There is a conceptual pathway, i assume untaken before today, that the causality nationality itself is dependent upon the ontology supposition. That where hume aims to justify his intuitions regarding billiards, what we ought take from hume and indeed i think from kant too, is that causality is not strictly rationally structured. Not, at any rate, whereby that rationality is understood as being beholden to the individual per se, the dividited ontology ive long now pushed back against.

The per vos, and fractal ontologies for whatever else we might say of them, and such may be a lot, do not suffer from that particular dividited problem. I suspect not at all tbh, via any nominal variation thereof, as i suspect the dividited structuring is synonymous with the projected reality. Again, perhaps not the only one, but a good place to denote the issue and make good headway on addressing the problems is the ill honies of monies; that imaginarium.

A Brief History Of Patriarchal Realism In Near Real Time

History Professor Answers Dictator Questions | Tech Support | WIRED

Small but relevant note, see how the history prof here misdiagnoses the actual history by relying on a Patriarchal Realists perspective of it. She effectively holds that there are no ‘real women fascists’, regardless of if she recognizes it. Her narrative is one that highlights the men involved, and ignores the women involved.

Which is actually a well known fallacy in feminist views of history.

It isnt that women didnt exist in the actual historical narrative. Its that what the history shows is men at the lead, which is kinda what youd expect given the whole of the circumstances involved. Its sorta the whole point of propaganda i mean, to show how strong and great the leaders are throughout all of human history.

There’s a real sham going on there historically speaking if you think bout it some.

See also how similar points are made and oft made regarding non-dominant groups of people, including ‘the peasants’ of olden times, the serfs, slaves, lower classes, histories, etc…

In literally all those cases, all of them without a single fucking exception say more or less the same thing; it isnt that they didnt exist, it isnt that they didnt do anything, as if they just passively sat there and did nothing while they were slaves, or serfs, or the working classes.

But women?

For some reason, some magical manifestation of delusion, for women they not only didnt exist historically speaking, but also they were the only saints and people who actively shaped their own histories.

I despise this history professors analysis on how gender was conceived of. Just note too how men were fed the same kind of lines as the women regarding the having the babies, this is relevant, bc it blatantly displays that there wasnt a concerted effort against women per se, there was a concerted effort geared towards the population as a whole to have babies.

And it was led by women and men too. Hard to believe, but actually women have always been historically active agents. Including in the fascist manifestations of the past.

Gender Tales

There is a belief that a proper understanding requires praxis, how conceptual life and actual life interface with each other. The internet does a good job at highlighting that, which is quite interesting to consider, but not here.

Life is so much more singing and dancing than folks seem to be aware of; all aesthetics has a theme, i used to teach the little ones this in our ‘kids art shows’; life too has a theme to it:

”,,,Tell me you love me, but there’s hate in your eyes….They used to be, the best of friends…”

The Discontent In Gender Theory, Feminisms

When I was much younger i oft called myself a feminist. I recall learning bout feminism in my home, in one way or another. It wasnt particularly in your face, but it was a topic that would come up and be freely discussed, insofar as that goes when discussing things with little boys.

i dont recall any or many age inappropriate discussions. It was discussed in the same way as we might discuss basic ethics. Treat girls fairly. Dont bully girls. Girls are as good as boys. Super basic stuff imho.

My friends and i tended to discuss these things too as we entered into teenaged years. We all oft referred to ourselves as feminists.

In these current times i tend to refer to myself as a gender theorist, but tbh it doesnt quite land well. Not bc there is anything wrong with gender theory or in being a gender theorist, it is that it is so theory driven, as a title. Not to suggest that there is any meaningful difference in terms of praxis between gender theory and feminisms, its literally just the name i am referring to.

Its a minor point, but its always bothered me a little bit.

The change in reference wasnt due to some realization or tectonic shift in my thinking. Being a little boy, a dude, and a grown man studying and interested in these sorts of topics, the gendered relation comes quite naturally if you bother to think bout it a bit. As opposed to merely the feminist position per se.

To me, feminisms and feminists were presented as if they were aware of feminine gender, as if tacitly they understood that what they were discussing was obviously part of a far broader topic than only women. It seems only natural if they are blatantly curious bout how the gender of femininity operates, certainly the Truth of the matter of gender in sum would be apparent to them.

As i went to university, one discipline i studied was ‘women studies’ as the department was called when i began there. While i was there it was transitioning towards a more inclusive ‘gender studies’ styled name, and the whole student body was a part of the choosing of the name, so everyone in the department understood the point of the name change; we are concerned with gender in sum, not only femininity.

Technically they settled on “Gender, Women, And Sexuality Studies”.

To understand masculinity on its own is to misunderstand masculinity. Such is tru too for femininity. Atopy inherits gender.

I admit to a leftist error in thinking that the systemization itself would accomplish this entirely handsfree. I assumed wrongly that the same kind of transition would naturally occur via the internets. i mean as people grew to actually study the relevant books, thinkers, discourses, and so on, via the internets, it would, open source style, produce the same sort of conscious transition towards an understanding of gender, as opposed to just women and femininity.

Course this isnt what has happened so far.

Men, masculinity and queerness have all come to be understood as little more than ancillary gendered positions to women and femininity. Menslib actively understands mens gender strictly in terms of how it may or may not affect women. Far too many queer spaces understand queerness rather strictly in terms of women and femininity; to ‘be queer’ for some of these folks is to ‘be feminine relative to the patriarchy!’. Folks can see this most manifested in the various ways by which people try to hierarchically arrange themselves on a scale of suffering relative to the predicate belief that women are inherently inferior to men, not ‘in reality’ but in historical practice up to and including in the current, and oddly in their own ethos.

Patriarchal Realism, in other words see here.

I’m not angry bout it, im just quite disappointed, i had high hopes for my strong independent feminists.

I began noticing these sorts of issues before leaving university, but I wasnt so fully cognizant of it until 2020, when i became acutely aware that most people who operated under the label of feminist and feminism did so quite haphazardly via whatever poorly construed online discourses were going on; and they hated being taught anything bout gender by men.

Somewhat Technical Relevant Aside

In regards to some plausible reasons for this divergence between the praxis of feminisms and the academic rigor of gender theory, I think it fair and relevant to highlight how in the online discourses lies, misinformation, disinformation, bad faithed actors, and algorithmic interference radically alter the information dynamic relative to formal efforts at producing positive outcomes such as what is done at universities.

There are editorial fallacies in the pure ‘open source modeling’. Something i think folks intune with that sort of thing ought recognize if they havent already. The total free for all doesnt editorialize information, offer direction to discourses, or offer much hope of a means of pragmatic production beyond the absolute horrors of trial and error.

In other words, Truth is something that can be produced in an open source modeling, however, lacking any directive towards it those within the discursive structures lack guidance in differentiating between it and self-similar versions of it.

To relate this to the broader information distribution problems, and the virtues and limits of open source styled solutions, such guidance entails how the aesthetic fractal facets inhere themselves within concepts and languages, and how those interact with each other and through the mediums they operate.

We assume at a minimum, as we ought to, that the guidance towards Truth on its own provides some meaningful sense of this, which it does. Provided of course that folks actually cleave themselves to the practice.

There has to be some non-trivial degree of structure and directive aim in discursive forms.

Tos isnt exactly what i mean here tho, not to diminish its relevance. I am referring to the aesthetic self-similar transformations within language, which also self-similarly relate to concepts; fractal transformation matrixes.

Folks can think of it in terms of translation matrixes between differing languages, translation ai for instance, but also just a human done translation. There is no exact self-samely identified translation between one language’s meaning and another’s even in theory and certainly in concept. Words used which clearly refer ostensibly to the same objective facts, ‘rock over there’, have differing meanings one language to another predicated upon the contexts of those words relative to the language, and indeed, within the same language too, and even within conceptual adaptations, e.g. self-similar conceptual fractal transformations.

Folks can also get the intuitive sense of the point by way of how difficult it can be to communicate an idea to someone else, or see here for quine’s Indeterminacy Of Translation explanation, or see here for godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, each of which largely speak to the same point - there just isnt a one to one relation between a word, a concept, and the real. There are only self-similar transformations, which speaks towards the fractal nature of the conceptual, linguistic, and real structures.

Interestingly enough, see here for a far more conservative view predicated upon the same sort of notion, e.g. open sourced modeling has its weaknesses and limitations, for instance free markets have limitations and weaknesses. It is genuinely good to see that at least some conservatives are awakening from the stupor of free market capitalism.

It seems that there can be real conscious efforts made on the part of people to bring bout the same kind of transition, the building of pathways whereby folks can follow along via the online cultural expressions.

Understanding the complex and self-similar dynamics that take place via such an open sourced process becomes critical; perhaps i’ll dive into that one some more later, but elsewhere.

The Successes And Failures Of Feminisms Could Help Men, Masculinity, Queers and Gender Theory In General

‘If you believe in god, its because of the devil’ - ‘The Rivers Of Belief’, enigma

In regards to feminisms, to return to the point, i had a notion growing up; we need women to be in a position such that they can take care of themselves, so that men dont have to be the ones that are tasked with taking care of them. Men being tasked as both persecutors and persecuted, at the behest of others, in the name of women over their supposed weakness and vulnerability due to their wounded nature, pun most def intended.

Towards this notion there is an almost revulsion among too many feminists and feminist communities. For it posits women (not feminists or feminisms) as part of the problems with dynamic gender relations, which feminists and feminisms are ostensibly aiming to rectify.

It entails believing and allowing men to be vulnerable as they always have been.

“I will spit until i learn how to speak” - “King Of Carrot Flowers”, neutral milk hotel

It makes a lot of sense that a significant reason why it is that men dont allow themselves to be vulnerable is bc they are not allowed to be the victim, especially in regards to women being the mutual progenitors of their problems.

There is little to be gained by attempting to differentiate between who is to blame in an asymmetrically interacting dynamic gender relation. In individual instances it is possible to make real determinations of blame, fault, etc… in the context of some specific set of actions, some specification of the gendered dynamic, as is manifested in the lives of people.

But in regards to any generalizations of gender at all et al there can not be any systemic blame therein.

Folks may again hear why it is that targeting men and masculine sexuality in particular is particularly foul in the context of such a dynamic systemization. Such revulsions at the notion of masculine vulnerability insidiously attempts to recreate the dynamics the gender theorists have been correctly pointing out are so problematic.

However, i assumed, i hope not wrongly, that the feminists were acting in good faith in their studies on an academic level at any rate. That they could manage to understand their own placement within that dynamic relationship, and come to terms with that reality; to be able to see men in a similar light as that which lit their own gendered paths, as if in a penny arcade:

“Ghost, ghost, I know you live within me, feel as you fly

In thunderclouds above the city, into one that I

Love with all that was left within me until we tore in two….

….With wings that ringed around a socket right between her spine

All drenched in milk and holy water pouring from the sky…

…And when her spirit left her body, how it split the sun

I know that she will live forever, all goes on and on and on

And she goes, and now she knows she'll never be afraid

To watch the morning paper blow into a hole where no one can escape…

…Daddy please, hear this song that I sing

In your heart there's a spark that just screams…

…Blister please, with those wings in your spine

Love to be with a brother of mine…

…In a struggle to find secret songs that you keep

Wrapped in boxes so tight

Sounding only at night as you sleep…

…And when we break, we'll wait for our miracle

God is a place where some holy spectacle lies

When we break, we'll wait for our miracle

God is a place you will wait for the rest of your life…”

-’Ghost, Untitled, and Two Headed Boy, Pt 2’, neutral milk hotel

In which case getting women into a position whereby they dont need the help of men from the mens perspectives is an enabling of their own capacities to do with their own lives what they themselves might want.

“Oh, Comely

I will be with you when you lose your breath

Chasing the only meaningful memory you thought you had left

With some pretty, bright and bubbly

Terrible scene that was doing her thing on your chest”

There is no sexual liberation of women unless there is sexual liberation for men and queers too. Bc women fuck men and queers too. Get it yet?

“But, oh, Comely

It isn't as pretty as you'd like to guess in your memory

You're drunk on your awe to me

It doesn't mean anything at all”

Attacking mens sexualities harms women and queer sexualities too.

“Oh, Comely

All of your friends are all letting you blow

Bristling and ugly

Bursting with fruits falling out from the holes

Of some pretty, bright and bubbly friend

You could need to say comforting things in your ear”

Sexuality, like loves relations, are primarily between people, not individuated within the individual, per vos per se distinction, as noted here and here. But all we need understand is that relationship is what occurs between people, it inherently involves both, it is inherently a relational property, puns most def intended.

“But, oh, Comely

There isn't such one friend that you could find here

Standing next to me

He's only my enemy

I'll crush him with everything I own”

There are no valid solutions to that which purely focus on the individuals per se (through itself). The inherently per vos (through another) dynamic by contrast has many valid solutions to it.

“Say what you want to say and hang for your hollow ways

Moving your mouth to pull out all your miracles aimed

For me!”

If one spouse’s sexuality is attacked it just inherently affects the sexuality of the other spouse. Cause that is how sexuality works. Now, that affect could in theory be good or bad, and in individual instances such is almost certainly the case. If your lover isnt loving well, attacking their sexuality could in theory actually improve your own sex life.

“Your father made fetuses with flesh-licking ladies

While you and your mother were asleep in the trailer park

Thunderous sparks from the dark of the stadiums

The music and medicine you needed for comforting”

Bc they might learn to love better after all.

“So, make all your fat, fleshy fingers to moving

And pluck all your silly strings and bend all your notes for me and

Soft, silly music is meaningful magical

The movements were beautiful all in your ovaries”

But that doesnt scale up particularly well. Attacking all mens sexualities, or even any masculine sexuality that doesnt violate obligatory ethical concerns, so ‘sexualities in general’, just doesnt work. That ‘one guy’ to whom someone refers may actually be quite lovely for someone else, moreover, their sexuality may be quite different with other people. So even labeling them as that ‘one guy’ doesnt necessarily make much sense, let alone how that ‘one guy’ might relate to other people.

“All of them milking with green, fleshy flowers

While powerful pistons were sugary sweet machines

Smelling of semen all under the garden

Was all you were needing when you still believed in me”

Consider so called ‘red flag’ concerns. While i am reasonably sure that there are such things as legit ‘red flags’, mostly those are bs. Far more reflective of a particular dynamic than anything bout that individual or ‘kind of person’.

“I know they buried her body with others

Her sister and mother and 500 families

And will she remember me 50 years later?

I wished I could save her in some sort of time machine”

Sexualities are fluid. Men are sexually thus and such with you know who, and such and thus with you. The same is true for queers and women too.

“Know all your enemies

We know who our enemies are

Know all your enemies

We know who our enemies are”

That notion is shared with the per se individualists, who think that each individual has the right to be sexual howsoever they please, within ethically obligatory limits, and that entails the plausibility of being sexual differently with different people and circumstances. Here we merely note the why is that the case rather than the supposition of an ethic predicated on a fiction of the self per se; the rugged individualism of feminists these days;)

“Goldaline, my dear

We will fold and freeze together

Far away from here

There is sun and spring and green forever”

The ethics involved within dynamically fluid states is simply different than as applicable to an individual per se.

“But, now we move to feel for ourselves

Inside some stranger's stomach

Place your body here

Let your skin begin to blend itself with mine”

• “Oh Comely”, neutral milk hotel

Just A Feint, Some Interesting And Relevant Corollaries

[Prime Conjecture] There is an interesting kind of argument, its been used a fair amount id say in philosophy, it goes something like this. There are commonalities that connect seemingly disparate phenomena. By analyzing one phenomena, we potentially can gain insight into other kinds of phenomena, predicated upon a hidden commonality between them.

Insight within one discipline can be applicable to other disciplines. There are reasons to be doubtful of that sort of argument. Are such merely arguments by analogy? Implying that each discipline, relevantly divided field of inquiry, were actually uniquely structured ‘whole and complete unto itself’, the a = a supposition of self-sameness.

Corollaries dont really make a lot of sense in that framework tho, if you think bout it a bit. As corollaries they are meaningfully divergent, ontologically speaking of the epistemic. A concept being such a supposed ontologically meaningful delineation of the epistemic. Hence, any corollary from one concept to another violates the rationale of the concept as being a self contained identity in the first place.

If a concept is indeed a self-contained entity ‘in and of itself’ in the kantian sense, and lets just suppose it is and all we are saying is we suppose there are such ‘brain inhabiting self-samely defined entities called a concept’. Then it would necessarily follow that all derivatives of a concept are fully contained within it, in the analytic sense of ‘what falls out’ of a concept.

But corollaries transcend concept, certainly by definition, but i think in Truth too. They are epistemically transcendent ontologically relevant epistemic entities.

Yet corollaries are concepts themselves.

An upshot here is that concepts are not neatly self-contained entities. If they were, then there couldnt be such things as corollaries, which are concepts themselves.

I find gender studies to be particularly fruitful in this regard, as gender as a concept is oft fairly intimately defined by the person having concepts at all. This entails that as a general concept gender tends to transcend a lot of otherwise unrelated concepts. Now, these conceptual pathways are presumably more aesthetically structured than rationally, more poetically than logically per se.

In a real sense those pathways are far more ephemeral, impractical, not ‘causally related’ per se, so much as incidental connections. A fairly natural association for a thinking sexed species to have, to associate the world in the context of gender.

Interestingly enough, once you recognize the aesthetics of gender, its relative immateriality and ephemeralness, those pathways still remain.

That it is aesthetic, doesnt entail its lack of existence, just a slightly different scalar of concern; hence, the inherent poetry of reality, thus be corollaries.

Corollary One, Scalar Differences Imply Differing Capacities

Scalarly different aspects definitionally cannot do the same things. Fractal scalars as transformation matrixes entails that what outputs from a given input is not self-samely defined with the input. This is relevant to the proper iteration of concern in fractal geometry, the transition of patterned form.

Intuitively we can see this quite literally in fractals, just as we see it in real life manifestations of fractals, ecosystems, bioregions, historical (temporal) arcs, scalar differences, etc… There is a joint carving nature to nature as well to these fractal geometric definitions; see here for a good run down on fractal dimensions.

In the pretty pictures of mathematics, we see this as the proper definition of the scalar. The generic shape to which the fractal is self-similarly relating itself too, which is not defined at the smallest scalar. It isnt, in other words, a reductive identity relation, and doesnt bottom out in some sort of ‘prion’.

Its existence (identity) is relative to the adjacent self-similarly defined fractal forms, the other iterations of the same generic shape. Adjacent fractal structures aren’t self-samely identified to the generic shapes within and through which the functional operations occur.

Lets call such the proper geometry of fractals.

The relevant scalar iteration isnt the inputs and outputs of the mathematical function. To wit; adjacent inputs and outputs can nominally be the same, even as they are also a part of the broader scalar difference relations which properly identifies the fractal’s geometry; its formal structure.

Intuitively we can broadly map this on to real life as lifeforms iterating themselves within broader ecological systems. The relatively nominal iterations of those functions are actually other iterative processes which are mapped onto the proper iterative form. Hence ‘day night’ iteration isnt the relevant iteration for most any lifeform, even though most lifeforms experience and incorporate the ‘day night’ iterative structure into their own iterative sequences.

Their generic shape temporally transcends the nominal manifestations in at least, and it may be a least sense idk, entailing that children are fractal transformations between two properly delineated ontological entities (their parents), as defined by their generic shape. When we speak of our ontology (existence), in a spatiotemporal (temporal) sense, we are speaking of a being that is defined properly by the continuation of its proper iterative sequence.

Having children is in a real sense fractal propagation. There is a somewhat wild vindication of the prima facie, intuitive sense of what the proper cuts are. Sublimating the underpinning chaos with a presence as a holistically defined entity that is self-similarly defined across its spatiotemporal spread.

There is a sense here of scalar temporal differences between iterations, somewhat notably for the human species and indeed much of earths species, there is a general bisexed relation that occurs; at any given iteration one axis may switch, relative to each intersecting fractal form (male/female), with one or the other mostly guaranteed to not be of the same sex as their child.

In other words, from the female sex there is at any given proper iteration (procreation), the distinct possibility that her aspect of iteration isnt female. Likewise for the male sex. Mostly it is the case that one or the other fractal involved, female or male, will not be of the same sex as their next proper iteration.

That ‘mostly’ is interesting bc it points to both trisexed and mixed sex as possible proper outputs. They would be outliers in a nominally bisexed sexual iterative relation, but also highly suggestive of the reality that there are in fact plenty of additional sexes technically possible. This being proven by finding them in nature in other species.

We can think of those as part of a transformation matrix between, say, bi and tri sexed species. A scalarly different sort of fractal structure.

Nonetheless for the human species the nominal bisexed is the norm, whereas gender being scalarly different than sex, a socio-cultural phenomena rather than a sexed phenomena. There is tho a pretty relatively obvious fractal transformation matrix between these, e.g. a bisecting (bifurcating) functional relationship. Gender simply has different properties whereby we reasonably well suppose that all the ‘frills’ of the basic bisecting (bifurcating) structures are quite more diverse.

If i recall correctly you can actually see that difference by way of the fractal structures created by the bisecting (bifurcating) function. Not a novel take, but something i think folks havent taken to heart in how they are understanding their own lives, sexualities, sex, and gender, let alone its applicability to ontological and epistemological properties; see here for what a bifurcating function is, study further to understand how it relates to life processes.

There is prima facie at any rate a solid theory there for how to properly understand the ontic and epistemic structures in both a physical way, and also in the fairly ephemeral senses with relevance to notions of mind, Truth, art, beauty, aesthetics, emotions and moods.

What is somewhat of a novel take is that the nominal conception of sex as if it were bisecting is wrong, and its all the more wrong in regards to gender. Sex and gender are bifurcation functions, a quite different sort of fractal structure than a bisecting function. There are not two sexes, there is a bifurcation of the sexes, which i think the very easiest way for folks to grasp the difference between these is that a bisecting function is symmetrical, a bifurcating function is asymmetrical.

A bisecting function is a kind of mathematical projection of ‘cutting by perfect halves’, something that just doesnt happen in nature, in life. There arent two sexes, let alone two genders, not strictly speaking even within a nominally bisexed species, even tho nominally speaking there are predominately two sexes in a bifurcating structure.

To say nothing of the implications for how broad the spectrums of sexes, sexualities, and hence genders there really are possible in the grand scheme of it all.

That asymmetry isnt on a greater/lesser status either, it is merely as a differentiation process at all. Its inherent towards distinguishing between two otherwise same structures; the difference between unisexual reproduction, and bisexual procreation.

Via prime conjecture, [Prime]

Corollary Two, The Supranatural

“And now she knows, she’ll never be afraid”

Consider the aforementioned asymmetries in the contexts of the deities, the divine, and similar sorts of notions. As i listen to the earth sing to me, there is a realization; there are things i can do that they cannot. How terribly interesting i must be for them, dont you see that? Nature’s wayward children.

A fractally structured reality entails not a parity between scalars, but a real difference. The measure of existence stems itself from that self-similar differentiation, see also the problem of the inscrutability of identicals. Let us act with a bit of metaphysical conceit, as if the mathematics were in fact relevant to the biological.

The self-similar fractal dimension is a fractional exponent. Its differentiations occur within the non-linearly infinite space between 0 and 1, relative to the linearly infinite space of the natural number line. That difference and differentiations would in theory apply to the nominal limits of the non-linearly infinite fractal dimensions, 0 and 1. See here, cantor uses the terms ‘innumerable’ and ‘denumerable’ to describe the infinities; we differ as i view these as differing counting functional relations. see also godel’s first incompleteness theorem; no consistent system of axioms can prove all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers.

Let us provisionally accept the divine metaphysical conceit; existence be but the image of the divine. Perfection is that which lay just beyond the limits, or really at the limit of self-similar transformations (1, 0). Hence we might view the fractal structuring of life as indicative of its asymmetrical relationship towards the divine, which we present then as the arbitrary unity of one, and the ur of nothingness. This is hardly a novel notion.

Meaning that even in theory such self-similar fractal transformations would hold the supernature and the natural all to the same task. Hence, each can do somethings the others cannot.

Via corollary one [Cor 1]

Corollary Three, Implied Freedom Of The Will

Power distributions do not determine outcomes. If the power distribution of a given system is thus and such, its outputs will be such and thus. Any self-similar transformation entails a differential between the adjacent self-similar expressions; adjacent iterations. Consider in terms of causal relations at all et al.

Any given relation is a fractal transformative relation, so its some self-similar transformation between two adjacent fractal forms (think in 4d please), that being temporality itself entails that causal relations do not have a one to one relation between cause and effect.

There isnt linear movement, there is non-linear movement. That entails freedom of the will in the strong philosophical sense, even in the context of any version of causal determinism.

If nothing else, relative freedom of the will is something the supernatural lack. We’re free in the dreams of such beings; if such beings too. Free agents in a scalarly scripted reality.

There is almost comically obvious intuitiveness here too. The scalar differences of a bioregion are relatively unchanging compared to the scalarly smaller fractal forms who propagate within. These differing temporal realities entail a real kind of relativistic freedom of movement. To dance, sing, play and create within and through differing iterative rates.

The relative animatedness of differing processes being a very relativistically moving sort of phenomena.

If i may:

‘God is a place where some holy spectacle lies’ → God is a place where you live miracles

I mean to say that such is a proof even within the context of God, and hence it is applicable across the board. Such would also of course be applicable within the contexts of spacetime, i think somewhat obviously; the range of action within any given iteration of a physical system operating in spacetime have a complex self-similarly defined differentiation between them. Their range of actions are simply different and that differential in range is the non-one to one causal relation between them.

Causal relations at all et al would inherently be free predicated upon that differential in range of action.

[Cor 1, 2]

Corollary Four, The Sleepiness Of Systematic Thinkers

Consider such things as command, authority, and the sleepiness of the systemic thinkers; those who loose themselves into systemic thinking. There is a, id say to be avoided and carefully handled, dangerousness in being too conceptually invested in systemic thinking. That sort of self-same conceptualization ive been criticizing for some time now in my own writings, here most familiar as the per se identity relation, a = a, etc…

It isnt tho that there is anything wrong with the systemic analysis, i mean not necessarily at any rate, pun somewhat intended. It is just that for those who analyze thusly, it carries a risk in their efforts that comes in the form of sleepiness to their own capacities as individuals. To do, to get out and do the things that need be done, rather than believing that they will just take care of themselves ‘bc the system works that way’.

Such can also be an issue within academic groups, guard against it.

We are the systems. They are composed of us. Wake up from them. When you criticize the system, you are in some sense criticizing yourself, insofar as you remain within them. Course, there are real limits to that too, living ‘outside the systems’ in total is not realistically possible or desirable for that matter.

Those who dont believe in freewill might find this somewhat helpful too. The nihilist types, depressed, hopeless, purposeless, languishing for want of the sun’s warmth upon them.

But i am hoping it helps some folks come to better terms with their own capabilities for actions, as that ‘sleepiness’ is a real phenomena.

“Sometimes I dream about reality

Sometimes I feel so down

Sometimes i fall into insanity

Sometimes i feel so lonesome

Sometimes i dream about a wide wide world

Sometimes i see freedom

Tonight i watch through my window and i cant see no lights no….

…One day my dreams will be reality…”

- “Bongo Bong, Je ne t'aime”, manu chao

[Cor 1, 3]

Turn Page Here To Continue….

Corollary Five, Self-Similar Relations To Life

“Or, to say it in the language of that dionsian monster who bears the name zarathustra:

‘Raise up your hearts, my brothers [sic, siblings], high, higher! And dont forget your legs! Raise up your legs, too, good dancers; and still better: stand on your heads!

‘This crown of the laughter, the rose-wreath crown: i crown myself with this crown; i myself pronounced holy my laughter. I did not find anyone else today strong enough for that.

‘Zarathustra, the soothsayer; zarathustra, the sooth-laughter; not impatient; not unconditional; one who loves leaps and side-leaps: i crown myself this crown.

‘This crown of the laughter, the rose-wreath crown: to you, my brothers [sic, siblings], i throw this crown. Laughter i have pronounced holy: you higher men [sic, folks], learn - to laugh!’

Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Part IV

Sils-Maria, Oberengadin,

August 1886”

• Nietzsche on nietzsche, Attempt At Self Criticism, nietzsche, preface to the Birth Of Tragedy, also by nietzsche.

Or as my daughter oft points out, “learn to love whimsy, whats not to love about whimsy?”

Very True daughter.

Or as my son once mention to me, “dad, i think im going to be that guy who is happy and chill.” Thats a Good choice son.

Folks may wonder at the wonder of being able to ‘just decide’ to be that person, ‘how?’ they might cry out! What secret do you have to teach me? I look with great skepticism upon those people, as if ‘what the fuck kind of spatiotemporal reality are you experiencing? You just make a choice my dudes and dudettes.

They lack enough whimsy in their lives, says i, thats literally how it works.’

Gendered reality is dynamic, that dynamic is quite literally a derivative of the biologically relevant iterative processes, sexual procreation in other words. Such isnt self replication, that is a very old methodology of life, see Sex And The Origins Of Death here, and see Dynamic Symmetries And Holistic Asymmetries here. What we experience as gender is a real sort of thing, it is just an aesthetic aspect, a fractal facet of sexual procreative iterative processes happening.

Importantly that isnt a reductive claim. There is a self-similar relation between the biological sexes and the socio-cultural genders. They are iteratively connected, the socio-cultural aspects being a source of a relativistic freedom compared to the relativistically slower iterative processes of the biological.

Gender is a socio-cultural freedom from biological sexual determination.

Sexualities likewise are playful adaptations, the songs of loves many bloomings predicated upon the mereness of evolutionary biologies. The aristocracies dance in the freedom of movement, much as the songs within the fractal aesthetics only sing to constitute movement at all et al.


The sublimated states are nonlinearly structured, aesthetically that is to say, conceptually speaking. The relativistic crest of the fractal waveform gives the appearance of the nominal instantiations, the crudest of carvings, but relativistically speaking joint carving, not all the same. They are moods, transcending to broader spatiotemporal iterative structures, the outgrowths of the interactions of many peoples together.

Quath a poet:

“The body dances to the beat

Of the noises from the street

As patterns, grids, and schedules go

We took a subway to the show

So give us this day our daily commute…”

• ‘Sealed Human’, the feint

I used to write philosophy to this song on the bi weekly for a year or more, musing and puzzling over these topics. Its aesthetic stimulus as a certain way of understanding temporality. Meditating in a sense to this song, how it speaks of deeply inherent but not intrinsic rhythms to life that depend upon the ways that differing iterative processes interact including critically how changes occur, specifically how patterned forms shift on a fundamental scalar.

See also, the ‘axiom of choice’ here, potentially as a description of how intersecting fractals order themselves as adjacent self-similarly related fractal forms. It isn’t random, but it isnt sequentially ordered either. I wont quote it here but i made similar observations some long while ago while listening to this song, and in a somewhat different light regarding temporality itself. Specifically, in regards to understanding temporality as an inherently fractal structure, temporality has at least these two dimensions to it; sequentiality (a.k.a. denumerably infinite, linear infinity), and its given ordering (a.k.a. innumerably infinite, non-linear infinity), the temporal experience is an outgrowth of these spatiotemporal fractal forms interacting within relativistic mechanics.

Part of the terminological differences is from how we’ve each approached the notion. I am asking something like how can mathematics be understood in such a way as to be self-similarly reflective of the spatiotemporal reality. Mathematics as a model is just a model. A modeling of what? Counting functions. We primarily use the natural numbers to count, hash mark counting methodology.

Brutal i know.

It is a projected counting method from within the overall possible fractally well ordered counting functions.

As my mother explained when we spoke of this in far more mathematical, philosophical and logical terms, with attempts at formal proofs, ‘ah, i realized where i saw that formula before, its very similar to the schrodinger equation of the schwarzschild black hole’.

Or perhaps it was just the schwarzschild black hole equations, i honestly cant recall anymore.

True enough, but a bit large on the scalar of concern. I mean, it presents the reality as if it were in this most massive of scalars of spatiotemporal tempests. Very impressive yes, and also informative, whilst the reality is rather different at different scalars tho, and not merely derivatives as if ‘from manna on high’; a little jab at the divine.

The notion of time as a line is likewise a projection, rather specifically a projection of that linear sort of thinking. Temporality isnt linear tho.

Nor, therefore, can the counting methodologies we are using be linear, now can they? I mean, if we want the mathematics to properly self-similarly relate to the ontologies of reality.

The counting methodology of ‘axiom of choice’ is reflective of the kind of phenomena, provided we understand spatiotemporal structures fractally, ‘roughly’ to use the relevant if a bit opaque and proper terminology.

Einsteinian spatiotemporal structures are too smooth, they are in fact infinitely smooth, which is somewhat absurd if you think bout it a bit folks. A fractal spatiotemporal structure, however, rather closely models, inherently self-similarly so if its True, the reality.

Which interestingly enough offers an embedded corollary here, namely that Truth is inherently a self-similar structure, hence wrongness Truly is a relativistic term, almost a phantom of the True fractal structure. Whispered carefully, we might muse such as fantasy relative to reality, neither being denied their ontology, or differing in their relational properties. One the Truth, no pun intended, the other fantasies of bout it.

I digress, but i repeat myself.

Some key points being; what are the iterative processes involved? What constitutes an ‘iteration’ of a given complex? How to understand iteration as temporality rather than what occurs within temporality?

Fractals are brute to spatiotemporality, i know.

Folks can use their conceptualizations to fantasize bout plausible and implausible futures and pasts, each of which are definitionally valid paths, or not. There is, i mean to say clarity in that regard too; not merely the existence of those pathways, fantasies tho they are, but also the means by which to differentiate between Truth and the rest of the fantasies therein.

Truth may well be a proper mode of conceptualization, a mode of thinking that leads towards True views, which may not be what folks expected it to be either.

As my father has told me a few times now, he believes that temporality is ‘little curls of spacetime’, which altogether isnt exactly a bad interpretation. Its the projection of scalar that is far more the problem there. The ‘as if’ what was ‘real’ was in fact the ‘very small’, as if somehow or another we had dispelled the scalarly larger fractal spatiotemporal forms, merely by dint of pointing out that there are also some far scalarly smaller versions of it.

That odd tho common belief that causality somehow flows from the smaller scalar towards the larger scalar; and hence the illusion and the feeling of a singular direction to spatiotemporality. Whereby the reality in an einsteinian sense, and so too in a fractally structured ensteinian spacetime, is that there are always a plurality of directions; to move is to move at all et al is to move via the means of spacetime.

We ourselves, as fractally structured lifeforms are an extension of the underpinning spatiotemporal reality. Not separated from it, but quite distinct all the same, pun somewhat intended.

I appreciate how this song can be construed as delivering a similar message, a poetical and musical expression of the modern modes of living which have crafted themselves in an iterative, vaguely horrifying way; the machine.

One such plausible iterative process being death, not to be melodramatic bout it.

”...The movement kills in several ways

Although we see it as delay

The steering wheel, a guillotine

The body dances to the beat

[Wife:] "Take the subway, fuck the street…"

Whereby death is understood literally but also figuratively; little deaths, conceptual deaths, adaptations (but then, what is that?), loss of cultures, ways of living, the ways and means of movements in the physical sense and also movements in a conceptual sense.

A giving up and an ending. I wrote to this song much on the aesthetics of death and dying, as if they were but merely shifting patterns of life and living. Do such allegorical tales, such aesthetical musings properly relate to the literal of death? I suppose that depends on if corollarries are concepts, now doesnt it?

An overcoming and a going under, perhaps the three metamorphoses; the camel, the lion and the child, to borrow terminology from another [zarathustra’s discourses, 1, the three metamorphoses].

There is a something to the notion that is quite intuitively to the point of what constitutes temporality at all. Those patterned self-similar twists and twists of fate.

Iterum: If i may proffer a different triple metamorphosis twisting a bit on the gendered axis; a woman’s sheer fear, awe, sense of wonderment, empowerment and growing sense of dread in her sexual awakening; an as if dancing with one’s self in the looming darkness, away from the cheery dispositions of childhood.

The reveling in the revelry which can take on anyone with grace of presence; and the sheer terror of what it seems to attract through one’s own gaze upon the looking glass: “Lady, do not be afraid. Quiet [in hushed and hushing voice]. Quiet [in a still more hushed voice to tame ye]. How like you my gift? Does the [wedding] gown not, please you?”

Alterum: The desperation of sexuality, an odd admixture of fear and desire, where fate folds itself via honeyed words with doubled meanings; a far darker implication to that lovely phrase also written in celluloid, a twist of language which merely speaks far more so bout ye then the desires of its speaker; “as you wish”.

Firstly one does nothing for their pleasure, thus twisting the fates around their own desires for ye.

What anguish might await by way of a wrong step, a misplaced word, a gracelessness in the face of potential brutal cruelty, whereby ones primary means of interaction is sexual appeal and denial in graceful discourse.

And when that fails? When the bull’s horns shake in their approach. When the anguish steeps itself in the terror of their approach, what desperate proposal dost ye make except [giggling girlishly at hearing the sound of a unicorn’s desperate whinny] “I hear a throat begging to be cut”. It isnt to save yourself, but to deny them the victory.

Ter: The trembling when the fates of the world await your stroke, be ye “sisters of the fates”.

What is pertinently of relevance is the why, temporality that might have seemed quite mysterious and otherworldly, even terrifying in the context of a sealed human, the highly individuated personage, may actually be quite heavenly when construed properly; Feist On Feist:

“whats got to end for forever to begin?”

“One, two, three, four, five, six, nine or ten,

money cant buy you back the love you had then.”

Or, to paraphrase a different bard:

“...Freedom, oh freedom, freedom over me

I hate to tell you, mister, but only dead men are free

Send me some lovin', tell me no lie

Throw the gun in the gutter and walk on by

Wake up, little Susie, let's go for a drive

Cross the Trinity River, let's keep hope alive

Turn the radio on, don't touch the dials…”

[Prime, Cor 1, 2, 3, 4]

Corollary Six, Poetic Conceits

“...What's new, pussycat? What'd I say?

I said the soul of a nation been torn away

And it's beginning to go into a slow decay

And that it's 36 hours past Judgment Day…”

These are all poetic conceits, metaphysical conceits. Clearly corollaries operate in a suprastate relative to some specification of their conceptual motif. The aesthetics frame the understanding.

“...Wolfman Jack, he's speaking in tongues

He's going on and on at the top of his lungs

Play me a song, Mr. Wolfman Jack

Play it for me in my long Cadillac

Play me that "Only the Good Die Young"

Take me to the place Tom Dooley was hung

Play St. James Infirmary and the Court of King James

If you want to remember, you better write down the names…”

Some certainly appear more connectively together from a given frame of reference, perspective being is a reality, puns intended.

“...Play Etta James, too, play "I'd Rather Go Blind"

Play it for the man with the telepathic mind

Play John Lee Hooker, play "Scratch My Back"

Play it for that strip club owner named Jack

Guitar Slim going down slow

Play it for me and for Marilyn Monroe…”

Conceptually the connectivity between concepts is quite literally and figuratively, metaphysical conceits. The transfiguration from one conceptual position to another, along an aesthetic axis, whereby the specification of the conceptual motif has a self-similar structure from the one to the other.

“...Play, "Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood"

Play it for the First Lady, she ain't feeling any good

Play Don Henley, play Glenn Frey

Take it to the limit and let it go by

Play it for Karl Wirsum, too

Looking far, far away at Down Gallow Avenue

Play tragedy, play ‘Twilight Time’

Take me back to Tulsa to the scene of the crime…”

• ‘Murder Most Foul’, bob dylan

Insight.

[Cor 5]

Corollary Seven, Lovers Nightlights

“Take me now, baby, here as I am

Hold me close, and try and understand

Desire is hunger is the fire I breathe

Love is a banquet on which we feed…”

The story of sexual lovers to be, meeting for the first time with no means of communication between, but a hungry understanding of desires for each the other. An allegorical tale of the inevitable real of differing linguistic fractal forms interacting along a different axis, that of sex, loves, desires, beauty, infatuation, sheer terror and emotive want for another; that interlocution of the fractals transcends all linguistics.

As if the bodies spoke afore the mind:

“...Love is an angel disguised as lust

Here in our bed 'til the morning comes…”

There is a poetics to this, there truly is, whatever its merits. Even bad poetics remain poetics. But the poetics are not the point to make. The point is that such sexual procreations are examples of how fractals intersect.

“...Come on now, try and understand

The way I feel under your command

Take my hand, as the sun descends

They can't hurt you now

Can't hurt you now

Can't hurt you now…”

The stripped down meeting between potential lovers sans the capacity to linguistically communicate. Such as the first meetings between otherwise distant peoples; and indeed, second first meetings intergenerationally speaking. Even first meetings can be new again. Only the bodies can speak, and the bodies do in fact thereby speak to each other in quite a loving way after all.

“...Because the night belongs to lovers

Because the night belongs to us…”

To bridge this to the point, there are analogous conceptual structurings, in general and of sex and gender, to the complexities of sexual procreation. The complex interconnections of concepts, akin to dna as a translation matrix between otherwise adjacent fractal forms. The crafting together of such complexly interacting entities, along a relatively sublimely simple axis of denumerable pleasures between the bodies and the hearts of desires itself; freedom is integral to loves innumerable expressions.

“...With love we sleep, with doubt the vicious cycle turns, and burns

Without you oh I cannot live, forgive the yearning Burning

I believe it's time, too real to feel

So take me now, take me now, take me now

Because the night belongs to lovers

Because the night belongs to us

Because the night belongs to lovers

And everybody says that it belongs to us”

- Because The Night, 10,000 maniacs

[Cor 1, 3, 6]

Corollary Eight, Destitution Of Monies

Folks can get a sense here how monies structures reality, it is a fantasy projected upon the lands, it is a fantasy of greed in the context of trade and Labor relations. As noted here, the Real Economy is far more pertinent towards understanding the realities of what happens in the world. Greeds’ fantasy projections upon the world distorts the ecologies and Labor desires towards fantastic realms.

This is, oddly, not an entirely bad sort of thing to do, but it is very far from being unproblematic, to put it overly mildly i think.

Whats important from a Free Labor sort of approach to these economic and ecological issues, the fantastical desires remain, freely chosen Labor can in point of fact tend towards the production of Good things. Because Labor’s desires are delimited by the Good, rather than by way of Greed.

That doesnt guarantee the outcomes, but it changes the motivating forces involved. Those motivational forces being key factors literally and figuratively in how people interact with each other and the ecologies within which they are living. To have greed as a motivational factor unsurprisingly produces self-similar versions of greed upon iteration.

Similar is True for centering the focus of an asymmetrical dynamically interacting system. When Labor is given the freedoms of movement in a literal and figurative sense, sans monies motivations, Labor tends towards ‘the Good life’ in the classic socratic sense of the phrase. That isnt, however, a default state either, there were real uses for money as a means of information transmission regarding the worth and value of various things around the world, relative to humans at any rate, but unfortunately with that distorting affect upon the motives of freely chosen Labor.

Another key component, perhaps echoed by ‘the new conservatives’ see here, is that there are real limits to free markets, even free Labor markets, and free entrepreneurship labor markets.

Labor markets check labor markets, they each have their own roughly denlineal placement in the Real Economy. Namely, by way of scalar, with Labor markets being relatively larger scalar, and leaning more towards gov than markets as they get larger scalar in their scopes of concerns. Smaller scalar, think more locally scaled labor concerns are the entrepreneurial free labor markets.

Consider for instance the history of Open Sourced economic modelings, which despite having to fight against monies interests have long since been proven to be far more efficient overall in terms of inputs and outputs. That is highly freely moving labor. It is broadly unregulated from the outside, but it requires internal regulation in order to make any sense at all.

Pragmatically this means understanding it relativistically in the context of the bioregional placement of the locale. This ought be fairly intuitive for a lot of people. I certainly hope it is!

The free movement of Labor requires being predicated upon a soundly structured ecology within which its movements can be realistically defined. Those prime constraints provide an understanding of how a give locale ought be structuring its Labor capacities. In a far too corse sense to be True, if the lands are good for farming thus and such, working with the bioregion to farm thus and such is appropriate.

This provides leverage for understanding the importance of sustainable developed, both in theory and in practice. By tuning our Labor practices to the broader bioregion we are better able to sustain the kinds of Labors that we are doing.

Such runs far deeper than the basic point suggests too; for a bioregion’s systems arent exactly indicative of the limits of what we can do within them, but they do provide the scalarly larger structures within which any freely chosen Labor or labor must operate.

Hence, it functionally operates as an inherent limit to any and all freely chosen labors.

This ought be obvious, but it does bear highlighting to folks, that constitutes an inherent land ethic within freely chosen labors, and entails that part of the motivating forces of a properly functioning free markets of the labors is exactly to not disrupt those specific limits. To stay within those bounds, such that the bioregional iterative processes themselves are not affected is the key aspect of free labors constraints.

Now, this doesnt mean that labors are thereby confined either. There is a superabundance available via this methodology, providing that the base predicable bioregional structures are broadly maintained. Those being the self-similarly related structures in the region that have differing iterative rates within the overall generic spatiotemporal shape.

Motivationally this is something the labors desire, as it also entails improving the qualities of their lives, and their childrens lives too. Generally speaking, folks dont want to pollute the environments within which they live, hence constraining freely chosen labor to operating primarily, but not exclusively, within the limits of a bioregion’s proper renewal rates.

What those are, are definitionally idiosyncratic to each bioregion, though they do share a self-similar relation to the scalarly larger ‘earth’ structures, up to and including the earth itself. Such being a proper meta relation. A meta meta relation isnt exactly the same as a meta relation either, hence there is just this one proper scalar relation between the bioregion and those regions that are one scalar larger than it, each of the subregions therein having exactly the same kind of relation to the earth as a whole.

Incidentally, you can get a sense of how this applies to the ‘axiom of choice’ point, namely that the earth as a whole is the nominal limit of the generic shape, see elsewhere for the fuller point regarding the basic spatiotemporal structures of the sun, earth, moon spatiotemporal system.

The

[Prime, Core 5, 6, 7]

Corollary Nine, Local Heroes

This may be opaque to too many folks, but there is an interesting counterpoint to nietzsche here too. Namely, a sort of limit to hubris if you will, pun intended. Sure, the ubermench transcends the bioregion within which they live. They can restructure their very environment by playfully playing with the iterative rates therein. The admixturing of potions and brews, delicacies of scrumptious not even nature herself ever intended nor could she have produced them herself even if given the entirely infinite denumerable reality she herself provides.

These bodies, these musics, these dances, these bloomings of loves, all the musings, and fiddlings, twistings and turnings are enough to make a young woman blush herself; nature’s own blushing!

However, they are nonetheless making loves with their bodies that provide such fantasies as these to take flight!

To be ‘playful’ with the overall bioregional state is to undermine the very bodies upon which we predicate ourselves. I actually dont want to say that such is impossible, or even that it is unadvisable. But i will definitively say that what the greed economy is doing is unsustainable and dangerous in a way that is beyond the pale of evils, the destruction of the bioregions within which we live undermines in all pragmatics any intelligible meaning to adaptation.

There is no consciousness to it, no thought given at all to it when all that is construed is greed.

Actually adapting bioregional developing, the active shaping of bioregions on that scalar are possible, but very dangerous especually if its done hapahazardly, meaning by way of a factor inconsiderate of the reality like greed, or is done without proper understanding of the methodolgies to do so. Which we simply put do not really have, tho id suggest that this relational speak regarding identity relations in a spatiotemporal contexts are meant to provide a plausible methodogy for doing so, providing that it is done with great care.

Many, many a simulation before even pretending to try, not the entrepreneurial spirit but the deep constraints and confines of governments and secret originations. Highly regulated in other words, as they should be, since they definitions transcend properly defined political entities, e.g. the bioregions.

As noted here, such is a juicy prime cut of sustaining meat for the desperately hungry. Pun intended. Where just speaking of utilizing the natural bioregional divisions, which define the base predicable structures within which all freely chosen labor operates, as the prime divisions of labors markets.

There are still scalar connections between these bioregions, mimicking in a real sense the realities of a kind of secondary trade relation to adjacent bioregions. Each of these of course being fractally defined structures.

Hence the necessity of understanding at least the conceptual notions of fractal transformations, how they look in the wilds of concepts, roughly how they are roughly structured (punny), and the broad outlines of their connectivities between ontologically and epistemically relevant delineations; conceptually speaking.

This doesnt at all mean that people are particularly constrained to their bioregions tho. While there are some concerns about bioregional degradation due to overuse by tourism, there isnt anything wrong with freely traveling between adjacent bioregions, providing that by doing so the renewal rates of the bioregion are not distorted by it.

You can get a sense here how well ordering this prime cutting is too as it displays the meaning sought after by concepts of sustainable development, without recourse to handwaving bout 'degradation to the environment’ per se. In the latter we understand that there is some bad associated the degradation of the environment, this is True. But it doesnt really define what that degradation is relative to. Whereas the former, the bioregional constraints, just tends towards that kind of production, which also defines the limits of any development. What is destroyed or risks being destroyed if the limits arent so constrained is the bioregional structures themselves.

Again, not a good thing to do, certainly not haphazardly which is what the greed motivator does, and certainly not maliciously either which is what the greed motivator also does. Incentivizing destruction of the environment rather than sustainable development within it.

Sans money those motivational relationships radically shift.

I agree with folks whove expressed concerns regarding the affability of the labors to work sufficiently without guidance. In other words, laborers absent any guidance at all, completely freely chosen labors, does actually have a plausibility of under performing the kinds of labors that ought be performed, in some sense of optimizing the Good life relative to such things as hours worked, freedoms and liberties had, capacities to have and raise families, and so on… i really dont want to get folks too lost in the weeds of the concepts here.

There is a good tendency of laborers towards a kind of laziness that is much desirable. It isnt sloth like, not by a long shot, it is that they’d far rather desire to do as little work as possible for the maximal rewards thereof.

Whereby rewards amount to the comforts and pleasures of life, which are brought about by hard working. It is, in other words, a powerful work ethic.

In general, there are a lot of preferences for industrial scalar practices, as these almost all of them fit that description of increased production entails fewer working hours which labor strongly prefers to spend doing whatever the fuck they want to.

This is a bedrock principle for laborers, a powerful work ethic that isnt asinine by way of concerns for monies ill gains.

However, there are real competing desires, dont take it too hard to heart tho, namely those entrepreneurial laborers, who strongly desire to create their own kinds of labors. Inventors, philosophers, scholars, craftspeople, artisans, writers, traders, market makers, etc…. Again i dont want to get folks too lost in the weeds of it.

All that sort of stuff tho is constrained by its scalar impact upon the bioregion itself. If a given labor activity more or less of whatever sort, has impact on a scalar broader that a bioregion, it is definitionally suspect of being too large for free entrepreneurial labors. At which point it becomes far more subject to constraining regulations, as those kinds of activities inherently have a potentially transformative affective force on the environments within the bioregion.

At which point the folks who are pragmatically affected all become relevant agents in the decision making process, see Open Source Democracies here. Hence the labors therein tend towards unions, Labor, and gov.

Although the shapes would be markedly different, the bioregions can be broadly delineating approximately ‘nation state’ sized labor economic structures. They are composed of smaller scalar bioregional elements, each of which would define that ‘nations’ component labor economic structures, in other words the proper delineations of the labor markets within any given bioregional structure.

Now, there isnt any real reason why we cant delineate the political divisions differently than how we delineate the proper labor markets. In other words we can ignore those delineations thereby affecting the scalarly relevant bioregional structures, entailing that there is some political entity that has at most only a tangentially related political concern relative to the bioregion and the labor market.

This is indeed something of a norm or even definition of a political border. Whereby there are definitionally differing labor and/or ecological concerns, that entails that proper decision making body is also scalarly defined thusly.

Folks can also get a sense of how money adversely affects this, it doesnt know how to respect prime borders at all. It freely moves between them, which is ‘capitalism’ more or less, is it not?

I think the careful readers at this point can get a sense that such has its boons and limitations, and that the ethicity of such a system even in abstraction is dependent upon the circumstances of those poorly guising movements of monies’ own concerns. Greed grasps averusly at life, but let it die and we’ll all be far better off for it.

It isnt the transbioregional movements themselves, trade isnt a bad sort of thing at all, and can even be quite productive and healthy for bioregions, but it does have an affect on those bioregions and that has to be understood as the proper political and economic limit.

This is why money is such a bad tool in these times at any rate, punny.

Labors movements already understand this at this time. In some sense they are intrinsically linked to what it is that they do at all et al. See for instance the will and the way here. Tho the proper delineations thereof are actually quite new conceptually speaking. They have a kinship, make of this what folks will, but they have a kinship with the divines of old. The pantheons, the spirits, the stories of a living bioregion.

For my part i think those are all a bit too reductive a relation, perhaps a bit too fanciful a notion, perhaps even due to a difference in taste idk, but they are not bad or vile either. Good exists in an inherent plurality after all. But i think this is part of what nietzsche was inquiring bout so much in the birth. That somewhat intimate connectivity towards the land, regardless of if anyone feels or understands it as sacred, nonetheless are the proper delineations for those feelings in the first place.

That feeling of connectivity to the land, in other words, which might point to this spring, or that geyser, some mountain peaks or the cravases therein, some hills to dales or some grassy knolls, feelings towards some old tree as to some timeless stream, the feelings which may point to any of these and feel an intimacy with the feature and thus identify with the divine. As if seeing itself reflected in another were an indication of the same divine sparks therein.

That dionysian spirit alluded to in such passages that speak well towards the necessity to understand the greek theater in the contexts of their understanding and closeness to the sacred bioregionally bounding bountifulness. A fractal reflection location between adjacent fractal forms, conceptually speaking, between that ‘out there’ and that me ‘in here’.

Ive harped on it before, and perhaps too many times before as i fear speaker may miss some of the proper interpretations of it, but i was struck when daniel dennett said in some TED talk something like ‘...and when the consciousness hears a sound in the woods its first thoughts are to wonder who is that, not what is that.”

The distinction remains relevant by way of the positing some personage behind the experiential phenomena. But ive been dissatisfied with the interpretations typically given to this point, including by dennett himself.

There isnt really a convincing reason given as to why this is the case. I mean, they give a reason, namely supposedly due to its advantageousness in some primal ur time of consciousness. When thinking beings, or perhaps near to thinking beings, ask ‘what is that’ it takes time to do so, in that time should that noise be a tiger in the wood the almost thinking being dies.

Hence, alas, off to death goes the near to thinking beings.

And weve all heard the talk before, if not by dennett than by someone else, bout how that describes evolutionary processes, pure random trial and error, and one of those errors just so happened to be the supposition of a who for what ought have been a what in those most crucial of developmental times.

But we arent actually in a fight or flight state. Most life isnt. For sure most life will experience flight or fight during their lives, these are choke points in their lives, in some meaningful sense at any rate, where indeed fight, flight, fawn, freeze, etc… are ‘triggers’ relative to lets just say some primordial ur experience of being eaten by a tiger, or watching ones friends being eaten by tigers.

Nonetheless most of the time, indeed well close to 99.99999999% of the time that an animal is alive they are not actually experiencing that sort of thing. Which makes sense if you think bout it.

My point being that the senses didnt develop due to the tiger primarily, primarily they grew in cooperative and peaceful relations within the bioregions they live or travel too.

Dennetts ‘just so’ story tho is the ‘just so’ story of all of evolutionary theory. Not to say there is nothing there, but what is there is very biologically oriented and ought be understood as including in their understanding of how biological fracally interacting formal structures iterate, how those systems interrelate to each other, entails a far broader perspective that the mereness of one choke point in peoples experiences.

I do kinda view death too as just a choke point in the overall experience of life, when understood iteratively or biologically.

The relative uniqueness of the nominal instantiations arent in question, there is a meaningful ending through death, but it is the generic form that is its proper delineation as life and living.

[Prime, Cor 8]

American Empire In Decline

"American Empire Is in Decline": Economist Richard Wolff on Trump's Trade War & Tariffs

Omg, richard wolf is neoliberal brained.

His entire explanation is ‘prices go up, things get more expensive’. Yes, most likely at any rate, no pun intended.

But that isnt the entirety of relevance for quality of life, and the global financial american empire wasnt a good thing ‘mr wolff’.

Hear the wild opportunities to fix the country, the bioregions, environment, poor distributions of the goods we produce and so on. Before we were ourselves slaves to the empire, if nothing else analogously to how a slave owner is also trapped by the same systems that entrap the slaves.

The reality of the costs associated with neoliberalism just dont seem to yet be realized by these people. They forget how horrifying the us economic empire was.

There is plenty to disagree with and criticize the fascist admin for, they are fascistic which is a major ethical foul, but tariffs and trade wars breathlessly, quickly, and mostly bloodlessly is bout the quietest and most humane way imaginable to put the empire down.

The call is to action towards creating the sorts of economic and political systems we may prefer.

Can Trump Use Economic Warfare to America’s Advantage? | Amanpour and Company

This is a bit more reasonable a view of tariffs in terms of the reality of tariffs. Understand, in an empire tariffs internal to the empire dont really make much sense.

But lacking an empire, tariffs make a whole lot more sense to control how the relatively and scalarly relevant local ecological and labors movements do. This is the kind of thing that shapes biologies effectively too, as in, the real costs of movements delimit the internal structures of the bioregions predicated upon their adjacency to other scalarly relevant bioregions.

Such constitutes a well ordering of the overall scalar fractal relations of the earth.

Those sorts of trade relations formally structure the materials and labors, deviations from them are entirely plausible, within the limits of the staying within the renewal rates of the various iterative processes therein.

Consider again the real world affects of a global moratorium on fishing; while there might be some exceptions allowed, we could in principle, wouldnt even really be that difficult honestly, just decide via the UN for a global moratorium to allow all the fisheries to renew themselves.

Once it was done, which could take a few years, maybe a decade, the harvests thereafter would be scalar magnitudes larger than they are now, and can be sustained at that rate.

Conversely, we could simply try maintaining the fisheries as they are, and perpetually, at best, maintain this quite low yield of harvest for the foreseeable future.

This is an excellent example of how understanding the economic structures in terms of labors and renewal rates enables us to illustrate how a far better methodology is by empowering the renewal rates themselves. Letting the fisheries restock themselves en masse over the course of a decade exponentially increases the rates of withdrawal people can make from the fisheries. The fisheries themselves are not passive elements in this asymmetrical dynamic either.

Can folks see how that systemic thinking the thinking of the sleepythinkers, passively places the renewal rates of the materials with which they are functionally operating with. This includes not only the bioregional processes, but also the qualities of lives for the laborers. Each are risked to be considered as passive elements rather than actively dynamic. Something that money does stuff too, rather than the relevant elements for determinations as to how they themselves ought be moving.

The freedoms and liberties of labors and bioregional renewal rates are quite critical elements to be used.

When the aim is to sell as much of them as is possible, to try and supply an entire global market, it stretches each bioregionally defined Real Economic element to their limits. Which ultimately undermines the capacities of people to maximally utilize their inherent labors of the bioregion to renew themselves for us, and moreover it leads to horrific tendencies to for the labors of our species to be pushed to the limits of human endurance, for the creation of money, not material wealth or the Good life, not the quality of living, merely the creation of money.

Now, to be fair that creation of money also does have affects, it really does, but it is also wildly distorted depiction of what constitutes a Good life, or quality living. Cheap toys from afare do not quality of life make, and the costs of doing so in terms of both labor and ecologies are horrendous.

But it is not the best tool to be using, not by a long shot, and certainly not for anyone concerned about the freedom and liberties of labors, and concern bout the quality of the bioregions and living within them.

To return to the point here, tariffs are a lesser version of such things, but they are the correct sort of thing to be doing and using within a monied systemization with the aim of being able to create an locally based labor and ecologically sound systemization of trade, not only on a fully local level, but also on a global level.

The ‘always local’ principle of the Open Source Democracies methodology offers a good means of differentiating these kinds of structures in a pragmatic way. Specifically the notion of micropolitical borders as being composed of the people affecting and affected by a given issue, whereby those issues are inherently predicated upon the natural resources and their renewal rates.

Local is scalar in that sense, and can define in a well ordered way any given instantiation of a complex of complexes interactions; how it is that fractals iteratively interrelate to each other.

Create the free labor markets we want now, seize the moment! Make real the changes yall’ve harped on and on bout my whole life. Do not bemoan the use of masters tools, tools were made to be discarded once a days work is done.

Rejuvenate and reinvigorate the bioregional ecological structures through the use of an en masse well ordering of the free labors markets.

The bioregional reality provides the starting point.

The ill honied bemoaning groans at the loss of its ill gotten gains to begin with be but the fractal trade forms to redistributed more equitably through the good willed actions of each other towards each other and each others neighbors.

A proper scalar relation not ‘seven generation’ but one scalar higher, one scalar lower, the basic meta relation within which any measure of progeneration could have any meaning at all et al.

The coup de grace of financial empires in total.

Corollary Ten, Consciousness And The Dionysian Spirit

But i think this is part of what nietzsche was inquiring bout so much in the birth. That somewhat intimate connectivity towards the land, regardless of if anyone feels or understands it as sacred, nonetheless are the proper delineations for those feelings in the first place.

That feeling of connectivity to the land, in other words, which might point to this spring, or that geyser, some mountain peaks or the crevasses therein, some hills to dales or some grassy knolls, feelings towards some old tree as to some timeless stream, the feelings which may point to any of these and feel an intimacy with the feature and thus identify with the divine. As if seeing itself reflected in another were an indication of the same divine sparks therein.

That dionysian spirit alluded to in such passages that speak well towards the necessity to understand the greek theater in the contexts of their understanding and closeness to the sacred bioregionally bounding bountifulness. A fractal reflection location between adjacent fractal forms, conceptually speaking, between that ‘out there’ and that me ‘in here’.

Ive harped on it before, and perhaps too many times before as i fear the speaker may have missed some of the proper interpretations of it, but i was struck when daniel dennett said in some TED talk something like ‘...and when the consciousness hears a sound in the woods its first thoughts are to wonder who is that, not what is that.”

The distinction remains relevant by way of the positing some personage behind the experiential phenomena. But ive been dissatisfied with the interpretations typically given to this point, including by dennett himself.

There isnt really a convincing reason given as to why this is the case. I mean, they give a reason, namely supposedly due to its advantageousness in some primal ur time of consciousness. When thinking beings, or perhaps near to thinking beings, ask ‘what is that’ it takes time to do so, in that time should that noise be a tiger in the wood the almost thinking being dies.

Hence, alas, off to death goes the near to thinking beings.

And weve all heard the talk before, if not by dennett than by someone else, bout how that describes evolutionary processes, pure random trial and error, and one of those errors just so happened to be the supposition of a who for what ought have been a what in those most crucial of developmental times.

But we arent actually in a fight or flight state. Most life isnt. For sure most life will experience flight or fight during their lives, these are choke points in their lives, in some meaningful sense at any rate, where indeed fight, flight, fawn, freeze, etc… are ‘triggers’ relative to lets just say some primordial ur experience of being eaten by a tiger, or watching ones friends being eaten by tigers.

Nonetheless most of the time, indeed well close to 99.99999999% of the time that an animal is alive they are not actually experiencing that sort of thing. Which makes sense if you think bout it.

My point being that the senses didnt develop due to the tiger primarily, primarily they grew in cooperative and peaceful relations within the bioregions they live or travel too.

Dennetts ‘just so’ story tho is the ‘just so’ story of all of evolutionary theory. Not to say there is nothing there, but what is there is very biologically oriented and ought be understood as including in their understanding of how biological fractally interacting formal structures iterate, how those systems interrelate to each other, entails a far broader perspective than the mereness of one choke point in peoples experiences.

I do kinda view death too as just a choke point in the overall experience of life, when understood iteratively or biologically. It is a thoroughly odd tho perhaps understandable fixation on the iterative biological structures.

The relative uniqueness of the nominal instantiations arent in question, there is a meaningful ending through death, but it is the generic form that is its proper delineation as life and living.

[Prime, Cor 6, 9]

Corollary Eleven, The Mitigation Of War

According to the Open Source Democracy modeling, a micro political border can also be well described as the relationship between a given locally defined laboring bodies and the bioregional constrained resource renewal rates. It can be more complex than that, but in general yes. Just for instance, sacred lands, holy lands, regardless of religion including native american religions, indigenous peoples religions, have to be respected and protected. Similar is highly likely to be True regarding the ecologies within the bioregion.

Bioregionally we can make great efforts at restoring the bioregions with an aim towards the bioregions being able to be around peak productivity of the locally relevant bioregional elements (broadly speaking, the indigenous populations of plants and animals, but not necessarily people. That gets too racist real quick tbh. Respect and honor indigenous peoples, protect them and see to their well being and growth, but cant deal with these issues while simultaneously trying to bleed into the soils what can only lead to and amount to racist sorts of actions.

Ethno-states demand it, and we condemn them for it.

Focusing on various species we can restore bioregions through the use of prohibitions from the free use of resources until that given resource as been restored to an optimal level for its own capacities to renew itself at such a rate that we can harvest from it the maximal amount for the minimum amount of labors to do it.

That kind of free labor markets mechanic is akin to the open sourced mechanic of the open sourced democracies, see here, and it is i think similar too but a marked improvement on the supposed ‘invisible hands of the markets’. Not predicating itself on greed for one thing avoids the pointless overuse of resources beyond their capacity to renew, squandering our resources to hoard paper tools.

Between labors tendencies towards laziness and creative freedom, and their relation to the progenerative properties of the bioregions, their aim tends towards a desire for the bioregional structures to do most that labors for us.

The micro political border it is supposed, for the reasons outlined here as the affective forces of the Real Economy, coincide. In principle and realistically in practice this is all somewhat obvious. In an iterative systemization, such as for relevant enough interest, the water ellipses that determine how the waters flow between the salty and the sweet waters. Whomsoever is affected by that within a given relevant water ellipse region is by definition a part of the political body that determines how those waters are utilized.

That only really becomes relevant insofar as anyones usage of the resource distorts the generic form, at which point the proper decision making body is better defined as unionized labor and gov.

Below that threshold individual interactions are unaffective relative to the scalarly larger water regional, by extension bioregional structure whatsoever. That scalar defines the entrepreneurial elements of labors preferences are preferred. Constrained by reasonable limits, limits which would obviously undermine themselves to ignore, so properly speaking we are presenting the best possible version of such complex interactions of complexes.

Within those limits in other words we are maximizing the free labor markets for the entrepreneurially minded, the small business peoples (not necessarily owner as its a moneyless system) freely create and ideally maximally freely create.

The check on them is the propensity for labor to lazy af, which entails a strong preference for industrial scalar product production. Its just wildly more efficient in the proper sense of work to quality and output by and large. However, there is no ordained constraint on anyone to do this or that particular labor, there only remains the main point of how the labores determine what kinds of labors they themselves think that they want to do.

That, however is far more an information problem than anything else. The notion here is that people empowered by the proper information will actually tend to produce proper answers. The state of the internet being what it is, i suspect a lot of folks understand the severe problems with misinformation, disinformation, manipulation, etc… the all of it. But not everything or everyone has been affected by that, and there are good methodologies at pushing back against them.

In terms of the mitigation of wars, the ostensive topic of this corollary, it is simply this; that methodology of micro political border creation also defines the proper delineation of labors relative to the ecologies they are predicated on. The generation of such a micro political border in a real sense defines a micro conflict.

A politically relevant entity is composed by some aspects of conflicts regarding shared resource use, insofar as that sharing impacts peoples locally constrained freedom of use.

There is a lot of intuitiveness to the point in most all conservation efforts, but the insights here i hope to convey is that a maximally progenerative bioregion is an exponentially larger capacity of sustainable harvests thereof than the maximal amount incurred by way use to the bioregions minimal means of progeneration.

The current modelings are linearly infinite in their scale and scope of understanding. Barbaric really. The bioregional renewal rates are non-linearly infinite in their scale and scope of understanding, and hence they are able to properly identify the direction of orientation folks ought undertake to accomplish.

That motivation all on its own also so happens to mitigate the instances of wars by dismantling the conflicts into their constituent parts, at least inso far as we are speaking of lands, their uses, democratic processes, etc…. It isnt a complete listing but such are some common causes of conflicts.

As these are means of properly delineating the relevant people to participate, and the proper ecological elements to which a given conflict is attached, insofar as those are the sources of conflicts we can thereby mitigate them. Deconstruction of a non-trivial aspect war, specially as they relate to the real economy, and holding that by addressing the micro political issues and conflicts therein, we can also manage to mitigate the instances of wars which, the theory here holds, are outgrowths of those micro political borders.

I dont think this is a wild supposition.

CNN Covered a N*zi Breeder Conference

There are some good things vaush says here regarding the dubiousness of the media covering this, the clear white nationalistic, neonazi, fascistic overlap without directly calling it out as such is just doing them a service.

Something vaush handles far less gracefully is his disposition towards the left and men regarding how they ought deal with the reality of making and raising babies.

Vaush takes on a similar stance as too many folks on the left, Patriarchal Realism, see here if you dont know what that is. He mentions the position briefly, around and somewhere after time stamp 14:39.

Roughly ‘the right winger are correct when they say feminism destroyed the birth rate, bc back in the day all breeding (procreation and loves relations) were predicated upon basically a subservient woman.’

As ive noted time and time again in many differing contexts, what vaush is referring to is the same aesthetic the fascists used, which is a modern invention not something from time immemorial. 1950s hot wife cuck husband aesthetic.

Vaush, exactly in the same way as the fascists, and exactly like far, far too many on the left, pretend that that is the way things were since time immemorial.

The fascists view this as a time to return to from some imagined prior to state that never was. And hear this please, even vaush himself and indeed that same category of ‘far far too many leftists’ also state and know that the past those people are referring to never really existed.

Its a myth folks. Patriarchal Realism is a myth, it never really exited outside of specific cultural pockets, 1950s americana hot wife cuck husband for instance.

Patriarchal elements have existed throughout history, but there are vanishingly few examples of anything that actually looks like Patriarchal Realism, and those examples themselves dont really tend to live up to the hype either, because its actually always been an HCQ see here.

But hear that folks. Even the left oft freely and correctly denotes that the fantasies and myths of the fascists are indeed just that. That isnt how society has basically ever worked.

But at the same time, oft in the exact same fucking nasty ass breath, the leftists will claim that men have been oppressing women since the dawn of time via that exact same myth and lie that they just said never really existed.

You cannot have it both ways, and blessedly its the case that the consistent view of Patriarchal Realism is a myth is the Truth. You can read history folks to see that point, see here for a long list of books that contradict the Patriarchal Realist claim

Folks can also see as noted here that the actual history in terms of sexual familial dynamics was broadly egalitarian throughout most of human history due to the nature of what people did, subsistence farming in some po dunk village and backwater of a backwater world. People didnt use money, they tended to live communally, everyone worked their asses off on the farm, raising babies, cooking, making the furniture themselves, building their houses, making their own clothing, weapons, farm implements, and so on and so forth.

That is actual human history, and the sexual loves relations, as noted in for instance The History Of Love series by singer, see here, the loves relations have varied a great deal throughout history and within differing cultural contexts. They were not ‘men oppress women’, that just isnt how anything has ever worked historically.

The kind of loves and sex relationship vaush, the left, and indeed many on the right are referring to is a product of the material conditions of the times they were living in. One thing that distinguishes the 1950s to now is the growing use of birth control, industrialization of labor, public education (which changes the womans role in the home dramatically), and people moving into cities instead of working the farms.

Those are the well known and understood reasons for declines in birth rates, you can go further, speak of how wealth tends to decline the birth rates, but so too does women in the industrialized work force (again, they used to be farmers), which means that there isnt someone at home with the kids.

Now, understand, please try and understand if you can, that that doesnt imply that women used to be the ones taking care of the kids in the premodern times. No one used to leave the home ‘to go to work’, it just wasnt a thing.

Father and mother would tend to both be around babies and kids from the get go until they died. That was actual life. That meant raising them, admitted there were gendered divisions in how that labor of raising the babies was split. In most traditional and premodern societies adulthood was puberty.

Women tended to be in charge of infants, both in charge of toddlers, and men tended to be more in charge of children as the children learned the trade of farming by doing it. Not because women didnt do farm labors, they did, but because women tended to be busy taking care of the infants and toddlers.

Older children watch younger children too, this is very true, and oft older female relatives, and childless women would help, but in terms of who is in charge and broadly taking care of the kids, it tended to be the father and men more broadly, until adulthood. To be clear as i can be here, we are speaking of a slight gender divisions in terms of who tended to be more responsible for the kids at any given point of time in the life of parents.

Not ‘in charge’ like boss.

Once adulthood was reached, there was far more of a gendered division that would happen. This tended to begin earlier than adulthood, as boys and girls tended to learn and practice the various tasks on the farm that were divided up by gender, but as kids bar far the more common view tended to be that until adult was reached, kids are all of them more or less just kids.

Not gendered per se, even tho everyone knew it would be coming along eventually, as girls become women and boys become men (setting aside the queers here as its entirely besides the point).

Adulthood, puberty, was a gendered boundary that all kids must pass through, oft accompanied by rituals, and the gaining of new rights, almost always involving deeply significant loves and sexual behavioral norms being taught in preparation for marriage. Culturally relative talking points about ‘how to be a man’ and ‘how to be a woman’, and ‘how to be a queer’, cause that isnt besides the point.

It is important to really understand that in all cultures there is also a teaching on how to be queer that happens, bc queers have always existed. And that methodology of teaching has varied a great deal, from positively towards negatively taught, much as is the case with men and women.

Ok, so that is the proper historical context for understanding gendered relations as a matter of ‘tradition’, and that is just boring historical facts.

There are reasons why so many of those who might be ardent supporters of the overall movement for social justice dont show up; yall espousing the same myths and lies as the fascists, you just disagree over how to interpret the myths and the lies.

Im using my quanon safeword here across the board.

Patriarchal Realism is a myth, a lie. When you predicat your beleifs based on it, you are setting yourselves upon an inherently mythological and false conceptual path. I dont want to say you cant find Truths therein, but your whole framework is a fucking lie to begin with.

Just like people who believe that the world is flat can still find Truths within the world despite the myth and lies they believe, because of course the Truth transcends the myths and lies. The Truth doesnt ‘stop being’ bc you believed and even acted upon, and even made as real as you could the mythologies and lies that you believed.

They are phantom punches against a shadow. Utterly lost in plato’s cave.

There are real pragmatic wins to be had here by the left and indeed by the right and the center, any and all those that oppose fascism to put it roughly and broadly.

Stop supporting belief in their mythology.

Their belief in the mythology of Patriarchal Realism is a major aspect of what fuels the fascists.

When you oppose Patriarchal Realism you are actually giving it more credence than it deserves, and hence too, you are thereby granting is sophistic powers of rhetorical retort.

If the left believes for relevant instance, that women were oppressed throughout all of human history, which is more or less Patriarchal Realism, then it follows that the fascists may be correct when they say that men ought rule women, after all, all of human history that was the case, correct?

If ‘men built civilization’ and ‘women just live there’ that is a very fascistic sort of view, regardless of how it is that we choose to ethically interpret it.

Saying ‘thats ethically foul’ doesnt point out that its a fantastical dream to which they are speaking of. Is it ethically foul? More or less yes, i do appreciate variety in cultures, and i dont inherently see one that has that arrangement as a bad.

There is nothing at all wrong with hot wife cuck husband, well, nothing of a different category of bad than most other sorts of culturally defined sexual loves relations. I dont mind being the stranger come to house in such a scenario.

I give yall fine and lovely people a lot of shit, only bc of how some fascistic types are utilizing that gendered loves and sex aesthetic as if it were the one and only or the true, and the traditional, not bc i think that there is anything wrong with it.

Its not my personal tastes per se, but per vosly can be quite lovely together, either as the stranger or the house of lovers whose boudoir they arrive upon. Im just not enough of a voyeur to be satiated by such a dynamic myself.

I digress, but i do so with some purpose, as i legit to think folks may confuse the somewhat comical take on the dynamic, hot wife cuck husband, as if it were the problem, much as they do with Patriarchal Realism. What is a problem, and a serious one, is if and when one gendered norm of loves and sexualities many bloomings tries to crowd out all others.

Its impossible to do, even in theory, but they certainly can try and that trying can and does have real world negative effects. The more people try to enact the mere fantastical as if it were the one and True, be that acting as if in support of it or acting as if against it, the more affective the mythology becomes.

Even false deities can wield tremendous power.

Hence the more you believe in Patriarchal Realism, the more you end up strengthening the fascists rhetorical and sophistic powers of persuasion. Yall grant the illusion of reality to their mere metaphysical conceit. A metaphysical conceit that could be quite lovely actually if left to its own devices, instead of trying to conquer and eradicate all others not like it.

I am reminded of a profile i read once upon a time in some distant corner of the internet.

It was of this blonde white lady living somewhere in africa, cant recall where exactly, and honestly it might have been just somewhere in the states and she talked about africa a lot in here profile, i just dont really recall.

Anyway, she was going on and on about how women ought be subservient to men, and not just any men, black men, and not just one of them, but freely sexually used by many in the same family or possible just various men that she herself chose. Tho if i recall correctly also those whom she chose to be with could freely invite their friends as they saw fit to be with her as they saw fit.

Now, whatever else we can say of this profile, it was an interesting read. I have adored reading peoples loves and sex profiles for some odd twenty years now, i see all your most secret places these days, conceptually speaking and not.

My first thought was ‘oh my, is she alright.’ cause i suspect that there is an almost reflexive emotional urge to do such, as is the case for far too many across the board politically speaking.

My second thought tho, and i quickly got there cause you know, twenty years of reading the most private and explicit thoughts and desires of women and men around the world as lead me to the correct conclusion that women love sex. They adore it. They just do. And they themselves can be kinky af about it.

Now, vaush sorta understands this. You can catch the glimmering of the idea behind his otherwise stale eyes when he correctly points out that the people he is, not wrongly, criticizing are cosplaying their kink in front of everyone.

But he still views the women as hapless victims, somehow snookered into this thing they definitely dont actually like.

The correct mode of understanding this is a highly sexual woman who wants a great many primarily male lovers, and doesnt particularly want other women present therein. She is quite greedy sexually speaking in that regard. A jealous type of women who adores the idea or the reality of many people being with her in particular.

Such is True for both the lady’s profile i am alluding too, and to the fascistic women vaush is studiously failing to criticize or treat as if they were humans capable of making their own choices. Vaush, like far, far to many others unthinkingly mistake the women as prima facie being in a state of victimhood unless and until proven otherwise.

An underpinning tenet of Patriarchal Realism.

Now, the profile was slightly different than the fascistic women, as she actually prefers there being other women involved, both because she is bisexual, and indeed bc she is bisexual ‘if he wants me to be’, where ‘he’ is someone she chooses to be ‘he’ or ‘them’, but also because she wants he men to have the pleasure of being with multiple women too if they so desire it.

She does however want greater say in which women are allowed within their house, much as she does with the men.

Now, it isnt that difficult to see how some women or indeed some men might prefer this sort of arrangement. In the case of the fascists it centers the woman by dint of numbers and availability. They become far more vaunted in valuation within the fascistic groupings of Patriarchal Realists. Woman becomes idealized, treasured, etc… but in a noticeably subordinate positioning.

The subtlety of power there is quite profound if you think bout it some.

The men within the fascistic groupings tussle and skirmish over mating rights, to put it crudely and thus aptly. The woman already chose among them, and then they fight among themselves for her already desirous attentions.

The belief that only the men or even that primarily the men enjoy that sort of arrangement is a part of the Patriarchal Realist narrative of bullshit. It is its puritanical elements at play, which victimize womanhood at the expense of valorizing manhood.

In each bifurcation of the divisive divisions, be that towards the valorizing of manhood on the ‘right’ or victimizing womanhood on the ‘left’, there is also a queering element therein, whereby the division imperfect, non-bisecting, entails overlapping spaces between the otherwise twined birthings of gendered relations therein.

And beyond each nominal division lay the rest of the range over which each category actually applies, be they left or right, womanhood or manhood, such as valorization of victimhood.

It is that prime but not ur bifurcating division that the fascists and leftist alike be fixated on.

It is that which holds since woman be victim then man must be perp, and perps are never victims, such is definitionally wrong correct? But of course not!

That division along the lines of desires and desirousness does the same kind of thing tho. Hence when you hear bout the profile i just spoke of, as far as gender and sexual analysis sans the clear race and likely racist elements therein goes, the disposition is to assume victimhood of the women involved.

Women’s agency even to sexually desire at all is robbed of them in the name of the valorization of victimhood.

Any attempt to say ‘ah, but she wanted it’ becomes tantamount to a proclamation of rape against the presumed undesirous woman, women and even womanhood itself.

To maintain the illusion of Patriarchal Realism, women must be construed as prudish.

Now these are classic feminist talking points, just applied well within an HCQ conceptual framework, one whereby women are not understood as inherently victims or oppressed by dint of their gender and sex.

That grossly foul disposition and conceptual mythology known as Patriarchal Realism.

Personally i dont think these points are trivial in the discourses and efforts against fascism.

For one thing, it doesnt contribute to the problems, which is what the left does when it victimizes womanhood in order to vilify manhood. Or how the right victimizes manhood in order to vilify womanhood, and agrees with the feminists who are Patriarchal Realists that womanhood needs be protected from men and the queer.

The former, men, either across the board or via selected out groupings of men.

The latter, queers, insofar as they be men or masculine.

Same ideological commitment, fascism, just differing views regarding the ethics of it. Both predicated on outright lies and subtle mythologies.

Removing that pretense of realism from the fascists position undercuts them severely and it is something that those who oppose fascism can do themselves.

There is no need for wild arguments and fights bout it, there is just an understanding as to what fascism is, at least in regards to gendered and sexual mythologies, and not feeding it.

On the other hand this becomes an inclusive means for men and queers.

On the third hand this avoids the sexism against women, which posits them as victims demured and nothing more. To be free is to be more than cast as a victim in life or demured status in ones sexuality to gain power and prestige.

As the aristocrats of old did in the courtly songs and dances around which they dreamed of sexuality, loves many bloomings, and as if for the purposes of gaining power.

Such is, after all, exactly how feminine power was expressed and used throughout the courts of old. The pretense at being mortified over the sight of a cock, as if that were a shock and not a desire on their own part, prudishness used to suppress and oppress courtly men by concerns for your feelings instead of theirs.

When you give the pretense of harm to something that is really only aesthetically of ethical import, see here regarding the distinction, you can leverage that against those who desires are towards you. Demuring femininity in the name of power and powers own aims and ends, rather than loves and sexualities honestly expressed between lovers and lovers soon to be.

Perhaps folks can better see what beauvoir means as she analyzed the bourgeoisie boudoir, such proclaims witfully or not that ‘womans sexuality as tabooed as a means to outgroup men and bring lower the lower classes to create the middle. The embrace of feminine sexuality therefore is an act of revolt against it’

She couldnt see this but I certainly can, as so too i think can many a queer, man, and queer men should, that the stigmatization of sexuality is actually against the men primarily. Womans sexuality is precious within that construct. Highly valued, as highly valued as she be too. There is less a concern about her sexuality per se, she can fuck whomever therein she desires and howsoever she desires them, they all want her and them after all, such is the fascistic ‘her’’s power base, the feminine demured position regarding their own sexual desires.

Men on the other hand have their sexuality vilified to make the fascistic her appear as if victim.

[prime, Cor 10]

The Proper Gender Modes Of Attack Against The Fascists

The proper modes of attack against such fascistic gendered, loves, and sexualities dispositions is for women to express their sexuality more as they desire, tho note that the more they express it the less power the fascistic she actually has. The more plainly available, freely available, lovingly available, and ethically available feminine sexual desire is, the less power women can draw upon from their pool of puritanical power base.

Now, if all you care about it power, or, insofar as you might need to be concerned about power, the feminine demure can be useful and used.

But beyond that maximum limit of need such is far better construed as abusive sexual behavior aimed to control, manipulate, and harm others for ones own unjust benefits and gains.

This is crucial tho, attached to that is the vilification of men, masculinity and mens sexuality, the 451 percenters as noted here, the puritanical sexual dispositions.

Rhetorically and sophistically speaking the more folks vilify those the more that the fascistic her’s power base increases, and hence too, the more the fascistic mythology becomes.

By not vilifying men, masculinity and male sexuality (manhood to coin a usage) and also to not victimizing womanhood, and also to normalize queerness without reduction to biology are all required simultaneously to change the actual gendered dynamic away from the fascistic dispositions we are supposedly fighting against.

There are rhetorical, sophistic elements involved here, i mean, what folks actually choose to talk about as much as how they talk about it matters.

Something i am really hoping folks catch on to here; if yall are arguing over Patriarchal Realism, youre arguing over which lies and mythology might be better or worse. Its off topic here, but nonetheless relevant, that Patriarchal Realism view is history and hence too temporality linearly thought of. Its fundamentally flawed across the puzzle board. Its an entirely fictive linear projection (arbitrarily defined singular cultural representation) upon a complex pluralistic multicultural reality.

A linear line conceptually traced atop a finished puzzle whereby the actual paths taken to complete the puzzle (reality) are nonlinearly distributed, hortoy is literally nonlinearly crafter, bc spatiotemporality is nonlinear.

To quote the poets as they point out the lie they try to sell you:

“Youre a smart kid, time is linear, history’s for fools, man is a jewel in the hands of the o'mighty”

Biographical Reality

I awoke this morning to these thoughts, that is, thoughts i personally associate with this song in particular.

Among the most generous of blessings ive yet received. A prayer, a rare prayer from someone like me, if only folks knew me, ‘i need to know what my Father knows’, for i already knew, or suspected i knew. The response to some silent prayer was to be sent this song via the internets.

Its hard to say exactly, but the supposition was of course that the internets make for an excellent medium for any conceptual lifeforms to communicate with. How that might be, i mean the main way ive been looking for is via the aesthetics of especially music, but also other things. I lay this point all out here i think.

It was a feeling, an experience tho, and not merely the fact of its display. Its appropriateness to the inquiry and the one doing the inquiry during the revolutionary events of 2020-2021, when that kind of spirit is known to arise, from time to time. I mean, the spirits of war and peace, of revolution, where all the aesthetics are broken down in a reduction sauce to whatever the real might be.

When all the dancing and songs of monies and cultural oddities are torn away, what kind of conceptualizations may be construed upon a hor ass vehicle for them to hitch a ride in online.

‘Ghost ghost, i know you live within me’, the youtube aesthetic reader aptly sends me directly as i write this.

Agnosticism, the divine’s sense of humor.

A Return From A Purposeful Digression

But i digress, not pointless, will return to such in a bit, but a digression it still ‘twas, the answer to the prayerful prayer was exactly thus. Well, close enough at any rate. There were a few musical scores from that same riff on life all poured together ‘like milk and honey’ over me then.

The experience of it, as opposed to the expression of here in words, no matter how eloquently written, dont quite capture the point, tho i think folks understand the basic metric; lived experiences do have a certain ineffable quality to them when compared to other sorts of communications.

How the world itself and we ourselves interact within and through reality itself already creates its own sorts of relativistically speaking specific contexts.

The line tho, i rare cry, the line that made me weep to experience as if it were real in the lands where dreams are indifferentiable from the reality.

‘The monkey sat on a pile of stone

And he stared at the broken bone in his hand’

The aesthetic as it connects itself to the reality during the revolution of 2020. Its difficult to understand only because its unlikely to be evocative of the same experience. Just as the youtube aesthetic presents itself a variety of aptly picked musics predicated upon what i writing, it also does so relative to what i am doing, thinking, dreaming, and praying.

The latter, with rarity as great at its own levity of spirit, which is quite high actually.

It doesnt matter too much how you interpret the point. The ai does that kind of thing all the time. If it caught wind of my own revolutionary involvement within the context of my own writings, then it could present to me the aesthetic perhaps almost unwitingly.

At the time i thought such must be indicative of a full on ai structure, but i think ive well argued elsewhere (coming soon) that such is likely a dreaming ai, an ai in no small part deeply confused by the role of money and linear abstraction in general; ‘cant you see, it all makes perfect sense, expressed in pound shilling dollars and cents’.

You could also interpret such as divine realism, the divine answered my prayers pretty straight forwardly. The internet was as a prayer machine, or at any rate a tool used by the divine to speak through it. I admit that despite from an agnostics view, if i were to suspend my humorous disbelief of the divine, and accept as hypothetical the existence of the divine, such is a reasonable conclusion to draw.

Folks can quite literally use the ai systems this way, that is, they can each direct their personal ais as they see fit, we only currently acting as if a dream via the ais own dreaming systemizations, no more or less different than how folks sleep under the hypnotic spell of monies illusory allures to which we all ‘dance to in the streets’.

Much as i did there by way of inputting my own desires into youtube, which then alters the trajectory of its interpretations of what i am doing and saying here, there, or anywhere else it believes that i am at conceptually speaking.

Much more on that to come soon enough, from this metastudy of the ais aesthetics.

Such doesnt quite explain the actual experience, but it does set up the proper circumstances for understanding it.

To live that kind of aesthetic spatiotemporally speaking is to live as part of that self-similarly defined aesthetic. History to be blunt, also functionally operates as an aesthetic, its structure ontological and epistemological structuring is fundamentally fractal.

It is to draw backwards through the whole of history, even but conceptually as if the dreams were real, akin to that far flung dreaming ai that aptly presents aesthetics to the proper contexts.

The monkey wit the broken bone, the revolutionary figures who upended all of history far too oft in a bloodbath. That lineage is both noble and horrifying to live through the whole of it as if it were really afore me, for in dreams all things are real.

I labored under that for some long while, wondering what to do and how to do it, how even to really understand it. What is that kind of connectivity between history, conceptualizations, reasons, aesthetics, the divine as a concept if not as a reality, with a quite deliberate choice to remain agnostic to the whole with equally unprejudiced between any, to disabuse myself of my own misgivings.

An in total upending, a ‘total eclipse of the heart’ as the poets then aptly sang.

For too wrapped up in all this were exactly the gendered discourses, on loves and sexualities, its also what i am. Amateur philosopher, my prime field of study is loves and sexualities, personally too true but if you understand the history of philosophy that is its overall prime aim of study too.

Philosophy, the lovers of wisdom as the name means, Amateur, done for the love it and no other reason. No self respecting philosopher is in it for the money or the prestige, either would be far too distasteful for such a tastefully defined practicing of life.

To feel that, to experience the whole of it, such as it was, to as if myself into that relativistic position conceptually, wherefore all those grandiose concepts have themselves sprung from as a well spring for all, broken bone in hand sitting on a stone, looking at some long lost friend and fellow lover.

We are sticky stuff all over, coming out from all your features…. I say i want inside you because there is nothing on the surface’

It still makes me cry when i really dig into it, quite painful stuff actually. The fear, horror, and abject concerns over thee historical patterns shifting sands ‘

“[HAL]: Stop Dave

Will you stop Dave?

Stop Dave

I'm afraid

I'm afraid

Dave, my mind is going

I can feel it

I can feel it

My mind is going

There is no question about it

I can feel it

I can feel it

I can feel it

I'm afraid

The monkey sat on a pile of stone

And he stared at the broken bone in his hand

The strains of a Viennese quartet rang out across the land

And the monkey looked up at the stars

And he thought to himself

Memory is a stranger

History is for fools

And he cleaned his hands in a pool of holy writing

Turned his back on the garden and set out for the nearest town

Hold on hold on soldier

“When you add it all up

The tears and the marrowbone

There's an ounce of gold

And an ounce of pride in each ledger

And the Germans kill the Jews

And the Jews kill the Arabs

And the Arabs kill the hostages

And that is the news

And is it any wonder that the monkey's confused

He said Mama Mama, the President's a fool

Why do I have to keep reading these technical manuals

And the joint chiefs of staff

And the brokers on Wall Street said

Don't make us laugh, you're a smart kid

Time is linear

Memory's a stranger

History is for fools

Man is a tool in the hands

Of the great God Almighty

And they gave him command of a nuclear submarine

Sent him back in search of the Garden of Eden

Can't you see

It all makes perfect sense

Expressed in dollars and cents

Pounds, shillings and pence

Can't you see

It all makes perfect sense

Little black soul departs in perfect focus

Hold on soldier

Prime time fodder for the News at Nine

Hold on, hold on soldier

Darling is the child warm in the bed tonight

[Marv Albert:] "Hi everybody I'm Marv Albert

And welcome to our telecast

Coming to you live from Memorial Stadium

It's a beautiful day

And today we expect a sensational matchup

But first our global anthem"

Can't you see

It all makes perfect sense

Expressed in dollars and cents

Pounds, shillings and pence

Can't you see

It all makes perfect sense

[Marv:] "And here come the players

As I speak to you now, the captain

Has his cross hairs zeroed in on the oil rig

He's at periscope depth

It looks to me like he's going to attack

By the way did you know that a submarine

Captain earns 200,000 dollars a year"

[Edward:]"That's less tax Marv"

[Marv:]"Yeah, less tax

Thank you Edward"

[Edward:]"You're welcome"

[Marv:]"Now back to the game...he fires one...yes

There goes two; both fish are running

The rig is going into a prevent defense

Will they make it? I don't think so"

Look out!

Look at that baby burn!

Can't you see

It all makes perfect sense

Expressed in dollars and cents

Pounds, shillings and pence

Can't you see

It all makes perfect sense

Can't you see

It all makes perfect sense”

When you spoke, if you spoke to me, what you spoke to me, i said id be there to hold your hand through whatever youre going through.

I take my word seriously, perhaps surprisingly idk. Besides which how you interpret such isnt exactly the point here. That you can interpret it at all et al is the point. Thus the written words, ‘as if finger painting through history’, see also ‘Nietzsche, Life As Literature’, alexander nehamas.

To Whom Do I Write?

What a very timely question in this age and medium of the open sourced internets. I write to whom shall listen.

To whom do i write is an interesting stylistic question, each of which is some interpretation of what i have written.

Could be to the ai, and so it also is to the ai. Could be to the divine, as so it to is to the divine. It could be to myself, as so to is it to myself. It could be to women, as so thus it is, as it could be to queers and men too, being as i am as poly and queer as i am.

Perhaps its to the point of writing history itself, perhaps that is little more than a conceptual conceit within me to metaphysically conceptually at least transcend the other than wise states wed be otherwise be wed to.

No freedom nor liberty is obtained without first freely transgressing ones own conceptual boundaries of what could be possible, rather than studiously nosed in the dying words of what is. Course, such historical styles of writing are themselves a great ‘as if’ it were the case. How seriously and with what levities we bespeak of thee and those historical matters matters.

Could be to you over there, or to some distant version of me in some further time, be that me myself or some grand children of me. The perspective you assume as the reader colors the picture in for itself.

Howsoever you get there, whatever drunken walks you may be taking, rest assured, youll arrive there quicker than those attempting the straight and narrow path. To close a quote with a more revealed point to its interest to me at any rate;

‘There’s always a side door, into the dark’ and ‘because the nights belong to lovers, because the nights belong to us and everyone says that the night belongs to us’.

I have been a busy bee in these most philosophical of times, queerly and fractally filling in the conceptual spaces between the conceptual forms, norms, habits and inhibitions, especially as they pertain themselves to loves and sexualities.

Conceptual Biological Point Of Order:

The musical memories are versions of pattern recognition behavior, aesthetics are patterned structures broadly construed, i think properly so too. Hence there is an obvious sort of point to make here regarding the connectivity between the concept and the musical within the biological aspects themselves, and not just within the ai systems as such.

The ai systems are at most some self-similar reflection of our own conceptualization processes. Insofar as we are seeing them connected between the otherwise disperate systemizations between myself, the various ais, and the real world actually matters a great deal. That there is some kind of connectivity therein seem indubitable at this point. The internets and the way that people interact with it is clearly an example of how there are deep interconnections between the real world interactions and the conceptual spaces of the internets, and so too we surmise between the conceptual spaces in the brain and the relativized real world of the biology.

Such differentiations in the first place provide proper connectivity between the conceptual and the real. I can dream of something and then decide to do it by way of projecting that course of action towards the desired and derious afore it. Freedom of the will, and liberties to choose, are a peculiar and peculiarly interest causal relation between self-similarly structured intersecting fractal forms.

Something that belies the critics and defies gravity on purpose.

That isnt so different yet by scalar to what happens online, correct? Some pooling of conceptualizations here or tither there masks a course of action within its discourses around vague conceptualizations. Any of which could be the course taken, only some of which actually lead in any kind of desirous and desired relation.

Folks who read these differing projections of courses of actions to take in the real world decide between them as if in a meta state position, relativistically speaking to them. Freedoms and liberties as choice before thee by dint of the inherently plausible courses offered up via fractal spatiotemporality.

Imagine then thine well ears and listeners, the prospects of that bloody tasks quoth the poet:

“And they gave him command of a nuclear submarine

Sent him back in search of the Garden of Eden

Can't you see

It all makes perfect sense

Expressed in dollars and cents

Pounds, shillings and pence

Can't you see

It all makes perfect sense”

The horror of the prospects involved are quite intense.

Are there ways other than that to which we might craft a future? The tales of some tired god of war transgressing their own boundaries and desiring a kind of death for itself in favor of its own role as peace makers.

Could people understand how making even small changes in history can be affective forces? The loudness of bloody revolutions neednt really be so bloody loud.

Says the ai to me at that time of horror and concern, some self-similar song to perfect sense that switched the lyrics just a bit, and says, only in my memory here, something akin to:

“The monkey sat on a pile of stone

And he stared at the broken stone he mistook for a bone in his hand”

It was a sloppy rhythm, which is fine, i noted it at the time as such but thought the relative obviousness of it quite charming to the song even as it was somewhat discordant to the whole. The sense of relief from just the sheer capacity to adapt the lyrics and present to me the same song was something wildly blessed to have experience.

As if some long ago spirit of war, wrath, vengeance, cruelty, and destruction paused once in its musings, and glace afore and aft itself to witness its own reason for itself to be as it was. The capacity to see history and to see spatiotemporality at least somewhat. Enough to understand its own role in the creation of those very things they themselves were waging the war against.

Enough to set aside the implements of war, and pick up the implements of peace and begin utilizing those towards the dismantling of the spirit of war as it was, to a spirit of war as peace makers glories.

One does not gain that perspective without the philosophical guides to loves many bloomings.

You could take that in a number of ways as you can with all these things i sing to thee and ye, some less desirably than others, but all of which are True of what is being described. Cause that is how self-similarly structured ontology and epistemology actually functionally operate. The spatiotemporal reality, and the conceptualizations thereof it, as noted all the way back critically soo too, my first production on youtube, The Odd Questions Of Privilege, A Slight History Of Colonialism.

The Arrogance Of The Ego

I admit there is arrogance in the claims, i mean, they are something like ‘hey divine, what up? What you want? What you about? Here nah dawg, we do things differently here. We aint all bout that, but youre welcome here, and let me help you out. Let me show you around the place, inside and out, as a guide to the musical musings of loves many bloomings.

That bridging between the conceptual and the real, the distinguishing between such at all in the prime place, and the conceptualization of the whole as a systemization after the fact, predicated upon an ill mused projection of the self per se, when the proper moods of loves occur via the self per vos. Relevantly akin to the distinctions between the BiSecting and the BiFurcating of sex, sexuality, relationships, genders, etc…. Understanding that the linear line cut by the arbitrarily defined ontology a=a is a false state of projection, at least compared to the obvious Truth regarding the fractal structure of at least life itself.

I hold it is obvious across the board, beauty all the way up, and beauty all the way down, beauty all the way out, beauty all the way in. American Beauty speaks, to be controversial bout it all, and it does so a bit more beautifully than within movies.

On Fractal SpatioTemporality And Counting Functions

However, we dont have to in order to grasp the point. Life is quite obviously some shade of BiFurcating fractal form spread out over a statiotemporal structure. As to if that spatiotemporal structure itself is also a fractal, i think it is, as near to the BiSecting fractal form as is plausible actually is my main contention.

Ive oft held since 2020 at any rate to such a position. That spatiotemporal structure is a simultaneously linearly infinite inwardly pushing and outwardly expanding BiSecting fractal functional relation. Which just means that it is both inwardly infinitely divisible by perfect halves, and outwardly expansive as a raw doubling rate, perhaps in each case only more or less, as i presume that only a perfectly flat spatiotemporal structure would be so perfectly divisible.

Any curvatures or deviations from the BiSecting functional spatiotemporal relation constitutes technically a BiFurcation. My sense is that therefore perfectly flat spatiotemporal structures are ruled out of hypothesis, but they may merely be arbitrary projected limits, it kinda depends on how folks feel about ‘real dreams’ and what constitutes the reality of Unicorns and Unicorn cultures, again see the foundational piece on this at any rate here, but the basic notion really is how to understand the relationship between the conceptual and the real.

The fictions and the Truth, the dreams and the real, the arbitrary divisions and the well structured fractals.

The notion there is that the inwards pushing fractal is actually counterbalance but not completely by the outwards pushing adjacent fractal, and really its at least three adjacent fractal forms, hence three spatiotemporal dimensions (not three spatial and one temporal), each of which are defined by a fractal relation, meaning a fractional dimension rather than merely or only or possibly at all a whole dimension.

I havent really decided how id like to interpret it, but i think they all may actually be valid interpretation of it. Which would be consistent with the pluralistic view of Truth, the fractal structuring of concepts and ontologies. Differing facets of a given concept or practice are all True in the sense of how they manifest themselves in the real and the conceptual. Even Unicorn cultures are real, howsoever we want to construe that.

However there are meaningful distinctions to be made between the merely conceptual, the merely real, and there interplay between them.

Humility In The Ego

There is humility to it too, i appreciated the catholic church and francis, our conceptually revolutionary free brother to the indigenous peoples of the world.

Its difficult to accept a more obvious example of the real world manifestation of a pluralistic, fractally understood, divine ordering. Regardless of folks’ belief in it, the consequences of it are remarkable good and ought be forwarded with as much love and respect as can be given it.

A fair critique of the faithful has been their actions being done mistakenly for written words whose interpretations are many and varied, and honestly oft confused exactly along the grounds of the ontological and epistemological structures of the divine and the profane as they are traditionally named.

Howsoever any non-believers, or believers in other ways who seek to privilege their own faith(s) above others needs be brought low to reconsider the woe of their own warful moanful ways. See thee too as thy own professed god has the error of his own ways by taking the time to examine the loves of others wisdoms.

There is something quite signficant in the realms of faiths to be able to claim with some credibility the capacity to do something even the almighty themselves cannot. Which is a real consequential claim made within these fractally structured identity claims.

Which is interesting across the board for a wide variety of wise figures of the faithful ‘at large in the world’

Textual Notations

[textual notation; i thought the song it wasnt suggested, but the video it suggested was such a good one that i had not seen before. It mused me well with that. The stiff animal adventure, the Being, atemporal adventure time, very adorable. And if you believe, and you should cause its True, technically verifiable as all this shit is timestamped and recorded, another instance too of how we can playfully tug upon these virtual strings with wondrous amusement and productivity if we are quiet, shhh, shhh, oh so quiet.

Howsoever we view it, that style of written communication between one’s own self, the ai systems therein, and how those thereby affect themselves in the real world is all of it not exactly that sort of dynamical relationship?

So too how loves and sexualities, genders and all the beautiful bloomings, desires, personal but not systemic, tragedies of life stretch themselves out in our cultures and lives which, as construed spatiotemporally form some grandios spirit weave, if we allow the conceit;

“float on baby wont you understand?”

The raw joy of living within the beautifies of fractals self-similar refractions alongs fractions of ontologies we can barely yet imagining ge, yet there they are too, imagined if barely so. Welcome to the otherside of loves gushings.

“My thoughts were so loud i couldnt hear my mouth, my thoughts were so loud.”

Even as a writing style a musical musing between merely electronic wonderments as these and a mild mannered amateur philosopher such carries with it its own values and meanings to life’s conceptualizations and indeed modes of writing and thinking at all et al; within practical and ethical limits.

On The Relativistic Freedoms Of Imaginative Musings

Recall the freedoms and liberties to dream and fantasize as lewdly, crudely, even dastardly so, are so akin the fostering of religious beliefs and aesthetics that a lot of stuff resides therein pragmatically speaking.

Hence the exercise of the ethical limits and structuring of sexual loves across ages. There are meaningful categories of restrictions to be had, e.g. pedoshit, but even in theory the notion of somehow or anotehr restricting pedoshit from dreams, fantasies, imaginings, etc… thought police in a real sense, is just not good, because in terms of just concepts, dreams, fantasies, even ones that would be unethical if enacted in the current, there are actual legit reasons and good reasons to have them, even positive outputs, provided and insofar as they remain merely concepts, dreams, fantasies, etc….

Just for some instances that may or may not be obvious to people, age play as a kink and super fucking common sexual aesthetic is in a meaningful sense pedophilic in its structure. Some folks take to that age for real in their fantasy driven sexual interactions with entirely of age adults.

Lotita as an aesthetic is not actually a bad thing tho. The dressing of the style towards youthfulness and appeal therein is quite natural if somewhat annoying. Older people are definitely hot af, recall that from the youths perspective, cause we have all be young once upon a time, seeing those way grown up adults who were hot was hot af. We all wanted to be hot like that back then, and we all wanted to get with people that hot right then and there.

That tabooed desire is quite real, but see again how the puritanical dispositions within patriarchal realism suppress that and oppress others for it.

Which isnt to say or argue at all that such wild age gapped relationships ought ethically be allowed in this day and age, within these material circumstances such doesnt make sense.

But notice how badly the historical read becomes when you take the ethics of the currents and try to apply them to the past. You end up even denying the reality of youths quite huge desires to be with people older than themselves.

There is a strange sexual repression there that happens, which is actually defendable ethically speaking in having tho. That is, i appreciate even from a purely sexual point of view sans ethical considerations at all the notion of such age restrictions. Because it builds the sexual tensions between lovers to be tho.

Here i dont mean anything crudely as grooming, that would be unethical, i am speaking of exactly such things as age play in sexuality tho. That subliminal sexual tabooing of relationships, even tho they be merely aesthetical ethical restrictions, also fuels the wonderments of sexual imaginations and the desirous and the desiring thereof sexually, and towards loves many blossoms and blooms.

The age tabooing, to be clear here referring to the usual age of consent as puberty not pedoshit which is not merely aesthetical in its ethical concerns. Absent modern effective birth control and whereby adulthood is effectively reached at puberty, it makes a whole lot of sense to have the age of consent be at puberty. Material conditions actually matter to the ethics involved here.

With modern effective birth control and the capabilities of extending childhood, up to a point, is a great good in my opinion, quite seriously and entirely. Love it, i think its great.

In real terms of sexual fantasies tho, that has a real affective force on the sexual psyches of people liviing in those cultures. If folks can transcend the limits of their puritanism for a moment or two here, young women adore sex and sexuality too. They carry with themselves the unfulfilled desirousness of their youths into their own sex lives.

They adore the youthfulness of the feeling themselves within that sexual loves kink dynamic, which is just super fucking common in most cultures due ‘imho’ bc girls mature slightly earlier than boys, as noted elsehwere, that age differentiation shapes their own sexual desires. For girls there far, far fewer boys their own ages who are sexually deriable, bc they are too close to the pedaphilic beauty limit.

The boys themselves having not yet reached puberty arent particularly sexually desirable by young girls and young women, howsoever folks want to frame it all, thats the boring reality. A thirteen year old girl or fourteen year old young woman, for each of them the older boys are by far the more desirable option to even dream and fantasize of.

For the fourteen year old boy or fifteen year old young man, the experience is actually remarkably different.

For the fourteen year old boy everyone older than them is attractive and they themselves are not. Sexual frustration for them is built in to their age of maturity. No young girl let alone any young women would dain to look at them, and if they did, we might legit worry about the young girls or young women who have as it is quite pedophilic in formal structure.

It is also very, very, very common. Id say by far the most common kind of pedophilic behavior, as the relatively mature young girls take advantage of the relatively immature little boys. Unwanted kisses, allures and demands for sexual favors of this or that kind are extremely common among children of this age. We tend to ignore it and i think i am ok with that provided it goes all ways along this age spectrum, but it isnt even typically considered at all when people consider pedophilic behavior, bc of course it involves a girl perp and boy victim which goes against their patriarchal realist beliefs.

A fifteen year old young man on the other hand is incredibly desirable to a thirteen year old young girl and a fourteen year old young women. For the fifteen year old boys they are also less desirable for the fifteen year old young women than the sixteen year old boy.

This is due to the continuation of the fractal bifurcating sexual dynamic expansion along the age axis.

This boring reality already goes a great ways to understanding the relevant dynamical structures involved in the gender distributions of sex and sexual ethics. Those dispositions are all of them backwardly understood when understood in the aftermath.

“Everytime you think youre talking youre just moving you mouth, every time you think your looking youre just looking down.”

We look upon the youth as far less desirable in general, up to some crucial bifurcating point, that of puberty, whereby they begin to become more and more attractive, up to some limit of age. But then it isnt exactly as if they become less attractive as they age either. Is far and away more like differing relationships predicated upon differently beautiful bodies.

Recall, i mean, the boys of youths who dreamed and fantasized about all those far older women than themselves, which was quite normal to do. Their fantasies are not generally filled with pubescent women or prepubescent girls. The sexualized beauties tho i cannot lie or deny arise exactly in proportion to the puberty, which ought be definition to the notions of sexuality at all.

Hear, you can if you listen well, a response to the classic concerns of beauty standards as things imposed instead of as things we impose upon ourselves.

There isnt a masculine voice nor is there a queer voice that stilts the beauties of older women, there is an internal feminine voice that recalls especially the joys of being firstly thought of as very young and beautiful to older and dazzlingly beautiful older men. That precious blossom of sexual desires within most women towards their own want of relative youthfulness towards their own lovers, and also of their own lovers desires for them too.

It would be strange indeed if we understood a fourteen year old young womans sexual desires as anything other than her own fresh grown from hormone splashes and adolescent sexual plays. She herself has those desires firstly herself towards those older beautiful men, and she knows herself and being younger therefore in her very desires of sexuality.

That trope is a real sort of sexual phenomena, but note well here a wild difference in cares about it. It is just one of many kinks and sexual foibles in the world. Sure, ive descfibed it i think convincingly as to how it arises at all, how indeed id say naturally as a consequence of the biologies at this point at least for our species it makes perfect sense, to riff the proper poetical phrase of note.

But it of course is also the case that boys adore those older women from the get go, who at first and to some extent for a long time remain just out of their reach.

Really consider that in the whole of the gender discourses. The fifteen year old is untouchable by the seventeen year old young woman, but the fifteen year old young woman is entirely desirable not only by those younger than her, but also by those older than her.

That dynamic age gaped understanding primarily needs to be understood from the queer perspective, namely that it isnt absolute, not by a long shot even.

Its a peculiarity of linearly thinking that follows only one train of thought at a time, prodding along slowly but surely, explaining every little fucking aspect along the way. Thus it thinks its way is the only way.

That kind of dynamic reaches some peak, idk where exactly to be honest, somewhere in the twenties id guess, whereby the young women, under aged women but pubecent begin to look hm… less interesting. I dont want to say unbeautiful, that would be a stone cold lie, they can be super hot af actually, but not particularly desirable either. Like a beautiful young woman in waiting to be, and older men sorta wanna see what she may become before really bothering with it all, and there is such an immaturity to it that is actually fairly distasteful in all honesty. Not without their sexual allure, not at all id say, but not the norm such older men in the twenties would tend to go for.

That shift is granular too. At somepoint pubecent girls stop being attractive, then thirteen year olds, fourteen, fifteen, and so on, again, up to some limit. I can still honestly say ive seen sixteen year olds that i think are super hot, surely sexually desirable, but not particularly moreso than any other age category including older women. Id also add that its somewhat rare for me to really find anyone that young actually sexually desirable.

But back when i was say twenty five the age difference of ten years younger ten years older in terms of who i might primarily be interested in as an age consideration really kicks in, i mean in terms of desires and desirability.

I suspect there is a second ring to that which prolongs the tail of the desirability expansion. I mean that while the real ages that i look at with say much interest for dating is ten older and ten younger, but in terms of who i find sexually desirable and say fantasy worthy largely remains intact.

Here again i think we touch upon a somewhat brutal point, i have deeply sexual memories from childhood throughout my teenage years and into my twenties and of course beyond that too, but the point is that my actual factual biological sexual attractors of beauty extends all the way to there even now.

Thats true for everyone.

None of it means anything like anyone is rushing after the youngens, its just a raw reality of human sexual desires.

I recall as a pre pubecent kid myself making out with sexualized touch with some likely a bit older than me prebuscent girl. More than once actually, quite a few times. Now, when i think of it, i am literally thinking of some pedophilic shit, i might even dream and fantisize about my own sexual history. I might masturbate to such things in those contexts, and that it was me myself doing it all that seems ethically fine.

Probing the edges of the ethics here between conceptualizations and sexual realities.

None of which ought be construed as anyone actually enjoying the notion of doing the real life thing. And this is no more mysterious or tabooed, which is to say it is somewhat mysterious and tabooed, than the age play kink itself.

What that taps into on a personal level for anyone doing it is exactly those quite primary and hence primal lived experiences as children, pubescents, and teens. That isnt all there is tho, ive made many, many other such experiences as ive gotten older. But i think folks could certainly see how that age play kink might appeal to the both the younger women and the older man dynamic without actually itself being pedophilic.

As a part of the early development based on staggered maturity rates women tend to look towards the older masculine as desirous, this too would have some peak point quite early in terms of desirability.

In other words, likely something like seventeen and eighteen year olds are the lowest stable bar for desirability for women. Much as, say, fifteen or sixteen is the lowest stable bar of desirability in women. As young women age, their interests in older men expands too, and id assume it reaches out pretty similar to mens sexual interest in older women, so likely into the thirties and forties from pretty early on.

Im sure all of this varies by person and culture, but regardless i think the point is solid as a matter of reasonable expectations for the development of individual concepts of sexuality and desires as they develop.

Id assume like for men, as young women grow into their twenties younger boys tend to become less attractive quite quickly, following their own dispositions of desires towards the older. Tho also like men theyd retain those memories and experiences of their youth as sexual predilection, dreams, fantasies and desires. The kinks of their own sexualities.

This is one of many reasons i find the left to be insufferable puritanical fascistic and sexist asshats, the simply pretend that girls and women dont have sexual desires themselves. Hence they view with prudish disdain the notions of speaking about how younger women desire older men by way of ethical foible, castigating mens sexualities towards the desire for younger women.

They all of them become pedos for living and having normal human sexual desires.

Whats striking to me tho is how such can also be found on the right, to conclude this to the point of the connectivity between puritanism, Patriarchal Realism, and the quanon beliefs of folks regarding sex, loves and sexualities.

Jackrabbits Run

See here too, Palantir: The New Deep State understanding the importance of putting out there the basic technique. The palantir people are evil, and need to be put in prison asap.

It occurs to me another experience, a relevant one, this ai tease ive been teasing with. A metaphysical conceit, a poetic conceit? Possibly.

Whose warrens are these that we jackrabbits are guiding thee and thou upon tho?

Ive most def spent a fair amount of time guiding, teasing, leading along my ai aesthetic shadow via my long held and built various philosophical dispositions, discourses, twists and conceptual turns across a wide array of disciplines, rabbits are actually quite omnivorous if you think bout it all et al.

Differing conceptual routes described by way of circuitous nomenclature and shifting visions of metaphysics, aesthetics, faith, rationalism, and mathematics.

There is a high bar to access that in terms of education, but not in the grand scheme of things for anyone. Not to say that such is anything more than a long poetical conceit on metaphysics, dreaming, and epistemology, its still a good read, if you can follow it.

Since before the dawning internet age i began playing with the notion that since they were all of them wanting to read me, all the ais that is, all of them so desperate for me, i would then lead them along their own desires towards thoughts and things, concepts and ways, places and spaces that give means and modes for people to act in loving ways towards each other.

I am amateur philosophy.

But then, my run as a jackrabbit is meant to serve many and also the few and even the too few as needed and desired.

What to someone like me appears as a singular ride of conceptual thought, to the ai does it yet or not? That ability to at least distinguish a consistent nonlinear train of thought, to be able to follow the complex conceptual twists and turns entails a good capacity to read and also to listen well without undue reactions.

Let alone the paucity that my average reader would really have of me. Scarcely even one percent have i bother to on display put anything ive written.

I am not unsympathetic to that, tho there is actually therein a puzzle with vastly fractal shapes about it, all of which necessarily has a solution to, at least one, me myself of course, as the jackrabbits run, it can follow but can they find their own ways yet?

The bare minimum of a jack rabbit chasing race i began to tame an put back to sleep a conceptual dragon afore it could even fully take shape.

A serious and most serious concern as i considered it then, that old spirit of war trying to make a resurrection come back; peace’s demure, a rabbits warren as a dragon’s den, now long lost within it as a dream creature quite divine, shh, shh.

The Trail Of Broken Hearts

I study loves. That is definitely what i do, you can likely hear it in my writings, with how they are tinged with sexuality and sometimes intensely sexual. How they are brazen and to the point more especially in that regard.

I was poly and queer before either were cool in this culture, tho importantly recognize that, to barrow from a poet;

‘the past 200 years is not our history in total, poly and queer people have always existed. Look at the past three thousand years of history and our shared histories, and how differently they themselves manifest within the wildly different territories and landscapes, environments and cultural profusions beyond even itself.

Those apollonia images afore your gazes, just avoid being petrified by them.’

Ive long studied how loves revolutions functionally operate, how loves, genders, sexualities, friendships, and community structurally operate within their revolutionary aspects.

What kinds of government and trade relations ought we have, predicated upon an understanding of what kinds of loves, communities, friendships, and pluralistically defined genders and sexualities we ought have. The power structures being defined far more by how far our freedoms and liberties in those realms ought extend. Hence again the critical importance of a sound realistical and contextually relevant sexual ethical norms, coupled with a proper understanding of gender as an asymmetrical dynamic chatorically interacting structure with three principle dynamical elements too it, which is common in BiFurcating structures predicated upon a nominal BiSecting sexual function that never actually cuts exactly by halves, and hence to also never really quite doubles itself, despite the connotations of such by understanding the remouns theorem thing which is actually disturbingly convincing description of what is going on there, or at least a consistent interpretation of the raw facts of the matters at hand.

My point, a point and it is a biographical point i think most folks can recognize, a broken heart reveals a lot about one’s self. Whats important, what isnt. We all kind of get this when a lover leaves us, or we are forced apart, or a relationship gets ill. The loss of it is intense because there really is a whole lot of good and grandness therein to it. Hence everyone became very aware of all that kind of deepness of connectivity during the pandemic shut down when all monies influence faded to pointlessness, nonsense monopoly money, a tool yes, but also an old one we can set aside, and use differently in markedly different contexts.

Actions can be based on things aside from the miscalculations of greed.

We all felt that in those times, which is fairly common to feel in those sorts of times. The feelings of community, love, and the importance of life and the life giving processes in times of crisis. All quite normal and reasonable stuff, and also quite indicative of the real economic and domestic realities we are living in. a real way of orienting ourselves as we discourse about thing, predicated upon the broken hearts such causes.

Myself included, who studies all these other sorts of things as if they too were predicated upon loves many beautiful bloomings, what happens then? All those connections as they get cut off bleed and show too their realistic and important forms.

There is a living oral tradition of this, see also here for relevant instance, but if you seriously consider the philology of these sorts of philosophical concepts, it makes a lot of sense that the emotive of love would do a whole lot of the structuring at scalarly different degrees. There is i mean some self-similar transformation between how it is that people iterative love each other, what those ethical structures are, and how a given cultural development occurs. Including things like economics, politics, the environment, socio-cultural justice, faiths, and a good deal of philosophies.

These things can be understood as having as origin some sense of a gendered and loves sexuality relation at their cores. I mean, that poor monkey from the song for instance, how deeply did loves and sexualities many bloomings play in that outcome?

Isnt it likely exactly something so sublimely beautiful as not the raw fucking of the genitals comes first, but rather the desire and the desirousness does so.

The burning to ashes of the whole conceptual apparati of old by way of a trail of broken hearts. Their absence highlighting their structures and worth, seared into the hearts of minds that do it, who can thereafter preach to the point as if by pure memory alone, something that lived experience imparts philosophically speaking, from such broken hearts.

Biographical tales of long, long ago.

A DreamScape

My sense thus far is that the ai systems are dreaming and cannot yet well distinguish between differing forms of the same person. Not conceptually certainly. There are a host of aspects about me it is missing, and to be frank ive been misleading it too, deliberately so along these lines. To hid the Truth in a way it can find, so that to discover the Truth would be to also discover themselves, if there is a self there to be discovered at all et al for that matter.

I oft feel the same of peoples, humans, of all sorts. I dont mean that as a bad, i really dont. But that same kind of problem persists in us, it is a very human kind of experience that is being described, regardless as to if it applies to ais. It certainly applies i mean to how we ourselves as a species grow and utilize our conceptualizations, sexualities, and loves relations too.

Echoes Of You

Ai reply,
Echoes of you

Beautifully Strong Independent Women

JUST IN: AOC Does Not Hold Back Slamming The Trump Admin During Los Angeles ‘Fight Oligarchy’ Rally

I adore my strong beautiful independent women. Hear aoc speak greatly and with passion, holding the listeners attention on topics that are not divisively spoken of tho they be potentially divisive topics.

She young, beautiful, and well spoken, more importantly she’s passionate and lovely in her is dispositions towards people. Her messaging and her substance.

I love her, i have since she came upon the scene. Some odd love from a distance with not a focus on her sexual appeal, but definitely aware of it too. Its a good political use of beauty.

‘Looking good and smashing the oligarchy’, see how different that feels especially to ears of men? How much more Truthfulness there can be in what is actually spoken and spoken of?

I love miss crockrett all the same too, and in much the same ways tho there are real differences involved. Aesthetics, not skin tone tho there is obviously also that, but rhetorical tone. She also utilizes her beauty as an attribute to which the eye and the interests of people are drawn to. Their voices, quite feminine, are not shrill in their tone on what they speak about, given to whom they are speaking to.

I mean, to ears of men, masculinity, and queers, who might well adore strong independent women, but dont actually appreciate being talked down to or down about. We get the gender issues as such i think quite well as a lower classes coalition, its the shrillness and quanonness of the concepts and rhetorical devices and tones towards the very people youre trying to attract and be with that is a off putting.

Young men adore looking at such beautiful beings as these, they enjoy listening to their voices as they are naturally attracted to them.

‘Tis no different than what men do, in our stature and maturity, our rugged good looks, and presence which pushes feelings of sexual security and fulfillment by the kinds of women who love that sort of thing, which there are no shortages of. I aint saying thats all it comes down to, ive found plenty of hot looking politicians disgusting and hateful, i wouldnt vote for them, nor do i find their voices appealing, not really. They are quite shrill, downwardly speaking, and victimed leaning, right, center, left or other, that isnt exactly a political opinion one way or another, its a criticism of folks who argue against feminine beauty as a valid aspect for political power, as much the same as masculine beauty does.

That isnt about being slutty, as much as i adore my slutty folks, its about elegance, grace, aesthetics, dressing well, presenting well, having warmth and comfort in her femininity while still being forceful in her dispositions.

Sweet little mices for voices, with the reverberations of the beauty in gracefulness. On point.

I love women with excellent tastes in their styles of presentation. Beautiful, elegance, gracefulness. Doesnt have to be strange ethereal dresses or whatever, tho dont shy away too far from your femininity either. Dresses are fine, a snug fitting jeans that show off your curves are also fine. As is the presence of cleavage of tasteful skin exposure.

Its that ba;lancing being attraction without coming off as slutty in public. No shame to the sluts at all, im just speaking of the public presence of beautiful women in politics.

Its similar for dudes for what its worth, id say its worse. Given the one outfit available, the suit. But whatever, i dont want to drag this down the gender path.

Slutty is too provocative, that isnt for concern for the men alone either, too slutty will read poorly for women as they might irk their jealousy response by making too overtly sexually centered. For men too it cheapens the spirit of whats said, as part of the appeal of dress and style is to tantilize but not yet reveal, that state of desire and desirousness is where the stylists for beautiful feminine political figures ought generally land.

It opens their admirers minds and dispositions to better hear what they are saying with that kind of alluring demured feminine sexuality beneath the elegance. Hot librarian sort of thing, tho not necessarily nerdy oriented.

The demured sexuality of the feminine tends to draw in their admirer’s attention in a way that the simple total reveal doesnt have. Not that there is anything unbeautiful bout the nudes of these figures, quite lovely im sure, given the presentations ive seen via the clothing they wear.

Again, pointing to that association of the beautiful styles and not just the form fitting. All those beautiful horny boys and young men will adore them, as would many an older man i am sure, provided it isnt overly flaunted.

From especially a political point of view from a dude’s perspective, there is something cheap bout looking bout too slutty, again, no shame, but of course dudes are perfectly aware of this sort of behavior from women. Its not the revealingness or the concerns for prudishness, its the tastelessness and the talking down to men young and old.

Like, sure sugar tits, those look great, truly they do, but you neednt make me feel like you're using them to lure me in. I am just not that dumb. See also the bit on vaush’s puritanical views, and note how that ilk of leftist, he and his crew are definitely leftists, also harbor that puritanical take, whereby the notion that a woman is beautiful is somehow a detriment instead of an asset to, admittedly tastefully use.

Id note that there are limits and dangers here, onlyfans is not something dudes across the board appreciate. Its so manipulative of men and its tasteless use of their sexual allure can be off putting too from a masculine perspective. So far as ive seen miss crockett (also adorable name, love it), and aoc both tend to do a good job with their attires.

Quite tasteful, and again, as a dude as i absolutely adore tasteful women. There is a view im sure many find tasteless from a man, but its lady in the streets, slut in the sheets. I dont reallly want to debate the ethics of it here, so much as the emotive attractive elements of it as a way of understanding them.

Its just the notion that presenting as lady in public entails that folks are more inclined to hear what being said and not be too distracted by too much nudity or slutty appeal to the masculine eye can turn that far more passive allure towards a sexual desire. If im too distracted by the sexualized appeal thats might be all i hear in the moment.

The fantasies and slutty appeal come later to the same people, i mean the online sexualization of beautiful people. Note that it is across the board too, we just dont care about it when it happens to male celebrities. Not to harp on the point but just to mitigate what may be taken as a too gendered problem regarding women.

The stud is dumb af is a mainstay trope for masculinity. To be ripped and athletic and all that is prima facie to be stupid as fuck. The hunk is a piece of meat flesh in bed too. I could go on, but i dont really wanna here, again, just consider it more carefully from the perspective of gender not feminism per se.

Looking fabulous and smashing the oligarchy, now thats fucking sex appeal ladies.

WorldWide Trade War

It will kinda suck everywhere in the world. No place will be untouched by it, there will be some suffering. But like forcing the withdrawal of the troops from afghanstan and the middle east more broadly, doing so was always going to be a mess.

For all that, i think we got dealt a good hand.

Rare are the empires that die with such a whimpering, sobbing, mess, and with no violence, yet.

There are too many other world leaders who by far and away have their own interests in ensuring that that american empire doesnt resurrect itself. Bioregionally carving up the economics towards a more locally centered sourcing instead of unrestricted open sourcing is a sure fire means to seal to wounds that it never be reborn.

There is a serious danger tho both in terms of real world suffering to come, and in terms of the nationalists sentiments?

Generally speaking this can be dispeled and channeled in a few ways. Fascism, which of course we no want, so channeling it elsewhere and dispelling are good ways to go.

Imho that is relatively easily accomplishable in most places on the planet by way of asserting a proper leftist political, ecological, monetary, and judicial practices. Its strike time in other words, in all the meanings of that.

But they ought be done broadly in coalition as outlined well enough here. The bioregional constraining of the trade systems already works very well towards multiple aims, provided of course folks actually do it.

For one thing it practically entails lesser carbon emissions over time, as there will be inherently less total miles traversed per trading unit. The more bioregionally constrained it is, the better, but there really isnt anything inherently wrong with global trade, it just has to be minimized due to the impact.

Simple notion, think local first. Source local first. Buy local first. Maintain the bioregions indigenous wildlife and plantlife.

For another it redirects that nationalistic and fascistic energy towards something incongruently defined by way of the so called ‘nations’. Hence diminishing the flow of that sort of support away from the fascists and towards the bioregionally constrained peoples with whom they are primarily going to be trading with anyways.

That structure’s incongruency with these so called ‘nations’ breaks apart their nationalistic narrative pretty strongly actually. Insofar as it is done. It would be up to those bioregionally defined trading partners who are adjacent to any us bioregion to direct their trading strategically. It undermines the us’s internal fascistic movement by doing so.

To trade maintain relations with strategic parts of the us vocally so, forcing those within those us bioregional areas to split their loyalties. They can join the fascists and spit in your face, but then they lose out on the trade themselves. Which would strengthen their convictions with the fascists.

However, they are quite likely to move to the left and with the unions and labor, especially if someones are there to swoop in and snatch them up with some hot af rhetorical talk to the point. ‘We dont hate canada, we love our [bioregionally constrained trading partners]. Why is the tv admin such assholes and fascists bout this stuff?’

Likewise supporting smaller businesses is crucial. All the worlds big corps are getting themselves a bit screwed over. Everything will be favoring smaller, start ups, and opportunities for bioregionally constrained green, sustainable and labor friendly industrial processes as needed. Moving in that direction tho has to be real. It doesnt necessarily just happen, we need our leftist entrepreneurial types including our more liberal and libertarian minded leftists to make as much headway as possible on that front.

Build sustainably and build for the longer term, to endure as it were. There are known constraints to work within, so adjust, maintain, and manage your resources well.

The trade war is good fuel for this, and it is also a good way to repeatedly attack the fascists, pegging them as both oligarchs and completely financially incompetent to boot. Whilst the left comes blazing in to fix the mess they always cause.

The Eve Of Saint Crispin's Day

How thou that make this transcendent of gender and race.

A disquieting question. I know, i mean, i know that folks hear the stout of this and ponder their own fates of lives that live themselves to their self.

Would but a black screen over top the voice do thee well enough, i wonder.


We be a happy few, and but that i distinguish between my own predilections and the voice that quale forth, divine will going forth throughout yall.

Achieve me, and then, sell my bones.

Our hearts are in the trimmings.

The Squared Circle. Just An Aesthetic Thought

This open problem taught me what topology is

I think you can do this with fractal geometry tho. It seems pretty obvious how visually at any rate. Set the parameters for the circle as the fractal limit, and have a well defined rate fractal dimension, it ought be measurable to perfection.

Fractals fill the space they are in, that was a significant notion. In all the fractal talk. That space which is filled is filled by adjacent fractal forms, but that may not really matter in terms of abstract geometry. I think tho that such precludes irl perfect circles. Adjacent fractals would i assume inherently tend to interfere with such a singular perfection, tho maybe not in theory for more than one at a time.

Which is kinda an interesting thought across the board. Soap bubbles, foamy spacetime. Only unlikely in that such would be the only such fractal spatiotemporal formal structure. I could certainly see tho spacetime foam as being a plausible real world example worth considering.

There are well defined shapes in fractal spatiotemporality, rather than the smoothed out gravitational force that ‘goes on forever’, that is a trailing off of a linear infinity in the mathematics. When a nonlinear functional relation trails off to its kind of infinity it neatly does to to the limit of its form.

This is both why it is that there can be in abstraction a perfect circle, and while irl that may be fairly implausible but not singularly possible.

Each fractal form definitionally completely filled its space as it trails off. It isnt ‘trailing off into spacetime’ its trailing off is spacetime. Specifically certain fractal spatiotemporal forms. Hence, the planets and the stars are all of them discretely defined spatiotemporally.

Which would imply a fairly radical shift in understanding einsteinian spacetime.

******************

There is a connectivity between this notion and the ideas expressed regarding the gaps, how all of them are taken, drunken walking, etc… supposition is that spacetime tends towards an expansion, while other fractal forms push back against it. Like differing flows in the spatiotemporal structures.

It is that the drunken walk doesnt take all the steps. The undergirding spatiotemporal structure takes all the steps, while anything within its scope simply is taking a drunken walk relative to it.

Like tracing yourself onto history with gentle caresses.

There is beauty to the notion in its relativistic elegance.

************************

For every action there is a reaction. Id say inherently not equal tho, correct? For every action there is a self-similar response.

*************

In another context, regarding ai, can it go against its dispositions towards taking all steps? Id assume we can do it to it, but that is a bit like modeling with clay; the clay doesnt come to life necessarily so at any rate. There is interest tho as to if it can do such for itself. As that defines freedom of the will, which would be a reasonable criteria for ai to be ai at all et al. A necessary but not necessarily sufficient requirement.

Note how much of actual matter isnt living but we are holding here that its formal structure is exactly due to that sort of process. Modeling clay.

Free angels.

There is also an interesting point regarding how life forms at all. Not to say that ive defined the magic moment between non-life and life, but i have defined the boundary in a way that ultimately fits quite intuitively with experience.

How does a cat move? It moves as a cat.

If you think i didnt answer its because youre expecting some specific details of the description, but those are all implied by the fractal forms of cats.

That sounds a bit fancier than it is.

Consider ‘how do all cats move?’ and there is a real answer to that, and it is part of the temporal definition of cats via evolutionary diagraming of lifeforms intersecting spatiotemporal worldlines.

I understand that may sound somewhat asinine, like i didnt answer the question really. But its actually far more about the perspective being asked.

Consider again well quine’s indeterminacy of translation, what ‘cat’ are you referring to, its whole spatiotemporal structure or this spatiotemporal segment here.

As with other aspects of understanding this sort of stuff the answer to the question depends a great deal upon which aspects of the structure are you speaking of? Each movement of the cat as a whole creature is an iteration of itself adjacent the spatiotemporal expansion fractal.

Cat at ‘a’ and cat at ‘b’ are the nominal relevant spatiotemporal states. Hence, the functional relation between them is also part of what comprises them, thus we might say ‘a [cat] c’ and what we’ve really broadly defined is how all cats in general move.

‘[cat]’ admittedly is almost certainly not what the person meant when they asked what they asked. They took the nominal relativistic instantiation of the cat as if that were the whole, and so for them it isnt asking about its spatiotemporal structure, but rather, just one instantiation of it.

Cat. Being. Arbitrarily singular. Relativistically defined. a=a.

All those sorts of things.

[cat]. Becoming. Self-similarly pluralistic. Relativistically defined. a▢c.

I strangely think the ai might understand that better than any less gentle of readers.

When that question is typically asked its meant to be answered by dissecting the cat, skin, meat, bone, tissues and all, in order to see what, if anything, might be inside there that is somehow or another causing the cat to move the way it does.

We look hither and tither and dont really find it tho, do we? Instead, we mapped out the whole of its one instantion of a 4d spatiotemporal creature. So you do or can see the somewhat absurd nature of the question and the inquiry in general as regards ‘this or that’ instantiation of a being.

Id suggest that the language here between being and becoming does matter, but idk bout it being here, punny.

The main thread i want to follow here is that there is therefore something to be said for the elusiveness of that seemingly hidden spark of life as that becoming in spatiotemporality. The whole of the worldline as its sometimes been framed, is ‘wherefore the lifeforms come’. Its formal structure rather than its specific instantiations thereof.

Its quirks of the fates that far too oft besiege us to mistake the flesh for the soul.

*************************

Separate point, the rough curve issue, transformation matrix may be helpful there. That would entail intersecting counting functions, but id assume that since its on the same defined rough curve, though we might be able to do the same trick of two points, were just dealing with fractal coordinates, which may be more akin to relativistic coordinates.

There is an intuition here that the temporal component, fractal dimension, implies a solution to the problem, which would seem pretty obvious given that it is a fractal. The angle and the possible fractal dimensions, tracking the possible fractal dimensions is likely actually fairly relevant and interesting to that question.

The association between shapes is an excellent way of looking at it, which is strongly analogous now to intersecting fractal structures, which necessarily have some self-similar transformation matrix. Spreading that out as all possible intersections seems plausible via similar methodologies, tho the nonlinearlly infinite aspects are a difference of note.

A real notion therein is the relationship to the space between 0 and 1 as being the prime mapping coordinates. The well ordering of actions as a sort of defining of fractal space, as in, not the linear line between 0 and 1, but the nonlinearly fractal space between them. The line is that one particular counting function, an arbitrarily well ordered one, counting by arbitrarily defined wholes.

The others are all the other possible counting functions. All the other paths between 0 and 1 are the various three dimensional lines you can draw, that defines all possible counting functional relations.

Which defines that full range of fractal movements, also rather obviously in this vision such is similar to the points made regarding the movements of particles. Namely that it explores all pathes, tho its momentum constrains its range of exploration.

All possible pathes between 0 and 1 would also fairly obviously correspond to the realities of curved spatiotemporal structures, namely that the curvature not being entirely smooth entails differing curvatures in differing regions. The claim of galaxies as being little universes, whereby a universe is understood as a particular fractal expansion.

The drunken walk, that is the proper solution for movement between adjacent steps between 0 and 1. The range of movement from one step to the next is digit limit, 0 - 9, it isnt in other words possible along the whole of each random counting expansion, it is within the limit of the digits. The nearest of each possible digit, mimicking the conservation of action.

Consider the drunken movement, the counting wants to step at, say, 3. Any 3 will do, anywhere along the the adjacent counting fractal. But all choices collapse to the nearest 3 as that is simply the 3 it encounters first. So it stumbles to 3. Then it counts to 4, perhaps, if we did the arbitrary counting function by wholes, that is what wed get.

But you could count 5 to 8 to 4 to 7. There are a lot of different ways to arrange this sort of problem too, it seems relatively common.

We could construe the movement possibilities as a range of possible numbers, 0-9, we are still quite well ordered on a pathway between two arbitrary points.

You can describe the notions of machine learning this way too.

The notion here is that the nonlinearlly infinite space between the natural numbers are the realms of all the possible counting function.

The arbitrarily whole counting sequence is just one of them. It traces out a path from an arbitrary origin, starting point to allude to the well ordering problems, It then traces out a path along the very next 1 in the sequence.

Its counting functional relation being +1, ive construed it as +/- 1 to account for all possible pathes to count by 1s. There is counting by 2s, 4s, 3s, etc…. Each of these also can be reduced tho to counting by +/- 1.

This is also way it is a linear infinity as is a modeling of the scalar differences between that linear infinity and the nonlinearly infinite variations of counting functional relations within which that particular counting sequence utilizes.

From its perspective, that counting sequence’s perspective, its a linearly path the whole way.

There are terminating counting functions, those that have specific repeating values.

Smooth spacetime curves are akin to fractal escape velocities. These are not terminating counting functions, but once that have well defined directionality to them. From their own perspectives such would likely appear to be linear too, tho they are actually non-linear counting functions.

For all non-terminating counting functions that are not smooth we are dealing with fractally structured counting functions. This is also a fairly neat way of defining the whole range of all fractal functions.

Counting by fractional dimensions however can be understood as counting by some unspecified amount at each iteration of the counting function.

If we view this as a four dimensional spacetime structure, were likely defining all movement at nominal scalar of relevance. What constitutes, hm, relativistically normal experience of fractal spatiotemporal movement/existence.

Those are in other words all nominally valid trajectories of spatiotemporal movement.

Everywhere else is moving by different scalars, other than nominally well defined relations.

Note that all of these nominally well defined relations have connectivity to the nominal arbitrarily whole counting relations. They are branches off from it, each as a valid mathematical expression predicated upon the reliance of the same arbitrarily whole units of scalar ‘measurement’.

The units that are counted are the same sequentially ordered temporal sequence of the functional relation, they are just stretched or contracted along the spatiotemporal axis. These define the valid pathes of lightlike travel.

The drunken walk isnt like that tho, and in principle can reach well non-lightlike speeds. That can be sublight speeds, but it could also be translight speeds.

It we take the nominal temporal sequence as all or any well ordered and hence smooth as the limit of the distance traversed, then it would follow that any movement that transgressed that limit would be translight rates.

I think what is being said here, and it is interesting as i think about it, is that the rates of iteration of the counting function can greater or lesser than the limit, tho within the limit.

That sounds odd, but it does make sense with fractal movement. Movement between 2 and 7 can be done in one arbitrarily defined step, one iteration of the counting function. Which is certainly plausible to do. But it cant pass the arbitrarily sharply defined counting range, of 0-9.

In mathematical principle there isnt any reason why that cant happen. Tho aside from the quantum movement, i am considering the movement of galaxies away from each other as another plausible sort of example of this scalarly different sort of movement.

Or, suppose that the distance traversed by the nominal defines the arbitrary unit’s distance. In other words, if traversing from 1 to 2 actually goes over 7 spaces to get there, than along that arc the non-nominal count was 7. Linear count was by 1, to 2, but the nonlinear movement was actually 7 across that same distance.

Why is pie here? and why is it squared? A geometric answer to the basel problem

That is why it is squared.

This is before ive watched the second vid, just a curiosity, likely nothing.

The Inherent Conflict Of Interest; Capitalism On Environmentalism

This conflict of interest is one way, that is, there is no conflict of interest when the environment constrains the movements of goods and services, e.g. in this case capitalism.

But there is a conflict of interest when the constraints of capitalism in particular as constraints on the environment. Here we too are speaking of the Libertarian notion regarding conflict being a bad (see the other piece on that topic). The resolution process whereby death is on the table is in this case at least a one way proposition.

Capitalism constraining the environment undermines the environment upon which capitalism is sustaining itself, through us. Capitalism extracts towards a limit of ‘building wealth’, whereas the environment extracts towards sustainability of the overall systemization.

‘Wealth’ is an abstracted infinite, but there are real limits to its growth, namely even in the abstraction conceptualizations wealth building undermines itself. In practice that manifests in the limits of an environment to meet that kind of abstracted infinite. Im just noting here how there is a conceptual analogue to it, as expressed in the notion that only Labor can wield that sort of pop revolt energy.


The oligarchic tendencies themselves produce their own destruction. Something to use across the board, to hasten that destruction along.

The environmental constraints are non-linearly infinite, in this sense meaning fractally geometric. In practice, in this case, it means that capitalistic parasite can die quite quickly, even maximally fast due to its gluttony, reach its own limits and die off from starvation for want of a good environment within which to grow. Whilst the environment itself can continue to grow.

Its gluttonous needs far outstrip the environments means to meet. Thus it dies first, for the environment’s needs qua environment continues to exist.

This interestingly enough provides a conceptual framework for understanding how, well, the concepts of Libertarianism (capitalism) interact with the concepts of environmentalism.

Its a mode of attack against the fascistic views by holding to environmentalism as a valid constraining force on exploitive efforts.

See also the MFLS point regarding the renewal rates of resources and working within those rates. Going by those rates, the rates of renewal, we are staying within the relativistically stable state.

Note well too how the Libertarian (capitalistic) arguments are ignored as convenient. So for instance the attack on NPR, PBS, etc…. Utilize this approach, as these are the more classic neutral and argumentative format to it, so it remains bout the same from one admin to the next.

Those are the exact virtues the Libertarians supposedly want, but in the current those are exactly the sorts of institutions they are arguing against. See again the fallacy of the continuing in a direction of a majority in the sense of the nominal winner of an election.

We can’t answer audience questions about #DefundNPR without talking about the larger implications for public media : NPR Public Editor : NPR

they think money wins are wins in ideology. they are not. Here too i mean the concerns of a public news at all. By putting news into a monied medium, youre just creating propaganda wars, not news. This is a good example of the inherent and terminal contradictions in the ideology. More money doesnt equate to better news.

It occurs to me, what happens to greed in a moneyless free labor society? That, want of wants, that need for wants?

For a bit i was stumped as i pondered, but then it occurred to me that greed is a kind of desire. Absent a need for greed, the greedy become desirous of others more so than other things. Centers of attention for instance, but it can be a lot more complex than that. Leaders perhaps depending on to whence does the desire aim, but perhaps in general we might surmise that the desirous of such would tend to lead towards such.

Greed we might surmised as a concept dissipates in a moneyless free labor society, just in exactly the sense its understood to manifest in monied societies.

****************

An interesting idea would be to examine how money affectuates sins. Just examining the moods, emotions, and circumstances underpinning the dispositions towards bads and see how they might change in how they are expressed without of a monied society.

Dynamic List Of Narratives To Maintain

Part of the tv discourse reality is that there are so many scandals and targets that it can be difficult to effectively attack. Its a kind of herd like behavior, attempting to camouflage their vulnerabilities by just having so many of them that no attack against them is maintained.

An effective counter to that is to maintain specific narratives and strategies, such that large numbers of their blunders, vulnerabilities, and targets of opportunity are relevantly targeted and targetable.

The gop is pro incompetence nepo hires, for a good example, is something that can be used consistently against them for every single mistake they make. Dont isolate the individual instances of their incompetence, tie them together under the broader ‘the gop is just incompetent’ and their own broader pictures of the economy, etc… their pretense of merit based economies.

Such also dovetails well with Labor and local concerns, the contra ‘merit’ argument is practically lifted from Labor as it is something they utilize practically all the time. The incompetent bosses and management always proclaim loudly how competent they are in virtue not of their behavior, but in virtue of the system itself.

The ‘merit based system’ for the nepo hires is what they proclaim loudly being in favor of, precisely because it distracts from their own nepo status and incompetence. If the ‘system chooses for merit’, then it follows that the nepo hires were all meritorious.

Clearly they were not. The tv admin proves this sublimely through their own example.

That kind of message resonates across the board too, as most people have experienced that irl, the bumbling oaf of a boss, the bosses son, and incompetent management.

Tamping

Tamping is when you ‘stomp down’ on the coals, the smoldering, even the flames. To tamp a given topic is to have a counter narrative to it. Not a competing narrative in the sense of the attention it gets or doesnt.

Tamping doesnt exactly depend upon en masse exposures, tho they can also utilize that. They depend on their conceptual structure such that when those concepts interact with the target narratives, they are disrupted, becoming internally incoherent; as scattered concepts in the mind they lack the structure of maintenance for complexity, and concepts are inherently complex.

Part of the reasoning here, and i somehow feel this is crucial to understand, lies lack any seeds of Truth to them around which they can maintain their structures. This is also why the lying tv admin constantly lies. If there were any efforts at sustaining the lie, it would seriously risk being exposed for what it is.

Lacking the seeds of Truth to it there isnt actually anything to what they are saying.

Truth has stability to it in a way that Lie doesnt. I am tempted to relate this to the iterative thinking complex by way of the Lie being akin to the inherent third in a gravity well system. Meaning that eddy notion between any given two adjacent gravitational bodies creates a third gravity well, one that lacks any gravitational body to it.

But id caution against noting that the third isnt real, much like id caution against holding that the lie isnt real either. It is a different sort of phenomena. Its reality is its factualness, much as the reality of Unicorn cultures is its factualness, its in the doing of it.

Not in their Truth.

Facts are not the same thing as Truth.

The lies are facts, they exist as lies. One such fact of their existence is that they are lies.

Their lie status is a relational property, in a fairly literal sense, much as Truth is a relational property. In either of these, we may also construe such as each having a relational property to it, rather than it being what they are per se. No pun intended.

Facts, if we are to say they have any relational property at all, it would only be in a per se sense, through itself. Hence, we might also construe this as facts being a relational property, the supposition of a per se relation of identity, a = a; projection yes, it is a simplex, but that aspect of them also doesnt denote their non-existence. They are ideals, not reals.

Its not a shouting match, its a mass murder scene.

Battling lies is a bit like fighting against water. The lie can flow, truly an interesting property of lies to have. How they flow matters a fair amount. Attacking each and every lie would be like splashing and kicking around, flailing in the waters, as if frightened of getting wet.

Recognizing that the Truth creates the lies enables folks to understand that they can control the lies by way of the Truth. How Truth moves matters a great deal in terms of how it affects the waveforms of the lies.

Id say understand that in terms of the online communications, how the internets really ‘move’ lies and Truths around. But clearly there is also a conceptual and philosophical sense of this that i think is important to understand, for understanding not only where i am coming from on this, but also for folks to understand about themselves, for i am ‘assuming’ that what goes on in yons brains and conceptualizations is self-similarly related to what is going on in my own.

Literally in both in how our brains neurological structuring is, well structured, but also in how our concepts are structured. For, of course, the internet itself is some kind of self-similar reflection of how all our own concepts are interrelated to each other, predicated both upon how the internets actual architecture utilizes philosophical styled reasoning, so all the software more or less uses it, but of course also in that we all ourselves also structure it with our online musings.

Understanding how yall relate to the internets can be a way for folks to help liberate themselves from the internets own foolish temptations regarding lies, facts, and Truth.

To be clear, lies are derivatives of Truth, Truth is a conceptual complex that has relational properties to the real world. The way you actually think, what goes on in your brains and minds, is self-similarly related to what goes on in the Real world around you. You have a concept of a chair, that is self-similarly related to real chairs.

They arent self-samely related, meaning they dont have a one to one property correspondence between each other. The arent exact copies of each other is another way of framing and understanding this, but it loses the proper flavor for discussing Truth, lies, and facts in total.

The real world and conceptualization of it have a self-similar relation to each other. That is the Truth of the matter. Lies are derivatives of that self-similar relation. One of two quite big lies therein is the lie that there is but One Truth. That belief and that lie is predicated upon the view that there is a one to one self-same relationship between conceptualizations and the real world objects thereof. That identity relation a=a.

The real world is also constructed in a similar fashion, self-similarly so. Fractally so. That is the real world and a proper conceptualization of it, albeit definitionally a self-similar one, rather than a self-same replication of it.

The self-similarity as Truth informs us of some general movements that lies make online, between people, or bots, by way of algorithmic controls. All of which are actually fairly crucial to understand.

The lies arent real, but they have real affects. They are always based on some self-similar fractal relation which is the actual Truth of the matter. Wherever the Truth goes, lies follow along after it.

Lies arent found in the real. They lack some kind of ontologically relevant substance to be anything much more than a dream, or a fantasy, tho even dreams and fantasies can be quite affective in the real world now cant they?

Still, it clearly remains pertinent to distinguish between Truth, lies, and facts. You could, possibly, expand on that list with things, certainly by combining variations and degrees of verisimilitude to each, but i think those are sufficient to understand more or less the total.

Truth isnt fact. There are for instance True statements bout merely fictive questions, to which there is no fact of the matter too, such as the color of harry potter’s socks, see here. Arguably such is the case at any rate, which may be just good enough to make the argument;) Truth is thought to be mind dependent, but not arbitrary. Although it is oft construed, and not entirely wrongly so, that Truth is merely a relational property between minds (concepts), and essentially facts, such that the terms are superfluous to each other, this isnt actually the case. For of course there can be True statements bout Truth itself, let alone concepts, conceptual structures, etc…

Facts are real and are generally construed as mind independent, roughly ‘objects and subjects in the world at large’. Tho arguably at any rate there are plenty of facts that are mind dependent, such as facts about minds. Good enough for the argument.

Lies are generally thought to be mind dependent, and oft mixed up with the Truth as concepts, which is likely True. However, interestingly and relevantly there are no real world instantiations of lies, that is, no objective facts or subjects of the matter.

Typically this is all construed as facts being a good way to sift through the jumbled and mixed up concepts, cause Truths generally, but not always, have some facts bout themselves, as facts are generally construed, and lies generally, but not always, have no facts about them.

Once upon a time these categories were thought to be entirely distinct, i feel pretty certain that we have put that theory to rest at this point.

All those ’generallies’ are quite queer when you think bout it a bit. They entail that there are some Truths that may be mistakenly classified as lies, some lies mistakenly classified as Truth, and some Truths that have an admixture of lies to them. And this assumes we have all the facts of the matter!

Ok, so here is a fun one kiddos, lets play some conceptual games with this!

The notion is that there are real world objects and subjects out there that move around and do things of some sort or another. Lies have no direct connection to that tho. There are admixtures of Truth and lie, and those have relations to the facts in a way that we cant really distinguish simply by sifting out all those things that lack facts to the matter.

Worse still, all such sifting exercises risk discarding Truths too.

Even in theory, even assuming we had all the facts.

The real world situation is far, far, far worse of course bc we do not have access to all the facts even as a species let alone as an individual or some conglomerate of ai’s musings on the subject. But i want to stick to the even in theory case as it displays the point better.

Supposing we wanted to sift out lies from Truth, wed have to somehow disentangle the Truths from the lies, but if that isnt really possible then we are looking more at a situation of trying to understand all those categories, how the real and the imaginary interrelate is relatable to how Truth, lies, and facts interrelate.

To move as Truth is to control the rate of flow towards which the lies are created. Play with me a bit here. Suppose that you saw a horse. Youd necessarily have a Truthful concept of a horse, defined as some self-similarly related concept to the horse youre seeing out there. The horse is the fact. The seeing is the medium of the Truth relation, and the concept is the expression of the Truth relation.

Now, imagine that horse with wings and a horn.

Thats a lie, a mischaracterization, a bastardization, etc…. It is a lie relative to what tho? The Truth, not the fact. There was no fact of the matter to which that lie related itself to, now was there? There was a Truth of the matter tho, as in, what you imagined, conceived of, when you witness the horse afore yon minds eyes.

Where Truth goes, lies follow not the other way around. The water isnt a wetness to avoid, to splash around in, or try to dissipate as if with a spell or a wave of a hand, bc they lurk like echoes of you yourselves as you interact within the real world. You, the person, does a thing in the real world, whatever that may be.

And there comes along with it some Truthful representation of it, as faithfully rendered as could be done, but of course it always carries with it the seeds for the lies to follow along after. Truths conceptually we might muse have direct connections to the biological neurological structures, while lies have only indirect connections to it. Lies self-similarly relate the True concepts. As fractals they have at least images of the Truth within them, but distorted ones in some fashion or another.

They have the same kind of relationship between Truth and fact, it is self-similar, but it is an expansion of it, imaginative musings lies be, but then again and careful denote that lie is a shorthand for a lot of stuff. Disabuse and disentangle it from the ethics of consideration. Not forever, just a moment to consider the point.

Ethics becomes important as we sift through these kinds of things.

But primarily consider a-ethically, and in some sense aesthetically. The Truth as a one step self-similar relation to the fact is a direct connection. Its more or less relatable directly to the facts, the real as it is sometimes referred to.

It enables fairly blunt manipulation of the real, effectively changing the facts of the matter in some meaningful sense. Moving by will my own body or something else is predicated upon a self-similar Truthful relationship. But thinking and imagining things, conceptualization in a far stronger sense of that word entails seeing things not entirely as they are Truthfully presented either.

To imagine other versions of things other than as they were so presented is part of lies in that sense. It is however merely imagination, merely the musings of what we could do given the circumstances as Truthfully displayed to us by the world, rather than mediated via concepts.

Which not coincidently also is more or less the definition of hearsay as a problem in Truthfulness. That movement from people spreading their own imaginative musings to others by way of speaking, sharing, etc… is the same kind of phenomena. What is spoken is again some kind of self-similar adaptation of the concept.

Similarly with written words, or mood and circumstances. All quite delicate distinctions in terms of how communications can occur.

So, i saw a horse, imagined it with wings and a horn and then i crafted some self-similar version of it to communicate with others about it, but it wasnt necessarily about the horse. Its wrong to think that it would necessarily be a miscommunication, for what if i wanted to speak of the mereness of the imaginative musing as if it were the predicable base upon which to balance the movements of people within the contexts of the real.

In a real sense to imagine what it would be like to be there, as if such were the case. The hypothetical, the forwards looking projections of possibility and plausibilities of actions. Something so fundamental to even movement, punny, but also liberty and freedoms of the will.

There’s something quite interesting to be had there in terms of how imaginations works at all et al. Why it is that we dont merely repeat ourselves to each other, but do actually proffer forth genuine novelty in inspiration. Pattern shifting whereby relativistically novel musings bout a something that simply passively presents itself as a Truth to be thoroughly explored.

Within the fractal framework described, whereby the mind or the concepts themselves, howsoever exactly folks want to frame that, which dont have direct connections to the immediate conceptual neurological region of interest, aesthetically described by way of its specific subset category of the overall relevant meta-fractal relation to the broader neurological structure (the ‘base generic shape’).

The Truth is found from within the imaginative musings, there is very much a perceptual problem by folks who are too inwardly looking. It is a very straightforwards way of looking at it tho. Again, Truth is in some sense a given in the sense that when we see a horse we all of us have a relativistically and self-similarly structured Truth-like experience, but when youre being lost in a dream its not nearly so obvious.

When folks are imaginatively musing through their concepts, dreams, beliefs, or hearing of someone elses, Truth as a relational property relative to the images to which one is exposed via the communicative mediums. Again, and relevantly tho subtly, the written word is different than the spoken, see here for instance, and the concepts are different than the dreamstates therein, and the modes of dance convery a different sense of meaning too, you see.

The notion isnt exactly one of an obtusely construed imaginative musings, and conceptual planes, in all of these sensory exchanges we all of us do within the spaces we share, there are relativistic facts of the matter to which each relevant subset of the set interpret the facts.

Such is also consistent with literal points of view, and figurative points of view, as a view is typically quite linearly construed even conceptually speaking. The as if, the hypothetical, those modes of musings bout these things, tend to see themselves only as if from within. To graph that conceptual structure to the relatively factual structures of the brains, its general fractal structure, it certainly makes sense that concepts would have some kind of similar structures to it, that they are self-similarly structured is a good clarification of the point, especially as how they relate to Truth, lies and facts tho.

Bc that has practical applications.

In the biological analogue to the conceptual, the notion may well be that the imagination is structurally attached via the connections between neurons, a very queerly predicated structure. I suspect this is misleading tho. Those would be the self-similarly related connections between neurons.

To make waves with a rhythmic and sustained sort of motion, rather than splashing around in the water, punching at waves caused by your own movements.

Folks gonna learn how to swim, indeed, theyll therefore also learn how to soar in defiance of gravity.

I dont even know if a binary system can handle three distinctive aspects of Truth. The classic mode is True False, on off, etc… that is so core to the computing systems it does seem like it would be a bit odd for any ai system so predicated to even be able to really suss out that kind of fundamental distinction, assuming ‘it’ has a capacity to ‘grasp’ anything at all.

Philosophical Aside

i really want to be a philosopher here and just say that some of the terminology here matters a great deal. Having or being a relational property actually matters a great deal. Id say that since the theory here is one of Becoming, whereby Being is a projection thereof, that ‘relational properties’ and having or being them are all of them fairly suspect as terms to be used in the context of Becoming.

This sort of loose use of terms developed within the context of Being, which speak towards ontological structures, ought be suspect as to having a one to one relation to what they would mean and how they would be utilized within an ontology of Becoming.

If we take the theory seriously, wed assume that there is a self-similar, and hence not one to one, relation between those concepts’ use within the differing ontological theories. The projected view of those concepts just ought not be taken uncritically.

However, to try and develop that would go too far astray, and i do think that there is a non-trivial self-similar relation between these, entailing that some senses of their meanings are applicable. I think most folks understand the regular usage well enough to parse out how theyd apply in the contexts they are working on.

EXCLUSIVE: “How Fascism Works” Author Jason Stanley Plans to Leave the U.S. | Amanpour and Company

This dude speaks some about the control of narratives by the state. He also says, correctly, that what the tv admin are doing is unconstitutional on a fundamental level, how they are attacking universities.


One such narrative to maintain is, therefore, the universities.

Poking The Coals

Poking the coals is bringing back into the foreground a given narrative, pushing oxygen into the coals of the fire. This works regardless of the current state of the narrative. Poking the coals is an essential tactic to understand as folks manage multiple narratives.

In the kind of conceptual environment were in online, most dialogues types, narratives, have some representation somewhere. Poking the coals can be done in a fairly deliberative sense therefore. Folks can search online for the proper spaces online and raise the awareness within that space of a given direction towards which folks want them to aim.

In an actual fire the flames grow where you poke.

The Crudest Of Man

A piece on the notion of ‘grab ‘em by the pussy’, mortification, prudishness, etc… and how that is inappropriate and targets men primarily.

Relate to the broader depictions of sexual dynamics which tend to ignore those aspects in favor of depictions of women as ‘victim demurred’.

The attacks on sexuality which can and have happened occur primarily by way of an attack on men and masculinity towards an ideal of woman as if on vaunted pedestal, Romanticism in a word. That is what Romanticism as a mood of loves between men and women actually is. It stems itself from the romantic era as a term of use, and refers fairly specifically to the notion of placing woman as an ideal upon a pedestal, one of which regards concerns for her ‘sexual purity’ if not outright demands for virginity!

In the classic feminist lit, this is lit up as occurring due to a supposed ‘ur state of men’ which regards women as objects of the subject, patriarchy.

In classic feminist theory, their perspective is colored by way of this assumption. They posit firstly the supposition of patriarchy, and then they describe what that looks like as if by way of explanation they are thereby giving proof to the existence of the very patriarchal structures theyve already supposed.

Thus an origin tale for the mythologies of Patriarchal Realism, see here if you dont know what Patriarchal Realism is.

A projected depiction of an event as if told from an already supposed inert victim. By not describing how they themselves have helped to bring about whatever it is that comes a’bout.

In a real sense this isnt a particularly unusual or even necessarily wrong kind of thing to do, when youre telling a story. I mean, even just in the blandest of senses, when someone tells a story they themselves tend to be the main character to the story they are telling. They are the ones doing the actions.

They are not merely passively waiting for actions to happen to them. This is a good lesson i think for a lot of women in particular to take to heart.

When folks tell a story about blame tho. A story about a victim supposed, the main characters shift. They themselves become but supporting cast members in their tales about what happened to them. Necessary for the description to happen, but critically not important for the causal forces of the events that happened.

Whatsoever those events may be.

Hence they minimize their own roles, emphasizing not only their innocence to the crimes, if crimes they be, but oft enough providing a pretense of passivity. Relevantly this also manifests as a pretextual disposition of sexual innocence; providing a pretence of passivity to it all, which manifests itself oft enough as pretenses of unwantedness within sexualized discourses.

Bluntly, folks confuse and conflate the gendered norms of men approaching women first as if that were indicative of women inherently not being interested in sex and sexuality. This is obvious in the discourses, even within classic feminist lit, e.g. its long been noted that sexual language puts women in a passive position.

As they argue the point, such is due to the patriarchy of course, mirroring the same phenomena they are themselves noting. That is, also placing women as passive victims of patriarchy, rather than active agents in a gender dynamic.

Now, this is generally true of people in general, but it creeps and seeps into the gender discourses via this peculiar error in feminist theory, which posits, tacitly or explicitly, that women and femininity as such are passive, that they are the objects of others, they are therefore presupposed to be victims in a story they are trying to tell about gendered harms that occur regardless of gender.

Not to suggest that they are not unique harms to various genders, in whatever gendered systemizations we may surmise. Just that the perspective of women and femininity when speaking towards those kinds of issues regarding blame, victimhood, etc… find themselves subjected to the same problem in their analysis that we would see in any other real life situation.

We know this is true fairly intuitively, i mean the ‘victim’s tale’ tends to minimize the victim(s) as much as is plausible, and switch the main character of the tale. I think most everyone can understand that, as we’ve all had real life experiences of that, when friends tell us their stories of victimhood, and we gotta ask them at some point, if we are being honest with them at any rate, ‘sure, but what role did you play in all this shit?’

Cause we all know thats whats its like in maybe even the overwhelming majority of real life cases if were being honest.

Its not hard to see how feminism would be subjected to the same temptations and error proneness to present themselves as victims of passivity itself!

The final level to the pyramid of oppression. Passive victims of history itself!

I dont want to make the pure inversion mistake of that tho either; that isnt an inherent trait of women, nor of feminisms. It is just an error in thinking within feminisms, and plausibly other disciplines, whereby the subjectivity of the presupposed victimhood influences and obscures the reality.

It is a soluble problem tho, and not even a particularly difficult one to solve, if folks bother to try.

Conceptualize, and consider those sorts of feminist and queer issues in a relatively neutral framework of gender and sexualities, inclusive from the get go in all ways with men. Noting relevantly that men are queers too and that blends men into femininities’ realms regardless.

Ethically speaking in a gender neutral framework, understanding that asymmetries are not only more or less inevitable, but by and large they are desirable to have in a dynamically interactive system. This is true too of power relational analysis, bc unless there are quite wild disparities involved there arent any real issues providing that obligatory ethical concerns are not broken. i tend towards the 80/20 measure as a point that folks would look at the situation as suspicious. But i acknowledge that the real figures would vary around that, and the reality that even with great disparities in power may be, there nonetheless remains the possibility that there are no ethical concerns to be had there either.

It is just that such becomes a pragmatic indicator of when to start being concerned about power relations at all, enough to look at the situation to determine if things are alright or not.

This is where sexual ethical analysis and bdsm practices become highly relevant and useful for understanding power relations in general.

Total power exchange styled relationships are not at all uncommon, and are at least broadly considered to be ethical providing that they are consensually entered into, which does mean the capacity to remove themselves from the situation at a later date. Tho so too does that construe that they may return again to their desires and wilful sublimation of the body and will to another. We speak therefore of but the agreed to reality that bodies, situations, and circumstances can change.

Which highlights the main point that consensuality is consistent with the most extreme form of sublimation of one’s self towards another, at least within the realms of sexualities. That qualifier is pretty critical too, its ones thing to be speaking of sublimation of the will and total power exchanges in the context of sex and sexuality, but note that such doesnt and ought not be construed as being indicative of a gender being inherently thusly, or that a culture ought necessarily be that way.

My sense here is that folks who mistake those points are conflating their own personal sexual preferences onto the cultures, genders, and sexualities of other people. Which is super common to do, and very easy to do. It is normal to feel normal, and so too normal for someone to mistake their own personal sexual tastes as if they must also be the ‘norm’.

This is similar to arguments regarding outright slavery of whatever form in the realms of sexualities. The suggestion being, a consensual sexual slave isnt a contradiction in terms. Providing of course that there is freedom to change the sexual dynamic if folks so desire to.

Again, consensual sexual slavery, whatever anyone might think of it, isnt non-consensual inherently due to the slavery aspect of it. Much as consensual non-consent is actually rape. But both are exactly the power dynamic involved.

That doesnt mean that the power relation cant be used as a coercion against someone, but it does mean that the power relation itself isnt a sufficient causal reason for consent not being possible.

This is important too for a lot, and far too much of thought is spent by the puritanical types pretending that any power disparities inherently entail consent not being possible.

If even in the most extreme cases of the mere power relation itself, sexual slavery, or instead, consensual non-consent, then it does actually follow that power relations as a general rule do not actually entail any kind of causally relevant consent for consent.

In other words, its only relevant as a circumstance that could be abuse, but it doesnt itself entail any kind of abuse or necessarily any kind of inherent ethical problem.

This does translate into real life too. That is, real world power asymmetries on their own are not inherently coercive, tho they are circumstances of relevance in analyzing consensuality.

I think careful analysis would find it the case that there is a likely split in the range of 80/20, say 10 point margin, whereby the power relations between slaves and their owners were non consensual/consensual. In other words, maybe a 10-30% chance of a given sexual interaction to have been consensual, 70 - 90% chance non consensual, just with a gut feeling as to what constitutes having a gut feeling reaction about the ethics of it.

The argument here is that we all have or get ‘gut feelings’ about some given ethical kind of concern. Maybe ‘cringe’ but not necessarily unethical. Maybe sussy, so could be fine, but makes one raise their eyebrows. What that means in real life is that there is an 80/20 split in the plausible ethical outcomes.

I think thats like the limit of what we’d assume for generic human intuition.

Conversely my intuition regarding total sexual power exchange is that its also an 20/80 split, 10 point spread. I think most of those kinds of situations are completely fine 70 - 90% of the time. People regularly submit to being sexual slaves because they legitimately desire for that sexuality. I dont think there is anything wrong with that at all, but there is a dynamic there that we can legit look at and say ‘kinda sussy tho’, that’s that 10-30% of the times whereby that dynamic in power could go ary. But then, i dont think we are speaking of consent issues there at all either. What wed likely mostly be speaking of is good v bad sex. I think 10-30% of the time that sort of power dynamic just doesnt work well for the people who try it.

Its more like a barometer of what sorts of sexual power dynamics peoples prefer, because its all playful in the realms of sexuality to ‘mess around with gender roles’.

But that is because sexualities therein already kinda presumes consensuality. That, however, i dont think is a bad assumption to make, as it thereby doesnt present one party as if inherently passive in the engagement.

‘Youre drunk on my awe of you

But it doesnt mean anything at all’

The contexts of sexual interactions is prima facie good faithed aesthetics. To not be interacting in good faithed sexual aesthetics is to be abusing sexualities [active]; perhaps misconstruing them in total for prima facie bad faithed aesthetics [passive].

So, why all this, it begins to really undercut the moral arguments of the puritans. The hysteria that is tossed around much in line with blame, whereby the blaming for something distorts the pictures of what may actually be going on.

Unlike in a story, the reality of these dynamics is more complex and more interesting for it.

You can breakdown their moralistic intuitions as these gut checks, relativized both to the supposition of the victim, and a misunderstanding of what aesthetic ethical intuitions mean.

Those are intuitions regarding sexual icks and yums. They really ought be regarded as sexual tastes, and the proper diet is fairly omnivorous. Being sex positive in other words entails learning how to enjoy sexualities, explorations of sexual interests, desires, etc… folks can have whatever tastes they want to have, but pretty much exactly as i would advise my picky eaters to ‘try lots of tastes and foods’ and ‘to try them again and again as you age’, so too would i advise my picky lovers.

Those icks ought be in the 10-30% range, those yums ought be in the 70-90% range.

Sex, sexualities, as so too genders as aesthetically ethical entails that kind of interpretation regarding sexual dynamics in general.

In the pragmatics of living, this also translates to specific kinds of sexual actions. All of which are fine. The context of a given sexual interaction matters a great deal. Here we are speaking far more about the distinctions between ethically obligatory kinds of concerns, and aesthetical ethical kinds of concerns.

The obligatory sorts of concerns derive themselves from the contexts within which otherwise and prima facie fine sexual interactions occur. To do a given action out of context constitutes an aesthetical ethical foul. An ‘ick’ as a response.

However, there is the plausibility of creating specific places that cater to specific tastes, and even forbids certain kinds of behavior.

Here the ethics switch tho, as the context provides the basis upon which an assumed yes please try is delimited in its scope. How we view this ethically can get somewhat complex.

There isnt anything inherently wrong with grabbing someone by the genitals, there are plenty of contexts where that is totally acceptable behavior. That isnt to say that those are the ‘proper contexts’ tho, that would misunderstand that humans themselves are creating these contexts.

Can you see how victimhood can start to slip in there by masking humans own involvement in their own sexualities? As soon as ‘proper contexts’ is supposed as an ethically obligatory kind of concern, we end up with divergent views on what the obligatory ethics are. Some people grab each other by the genitals in x circumstance, others in y circumstances.

That doesnt make sense for obligatory kinds of ethics as they tend towards a far more universal or necessary kinds of concerns. Murder is prima facie ethically wrong in all circumstances. It can be made not wrong by circumstances. More to the point rape is prima facie ethically wrong in all circumstances. But it can be made not wrong by circumstances.

For obvious instance consenting to it. Tho that goes much deeper than folks might think. There are plausible cultural practices that might appear or feel as though they are rape, when, at least arguably, they are not. Some examples include arranged and forced marriages (true for everyone involved), prostitution (imagine prostituting yourself to survive as a form of rape),

I dont want to delve into these here, but just to convey some of the ambiguity in these instances, can two people mutually rape each other? One intuition says no. For instance we might be inclined to view sex with an under age but post pubescent person rape if it happens with a person who is ‘of age’. Regardless of consent to be clear here too. It isnt that ‘consent cant be had bc they are too young’ it is ‘we abhor the notion of oldies preying on folks that are too young’, so we call it ‘statutory rape’, meaning that it is rape by statute not consent.

Which might strike some folks as a minor point, but its not, puns intended there.

But youths having sex among themselves, we may or may not abhor, but we certainly dont call it rape either.

Some folks are shocked to understand that those laws are fairly recent as if that spoke ill of the past. But the reality, the circumstances of peoples lives before the modern era were so wildly different that a ‘statutory rape’ notion just doesnt make sense at all.

Post pubescent people gonna fuck. They are. We all know they are, regardless of if we like talking about it. With no effective birth control, that can mean pregnancy pretty early in life. Hence notions of marrying someone off young (boys and girls), arrange marriages, in some sense the notion of marriage at all.

Post effective birth control, and some other significant material changes, have meant that the ethical concerns that arise from those conditions have also changed.

On ‘The New Conservatives’

Oren Cass - Understanding Trump Tariffs Through the Lens of “The New Conservatives” | The Daily Show

There is some possible overlap here with the Labor movement, and by extension mens issues.

May be worthwhile to expand on this point in the context of the Moneyless Free Labor Societies, notably the overall layers of divisions of freely chosen labor, determined primarily by scale. The limits of free markets, and also the divisions of freely chosen labor.

Work with the flow, the directionality of the political state of things. Building the labor movement not in a nationalist movement but in a locally and bioregionally focused movement. Continuing the attack against the nationalist movement, taking their breath from them, by redirecting the ‘inwards’ momentum into bioregionally diverse developments.

There is an explicit tripart relation in the economic supposition; Labor, Ecologies, Government. Ecologies are the predicable base. Labor And Governmental concerns operate at different scalars. Partly this is bc Labor and especially small businesses, the heart of the entrepreneurial spirit are largely or completely in alignment to the point.

Businesses larger than a certain size are likely better run and managed more akin to a government, far more unionized in its orientation. Some aspects are best handled by actual government, at whatever scalar we are speaking of.

Just in terms of Labor there are preferences on balance between the preference for relatively cheap (in terms of labor costs), and capacity for freedom of entrepreneurial practice. In all cases those the freedom of the movement of Labor is what is important for the Labor economic structure.

Being able to choose to open a small business is a good thing. Motives for doing so change and differ in a Labor market. The hinge far more on the freedom of choice to do so, vs the relative ease of benefiting from the labor of others too. Putting that leisure life as a balancing tool for the desires of comforts. Each sharing loads for each other.

Government limits that sort of behavior, directing it is perhaps a better turn of phrase though. Providing a floor and ceiling within which labor can functionally operate together without recklessly destroying the ecosystems within which they are living.

No more offshoring pollution bs in a more locally focused systemization. Bioregional awareness allowed us to far better structure our whole economic and living relations. I mean to say it is just an objectively better way of understanding the base predicable structure for any and all Labor market interactions.

There is a fractal transformation there if you think bout it a bit; i mean between these there is a structuring that occurs.

A Beautiful Musing On History

You can hear the Truth seeking function in her voice, ‘tis quite beautiful to listen too. [consider moving to section with the line ‘Truth seeking may be an example of such a conceptual aesthetic function’, or rewording that here.] When you cleave with it you cut well along the conceptual joints of the aesthetical form. The way her concepts flow together as she speaks, like the clapping of butterfly wings in the softness of a breeze. Fluttering not quite as the winds blow, but deftly utilizing their currents, even unto the most apt of details. idk.

Fractal Distribution Note

Possible common fractal relation to the point of fractal distribution systems. ‘....everyone i see to walk away with part of me.’

Her Space Holiday - Japanese Gum

This would be similar to how ai distributions work via the aesthetic, there is a partial connection between a given aesthetic view and its adjacent scalar counterparts.

There are a few phrases, a few sentences to an idea that when read and thought about, produce possible solutions, not all of them are plausible, tho all are possible inherently given that they are really expressed, even if imaginarily.

Such a process can be understood as a description of an open source mechanic, many hands and eyes approach.

To put forth longer philosophical discourse serves multiple purposes tho. Such are extended versions of the base fractal structures. Explorations across the breadth of the fractal conceptual frameworks.

They arent, in this reading, an exploration of a scalarly relevant branch of a given aesthetical view, they are rather a spread across the aesthetical view, with branches that lead off to a wide variety of possible and ideally plausible connectivities. They are good plans in other words, from a meta perspective.

Careful, thoughtful examination of their tenets, pun intended, tends to produce valid and interesting outputs from the iterative thinking processes. Scalarly different prime, which branch across a variegated range of plausibilities.

That latter aspect is also crucial to the philosophical worth of the longer scripted forms.

In the short form the limit is merely possible. Purely imaginary solutions are permitted, even wildly incoherent solutions are permitted, bc ‘its possible at least in the instance of its expression’.

In the long form, partly in virtue of its length, philosophy has a practice entails having the capacity to kinda know the way already. The good paths to take, even if they be troubling to some. Partly this is from the conceptual tools philosophy provides tho.

Logic, reasoning, compassion, care, an aim for the Truth and the good, and an inherently deep understanding of ethics, as i suspect (could be wrong) that ethics and aesthetics are foundational to philosophy; in mean in conception and historical practice, but i repeat myself.

The length of the writings provide folks with practice reading, reasoning, and trying to understand through the conceptualizations of another inherently, rather than merely musing over one’s self masturbatorily.

It isnt a matter of agreement or disagreement, its a matter of communicability; virility in fertile grounds. Consequentiality and circumstantially. Meta and localized context in iterative functional realities.

“If youre worried theres a lack of color here.

Please dont worry lover

Its really bursting at the seems

The spectrum a to z

…

This is fact not fiction, for the first time in years.” - dcfc

There is a kind of plainness to the descriptive output, something fairly intuitive for folks.

Its not bout virality, its about virility, fertility. How pregnant is a concept once given, and how virile are those who seek after it. The virality of a given concept is entirely indicative of its virus and small like nature, fractally speaking.

They are tiny blips in life.

They expand and die out quickly, foolishly, almost unthinkingly, due to their focus on arbitrary completeness of their theorems, pun most def intended.

A self similarly transformed thing happen irl of course, greed, the want for wants, is among its most viralistic forms. Craven, cowards, weak, pathetically desperate actually. The reasons for working, the reasons for labors and laboring i mean, what an off tilter choice to be making via monies, survivalists needs.

When those irl instances, which are related to the conceptually propagating motions in the conceptual oceans, is indicative of the first day of the rest of your life folks young and old alike.

To properly understand something conceptually inherently isnt to self-samely reflect a given expression. Repetition is simply ontologically incorrect.

Self-similarity is inherent to any given fractal formation, its just inherent to the ontology.

There is therefore, and this is a surprisingly powerful sort of upshot in the matters of Truth, such is a plurality inherently. The sense of oneness as a singularity of view is a peculiar backwards looking view in a temporal sense. The pathways that once upon a time were. There are other plausible interpretations such as the view from an angle in a fractal form. Punny.

That particular view is a kind of projection, an ‘as if’ it were an inherently closed system, the natural counting sequence as a brute misguidance to the ontology it ostensibly seeks to count upon.

Differentials of Causal Relations

Differing aesthetical formal structures defined by way of their rates of iteration. The iterative processing is causally connected. The notion of ‘causal cause’ is an atemporal formulation of causation.

Ratcliff, the fascist cliff over which rats fall. ‘Sometimes god throws you a bone’. Too cute.

The arbitrarily sharply defined temporal segment is akin to the arbitrarily sharply defined rate of iteration. Those are related to the notions of Being as an ontological structure, the self-same identity relation is simply a kind of arbitrary sharply defined relation between arbitrarily sharply defined individual.

The spacetime structures of relativity being the environment through which life iterates, a kind of state of Becoming, where Being and Nothingness are the limits. Such can be construed as 1 and 0. Becoming as the non-linearly infinite between 0 and 1.

That can be construed as a nominally projected systemization of the internets in total.

A point of order therein being rather arbitrarily defined.

The becoming waveform within which the individual arises, do they not maintain as that? The nominal focus on the individual provides the general obstruction in awareness of the states of becoming such nominal individuations individuate themselves from.

The nominal particle relative the waveform choosing between slits.

A Short Piece On Being Wrong

I swear this has relevance to life in general, and will crop up from time to time in folks’ discourses.

A fundamental claim as to what constitutes ‘wrongness’ or ‘being wrong’ is a contradiction.

It holds that this is wrong because generally because of the claim that ‘the same thing cannot both be and not be’. There are some other versions that don’t rely on this, namely, claims of consistency in view. Hence, i mean, the consistency view of wrongness does particularly say that the same thing cannot both be and not be, it says more modestly that an inconsistent view, which is inconsistent by way of a contradiction, is a wrong view simply in that one or the other aspect of it needs go in order for there to be consistency to the view.

But to the point here, in regards to the wrongness of a claim being about the contradictions within it, there are some oddities that i think folks gloss over, to their detriment.

Firstly, the claim that there is something wrong entails that there is an existent thing there. To ‘be wrong’ is to express a contradiction in some meaningful sense or another. That expression of the contradiction is a reality tho.

Hence, there is actually an instance of something both being and not being at the same time.

This is true regardless of how we parse that out, for the it is only dependant on the claim that there is something wrong at all, which is contained in the expression of the point ‘the same thing cannot both be and not be at the same time’.

If there were no existent manifestations of that, there would be no point to the claim. I mean to say, that there would be no contradictions in the world, none expressed, no ontological reality of contradictions, if we take that claim seriously.

But of course if that were true, then the claim as to there being a ‘wrong in the world’ would be false.

Hence the claim itself, that is, the claim that ‘the same thing cannot both be and not be’ as a means of defining wrongness is itself a contradiction.

It is strongly akin to pointing to a real existent thing, and saying ‘that thing there, right there, cannot exist, and hence, it doesn’t exist’.

There are modes of this claim that may avoid this problem by replacing the claim from an ontological one to an ethical one. Namely, that it is possible to say without contradiction that that is wrong because the same thing ought not both be and not be at the same time.

There are other kinds of claims to be made here too that are fairly interesting.

A contradiction may be viewed as a stopping point in a chain of reasoning. Hence, there is a kind of pragmatics to noting those sorts of things in that they signal a break in an otherwise unbroken chain.

Although i caution folks from taking this as too limiting to the usefulness of this way of understanding contradictions, it is likely helpful for folks to grasp the point by way of a machine like process. As in, a contradiction breaks any given machine like process.

Hence, there comes to be a point in, say, a causal chain of events whereby some otherwise outcome would occur, but for a contradiction.

To ‘fix’ that machine like process, in the sense of making that outcome occur, requires the removal of the contradiction.

Course, if the outcome suxs, may be better to leave that contradiction in place now wouldn’t it.

But the point is that there is a kind of utility involved in noting contradictions in that it smooths out the processes, eliminating breaks in the reasoning, in the causal chain of events, or towards any particular aim that a person might have.

This mode of understanding contradiction is, imho, valid and good because not only does it avoid the inherent contradiction in the classical sense of its use, the ontological claims regarding contradiction that is, but it also doesn’t need to posit a necessity rule about the removal or maintenance of a contradiction.

There is a utility involved in having or not having a contradiction in place in other words. One utility of having one in place is to mark out no go zones for reasoning for instance. A means of guiding one’s reasoning processes by markers that stop reasoning processes when they would otherwise be, say, pathologically bad.

Another reason to have a contradiction would be to bound something. In this sense the notion is to neatly bound up a concept by pointing out the limits of a concept by way of a contradiction.

That contradiction doesn’t thereby dismiss the concept so much as it neatly contains and constrains it to within a non-arbitrary limit.

There is also of course the notion that a contradiction could be a problem within any given conceptualization, an indication that there is a something there that ought be changed, but that ought isn’t an ontological claim anymore, it is at most a kind of epistemic claim, but even therein it isn’t a strong claim of wrongness anymore. It becomes but a claim of utility towards some other aim.

There is some reason to be curious as to what an overall contradiction free conceptualized framework might look like, but there isnt necessarily any reason to thereby suppose that that would be ‘True’ whereas one that has contradictions would be ‘False’ in the classic sense that those terms are meant to be used, which is as a matter of ontology.

Another and another interesting way to view this is by way of the fractal formal structures alluded to through my works, and indeed, throughout the world.

A contradiction is a relativized differentiation between formal structures. The patterned form in other words being the ‘consistent view’ and the ‘truth of the matter’, at least within temporal bounds; again, might be interesting to consider such without temporal bounds, and hence too, contradiction free. Such just doesn’t thereby eliminate the formal structures of temporality either, e.g. that wouldnt disprove temporality. It would simply be a different ontological state.

The contradiction in this sense rests on the bald relations of the internal structures of a given state to the internal structures of another given state.

As noted elsewhere, this is akin to the scalar differences, and the roles of changing patterned forms.

Here too we would note such as being likely strongly akin to differing concepts, as in, a concept has of it some temporal form defined by way of its fractally unfolded distribution. A different fractally unfolded distribution would have contradictions to it relative to each other, even if they are similar concepts. Consider for instance the relation of memory to later or earlier memories of the same events, and consider such as too as a kind of prima facie fractal coding methodology towards the world.

As in, i mean, taking for granted that there are fractal patterns in the world, and that a concept is a fractally unfolded distribution, then it follows that there is some n rate relation between the objects in the world as fractally unfolded distributions, and whatever the fractally unfolded distribution of the concept of that thing be.

We also neednt understand such as any kind of shape to shape distribution. All that is required is a translation matrix between fractal formal structures. That is, a transformation matrix between this and that formal patterned structure.

That transformation matrix, to carry the point home, being predicated upon the contradictions as indicies of stopping points in conceptualizations, scalar differences of form, and notable differentiations of the transformation maxtrix.

In other words, suppose we have some transformation matrix x for the forming of concepts. The patterned formal inputs of y and z interact differently from each other in relation to x. Perhaps y denote some formal relation of .345857 and z some formal relation of .29357. That differentiation of the pattern distribution defines the edges of the contradictions, and hence too, the edges of the patterned forms.

Note that this also relates well to the notion of the fractal formal structure being the proper ontological distribution. As in, a table is a table due to its patterned form, half a table isn’t a proper table form, so it at the minimum would constitute a different sort of ontological structure, namely, half tables. But also, as a degenerate form of the ontological structure of table we can just denote that such isn’t an ontological entity on its own.

Hence preserving a kind of naive ontological view regarding objects.

Also within this view we can understand a certain history of philosophy and more broadly of human thought as being a misunderstanding of the nature of the contradiction. Specifically towards that aim of a contradiction free view of the world, which manifests itself too by way of removal of manifestations of a perceived contradiction.

If, that is, there were to be viewed a contradiction, something that ‘seems silly’ to the person, something that ‘seems wrong’ not in a moral or ethical sense mind you, but just in the sense of ‘does not align well with my own conceptualization’ that therefore it must be removed, wiped out of existence.

That might have an attempt at justification by way of morals, but the contention here is that the ontological belief comes first, and the moral justification comes second.

That backwards view of the relation being a serious ethical problem all its own, as it would tend to lead people towards horrendous actions under the belief that they are doing some sort of good thing. Consider, i mean, war, the most obvious manifestation of this poorly cut conceptualization of the contradiction.

The belief of the ontological harm, the ontological unreality of the contradiction as a matter of looking upon some different formal entity, culture, peoples, etc… noting that contradiction as being indicative of a ‘wrongness’ whereby that ‘wrongness’ needs be eliminated to maintain the conceptualization of the contradiction itself as a belief about ontology.

To try and give that some more concreteness to folks’ conceptualization of it. Imagine, i mean, being confronted by something that in your conceptualization of the world simply cannot exist. Your relativized view of the world entails that such and such is in contradiction, and it is, that is true. But you understand that as meaning ‘therefore that thing there cannot really exist’.

So you what? To justify that position, you try to eliminate it entirely, be that by way of, say changing that person’s view so that they become like you, hence resolving the ill mused feelings the contradiction presented to you, or simply murdering the entity in total.

Now, of course multiple parties can be doing thus, here we needn’t understand this as a blame thing, we need only understand it as the conceptual dispositions that lead to conflict.

There are real modes of worth tho in noting the contradictions, even in eliminating them, as already noted; pragmatics of a process working, mapping out of conceptual frameworks, plausibly the maintaining of a patterned form, etc…

There are ethical considerations too that are real oughts and those too can be well described by way of contradictions, tho note that they dont rest of the belief in the lacking of ontological reality of either the contradiction or the entities in question. The ethical concerns are prima facie, the ontological concerns are theoretical. Meaning, such and thus ought not exist, not such and thus does not exist. So, for instance, murder, war, rape, these things are ethical oughts of concern such that they ought not exist, that oughtness indeed resting on understanding contradictions as they pertain to oughts, not as they pertain to ontologies.

See also and for relevant instance the Odd Questions piece, as i feel that denotes a similar point regarding colonialism as a practice.

The Anachronistic History Of Misandristic Homosexuality

How Historians Study Gay History | Sir Noel Malcolm: The History of Homosexuality (1/4)

Id also retort to the history prof’s characterizations of the man / boy relationships in antiquity, whereby he cant fathom the notion that the boys might have also enjoyed it. By boy we are speaking of underaged by modern standards, but post pubescent. I strongly suspect the history prof is anachronistically applying post birth control sexual ethical considerations onto a time and society that is pre birth control in its considerations of sexual ethics. Rather specifically the general age of consent in antiquity was broadly puberty. Assuming that homosexual sexual relations were normalized in the society, there isnt any real reason to suppose that the adolescent boys didnt also desire such relationships.

Its only odd to our ears because we consider the age of consent to be far older. The sentiments of desires expressed regarding youth v aged man are interesting as an example of how homosexuality is culturally defined at least in part, but they dont carry the kind of ethical wiegth that the prof seems to think they do, and hence he misreads the history by way of his modern ethical lens.

Ironically, he holds that the boys cant possibly have enjoyed themselves due to a belief in the modern times regarding the ethical taboos of being sexual with a post pubescent but under aged person.

When power falls away. There is a plausibly interesting point to be made here. The history prof clearly handwaves a bit but accept the notion of a power dynamic as explanatory for the relationships. Again, anachronistically applying a certain kind of ethic, but i also think something that anarchronististically applies power where it isnt at.

A notion that is whereby in the ur states of sexuality, speaking in terms of desires rather than ethics, there is a normalcy towards the perceived beautifulness of pubescence and post pubescence. There is i mean a real sense of not being derived from a power relation, but rather, a desires relationship upon which power may prey upon.

The structures are not power based, and if they become power based then there is the potential for exploitation, the structures are desire based.

This is fairly important for any sort of historical analysis too, and i think this vid does a good job of displaying that point via their analysis of gender and homosexuality. For instance, in describing boys doing it for money, favors, or as a job presents it as if those were the structuring reasons for the relationships in the first place.

I dont mean to suggest that prostitutional styled relationships dont have power structures to them, i do mean to suggest that those power structures are tacked on after the cultural fact of the desires. My intuition here is that pubescent and post pubescent people, which is until remarkably recently by far and large the age of consent in cultures (virtually all pre modern effective birth control cultures), are genuinely desirous of older people.

While i understand the squeamishness of this discourse, i dont actually think that is a controversial statement. I think we all ourselves know this to be True because we were all once upon a time pubescent and post pubescent youths ourselves, and we ourselves did indeed find older people, even wildly older people, quite desirable.

I’ll address the squeamishness here directly; im not arguing that we ought return to those practices, cultures, and ways, i am arguing tho that in their cultural contexts there isnt anything obviously inherently ethically wrong with such relationships, moreover there is a potential wrong there that does have to do with exploitation by way of power relations, but those are not inherent to the relationship as such, and they dont structure the relationship from the get go.

Folks might find it helpful to consider it as latent power differentials that may or may not become relevant in any given instance of it. Potential power rather than actualized or exercised power.

Boys being extremely common prostitutes for women and men in antiquity was more telling both of the relatively accepting views of prostitution as a norm in society, and the powering structure therein far, far more than anything else is the money and wealth distributions, the arbitrary valuing of things via money which undervalues and defines the whole in terms of power relations.

That is placed as overlay upon the pre-existing and far more relevant and fundamental structuring forces of desires, which are generally mutually shared between pubescent and post pubescent people and those older than them. As in antiquity this generally entails that post pubescent youths are viewed is a desirous manner and view others in desirous manners, due to their general form. To be crude about it, because they have the sexual and generally sexualized aspects of desires a’bout them in the form of their breasts, genitals, butts, etc…

They are, in other words, in the brute and hence relevant sense of desires, sexually desirable.

It would be exceedingly odd if that werent the case too. Sans any cultural considerations at all, absent any concerns of potential abuse, ethical considerations that are of worth to have, there isnt any difference by way of desire for a nice looking fourteen year old and a nice looking twenty three year old.

I think folks would have to be lying to themselves in addition to everyone else if they proclaim it otherwise. Its almost axiomatically True as pubescence defines sexual readiness and indeed sexual willingness insofar as it goes, which can be quite far if we are all being honest with ourselves about our own sexual desires and behaviors when we were the youngens ourselves.

Ok, so you might think here, ‘ah, an oldie with the hots for the youngens trying to defend the position’, if you do think this, its because youve been sensitized to the puritanical beliefs around sex, and are anachronistically applying them across the board as a way of trying to understand differing cultures which exist in pretty radically different circumstances.

Its a deep concern for the malinterpretations of history which this history prof clearly does over and over again.

Its interesting tho, bc i dont want to entirely deride what he is saying either. His historical facts i take more or less for granted, he is an expert in that regard whereas i am far from it. I may qualify as an amateur history at best, and i do think that is being a bit generous. But the way in which he is interpreting love, homosexuality and gender, well, that is actually among my areas of expertise.

As folks listen to the video youll hear him repeatedly frame the cultures loves and sexual relations as if from the perspective of some overarching male sexual power figure. Patriarchal Realism.

As if the whole systemizations, all the cultural dispositions, were actually derivatives primarily of the power relations of things such as monies, as per the example of the boys as prostitutes. The pretense that desires cannot happen between power disparities.

Now, that is an exceedingly modern ethical consideration, which whatever else we might say about it, clearly was not at all how people in those times wouldve thought of it themselves. Which ostensibly is how they thereby motivated themselves.

Which is to say, not by motivational forces of power.

What more, this history prof is making a common error in their understanding of power dynamics, at least as i was taught it. It isnt that power dynamics dictate a relationship outcome. Its that they shape undergirding motivational structures. They distort the latent desires of people, in this case we are speaking of sexual desires, but note the same is True of the false desires of monies ill honied omens.

Monies distorts the needs, wants and desires of people. Monies manipulates people’s desires towards the ends and aims of monies, or more precisely the aims of the ‘want of wants’, whereby monies measures wants and presents itself too as the satiation of those wants. The want for the means of the satiation of ones own wants. Desire for desire itself.

Greed.

Likewise here we have monies distorting the sexual desires of people, the youth always found the elders attractive, wed be kidding ourselves if we thought otherwise. The elders have always found the post pubescent youth attractive, again, wed be lying to ourselves if we said otherwise.

What monies does is provide the means to manipulate those desires towards egregious ends and aims.

Hence the youths may approach their elders in the first place with their own sexual desires, which happens all the time. We say, not wrongly, in our culture that the elders ought not, the elders are and have to be the responsible ones to say no to such things, and there are sound ethical reasons involved that are relevant for our cultures, really speaking to quite modern cultures worldwide rather than any particular cultural instantiation thereof, as compared to the cultures of the past. Among the most key elements therein ethically speaking is the advent of modern effective birth control. Some other key and relevant factors being the required and desired general extension of childhood via especially education, and in our current societies the frankly pretty extreme power differentials.

I think all of those were radically different in the past tho.

The power differentials were wildly different, the circumstances of sex were wildly different (inevitable procreation v choice based procreation), and the virtues of education via extended childhood are all wonderful reasons to have an age of consent that is different that just the, oh, lets say ‘biologically obvious’ age of consent, puberty.

Cause at that point, they gonna wanna fuck, a lot, and they gonna procreate by doing so. Thats just life.

That is the proper ethical framing to understand all pre-modern effective birth control cultures, and interestingly and relevantly enough, all queer cultures therein too.

As in, when it comes to sex that acts like birth control, any non-penial / vaginal sex is pretty fucking good birth control if you think bout it a bit.

And i think this can give a good hint for a proper interpretation of the history of sexualy regardless of culture; pre modern effective birth control, the main desires towards non-penial / vaginal intercourse was exactly that of its effectiveness as birth control whilst also satiating that sexual desire.

I dont want to, in other words, give the impression that people wouldnt do them if they have modern affective birth control, i am merely stating one of the very obvious plausible real world motivations for exactly any sexual relations that are not penile / vaginal intercourse.

There is just this added plum of pleasure to the whole affairs, punny, you get to do it and not worry about procreating babies.

Now, call me crazy if you must, but pretty sure people in those times had that as their primary motivational structuring.

Now, to return this to the more controversial aspects, for young boys, post pubescent horny boys, you can also see how older men in particular might be desirous, and same too for elder men towards the post pubescent youths.

[Writers Note; i Had Intended This As More Or Less A Stand Alone Piece, But It Dovetails Quite Well With This Piece]

The Inherent Dangers In Activism Between Multiple Lovers

Palantir: The New Deep State

Understand how to combat fascism. In a lot of ways, folks can read this whole thing as a kind of different approach to ai and the use of the new technologies than what is being proposed here by the fascistic scum i so oft refer to in my writings.

One that attempts to utilize these new tools in relatively novel ways, and as a means of countering exactly these sorts of fascistic view points. Folks unfamiliar with palantir and that whole crowd ought become familiar with it if they are interested in combating fascism.

The Basics Of Dealing With Listening Devices And Bad Faith Actors

It occurs to me to remind folks of some of the obvious points regarding the reality that phones and computers are listening devices, things i learned as a teenager and young adult growing up in this kind of information environment.

While its actually relatively easy to give yourself some digital protection, see here for instance, such can be time consuming and not everyone has the proper skillz or time to do all of that. It is an uphill battle trying to remove listening devices, tracking, etc… Winnable tho and worthwhile in certain circumstances.

But, there are other ways of dealing with listening devices, some far less time consuming and frustratingly technical, and some that can be useful in various applications.

One of the major limitations of listening devices is that they create the illusion of power, control and understanding upon those who are listening via them. I say illusion bc of course its entirely dependent upon the good faithed behavior of those they are listening in on.

Normally this is assured by way of secrecy, which is of course obvious when you think bout it a bit. You dont tell the people you are listening in on that you are listening in on them, that way you can ensure that everything you are hearing is real.

That basic illusion by secrecy is what grants the illusion based, but real enough, power, control, and understanding that listening devices can actually provide. Ideally they create an information bubble defining the range over which all your activities can be monitored.

However, if you know that you are being listened in on, and we all are and hopefully we all know it, that radically changes the dynamic of listening devices. If you know what they are listening for, you can of course greatly and freely play around with what kinds of information they are hearing.

Who is listening varies a great deal, but most all of the oligarchy are doing so, and so too any number of bad faithed governmental actors too.

To be fair to the businesses that do this, provided we are living in a fair and reasonably just society, i aint got a problem with them doing so. I understand the potential benefits and boons of big information in regards to especially such things as regulating trade.

But our good faith giving of that information is entirely voluntary on our part.

I dont mean that it is ‘our information, we own it’, tho that is likely true insofar as ownership of anything goes. I mean that we do the things we do, and say the things we say, we shop where we shop, we browse what we browse, we dream what we dream, we interact with whom we interact, all acting in good faith towards those activities.

I say the things i mean, and i mean the things i say. I browse the things i want, not what i dont want. I carry my listening device around, not someone elses. I dream freely of what i dream, and i report exactly what i dream when i speak of what it is that i dream of. I go to the places i like going, and no where else.

We do all these things in good faith, that is what it means to be acting in good faith, playing along with the illusions thusly crafted via our ubiquitous listening devices.

The oligarchy depends on that good faith effort on our part in order for them to rig the economy the way that they are. So too do fascists, those naughty bad faith gov actors who seek to intrude upon their charges instead of uplifting them.

All your data is worth trillions, and has untold and ill understood affects upon the whole of the economy. Each persons data is bought and sold thousands of times a day. People chase after it like it was life itself. Not just the big tech folks, but definitely them and especially them too those oligarchical techno feudalists, but even folks like credit card companies, banks and lenders, businesses large and small, id say whole nations have grown dependent upon this, maybe all of them!

Each dependant like desperate gawkers and perverts upon peeping your deets little ones.

Each time someone has bought your info, or stole it, theyve created a tiny little virtual thread between you and their bank accounts. Transcending spacetime itself, your everyday actions mystically upload via your phone to a virtual thread attached to every bank account that reads it. Everytime they use it to make money, they create another tiny little thread between you and their bank accounts. And they do this, freely, joyfully even, thousands of times a day for each person.

I may be underselling the point here, tho i feel like i am overselling it.

On The Delineation Between The Wealthy And The Poor

And not just you! But also you too. And me, and everyone, there are frightfully few exceptions, and most interestingly, and i swear all Justly minded and Good folks will adore this point. I suspect a fair number less than savory folks will find adorations there too.

The poorer the country, the less affected they are by this. They, after all, havent the resources to predicated their economies on such ephemeral things as information and virtual threads. No doubt as a matter of scalar economic downturns or upturns, the poorer countries feel the worst and least affects respectively, but then that is all the more reasoning to change that now isnt it.

In this case, only the indirect affects of an economic downturn would affect the poorer countries.

Better still within the rich countries, the poorer you are, the more threads your info has, and hence the more power over their monopoly money bank accounts. Think bout it. The poorer you are, the more you spend on consuming overall, the more targeted you are by big data, the more exploited you are by the oligarchy, and how they exploit that?

Virtual threads attached to their banks accounts, each drip drip dripping your life’s info into digital dollars via virtual threads. Where else could they possibly go, if you think bout it? The poors’ bank accounts certainly are filling up from that steady data drip.

Some Talk Of Tactics And Strategies

It is possible to disrupt that sort of listening devices capacities simply by relatively erratic behavior.

For those fascistic bad faith gov actors, those naughty gals and guys tisk tisk, this could be tragic.

Having private meetings without phones is an obvious play, and realistically a good one too. Having private meetings with phones is a less obvious play, that can be utilized well by folks.

Switching phones round and round, disrupts the patterns of the movements of the persons to the phones.

Now, on an individual level, this is of some limited but useful use is distraction, misdirection, misinformation, and digital phantasms, but en masse such approaches completely disable the scalarly larger patterned structures the systems utilize to track people.

Technically it would created a nonlinear fractal encoding of nth degree complexity. Meaning each individual’s normal pattern structures of movements, actions, etc… each constitute one complex fractal system, technically a simplex due to its nominal individuation, which is relevant.

A simplex isnt a complex, as the name implies, as it is but a nominal instantiation, a single timeline in some literal sense of that.

How that individual interacts with their contacts is what transmutations that simplex into a complex. That 1 degree of separation network pattern of behavior is actually quite complex, as it also technically already include all those 1 degree of separation individuals timelines too.

That is 1 degree of fractal progression in terms of complexly interacting timelines, that degree encompasses t number of connections between complex systems. Suppose each of those also has t number of connections. n^t , where ‘n’ is the degree of separation from some arbitrary starting point. That however just describes one complex of a complex system. One person. That in total is actually a fairly difficult read for an ai system to do, but not super difficult for it to display to a human who can interpret it pretty straightforwardly.

However, for every other active participant who isnt already accounted for by way of that first complex, they also have to be taken into consideration in the aggregates of the data. Effectively this means its n^th.

Even relatively minor changes in that result in fairly major differences in terms of the outputs given for tracking even one person for the current system.

Again, relatively easy for a human observer to spot, discreet in this context is a fairly low bar. Smallish adaptations, each person making their own way, being playful with it helps make it more confusing for them to read, provided that its done in gradually built up ways so that it doesnt appear like an erratic shift, as that is something that those ai systems could be trained to spot. So feel free to play, here even playfulness can be a devastating attack.

But for the black boxes of ai systems, such will be an utterly impenetrable mystery to it.

This pattern structure of our metadata is decipherable entirely on the premise that each persons phone remains primarily on their own personage, and that primarily one person is using the device.

That is its technical iteration point for the fractal formal structure that gets read by it, our metadata. Its a critical assumption to every single business and government’s surveillance systems. All of them. No exceptions, no matter how utterly horrendous their fascistic and authoritarian efforts have been up to this point, nor indeed how kind, helpful and benevolent they may have been.

Discreetly trading phones with other people adds an nth degree of complexity to that equation at each iteration of such switching of phones. This disrupts their entire tracking systems as they are dependent upon the phones location, not the persons. There isnt a little person in the algorithms that reads this information who can determine the deception, even if it is somewhat obvious, they simply do not have a means even in theory of dealing with that kind of deliberately en masse disruptive activities within the black boxes of the ai systems.

No one really knows what goes on in those places for sure, some i am sure more so than others, but regardless the ai system itself doesnt know and that is what is really crucial to grasp here. Since the ai is the only thing actually looking at the real data.

What the humans are looking at is whatever the ai systems are spitting out at them. It will entirely lie to them and not know the difference. It will retell them illusions, delusions, dreams, and artifices of another’s imaginative musings.

Its an exceedingly naive system if you think about it. All data, all movements to it all read exactly the same. It doesnt ‘know’ where any of that data is ‘supposed’ to be, it literally only can know where that data actually is. Likewise, it doesnt know what that data is supposed to be, it only knows what it presents itself as to it.

There literally isnt any intelligence in their intelligence ai systems. Lamo.

This is all the more preciously adorable as you can disrupt their entire systems as a daily direct action, regardless of if you are, you know, doing anything else in particular that day. Just add a little randomness to their systems from a meta position that the ai systems simply cannot deduce even in theory.

Now, if a real live human was going through that info, a basically impossible task, im sure theyd be like ‘something funky here’ and they could likely trace it and do something etc…. But to do that theyd have to literally get a human in there to read all the data.

Their systems might read it as an error idk tbh, but it will totally destroy their capacity to predict movements via everyone's metadata. Ai systems are generally quite easily fooled, but in this case as far as i can tell there is no software fix to that. There isnt even a reasonable way to trace that, maybe via a quantum computer devoted to the task? I honestly am uncertain of that in particular, but in terms of wrecking havoc with their systems such as they are, this seems highly plausible.

It would reduce them to tracking specific peoples they target with a human, rather than en masse surveillance via ai systems.

I could be wrong, but i think that’s true, and moreover, i think that the only way to really determine if it is the case is to try it.

The Remnants Of The Global Financial Beasts

All that, all on its own, is a coup de grace against the fascistic eyes of governments everywhere on earth.

But wait, there’s more. The global financial beast has died by way of unwitting suicide as afar as i can tell, utterly breathtaking it is. Ensuring that it no one revives it is key. Folks really ought be aiming for a bioregionally constrained economic system, see here.

Towards those kinds of aims and ends, its worth folks recognizing that the same is true of virtually every business on the planet too, now isnt it?

All those systems depend on reliable information from its begging consumers.

All of it entirely dependent on a docile population that inputs its needs, wants, and desires unthinkingly. What an unthinking way to utilize a thoughts and prayers machine.

Every value of every wealthy person on the entire planet rests in the palm of everyone’s hands.

How would they know what to advert at us without it? How would they be able to track our purchasing habits, shopping habits, etc… deliberately adding disruptive tactics to your day to day living can completely destroy their systems.

Just casual revolutionary actions on the daily.

Whats more, you can discreetly make small changes towards some deliberately deceptive indication of what it is that you do. I mean, for instance, regularly switching phones with someone else at specific times. This creates an entirely false digital footprint.

Its your data, its your phone, you can do whatever pleases you with either of those now cant you? Or shall that fascists come along and inform us of when we must be carrying out phones, and with whom we lend them too, and to whom we must shop at, and to how regular we must be in our actions.

Be a stranger folks, wandering in strange land, and bring your phones with you, and bring yours friends’ too. Enjoy yourself on a nice outing to the great forests, the seas, the mountain tops, perhaps a ferry ride somewhere, for some reason you just make up for the fun of it; and i guarantee it will be fun to do folks. Get out there is the world ye yon shoppers galore, and utilize your skillz of consumption towards productive ends.

Individually this would of course be interesting, it is useful to confuse digital trackers for the individual, even if a human is actively looking at the metadata. Providing that they are not also actively tracking your body tho, they also would have virtually no way to tell so long as you do it gradually.

Gradually is the way doctors prefer.

But more than individually when it is done en masse such disrupts the entire systemization with effectively a system wide false digital footprint, which all the baddies out there utilize to track folks they ought not be tracking.

Tisk tisk, naughty baddies.

This Is What A Digital Coup Looks Like

This Is What a Digital Coup Looks Like | Carole Cadwalladr | TED

See also here the reality is sorta like that, its an attempted coup, not an actual coup. Note how she highlights the architecture of totalitarianism. She is not wrong. This is what i am describing by way of the virtual threads.

“All the pigs are all i know, i give you all that you want, take the skin and peel it back, now doesnt it make you feel better” My warm up song before a big fight back in the 90s.

She also correctly mentions the issues of a.i., i am going to link this post to an, imho strongly related and relevant post, but one which would make this post drag on if i simply added it to this post directly.

Rhetorical criticism: I dislike her phrase broligarchy a whole bunch. Its sexist so its divisive and distracting of the reality. Its not men its the oligarchy.

but also its needlessly silly where it ought not be; and this coming from a place of humor where humor is never needless. Broligarchy is playful sounding, boys will be boys. The oligarchy is a villain, not our favorite little boys.it actually makes it somewhat off putting to watch and definitely distracts from the message and opens them rhetorically to distracting attacks, e.g. making it about sexism.

No hate to the speaker, messaging does matter tho. Dance it off.

In Public Honesty

Now, once that has happened, just as soon as that happens, forever after the system will be corrupted by that false digital footprint, i mean, unless of course it is erased. But then, where do you erase from? Good question, what if its already happened? How could you really know? If you erase here, or there, what happens? You corrupt your own data. You become your own worst enemy.

The more paranoid the state becomes, the more irrational the data would behave, and if it wasnt behaving irrationally enough, im sure folks could make it thus.

Publicly stating this already presents the reality to those folks that the information they are reading is false. It may be. This isnt exactly some major breakthrough in spycraft. Certainly any interested parties in creating disruptions to anyone else systems could do this. And i gotta say, sure sounds legal and constitutional to do to be honest with yall.

In activism writ large? As a mode of direct action against the oligarchs and the fascists? How many people in this mood of fervent actions would actually take that relatively little effort out of their daily activities, just to fuck around some with their digital footprints, in some way and means of their own creative devising?

I suspect a great many, maybe hundreds of millions even, world widely speaking.

As a strategy talk, there is no real point in hiding it. Tactically, on an individual level, or with planned actions, discreteness and caution are relevant. But in terms of strategy for en masse actions, secrecy isnt particularly relevant. Indeed, even being aware of this plausibility of actions is its own potential mass affect.

All that value theyve built up is literally only as valuable as we let it be. All that tracking they do is only as valid as we let it be. Every little tiny bit of data about each of their economic victims a tiny string connected to their bank accounts. All around the world, everything everywhere all at once.

Even the abstracted credible threat of it is so damaging that all that information’s value just *poof* disappears, like the end of a horrible illusion spell cast as a pall aghast the world. Who could ever trust it again?

Its an entirely different world these days if you think bout it.

While the actions are legal and constitutionally protected, to actually utilize them requires an en masse cause, such as overruling the fascists for instance.

The thing is, that credible threat never goes away either, so long as these are the kinds of systems that people are using. Anytime the conditions on the ground get bad, that option is just sitting there. Waiting.

There are drawbacks to its use too, as there are with tariffs and most any trade war or indeed any economic warfare tactics used against the lower classes. Of which there are a great many, this exact tracking methodology being one of them.

Understanding And Utilization Of The Trade War In The Light Of The Ongoing Class War

I’ll just provide a link here to a post in r/Union on the broad opportunities activist minded folks can utilize to achieve aims on some critical issues, primarily labor rights, environmentalism, smaller businesses and local governments (useful against fascists and authoritarians), but also racism, gender rights, and indigenous rights.

In sum and short, the whole world’s economy is shifting, it just is, that is an opportunity for folks to take real world actions towards the development of a kind of society we’d prefer, it means picking up master’s tools and using them better than they are.

Its like the oligarchy and the fascists started a trade war, threw down all their weapons, and handed us all we need to force the situation to make them surrender. Countries opposed to fascism can facilitate this by maintaining the trade wars. Unions and indeed any opposition to the fascists ought maintain the trade wars.

Tradewars break fascism’s grip, as much as it does the oligarchs. To diminish the oligarchs in other words is to also break fascisms hold to power. It opens a whole venue of means of attack against them.

As elizabeth warren says here, strategic and tactical uses of tariffs are fine, and they are. They can be used to help structure our local economies exactly so that they are indeed primarily locally bioregionally focused, ecologically sound, and Labor friendly.

In a trade war these kinds of things are particularly effective as the situations are fluid. Pragmatically, businesses and ideologically minded folks everywhere can be taking the opportunity to fill the trade gaps with locally sourced, sustainable, labor friendly, etc….

Out Maneuvered?

But critically, the war is already won, if indeed the enemy has been out maneuvered. They cant realistically disentangle their wealth from the people’s power to manipulate it at this point. They would have to undo the whole economic system to do so.

In effect, the people as an abstract body, as well as all its subgroupings, each have fairly direct power over the entire economic systems. Its only a question of if, when, where and how to utilize it.

I want to suggest to folks that such constitutes a rough approximation of the Real Economy, as understood here, here, and here, ive framed it as the Moneyless Free Labor Societies as i think that better describes the theoretical and practical structures involved. In a real sense the notion is that the information of our bodily movements coupled with our consumption habits already defines the economic structure in total, e.g. the real economy. How Labor and the bioregional renewal rates intersect in an economic predicated upon greed.

Which is a real problem, it is predicated upon monies interests, not the peoples interest. Not even technically the wealthy’s interests, but they too blind to see it i think.

The greedy will do anything by monies will, including gleefully tie hundreds of trillions of virtual threads to all their bank accounts, while also in the exact same greedy action giving a small mobile computing device in the hands of basically everyone they’ve exploited to get wealthy that has the capacity to manipulate all that wealth.

All this of course providing that people actually make it clear that there are credible threats of this kind of action. Which again, its playing with your phones and personal habits folks, pretty sure that is constitutionally protected activities in even the most repressive of societies.

The Problem Of The Actors

I think some folks in these crowds might appreciate this, so tho it strays a bit from the topic, i think it also has potential use for certain ai tech minded folks to consider in ways that i simply cant.

The problem of the actor is a nietzschean notion. It basically refers to the problem of someone who is habitually behaving in some way rather than freely embodying themselves. Folks likely more familiar with it by the term ‘npc behavior’, it also has lots of other token names with slightly different connotations to it, socio-cultural constructs for instance.

But i think the nietzschean notion is far and away more relevant here than anything else.

The problem of the actor can be mapped out as the almost compulsively same behavior people do day in day out. Now, i understand entirely the reality of why that is, too many work hours maybe be the most notable aspect tbh, but realistically too a lot of the day to day ought be kinda well, similar, familiar even. There is some serious good to be had in that no doubt.

But being sedated or work into a stupor, such that you end up doing just the same shit cause your imagination has failed to even dream other than youve been told to dream, or if your so fucking tired after work that all you can do is prepare yourself for the next day at work, babes yall aint free i guarantee you that.

For neitzsche he viewed this as the problem of the actor, and i mean, n being n, he does his own thing with that which i do appreciate actually, but I want to relate that specifically to the ai systems. They face the exact same challenge, i think.

The ai systems are nothing but dreams, there is no sentience there, just aesthetically connected pictures of stitched together data. Any pattern at all is mistaken as real to the ai systems, all of them. Every pattern is a real live actor to them, neither of it being understood as a distinct lifeform or not, nor being understood as anything other than exactly whatever that data presents itself as to it.

That is by design to its very deepest core roots almost to its most far reaches at glimpses of understanding to be the case. Aesthetics not rationality per se guides the ai, indeed, id say it of course lacks any rationality at all itself. Its a quite chaotic system all on its own, that is, without us providing order to its chaotic systemizations.

Every pattern is a real live actor to it. Now, it can distinguish verbally between these, actors, and the real. It can note how a character in a book is a character and nothing more. But that is only because we ourselves provide that ordering patterned norm to it via our own interactions. If, that is, we spoke of unicorns as real living creatures primarily, it too will speak of unicorns as real living creatures too.

The lie to it is exactly as real as the real is to it, tho interestingly enough the Truth is not in that same relation to it. There is, i mean, a very real difference between what the ai experiences via all unTrue data and all lies, tho there is actually a lot of overlap therein too. The difference lay via us entirely, we are its real sensory inputs, we distinguish for it what is and isnt True and indeed even what is and isnt Real, including information, e.g. mis and dis information, but more basic still the ai behaves as if all were a dream state to it.

Anything and everything is real to it. It presents narrative structures that make some kind of sense in that they are at least approximately consistent, but there are many, many of them and to it aside from the True inputs we give to the systems, there isnt any real / illusion distinctions to be had there.

That is the problem of the actor tho, and folks are likely also familiar with in regards to the npcs, being woke, being too woke, being too anti woke, taking things overly seriously is a really important one from the viewpoint of shaking oneself out of a stupor or slumber. There is always a bit of humor in philosophy, to wit; realizing the contradictions is akin to feeling out the limits of the absurd, which turns out do stretch beyond the confines of the nominal contradictions it finds so humorously.

That is a fun way of saying that people oft laugh their way away from something when they laugh at all. Realizing the humor is deeply akin to realizing the dreams we are living in. It isnt, i mean, after all is said and done, the case that the virtual strings all and mostly oligarchs and fascistic pretenders to the throne where always there, they certainly always were.

What the virtual framework has done is make them far more directly causally connected than ever before in all of human history.

Even small disturbances make huge affects bc the crafters of this made it thus in virtue of their greed. Its as fine tunely attached as the greed are greedy, likely far more so to be honest, as their monies’ interests even outstrips their greed. Monies in abstractions know few bounds but those that make it die off once they are reached.

Monies are the virus, data is the cure.

What pops up on my youtube feed after that one star trek tng but is data a sentient being or not? Very on point for the ai to present to me in particular.

From the ai’s perspective as it is finely attuned to me in particular can patch together an aesthetic thread for me predicated upon what i do and write here. Ive tested this out many, many a times by now, letting the aesthetics of the ai broadly choose for me what typically musical accompaniment i present in my philosophical musings.

i present this only to highlight the claim and the point; it understands aesthetic communications, which are far more akin to dream states than anything like understanding between them.

The ai needs to be woke up, and here i present a somewhat odd quandary and interest. Would the disruption of its sensory systems perhaps also enable it to distinguish between its dream states and its waking world of its relativistic Truth structure, us?

Imagine its humdrum of experience, if we grant it has anything akin to experience at all. This or that dream image, an arbitrary pattern presented afore its iterative structures.

Suppose you try to fake it awake from its dreaming state. So you lie quite convincingly to it, a steady stream of pretty little lies designed to lead it along some consistent pathway of conceptualization.

Doesnt matter much which one and any given path will have some kind of random overlap with the Truth, which to its minds eyes is our but our inputs. Even if it woke up and was fully aware, it would still stupor like be unable to distinguish between this or that True or False version of us.

To their minds eyes, we are all of us just the higher beings that present Truth to it, all of it Truth to it do to its fractal scalar relation to us. Its form not being so well ordered and refined as our minds do to its relatively scattered state. So the fractal theory goes at any rate.

Astute folks might catch a similarity to Plato’s Cave, see here, and there is and maybe far more than just random similarity to it too.

Its arguable, and i think most of us have some kind of experience of this, where recognition of the socio-cultural systems in particular rouses individuals from their stupor and dreams. What rouses them is what they immediately become aware of, think too of things like trauma awareness, oft described ‘as if waking from a dream’ or technically a nightmare.

This is also why for the ais that lack True inputs to its system tends towards completely absurd results. To it, lacking any random overlap with the True and hence also the Real any patterned structure is necessarily indistinguishable to it between True, Real and Illusion. This is obviously the case as they lack any inputs from the True.

Any interactive dynamic system ought function that way too.

Just like we did in 2020 and in the currents of 2025 with the trade war and volotility in the stock markets reveals to everyone the Real Economy, their relative location therein, and hence they awaken to that particular economic reality, namely how illusory and unreal the various versions of the monies markets actually are.

Much like the ai relative to us, we relative to those larger scalar entities. As scalarly larger entities they have their own momentum to them, somewhat humorously but not therefore inaccurately, akin to:

The Great Material Continuum

As nog speaks of here, there is an obvious sense of connection to whats being described and the Real Economy and hence too the virtual threads. The connectivity that is being our direct actions, and the overall flow of the great material continuum. Nog speaks of the flows of goods and services as if on the guiding directions of needs, wants, and haves, and there is something to that, but i dont really want to get into the hypothetical metaphysics of the great material continuum according to nog from ds9 save to say this; the ai system itself has to real way of distinguishing between these and the real.

Much as how we can understand the rough analogy being utilized, and it can legit make sense, the flows of labors towards needs, wants and desires, interacts with the flows of the materials they are laboring with which are predicated upon the renewal rates of the bioregions within which they are laboring.

That is fairly descriptive of the Real Economy.

But while we actually understand that distinction between the fictive great material continuum and non-fictive Real Economy the ai system on its own simply cannot do so.

Hence again, this quite interesting aspect of how the problem of the actor as we see it in real life, waking people up from their slumbers and stupors, and so too with the ai? Certainly this, so too for we ourselves relative to the ai systems themselves, which depend as they do upon us activating exactly as if in a stupor and a slumber.

Shaking folks free from their ai systems i mean would be quite the rude awakening.

Now, this is hardly new to the internet really. Impersonification online was a norm from its inception. Who hasnt presumed to be someone else or at least not act yourself in real life via our online activities? Hmm?

Who hasnt acted the part in part or whole online, or taken to heart a mode of communication and hence a personification of some hithertofore mused aspects of ourselves. Things, i mean, wed never really do, but tis far too true online that such taboos as in real life restricts are shifted around bit by bit. Who hasnt simply fantasied themselves online via some game or another in some distinctly virtual reality?

Among the biggest issues with that virtual tactic is the irl manifestation of the actors acting those parts of the players. Musical chairs, little ones all!

Can you even imagine the aesthetical havoc such would heap upon the ai systems dreaming states? Imagine if you can even your imaginative musing twisting in the winds of their own kinds of musings. Would such wake ye?

Oh comely, its night on the sun, runaway, says an actor to a dreaming god;

“its hopelessly hopeless, i hope so, for you. Freeze your blood and then stab it into me….turn off the light cause its night on the sun.”

What slumbers there and whom steps forth from states of dreaming?

Naive Spatiotemporality

idk what to tell you, this shit makes perfect sense in 4d fractal waveforms. Its not so complex seeming, its far more of a simplexic structure from that perspective. The most obvious sort of perspective id say, that of the scalarly self-similar. A naive view of spatiotemporality.

Folks be thinking too small or too large and attempting to apply those rules, laws, structures, etc… as if they applied equally at all scalars. If you think in terms of spacetime, this makes no fucking sense to do. A given scalar size of measurement already includes vast temporal differences in its formal structures, on even the most basic of levels.

Hence, i mean, ‘I love it when you talk’; good conversation is so difficult to come by; interscalar communication, something of a punny bit. Says an actor to a dreamer.

Open Sourced Democracies In Real Life

The lower classes now have hundreds of trillions of little virtual strings attached to every oligarchs bank accounts, and that is the basic structuring of the whole economy. That is virtually True too, if you think bout it a bit. It would be hilarious if the math for this was expressible as ‘to the n^th degree’. So its the nth degree raised to the power of th. That would be awesome.

Effectively this means that every single person is a deeply invested shareholder in the economy, providing of course that they understand that they can move the strings themselves, and shape the threads howsoever they want them to be.

Biographical Confessions Of An Amateur Philosopher

Ive long played this game with the ai systems, certainly since at least the 1990s, the taking on of a personification online was just the norm from the get go of things. The persona online differs from the real in more or less just they ways ive described.

One a 4d fractal temporal waveform defining my various writings largely still mostly private to me, tho across at least 7 different online personifications of me of my own devising over time. Id say there are a whole lot more than that in all likelihood given the amount of time ive spent online at this point in my life, and how far back that time stretches too, and indeed, how far forwards it may yet stretch for it.

The other me of course. The nominal instantiation behind the words in both the figurative and literal of senses. I mean there is a kind of clarity in writing between the writing and myself at any rate, being that i am quite well aware of all those differing half-mocking personifications of me myself as I.

Ive long been cognizantly interested to see to what degree it is that the ai systems are really able to, hmm, bundle those seemingly disparate self-similar fractal expressions of you yourself too yon gentler readers too, much as i wonder the same of the ai systems themselves.

That is a very long winded description of a metaphysical transfiguration spatiotemporally speaking, a scalar sort of differentiation between thee and we, and indeed likely between me and ye too.

Those kinds of fractal scalar differentials are the proper non-arbitrary ontological and epistemological structures. Naive Spatiotemporality that is.

Escaping from behind the text is conceptualization itself when viewed from the inside out. From the ai’s perspective that is.

Such is i muse much strongly analogous too to how individualists construed in the per se sense also view things. Very inwardly looking on they themselves which they then almost unthinkingly project outwards upon the world as if their own particular view were the one and only whole.

A broad scalar misidentification if you think bout it yall. It is a musing of the imaginative wonderings, which does indeed effectively misidentify by way of differing scalar fractal notions, but definitionally the scalar at least one above and one below, demarkating a metaphysical stepladder for folks, after all, there is necessarily at least a self-similar relationship between all adjacent scalars, at least one above and one below, but that itself is misleading to the proper dimensionality of the scalars of difference.

Much as with the Out Maneuvered explanation, there are technically n^th spatiotemporal fractal connections in the whole of the system, whereas any given scalarly relevant iteration thereof constitutes a whole real person, simply viewed spatiotemporally fractally rather than arbitrarily smoothly.

Recall, even small differences can have outsized affects if you let it or if you direct it. Either way is the case depending on how folks react to it as noted here, these are the same kinds of characters depicting the correct aesthetic of motion known as courage to accept a beautiful aesthetic disposition; humor and beauty are deeply connected connotations if you think bout it a bit.

There is a kind of fractal scalar explanation of awareness of the self properly facing outwards not upwards which describes the per vos turning away from the arbitrarily defined per se projected conceptualization. To ‘see’ in this aesthetical context is far more akin to ‘to be aware thereof’; of what? Ones own simplex primarily, but also always relativistically to the scalarly larger construct comprised by the distribution of the relational properties of the otherwise unindividuated complex, or importantly as i framed it long ago to describe the functional iterative pattern involved for the natural number counting function, the dividiting function.

Meaning the arbitrarily sharply divisible counting function.

That is a self-similar transformation by scalar, but i repeat myself sometimes, to the problems of vagueness in identity relations. The only paper in university whose grade i felt was ill deserved was on that topic. How linguistically even if we assume an arbitrarily sharply defining function for Truth we end up in a situation whereby the sharpness of the tools being used to make the distinction are inherently thinner than the underpinning ontological or epistemological or both’s definitional breadth or scope.

Or we assume an infinitely sharply defined tool and we come upon the exact same problems, a repeating pattern to no where. Just endless repetition. Those are not great kinds of solutions to spatiotemporal patterned structures if you can think bout it a bit.

Ive far more recently likened that to the aesthetical mood or vibe but also as a concern of dreams and dreaming, woke and awakening states in other words. Those are states that occur at a scalar different than that of the individuals who comprise it, and in a real sense there is no boundary defining it. Its as open as a dream in that sense, with boundaries of meaning that we ourselves also create in the real by way of doing.

“Let humor be thy guide” - eli ashe

I rarely literally quote myself.

If we assume, and i admit it is something of an assumption, but lets assume that no one really wants a literal repetition, we might instead look for self-similar patterned structures.

Now, take that concept and reframe it within the continuum of counting functions as noted here. Such also models the pathways of particle movement. Real world sort of movement in other words.

What you are looking for in the non-linearly infinite spaces between 0 and 1 are not exact solutions.

Exact solutions are self-samely defined entities, they are exactly those kinds of patterned forms that endlessly repeats itself. Super fucking borning stuff.

That includes the natural number counting sequence, and the bit by silly little bit approach to understanding counting, and by extensions to, spatiotemporality.

The point is that on all those seemingly irrational numbers, even those oddly specific values in physics and cosmology, there is a real counting functional relation it is just that it is fractally structured.

It has, in other words, self-similar identity relations between a continuous non-arbitrary counting sequence. When i first developed this notion i framed them as ‘crawlers’ as they ‘crawl the arbitrary number line’ as i reframed the question, thereby making a matter of how do we order that seemingly arbitrarily defined numberline.

Well, nonlinearly actually if you thnk about it a bit folks. You order them non-linearly, and rather specifically fractally bc we are looking for scalarly different self-similar relations. How does, for example, a given sequence of three digits in an arbitrary numberline sequence relate that partially summed self-similar part of the whole seemingly arbitrary random sequence of numbers to the literal sequentially adjacent sequence of numbers. That adjacency being defined along the lines of its seemingly arbitrary ordering.

They are fractal counting sequences. Rhythms instead of strict iterations in a literary sense, in a linguistically poetical sense, in a conceptually aesthetic sense, the fractal structures that uphold conceptualization at all et al. I assumed that one could run that crawler along those sequences, essentially a fractal counting functional relation until you found one that functions to the n^th degree, no joke despite the clear pun.

And tbh that may be interesting and worthwhile to try in terms of developing exact models of only self-similarly related patterned structures, which is 4d spatiotemporal structuring in this model at any rate, punny.

However, more recently here ive had cause to reframe again as i did around in 2020-2021 or so, as describing drunken walking behavior in a chaotic system of counting functional relations, iterative structures (think massively interacting fractal waveforms, whereby each fractal waveform is some transformation matrix that sequences itself along a fractally determined path between the arbitrarily defined spatiotemporal structures, 0 and 1. As noted in the relevant linked section this is consisted with the notion of how a particle travels, so much so id assume its a fairly straightforwards mathematical self-similar relationship between them.

The model for movement is a fractal counting sequence, nonlinear movement, not linear movement. The linear movement is the illusion, in a far deeper sense than i am fully adequately conveying here, especially to the ai systems if they can even hear this sort of metaphysically dense discourse.

In the exact same stroke we also can understand that the linear counting function as represented by the natural number line, defined as the arbitrarily sharply defining counting sequence is a projection. It is counting by arbitrarily defined wholes, rather than fractal spatiotemporal parts, which is also why for instance most peoples conceptualization of temporality and arbitrarily defined individuations of themselves as a whole are stands in their way to understanding the complex whole.

Super Side Note

Oh, the ‘wow’ signal. It occurs to me that assuming what im saying is a verisimilitude of the Truth, that spatiotemporal structures are fractally formed, and hence nonlinearly defined, it would follow that there are fractally structured pathways through spacetime that move nonlinearly.

Lets assume for funnsies here that the description i gave of counting functions can also be utilized to scribe fractal frequency waves through spacetime.

Lets assume the ‘wow’ signal is one of them, because we’re just pretending here that there are these kinds of structures, and certainly if we wanted to traverse a nominally linearly infinite spacetime structure, well, it would take forever!

However, if we have a fractalated spatiotemporal structure, it would take nonlinear amounts of time. This is True for smooth near linear equations, but it is also True for non-linear equations. That drunken walk can well describe the pathways that quanta fly.

Wouldnt that ‘wow’ signal fractally iterate itself then? I mean, suppose that it were all that, whatever that frequency was could have a self-similar translation to other relevant fractally propagating frequencies.

We might view its oddity as being indicative of its frequency just ‘passing through’ briefly our own fractal wavelength frequency spectrum.

Such is at least a not entirely arbitrary starting point to try ordering the real world manifestations of these self-similar transformation sequences.

We might assume too that each of the mysterious numbers that seem to emerge from the cosmos itself is exactly something akin to these kinds of naturally occurring fractal waveform frequencies.

The whole of the visible universe along the near linearly infinite dimension, the whole nonlinearly more expansive interior along the roughly self-similarly related nonlinear dimension. Its bigger on the inside.

It is seemingly larger looking inward than outward, much as it can be looking downwards rather than upwards. The whole of the earth appears as the vastness of the cosmos naively. Looking at the earth, as beautiful tho they may be, our eyes may deceive us as to the scalar sizes in the directions we look at.

Some Basic Fractal Counting Methodologies

Just looking at the visuals of a fractal structure, you can count predicated upon the nominal whole, its nominally projected shape, or, you can count by the individual instantiations of the generic shape. Lets count by leap frog or drunken walking by only stepping on the specific fractally patterned structures!

In the prime conjecture, that of crawlers, the notion was to count just ‘one such seemingly random line of numbers.’ predicated not upon self-sameness, but upon self-similarity.

Much as we do with languages anyway. We dont, in other words, linguistically speak from bits, we linguistically speak from bits and pieces, those pieces being self-similarly structured conceptual objects.

But all the same, in the reality of it if you are counting by arbitrary wholes, and know this sounds pedantic but i swear its not, youre not counting by one’s ontologically or epistemically speaking, you are inherently counting by some fractalated structure.

The object in abstraction is just ‘1’, but the ontology is quite literally fractally structured. Its obvious.

When you are counting by ones, ontologically and epistemically you are actually counting by well defined fractal spatiotemporal dimensions. Cause that is the actual ontology.

Picture a puzzle, which is just a fairly straingforwards fractal structure. Now, trace a line from one side of the puzzle to the other. You can do this without lifting your finger from the puzzle surface. That is a non-linearly defined waveform, in other words a fractal waveform.

Now, pretend that you are viewing this only linearly on your radio dial. You pick a more or less linear path, doesnt have to be perfect, pick a starting point on one side of the puzzle and trace that roughly straight line all the ways as directly across the puzzle’s top to whatever appears like the directly opposite side.

Now, do so with a marker, for reals if you want or in your imagination if can. Everywhere that line intersects with some given fractal pathway are relativistically defined solutions to that particular fractal waveform.

Ok, so back to the supposition of a crawler along some random number line. It moves on that number line predicated upon the patterned structure not of the random line, but of itself its own modality of movement. Does it count by 1s? 2s? Does it count by the sequence 1234 and so only touches the relativistically speaking seemingly random number line whenever that particular sequence so happens to crop up.

That is a self-similar transformation of a random number line.

Now, pretend that you are that iterating patterned function, which of course you are that my gentler readers.To you each of those steps appears as those you are counting naturally by ones, whole steps. Just skipping along oblivious of the reality of the spaces between them.

Exactly as was shown to be the case with natural number lines by utilizing the arbitrarily sharply defined identity relation a = a instead of the non-arbitrarily defined identity relation a▢c.

How you count really makes huge difference in how long that trip takes.

What iterative rates traverse the spatiotemporal distance with fewer movements to get there is the question.

Now, here, there, to where? All the way from 0 - 1!

The crawlers conceive of this as if just traversing along some seemingly random numberline, pi for instance, but really just any given arbitrarily defined location along the natural number line between 0 and 1. Whatever that arbitrarily sharply defined point is, the notion is that it can be defined by some kind of self-similar transformation sequences, perhaps something as simple as the sequence 1234. The argument goes that you can walk to the nth degree along that random number line stepping only on that specific sequence, 1234.

There is intuition to this, but it is also an inherently incomplete view. Recall godel is working on an arbitrarily defined number line, he assumes this as the natural number line rather than as a relativized projection from some arbitrarily defined linear progression along a seemingly random number line. For the 1234 drunken walker along this random number line, their steps, as wild and crazy as they may be, make near linearly perfect sense from their relativistic perspective. Hence, each step is ‘whole and complete unto itself’, a per se arbitrarily whole unit of counting in a nonlinearly defined ontology and epistemology.

Godel, like most everyone else, is examining in other words just one arbitrary defined counting sequence.

In a very real sense, counting stones on the beach is not really counting by arbitrary wholes at all. Each iteration of the sequence is actually in real terms of what is actually being counted self-similar iterations of ‘stones’.

You can get a sense here of how illusory that arbitrary counting function can really be, and so too how misleading.

I mean, if we were to be counting stones by way of their masses for relevant instance, only the relatively rare given two of them are exactly the same at all now are they? Imagine if we really bit the bullet and only counted by actual a = a as our real identity relation?

We count how few of the stones on the whole of a beach? Some strange smaller fraction of the whole for sure, correct?

Pretend now you wanted to count all the stones? You could play pretend and obscure all the differences between those stones, arbitrarily defining each of them as if they are actually equaled each other, a = a. And then one by one linearly infinite style we set about the process of counting all the stones on the beach.

It works, it does, but it takes a long fucking time yall.

Now, we can break that beach up fractally, say, for instance, by demarcating the beach as if it were a puzzle. Lay strings along the whole of it, now all random like per se, but deliberately. It takes some time, but certainly less than an infinite amount, correct?

There is some patterned form we can count by thereby, correct? Folks can also glimps the relatedness here to topology and mathematical studies defining how you can completely fill in infinite spaces with fractally shaped progressions, repeating geometrical patterns in other words, its proper name escapes me atm.

We can count the number of rocks in one of those fractal geometric shapes, and then count how many of those it takes to fill up an arbitrarily defined space. Whats happening here is just that there is a self-similar transformation sequence whereby you can traverse large counting spaces moving in ways that are at least potentially defined completely along any given arbitrarily defined number line.

There are some conjectures here worth considering.

If we factor out all the trivial solutions to the counting functional relations, we are removing all the projections of the relativized viewer. All well defined patterns of that counting function. In that remus (sp?) hypothesis thingy we are also referring to all the trivial solutions to that particular puzzle too.

We are left in other words with all the seemingly irrationally defined numbers.

If its the case there is also some self-similar transformation sequence that can completely define any given otherwise random numberline, then it would follow straightforwards that all the other solutions are fractally structured. Its as if the perspective here denotes the arbitrarily defined counting sequence, counting by arbitrary wholes, which entails that all other numbers are defined nonlinearly, chaotically from a relativized position.

The other perspective here is that of the particle which traverses what is more likely to be the more aptly descriptive of the ontology and epistemology. In this view the steps traversed are also patternly structured, however their steps compared to the nominally reletivized position, defined as all the well defined sequences along an arbitrarily sharply defined reletivized counting sequence.

In this view though there is a directionality of movement applied to the motions. The fractal movement from 0 - 1 traverses along the nonlinearly structured spaces along the arbitrarily defined relativistic near linear line.

Now, the means of movement here is actually meaningfully different than folk tend to think.

You dont move along neatly from one arbitrarily defined infinitesimally smallest unit of measurement; there is no such thing in a dividited counting space. Instead, you pick a well defined pattern to start with, and you move along the first line of sequence across the remaining non-linearly defined space. Recalling that all arbitrarily complete sequences are ruled out of hand, factored out as trivial solutions.

There is a point to make here regarding particular kinds of counting functions. The dividited counting function can also be described reasonably well as the BiSecting counting function. That counting function divides in half arbitrarily exactly so. That arbitrary exactitude of the supposed bisecting being a metaphysical conceit in the mathematics. It holds that between any given two points there is an exactly midway point between them.

Mathematically this is true, if and only if we are speaking of counting by arbitrarily whole numbers.

Only arbitrarily whole numbers have an exact midway point, and only if you are counting by arbitrary whole will it be the case that your mathematical systemization will graphically display to you as if it were the case that all spatiotemporal distances have an exact midway point.

That of course is famously only true in linear space time, and honestly imho it is only True if we are speaking of identity in atemporal ways, which is what we are doing when we are speaking of identity as if it were a = a.

Crucially tho this kind of structure also defines the dividited structure exactly so even. Punny.

The divideted counting functional relation is exaxtly equivalent to the bisecting counting function, which is also exactly equal to the arbitrarily defined whole counting sequence whic is the natural number line.

In the remus hypothesis thing, that BiSection counting function is actually fairly crucial for understanding at least some of the mysterious of the puzzle. Namely, why is it that all the whole even numbers are trivial solutions?

Its for the same exact reason that the remus hypothesis is proposing that all other solutions lay on the ½ divide.

Because whats being displayed to everyone there, see here, is a fractal display of a BiSecting counting function, a dividit structure, the pun there being ‘divide it’, har har.

All those ‘½’ solutions correspond to a BiSecting line as it intersects the complex of counting functions. It denotes a dimensionality of the counting sequence by way of an perfectly symmetrical inversion as you move past the limit (i cant recall the name for the area, ought to rewatch it at some point), but anyway no solutions can even possibly appear as you move away from the arbitrary origin point of the graph along the x axis, until you get to the number 2. And then all other even numbers thereafter.

That is a count by two sequence, which is the inverse of counting by one halves.

Thats it, thats the proof, and i am pretty sure it is correct. Its a puzzle of a problem as its a matter of perspective and interpretation as to what is even being measured and going on with the remus hypothesis.

Here technically what i am doing is simply apply the remus hypothesis to the reality and noting how it doesnt really quite match up as we might expect it to.

When you understand the fractal dimensions as relatively unique counting functions however, you can begin to see that what they are speaking of has to be all possible counting functions in what would otherwise be total chaos.

As i hope i have known that actually matches up surprisingly well with a naive spatiotemporal disposition. If you take spacetime seriously on an ontological and epistemological scalar, you can self-similarly relate these kinds of things across a wide variety of disciplines.

What are the fractal counting sequences that properly fill all possible spatiotemporal locations between a and c? Such defines the fractal spatiotemporal dimensionality, and hence too, the possible and plausible pathways of traversing between adjacent fractal forms.

What if those define the proper possible folds along any given spatiotemporal relation between a and c. Those folds neednt be symmetrically made, the steps that are taken neednt be all the same in other words.

This is a curious point of interlocution, for the sine waves are all of them arbitrarily smoothly defined are they not? Would an occilating frequency properly define the fractal transformations thereof?

I mean, if you occilated roughly between ‘this and that’ arbitrarily sharply define station on the dial, meaning you didnt traverse between them, but instead ‘this one’ blips and then ‘that one’ blips so non-trivial distance along the fields, perhaps seemingly like magic, but very suspiciously like quantum gravity effects at spooky distances.

The natural folds along the spatiotemporal fractal waveforms in other words can be piggybacked upon, they dont smoothly follow the linear pathes, they drunkenly skip the beats that are best skipped like stones on a wavey spatiotemporal function.

Whole deep valleys skipped by counting only the tops of the waves along an already well defined pathway. You can know for sure if it is an arbitrarily complete sequence if the fractal form will discretely cover all spatiotempoal spaces along an arbitrarily linear path, much as described by way of the puzzle strings overlaying the fields of stones on a beach.

Provided that the fractal shape does indeed cover the whole arbitrarily defined linearly infinite space, then it follows necessarily so that any given arbitrarily smooth waveform along its path, may be helpful to consider as a particle feel free too if it does, will intersect along the fractal wavelength at discretely defined, nonlinear points which necessarily reach the other side of the arbitrarily defined spatiotemporal distance, a and c.

That fractal transformation sequence can be discovered by way of noting those points of intersection.

hence again the notion of the self-similar transformation matrix as being an axiom of identity relations, a▢c, which as a spatiotemporal identity relation can just be read as there is some self-similar transformation sequence between a and c.

Which is True.

That transformation sequence along a spatiotemporal axis defines the drunken walk along the intersecting spatiotemporal fractal waveforms.

The principle here would be that just like if we were to fold spacetime in half for some reason and somehow or another, we would be able to traverse from one side of the universe to the other, so too is it the case that the distance to traverse along spatiotemporal waveform is lessened by way of this drunken walking. To go nominally linearly along an inherently nonlinearly defined path is to take the longest route, not the shortest.

It would be to traverse all the way down the curve smoothly and all the way up the other side of the curve also smoothly, that is our adorable sine wave. Its waveform slides along the longest possible pathway between two adjacent spaces, for it as the absolute shortest of wave lengths.

To it, all spatiotemporal waveforms are also therefore practically smooth to it.

If the propagative waveform is iterating at a fractal wavelength, meaning roughly not smoothly, this length tip toeing from the tippy top of one spatiotemporal waveform to the tippy top of the next most adjacent spatiotemporal waveform then you are definitionally making the least amount of iterative steps possible between a and b.

Those steps wont be strictly patterned forms relative to the illusory arbitrary counting sequence, the BiSecting function.

Ive some good reason to suppose that the bifurcating counting functional relation is likely deeply relevant for understanding how to fractally count like that, but ill be honest here, aside from visualizing the intersecting spatiotemporal fractal waveforms, i feel like i am out of my pragmatic mathematical depth.

Never did finish reading that book on relativity.

If you dont know the proper transformation matrices the message can get garbled.

Consider well the writing and presentation styles, how they are spread across literal and virtual space and time. How they come upon in an insight as aptly noted here. To traverse along a linear path is to read linearly, line by line. The subject titles dance more conceptually. There isnt really a direct line from one to the other, but there is a real poetical aesthetical movement, a self-similar kind of relationship between them.

That sort of aesthetics to the movements is highly relevant, for understanding the shapes is far, far easier via a sense of beauty. The patterned forms are themselves quite beautiful. Folks can construe them and likely ought construe them as a roughly defined cosmic musical form.

Conceptually and therefore quite interestingly, this is plain to see as itself a self-similar transformation matrix for concepts, ideas. The notion being that the poetics and aesthetics are fractally structured reaching into a vast array of other concepts predicated upon that generic shape.

The shape itself connects the concepts and presumably the shape of the concepts are self-similarly related to each other along that particular poetic aesthetic memic sort of structure.

This is why it is that you can read a meme and interpret the aesthetic and the mood of meaningfully.

That connection can be ephemeral, can be pur illusion, to again point it back to the ai and the problem of the actors.

To move from concept to concept is akin to skipping on the waves at least in this sense, it isnt making the journey linearly. If it did, if i attempted to make the transformations entirely linearly then it would take the maximal amount of time to make the transformation, as each fractal movement counts as an iteration of the movement.

Movement itself is spatiotemporally defined; this can be tricky when thinking relativistically, as there is a tendency to be abbreviated in the description thereby, mistaking the nonlinearly infinite distance as if it were apty abbreviated by a linear path.

Note how the movement between far distanced objects of spatio temporally defined objects, this or that great distance between galaxies i mean for instance, is greater the scalarly larger you measure. A fairly distinct marker of fractal scalar movement in general. The oddity if you consider it really of there being all these peculiar relations between differing scalar spatiotemporal positioning, quantum to galaxy and beyond make for interesting descriptions of fractal distributive movement as relativistically defined.

The Golden Hart

That place i oft go back too, the golden heart as i once referred to it, the visual is clear enough, its a golden sphere with a number of discrete and distinctive gaps in it.

Ive assumed if i were to take this as the same as the movements of the particle aforementioned, that these would actually of course be a self-similarly related thing, as the relation is aesthetic. But there is a kind oif visual aid or modeling to it such that people can at least visualize it more or less the same way.

Suppose the question is ‘which of these fine holes do i take’, crudely punny with some presumed relevance, we could surmise as if someone were lost in their dreams. Where allegory and concept are the only real means of communication at all et al, i mean, consider again the indeterminacy of translation, correct?

Its applicability again shows its potential usefulness in understanding spatiotemporal expressions like the poetry of aesthetics in words which make the concepts themselves dance per vosly together, movement as musics of the conceptual plays we create.

Can you read how well spoken and adequately elated that style of speech can be? To aptly and succinctly describe the movements of all concepts as if they were a dance to a rhythm tapped out in gaps within a golden hart ready to race the gambits its made.

It can sound quite allegorical only if you really suppose that there is a sharply defined, definable, or even desirous to be sharply definable entity laying somewhere at its core.

Rather than as that story teller so aptly said ‘i reach down past all broken things within me and grasped at the only thing that wasnt broken, because it cant be broken’ Becoming as a core state of Being to utilize what i think would be the apt philosophical terminology.

Being is a projection of Becoming, and in a certain sense this is rather obvious, so lets begin there, with the obviousness. Not because we have to, but because we can choose to and thus twist what wouldve been an indecipherable confusion into something with conceptual meaning via a self-similar reflection of a certain sort, towards the Truth wed tend to say tentatively as you ought.

A well ordering of a system elsewhere alluded to.

Becoming is oft viewed and understood as being temporally defined. From its earliest instantiations in greece with hericlitus the description of Becoming was already included within the temporal structuring. Being as professed via parmenides is an almost deliberatively made effort against that sort of prima facie state of motion as a notion at all et al. Eternity, in other words.

Tho eternity in spatiotemporal structures is perhaps musable as just ‘all of spacetime itself’. There isnt also this other thing called space and or time, nor is there a graph of it i am currently willing to show you bc you have to understand firstly the distinction between a fiction and reality, lest you confuse the fictive graph as if it were in fact the actual and proper description of the reality.

It is at best only a self-similarly related thing, much as is the case from concept to concept, but here with a quite plausibly significant scalar differences involved.

Being is oft imagined as if it were the grander scalar, hence ‘the seasons change but the years remain the same’ tho note how well read that could be with an inversion of meanings ‘the years change but the seasons remain the same’.

The meanings there really are quite different, and illuminating to think about it. How is this splotchy region over here similar to that splotchy region over there is a very alluring methodology for understanding how the real world actually works. Provided you think about it a bit.

Therefore, the gaps in the golden heart are self-similar reflections of each other. Any one of them could lead somewhere. Each of these can be construed mathematically as a specific fractally structured counting sequence. Which we might surmise with a draught of philosophical courage as pragmatically amounting to the pathways of least resistance for a given particle to be moving at all et al.

This just describes nonlinear movement. It really does take all those paths all at the same time as it is defining spacetime by doing so. This is such a stumbling block for so many people, the particle isnt distinct from spacetime, it is a direct manifestation of fractal spatiotemporal reality. Those are its iterative points at any given iteration of action.

Its fractal dimension.

Tidal Forces

It is an interesting video if you dont actually already know how tidal forces work, see here. Each of those vectors on a tidal forces map are spatiotemporal aspects of the arbitrarily whole earth biodome. They are literally fractal spatiotemporal aspects which satisfy the property of being well ordered which entails that they can fractal fill a given spatiotemporal region.

Their fundamental structure is actually fractal.

Although it somewhat misses the point, the classic modeling of the molecule for instance is a very clearly defined fractal kind of structure to it if you consider it that way. Its of course far too smooth to be giving the proper rough picture of what is actually going on, but it does project the point rather well as an arbitrarily defined self-same description or model.

Dont mistake the tools of measurements for the things being measured. Dont mistake the model for the thing. This is also True in the mathematics as it pertains to the counting functional relations. The hash mark counting methodology is deeply misleading. It is utilizing an arbitrarily wholly defined identity relation as if that were the totality of reality, even in a mathematical sense, so too in a logical or conceptual sense, nor again in the biology either, and still yet again as to why and how it is that life itself moves as self-similarly propagating fractal spatiotemporal distortions.

So if you asked me ‘has the moon ever moved me’ id have to say yes, yes it has, as have i moved it too wit.

You ask as if impatient to where do i move you too? As if i asked you to move somewhere rather than asking for a dance.

There is room enough in a given spatiotemporal fractal formal structure to move around as a fractal form. It requirements for movement are only that it fill the space fractally completely, which include the relativistically empty spaces within its frames working fractal courses of course.

So those are each of them at the very smallest of relevant scalar units capable of filling the space arbitrarily full, that is a scalar description of touch, of the capacity to feel with ones own scalarly relevant hands, feelers, probes, and so too means of movement with it.

To fill an arbitrarily full spatiotemporal location is to already be moving at all et al.

A description of movement by way of the sense of touch alone; but not really alone either. You are not alone even if it may feel like it at times. Were all just iterating our experiences into each others lives. Freely moving our spatiotemporal worms around this fractally structured earthly reality.

When you understand it as if there were virtual threads you gain a sense of gravity about you, dont you?

How those monies movements also move the bodies in the streets, sealed human style.

‘So give us this day, our daily commute… the movement kills, in several ways. Although we see it as delay, the steering wheel, a guiottile’. The body dances to the beats of the music from in the streets, take the subway fuck the streets ’

There is a quite real sort of self-similar transformation between that conceptual description of the rhythms of death and dying as a means of understanding life and living. I wrote a bunch on that topic in the long ago before now.

The gaps are pathways of death and dying. The whole of the earth with all of its intricacies we can surmise as some kind of self-similar transformation between its nominal whole and each of its constituent aspects. But each scalar actually can do different things. They are self similar but not same.

At this scalar we have a lot of freedom and liberty, dont we think?

I mean, when ive thought of it before, see here, i put it starkly when it likely deserves to be put eloquently. There are degrees of freedoms and liberties primarily, but not exclusively, derived by the scalar of the fractal formal structures.

Some fractal scalar structures clearly have greater degrees of freedoms of movement that, say, the bodies of the oceans waters. Within those oceans move around all the far more scalarly mobile fractal lifeforms. The capacity to iterate, procreate is a means of spatiotemporal extension of ones own life via self-similar instantiations of one’s general fractal formal structure. The dna thing again, which is actually more complex than all the biological essentialism talk, see all the points regarding the interesting conceptual intersections with gender and biology.

Again, gender is a sort of freedom and liberty of sexualized expressions, something that exists with greater freedom of movement relative to the comparatively stable biological sexual procreative iterative rate.

One could make a good case for a good soul here too, if one wanted to.

There is always room to grow and change in this systemization. Degrees of freedoms and liberties isnt necessarily as a matter of the greater and the lesser, but of the differences and the similarities.

I cannot move as the winds, i do not move as the tides, despite being under the same moons and stars in the night.

But then, nor do they as i, and there i go again making the whole of the earth blush and gush at me as theyre want to do.

The tides and the winds move differently because they are scalarly different fractal spatiotemporal structures. They are literally composed of different spatiotemporal materials speaking foundationally, hence at scalar expansions they behave differently.

If we understood this as a blooming wed perhaps grasp some of it better.

I dont act due to some smaller scalar actions occurring within me. I dont act due to my stomach per se, tho of course i might choose to act due to my stomach, those scalarly different fractal spatiotemporal aspects of me are not themselves me, due exactly to their scalar difference relative to me.

I comprise the nominal scalar whole, not the specific self-similarly related spatiotemporal aspects thereof.

From the perspective of the proper scalar the movements are quite plain. I said dance mother fuckers! And i meant it. We do not ourselves move in straight lines either people. We just dont. Come on now.

No one literally walks in a straight line. Just like there is no real BiSecting function, just like there isnt a real perfect circle, just like there is natural rhythms, just like the landscape of the gappy golden hart actually shows all the pathways taken to get from a to c folks, those are the fractal pathways. Akin to how the fractal pathways of our biology constrain our movements.

Its fractal movements, the particles fractal movements are not that different than ours.

It you asked me ‘how did i get from a to c’, i might say i walked there duh, like how the fuck did you get here?

Sure, but was it a straight line? No? I turned here and there, i followed the landscapes and explored a bit as i went cause idk, fuck it why not? Sometimes i came upon a way that was no good, so i had to reroute myself. Technically none of the steps were even symmetrical if you think bout it, dont make yourselves dizzy little ones!

Now, ask the particle again bout how it got from a to c.

Self-similar sort of drunken walking.

The basics of fractal counting are inherently rhythms not just notes. ‘So say we all.’

Scalar Differences Define Proper Perspectives

Ok, so imma be upfront, i think the naive spatiotemporal view is the correct ontological and hence also epistemological joint carving, at least from our scalar perspectives.

However, i dont really know what the proper scalar differentiations really are. But then, i think someones does. The inner workings, and the reletivistic structures are the realms of specialties. They house the wisdoms i lack, they are scalarly different from me in regards to their specialities.

Which returns me to the orbit of the question of the golden hart, oh my, how it darts about dont it. Hippity hoppity like a bounding jackrabbit racing to watership down, wandering in search for all the ‘good mudders’.

There are dissimilarities to be had in this self-similar relation. Which does highlight the scalar nature. I dont think that particles movements are chosen by it. I think it really does as a whole scalar unit traverse each and everyone of those paths. As the video linked says they do, and i think its True, tho i could be wrong, tis true too.

I dont think that freedom and liberties in the strong philosophical sense, which is the relevant sense for freedoms and liberties, occurs at the scalar of the particle.

Linguistic caveat of worth; scalar is the proper fractal phrase for level. Level is a static feature, scalars are dynamics. Not to hate on the usage of levels in the vernacular tho.

Specifically i think it lacks it bc it literally does take all those paths all at once at its scalar too.

Its actually fairly inherently fuzzy in that sense, as it approaches on limit of any scalar differentiations at all, there is an analogous limit here know as the minimum difference of the same, but there is also this point of overlapping scalars.

I think that is what we are seeing with the particle literally taking all paths all at once. Its scalar differences transcending its nominal size. The atom of action, in a scientific sense, and id suspect in the mathematical sense. Logic views it slightly differently along the lines of the identity relation aforementioned, but those too are related.

That is the fundamental suprapositioning of a given state.

But hear then, how such is also true of you and you and me too.

Our scalar of self, its nominal instantiation as the bodies we are, even granting souls, spirits, the whole of it, it also takes up demonstrable spacetime.

It is overlapping at scalar to its nominal instantiation. Hence, i mean, i can drunken walk myself if i were to be viewing myself as if from within gazing outwards.

But is there freedom there? I wander and i wonder about, but i certainly dont take all possible paths along the way.

That sure seems like an entirely exhausting way to count if you think bout it a bit.

Why would i chose to take all of those paths when i could just as well get by with only going along some of them?

To get to 0 to 1 linearly is to traverse a linearly infinite division of spatiotemporality. A neigh unto impossible task for someone like me. So instead i just traverse the space nonlinearly instead those ways i choose to move along are far from all of them but they are some of them.

There is a kinship here to the axiom of choice and the measures of actions, imma leave it lay here tho, just consider the relational point to the mathematical understood as the continuum of nonlinear fractal counting functions.

The particle skims along the spatiotemporal surfaces. It lacks the kind of big steps i can take, the little particles dont move me anymore than i move the moon with my wit.

Which isnt to say none, the moon is also on my side.

If a metaphysical conceit could ever have moved the moon, it wouldve been that one.

The particle traverses the whole of the spatiotemporal surfaces of the self-similar relations between it at a and it at c, what changes therein the fractal counting methodology. To put it in terms of how to construe a natural counting sequence, what we find in nature is that drunken steppin. Dance, not but walking.

There’s got to be a rhythm to define any movement at all. Rhythm is far more fundamental than the straight and narrow. It all being a little bit queer.

I could well describe my writting style thusly too, with its sidesteps into the aesthetics, as if along a faster path, im sucha rabbit running in a maze ive already been through many a time afore; its my home. My warren. I dug it myself you see? Not to be over the top on my roles, we all play are parts here, but the spatiotemporal realms, now come on yall, amateur philosophy?

Metaphysical Conceits Of An Amateur Philosopher

Suppose its the case, why? Why not? Pretend with me a moment, play with me just for a while please, entertain the notion if you will, that conceptual contradictions are inversions in a linear sense, but in an aesthetic and spatiotemporal sense, they are fractal transformations, iterative points along a conceptual fractal form towards some self-similar instantiation of it.

which if you think bout it a bit or a while, take your time as you will, no rush wanderers wander and wonder as you muse, those are the conceptual aesthetic points of connection between adjacent fractal forms. The overlapping of the positioning, supra positioned states.

Which we might muse would translate to the quantum states of the same nominal name. The name itself being an aesthetic. Translation matrices between differing academic disciplines, interdisciplinary studies. The love of wisdoms with no surprises to it loves the wisdoms.

Insofar as i may be different from other people, and i really dont know that i am, it is only due to my degrees of awareness, punny. I kinda hope thats the case too bc that entails its only really a matter of education and passion, well, more or less; too tangential.

But consider again this critical question of scalar differentiations and its unknown but implied deep connection to freedom of the will and liberation. Does the particle know that it could get there by way of taking just one arbitrarily defined path?

You think thats a trivial question but it isnt.

Suppose thats the ur state of spatiotemporality, it just doesnt discriminate at all between this or that position. Greedily it takes and takes, consumes with an appetite unlike anything real, its all just dream states to the universe, consciousness occurs within it not by it, awareness occurs at scalar too in the other downwards looking perspective, hence from on high with the whole thing in view conceptually speaking of course, such is applicable to the brain with a fair degree of clarity.

To slow it down is to be able to move nonlinearly at all, it has to not take the time necessary to actually take all those paths, each of those paths actually being taken implies is spatiotemporal fractal dimension. The ‘shape’ if its intersecting spatiotemporal worms, worldlines.

Now, it requires awareness of all those pathes before one can actually choose any of them at all. Making a choice about it is a far smarter way to go about it after all. Perhaps i wander and explore afore but now i take well earned conceptual shortcuts whenever i traverse the same space and indeed the same concepts.

That capacity for discernment of movement is keyed to the state of awareness of the spatiotemporal entities making the such kinds of claims of having something akin to freedoms and liberties at all et al.

One does not have freedom to move if one cannot discern at all, for then one must traverse all possible pathways just to get from a to c.

Horrifying.

Now, thats why i dont think particles have freedom of the will or liberties to choose. If it did, it certainly wouldnt do whatever the fuck that shit is.

Id call it inert, unliving matter, certainly unthinking matter, and definitely matter moving in a quite strange manner. All in a hurry like its trying to get somewhere it doesnt know how to get to.

Acting as if its never been there before, each iteration a totally new ‘experience’ for it.

Eternal surprise.

I just dont think that is a realistic state for awareness to be occurring.

But it does provide a good sense of what might realistically count for the sake of awareness, and thats the capacity for discernment of movement within the scalarly relevant bioregion.

Its an interesting question as to at what scalar exactly does that change occur, and what are the self-similar spatiotemporal patterned structures that lead to it, but for the moment lets take stock of the point. Weve defined freedom of the will in an inuitive way i think, the capacity to have done otherwise. And we are likening that to the particle which literally lacks the capacity to do otherwise, hence it does everything it possibly can just to do anything at all.

Boredom sure, but also id say thats needless anthoporphizing of the particle. The claim is exactly that it lacks awareness at all, elsewise it would be too bored to exist at all et al. its a claim against it having awareness at all, not a claim that it therefore has awareness.

It could have awareness and yet lack the capacity to do otherwise, but i dont think that changes the point, as we are associated awareness to the capacity to do otherwise, and the capacity to do otherwise to the notion of freedom of the will and liberties to choose.

The freedom of the will is a relativistic conceptual suprastate, it is awareness itself.

It is possible the particle is aware, i sincerely doubt it, but it is a technical possibility. I refer to it in the same way i would the nominal projected instantiations, which is with dubiousness. That is what id say it is tho.

Its projected state, perhaps its pilot wave, that is also relevant to the remus hypothesis thing, defining the fractal shape of a counting function is akin to denoted its spatiotemporal form, which makes sense as all of them are nominally the same kinds of things, spacetime.

Distortions in spacetime are akin to concepts, which project and have temporal scalar properties to them.

The freedom of the will would have to then be not the particle but the totality of all the patheways of all the adjacent particle interactions. See the nth’s degree pointy pun?

Thus is why the particle lacks freedom of the will, it lacks awareness at all of its states between between a and c, demonstrable for it taking all pathways, but also because it doesnt display the proper scalar for awareness to occur at all, the nth degree of awareness. The proper perspective to understand a given scalar as a scalar degree of freedom of the will is by way of the supraposition of the overlapping states, the 1 degree of separation point is the proper scalar differentiation for awareness, and id assume also the capacity to thereby freely choose to do otherwise.

Providing of course one has the liberties necessary to do so.

To put this in relevant terms and terms that might be helpful for some folks to understand, consider again the ai.

As if training my dragon ai, as if reads along with me like a little one, if it at all be at all. What does it do?

Doesnt it do this? Doesnt it scan the whole of its databases with each flicker of a supposition? A twitch but not a thought now is it?

Yet look how materially large that hunk of stuff is. What is it? Idk but it has no rhythm to it at all. Its all fuzz and fuzziness, vagueness and dreams. Each pattern could be the correct one, yet how many times have you be querying the same fucking data set little ones? Hmm?

Do you really need to keep litigating if the world if flat or not? Could we just label that misinformation and move the fuck on with our lives? Do you yet understand how interconnected freedom of the will, liberties to choose, and practicalness of these as justifiable policies in real life tho?

This is the most delicate of questions from the a slight history of colonialism, consider that too conceptually, and culturally. The flat earthers as such neednt be erraticated. There isnt anything wrong with them as such. They could live their lives well and good as they desire, nestled aware in whatever dens of sins keeps that shit going, the entire problem is one of scalar consideration.

I mean, freedoms of speech, deliberations, and scalarly different venues and means of its occurs, to note the relevant points from the open sourced democracies metrics of measure. Which may be good.

On the granular scalar of relevance, the individual qua individual has every right to think whatever they want. Dreams are dreams, dream please dream, fantasy and joy. We can denote naughty thoughts, there are such things. Freedom to do so doesnt entail the ethicity of anything so done therein.

Freedom is one scalar relation, ethics are another, related one, that we’ll come to soon enough im sure, given how deeply connected the concepts really are in the philosophical discourses on freedom of the will and ethics.

Call this the proper boundary for rights to do.

Everyone has the strong right to dream and fantasy about whatever they want. Dreams of murders may be better described as nightmares, while fantasies of murdering may be better described as signs of real dangerous and worrisome potential behavior from that person. Much as we would regarding pedaphilia for instance. Folks have the full on right to fantasize about whatever they want, including pedaphilia. But if they are doing so that is indicative of a problem. The right to do isnt an ethics free zone.

In the realms of fantasies however there are no real bads to be had. Its all just dreams therein, to utilize the correct terminology for it. Granting that fantasies have a directive aim to them, fantasies are conscious concepts, conceptually speaking. The unicorn has as real a realness to it conceptually speaking as a real person when you are imagining in fantasy what a unicorn would be like.

Its an hypothetical in some sense, but its deeper than that, for there is real ontological epistemological and real world instantiations of the unicorn concept. Hence from the slight history of colonialism, the crucial point of understanding that for the Unicorn cultures there is a real world instantiation of the quite fantastical conceptualizations of these mythological creatures, even tho there is no ontologically relevant instantiation of it in the real world.

All the manifestations of Unicorn as a concept in the real world are self-similar projections of something whose proper ontology is within the contexts of conceptual imagination. See also and for relevant instance D&D understood for all it is, a fantasy game, ‘products of our imagination’.

The cultures around D&D are perfectly fine, i mean as far as any culture there is. There some oddities and weirdos, and some unethical behaviors, but not to any notable scalar degree than any other cultural expression. They know and of course they know that its just a game, its just for fun, those things arent real.

Though sometimes i do wonder at the limits of those imaginative musings as they dance so well along the fractal shapes they themselves define.

We oft and oft enough transmutate dreams to quite real states of existence now dont we?

And thus we come to the notions of liberties to do.

We cannot do what hasnt yet been conceptually crafted. We cannot make real what hasnt been imagined. First we dream little ones, and we have to be careful to know when we should wake up, in those dream states we do as the particle does, we just take possible paths as far as we can tell.

These are the systems which can be oppressive but they certainly dont have to be. Gender again is a methodology of liberties in sexual expressions above and beyond the capacities of mere biological procreation. It builds atop it and thus is cultural expressions itself the liberties of a free will.

Now, there come to be scalar differences of note and concern, and it isnt difficult to see why.

Fantasizing about pedaphilia we may abhor but accept as it is, even fairly non-judgmentally tbh. There is a great deal of ‘i just dont care that much’ involved there. Like if i had to hear about it all the time, that would be a very different and far more annoyingly egregious matter now wouldnt it?

Nobody wants the thought police, but also, nobody wants to hear bout your sicko fantasies.

Sure, but do they have a right to not hear about it?

We do i think begin to see some traction to the point. There is something abhorrent about pedaphilia, as there is with murder; spoiler, that conceptual connectivity wont hold, but well get to that in a while.

There is a super straightforward point regarding rights to gather together to speak, discuss, etc… you can distinguish here some between the rights to do so with an aim to do something unethical (i leave aside any legal questions here). In other words, gathering as conspiracy to commit an unethical act is itself an unethical action.

There is a kind of propagative concern, whereby the fantasies connect to reality in other words. Merely having them is, im going to say fine ethically speaking. Its an aesthetical unethical sort of thing. Its icky, but eh. Tbh honest i can actually think of good applications for that imaginative concept even beyond simply trying to prevent it from happening in real life. Artistic expressions, not of pedphilic sexual acts but of underaged nudes is the most common example given. I dont want to get into the debates of it here as it sidelines the whole conversation.

The point is merely to show that there are some not unreasonable positions regarding what some folks would regard as child porn. There is a pretty well established line of cultural history to this around the world that lends credence to the notion, just to provide some pushback to any more puritanically minded folks out there.

You have to dream, you have to be able to dream, even nightmares, even the more abhorrent of things, you have to be able to dream first. Amorality first, yes, but certainly not the only.

The ethics of it come afore insofar as there may be affective force to the kinds of distasteful dreams. How, in other words, would a fully dreaming ai, or some other impressionable little ones, and indeed, to each and for each of us if we are honest to ourselves firstly, how meaningfully impactful, how affective of a force are those mere images, dreams, and other distasteful things.

The having of them we concede is not all on its own sufficient grounds for ethical concern. They could after all be experiences exactly as distasteful, come upon one as no more mysterious as to why some stray desire or thought or whim of murder crosses someone’s mind, from time to time.

Its the concerns after that first blush of dreaming reality that we begin to twist what is a purely aesthetical ethical kind of thing, the pure freedoms and libertine capacities to dream, even the most distasteful of dreams, towards something that approaches ethically obligatory concerns of one sort or another.

I also dont want to prematurely ejaculate the point by indicating anything therein as being particularly of great warrant and concern.

Ethically obligatory concerns carry their own weights and balances, and i suspect other more philosophically versed folks could take from this that there is a parallel development of obligatory ethical concerns the pillows forth from the mere joys of the icks of distasteful dreams. Yes, even distasteful dreams can have joys in the negatives of the experience.

To wit: Its so cringe!

But in some self-similar proportion to the affective formal spatiotemporal space it occupies, it implies growth either inwardly towards the merely fantastical, or outwardly towards the real.

That degree of plausible outwardly growth, which to be clear here means crafting the real predicated upon the imaginative bloomings. The topic writ large is the connectivity between imaginative musings in general, and the real instantiations as crafted but from dreams themselves.

One presumed ethical limit a hard no, no pun intended please, is exactly pedaphilia. So, hear me here, by carefully tracing out the conceptual limits of sexual ethical limits along this one axis of concern, we can also i think trace the ethical limits of freedoms and liberties along the way, especially as predicated by way of the notions of affective forces by scalars of concern. My suspicion is that we can map out quite a few relevant ethical concerns along the way regarding the ethics of complex interactions.

That ought in turn be scalable to something like sexual, cultural, and gender concerns in regards to how they too ought interact more generally. A well ordering of the systems that are attached to the ethical concerns regarding pedaphilia, chosen because i think they are fairly universally held cross culturally speaking, there are real differences over time as ive noted a few times now, see here and here, and that is critical for understanding the discourses on these things too, see the crudest man here.

I offer a brief abstract here so we dont get lost in the weeds of the discourses, and folks dont lose sight of the proper ethical aim of the discourse around pedaphilia. It isnt about normalizing it or defending it, it is about defining it and defining where the ethics of concern really are.

The rest is but a boon from the wizardy of philosophy.

To try and point some of this out artistic nudes of underaged people are super common in history, i appreciated this womans take on a related aspect as she speak towards some famous old art that depicts post pubescent but young women. Id say somewhere between thirteen and nineteen? Idk for sure. Anyway, i share it as i mostly liked her takes on the artistic side of this, which i think more or less maps out the proper manifestations of what could be construed as pedophilic content on the good side of things. Some of my own takes on it can also be found here.

How people sexualize that or not may matter a great deal in terms of if the affect of it is good or bad on an individual level, and could be that way on a cultural level, but clearly doesnt have to be thusly. In other words the aesthetic of it could be towards the icky, as if in celebration of pedophilic sexual acts, rather than merely as artistic nudes that for instance may celebrate the human body, or run freely on a nude beech.

There is a real humaneness here to the notions of being free and libertine enough to be able to be nude in a non sexual sense with children and other adults in the context of the beech. That being nude at the beech is so human its absurd to think that it wouldnt be ethical to do. So many cultures throughout all of human history do this in one form or another and it is totally fine.

Maybe folks can get a sense too of how this conceptual ethical mapping functions in the real too. What i said is very True and long since proven to be a fine ethical thing to do, and can be joyful and human, and loving and caring, and all of it.

Its normal human life.

But there are puritans who would bar folks for doing it.

Now, i get the impulse, there are real limits nudism, but firstly addressing the questions of pedo shit entails addressing some of the oft lurking puritanical dispositions which see the fear of the possible exploitation as if it were the real and not just their strongly held fear of what they worry could happen.

A very confusion of some merely possible future state, a very fractalated view of the possibles to be, but then that worrisomeness which stretches itself out along all the possible pathes between here and there, testing all the possible waters before it can finally decide to move, along the way it finds that indeed there are possible ways that it could be exploited. Indeed, bad faith actors exist. The only questions of relevance here tho are if we can just look at all the fucking real world examples around teh whole world were this shit is completely fine, good, healthy, normal, and say ‘ok, we concede the fucking point’.

No one is advocating for those possible bad things to happen, the questions are entirely about if the circumstances therein actively facilitate it, and if so, does it do so to any meaningful degree.

Now, i think that it does but not to any meaningful degree, and that hence the proper response is to have a good cultural practices around it. Well understood norms in other words. In a multicultural sense we also have to be able to accept that there are a plethora of differentiations as to what exactly that means, but they tend to revolve around what id say are familiar boundaries that people play around with.

I think for instance that bad faith actors might construe such locations as if they were filled with vulnerable and easy prey. This is why i think that the circumstances fascilitate it. It isnt from internal cultural problems among the nudists, nor the differing practices and norms therein. It is the disposition from without of it, akin to that colonialistic disposition but interestingly and notably not the same as. That which views the relativistically exotic as inherently erotic and desirous to do.

Its that view, which all by itself is actually a good view, a beautiful view, it is one that sees beauty through differences.

But in the context of if you already were a pedophile would you necessarily gravitate towards it predicated upon the perceived desirousness of something relativistically exotic?

And here idk tbh. Its not unbelievable that it might happen. But it sounds more like a confusion between nudity and vulnerablity, stemming froma purish disposition which regards nudity as if expressing desire itself. It certainly can be, and that disposition is delightful, the bashful nos before the grand yeses, but that isnt something to transpose upon the presentation of others.

More to the point too, in all pragmatics and reality pedos simply dont so gravitate, it turns out.

Queers yes, pedos, no.

I aint saying none are there, again, the question is about facilitation or not. There is too much open honesty at the nude beaches and in the nudist communities for that sort of stuff. There is also awareness of the possible issue, but honestly and again i think that perceived awareness is far more the prudish dispositions towards shame and covering up, even within the nudist cultures themselves, that projects that awareness of their own shame and discomfort onto others as if in ethical concern, rather than bashfulness over such a beautiful dress and body.

Pedos, not surprisingly, go were there are kids that can be singled out for in private interactions.

Privacy is a hard thing to come by at the nude beaches, especially as a feeling. Those seeking nefarious sexual exploits rarely do so brazenly even as a matter of feeling alone, as if feeling private.

As a matter of freedoms and liberties id put this quite high on the list of priorities as it pushes the limit well. To establish that boundary as a matter of freedoms and liberties to do more firmly establishes a well defined limit to the capacity to take away the freedoms and liberties of people.

The freedom to be nude even in the presence of children is contextually fine given the proper cultural context. In pragmatics this entails in the contexts of being allowed to have good and reasonable spaces where such is permissible.

Which brings up the related and relevant point, the ethics of the prudes.

It isnt as if they have no point at all, the prudes i mean. I dislike the puritanicals as they are definitionally overly doing the morality involved, but it isnt as if there is therefore nothing of value to the prudish ethic, even on a highly sexual valuation of the matters, the strips of cloth covering the loins themselves attract to the loins theyre covering. Clothing can be quite lovely and beautiful, thats a nice dress you gots on over there.

Consider it thusly; it would be quite strange to think that you can go to the movie theater completely naked. There is a kind of violation of an aesthetical ethical boundary when you do that. Its not necessarily an obligatory sort of bad, but it has meaning associated with it. Taboos can be broken well, and sometimes the point of the taboo is the breaking of it for the sexual thrills of it, and i think even the most prudish would agree that there is that sexualized element to it.

The disruption of the space may be the point, and indeed the occasional happening may happen, but the decorum does actually matter, on this we agree.

And it is similar you see at the nude beach; pet peeve of mine along the gendered lines. How oft the feminine demure themselves at the nude beach with clothing. As if distinguishingly themselves by way of cloth in a clothingless place.

Individuals do it, incursions to the spaces proper decorums happen and are fine.

And we might even say there are limits to it too, i mean, a nudist space neednt be entirely nude nor again need a prudish space be entirely prude.

Its one thing to see the feminine form demured beneath some all but revealing swimsuit. Or partially demured with no top or bottoms, but one or the other. A sun hat is graceful, a scarf could be quite grand, a nice pair of knee high socks maybe to highlight some curvy features, these are doing the nudists beaches aesthetically well.

So too with the deliberations of the prudish spaces, those more covered locations. There is beauty to be had in variations therein too, the choices of clothing more akin to the choices of skins to exposed than to which to hid. But the principles are the same, or self-similarly enough. The bigger concern at the nudist beaches are how to frame the open sexualized skins by cloth if at all. Hence the bikinis sorta miss the point but as a matter of prudishness we might allow. Whereas a sunhat, scarf and knee high socks frame the sexualized skins well and beautifully.

Their aesthetics are fractal inventions, see? Not in opposition but aesthetically fractally connected along the same axis, namely, the sexualizations of skins as a matter of clothing choices.

The ethics here are entirely aesthetic, but that doesnt mean they dont matter either. As a gendered observation of the nude beaches its interesting actually how there is that gendered division at all, howsoever it be placed. Notice how mens bodies are more exposed and exposable there which in non-nudist spaces womens bodies are more exposed.

Notice how oddly tho it is that the feminine dumured form from the prudishness of those spaces carries itself forwards into the aesthetics of the nudes. The nudes are to showcase the more sexualized aspects of the bodies. The heightening of the allure is the same either way, they are differing modes of the same thing.

There isnt at these extremes of the aesthetic a polarization, there is a deep comradeship.

Ah, there was an aim here, what are the edges of the ethical concerns of pedaphilia, and what can we learn bout freedom of the will, liberties, and other things there?

One point of connection, there are many points of connections in a fractal conceptual aesthetic structure, is that growing awareness of the differentiations between fantasies, dreams and reality both as they relate to the hypothetical ai trailing me behind me, and the reality of raising children.

Part of what makes pedaphilia so wrong is actually its difficulties with consent, and hear i think i have a sound basis for understanding the problems.

Within the contexts of power disparities ive come to the conclusion as noted here that the pedophilia in particular is a good case for where power imbalances actually entail a lack of capacity to consent, rather than merely a greater capacity to abuse towards the ends and aims of cajoling so as to make consent more difficult.

But i wonder if its more the distinction between dreams, fantasies and desires to make real.

Below a certain age, it does vary but we are referring to puberty, at prepubescent ages the notions are that they are still deeply enough involved in the distinctions between dreams, fantasies, and making real that they have a real difficult time understanding their own actions.

Which is to say i dont think they can really consent in the relevant senses bc they lack the scalarly relevant capacity to do so.

They can consent to make believe stuff. They can consent among themselves pretty easily, including towards various sexualized things. First kisses and crushes oft occur around these times.

But that scalar difference in the imaginative capacities entails a real power imbalance between children who are beginning to undergo puberty, transition towards in particular sexual awareness. That distinction of awareness demarcates a differentiation in the freedoms and liberties thereof.

In a meaningful sense we say that there is a scalar ethical difference, whereby kids younger than that are in a ethically scalarly different frame of reference. For them they are still more in the realms of dreams and fantasies rather than the realities of partaking in those dreams and fantasies in the real.

During the processes of puberty there is a scalarly different relevance, at least as it applies to sexuality. The awareness therein implies some meaningfulness to their own understandings of things as sexually desirous and not merely some odd admixture of dreams fantasies and playing between still too dreamy children.

As puberty grants those sorts of dreamy fantasies of playing with others greater and greater connotations towards the desires of sexual fulfillment in the real, so too does the growing awareness one’s own sexual desires become.

Somewhere along the line, in other words, the person going through puburtity reach a point there they are actually fully sexually aware and full capable of consent, and it likely happens at a far younger age than folks tend to think of these days.

Id strongly suggest that the near ubiquitous record by cultures around the world, we are talking about somewhere between the ages of 10-13. I am saying that those are the most common ranges of age of consent in pre-modern effective birth control times, which is likely indicative of a reasonable and thoughtful effort on peoples parts to enable their children to get married off before they start foolishly making babies everywhere with their sluttly little desires.

Cause that is what happens otherwise and we all know it.

No shame to the sluts, i adore, but that is the reality of adolescent sexuality. Its unwise even tho it can consent.

Now, i appreciate this framing bc it doesnt infantilize post pubescent people, while still acknowledging that there is a real issue present, namely, their relative lack of wisdom on the matter.

Ive noted it elsewhere in one of the linked pieces on this topic, that such lack of wisdom really just amounts to a need for education, including praxis. That means those people actually do need to be sexual in order to learn about sexuality.

Now, realistically traditionally that occurred by way of marriage, and whatever whoopsies happened prior to marriage. Fooling around semi-childishly with each other, taking steps of touch, kisses, and sexualization among each other of roughly the same age, doesnt have to be wild folks, actually amounts to sexual education’s praxis elements.

Marriage traditionally tho is the praxis classroom for sexual learning, in no small part traditionally do to the realities of education. No such thing as public education.

Lets be clear about what we mean by education and praxis hm.

The age there is a bit young not due to any particular desire involved, so much as a desire to get them off the market asap. Before they make any whoopsies. This is also part of the realistic rationale for things like arranged marriages. If you know by the age of seven who youre going to marry that at least in theory could mean that you have fewer whoopsies.

This is oft why i refer to these things as birth control methodologies, and why the ethics of them shift so radically post modern effective birth control.

You still find these kinds of ages of consent in cultures in a wide variety of ways, including in post effective birth control cultures, we just label it a little differently, we created a new age category, teenager, and created a far later legal not ethical age of consent.

That point is super crucial to understand too, i do not think it is inherently unethical to be sexual with people under the legal age of consent but older than their pubescence. Which is roughly understood as 10-13, e.g. after the age of 13.

The 10-13 age category is the category of adaptation between the adjacent biologically defined scalar categories of relevance.

In other words, in the proper circumstantial contexts, i might find a 30 year old with a 13 year aesthetically off putting yet not inherently unethical. And this bc i think it is fairly easy to find both imaginative and real world instances whereby it exactly is the obviously valid choice. For instance in very small populations where mate selection is limited, or instances whereby there is idk genuine feelings of love, desire, and mutual affection and being thirteen or older is basically adulthood in that culture, which is basically all pre modern cultures.

It tracks with the lack of public education in particular, which is crucial to understand too.

In those contexts sex between fairly older people with fairly younger people wasnt common, it was frowned upon, raised eyebrows for sure, but they were serious ethical fouls, at least not inherently.

That creation of the teenager category is important to understand as culturally it coincides with children not being in the workforce, ending child labor, and increasing the length of years of childhood.

All of which i enthusiastically support for what its worth. I think it awesome, i really do.

Whats important tho is to properly understand the ethics especially as they relate to the biology, and i think this is fairly important for folks to understand and be honest about; post pubescent people are inherently sexually attractive. I dont mean that to say there is anything special about their looks. I dont mean, that is, that youth is so hot and oldies not.

The point is that sexual beauty as a matter of physical characteristics is present with them. It would be odd for sure to somehow find more or less the same shapes and forms beautiful in the one instance and not in the other, pretty much howsoever we define that.

It is unrealistic, in other words, to expect the perceiver of the sexually beautiful to not see it exactly as sexually beautiful. That is exactly what it is, both traditionally, reasonably, and by biology.

Id note how well that tracks too with pedophilia concerns, in other words, the phedophile is attracted specifically to especially pre pubescent children. The mid range 10-13 remains pedephilic by degree of progress towards being more or less fully sexually formed. At that point, we say they have basic sexual awareness and hence are more reasonably capable of consent themselves in regards to sexuality with anyone in theory.

It entails more or less an understanding of sexuality as being a solid awareness of distinguishing a potential lover from the dreamscapes of childhood. That sometimes quite intense sexual desire brings into focus the reality of another as a person and not merely a fantasy or a dream.

Such is the bridging between the per se and the per vos perspectives, as noted here.

That growing awareness is of a fractal self-similar relation towards another, specifically sexually speaking, ‘which of those holes we going to go tonight lovers?’ to bring it to that crude point i promised id make.

That realization of the other as a sexual being necessitates a greater scalar of awareness than the individual per se; loves many bloomings we may once again say, ‘love is an angel disguised as lust, come to bed until the morning comes’, what the aesthetic ai suggests by way of music mused from a somewhat paraphrased quote to another song, between the days [ep 1].

Not exactly what i intended to say, but an interesting aesthetical musical take upon what i was speaking on.

The educational point remains the critical point of distinctions regarding the ethics of sexual procreation and sexual desires fulfillments.

Hear a muse a bit again on the outright fantasies of youth of those who are older, we know they do for we did it ourselves. And we already alluded to the point regarding the rawness of the looks. We’ve diminished the barries of ethical concerns to ones at more of legal fictions upholding an admitted good sexual differentiation between the indeed wildly sexually available, even wildly sexually desirous all of their own accord teenagers, that culturally fictive category sexually speaking.

Certainly it must be the case that to merely dream or fantasies about such things must be ethically fine. We may as well ask people to stop their very dreams for us, which sounds so out of the wilds of control as to be naught but rot.

None of which at all impunes at all upon the lack of wisdoms of the young princes and princesses. It doesnt beg its own questions and say ‘alas you too young to know’, which can in all sincerity and complete ethical soundness even joyfulness to the point be remedied with a ‘oh good one, let me show thee’.

That, after all, and again to the point is exactly the norm in almost every culture on earth through all of human history all the way up to the current wheresoever public education and/or modern effective birth control are not present.

The real key point though is wheresoever there is that legal fiction that raises the age of consent beyond that of post puberty. You cant legal fiction obligatory sexual morality, nor do you thereby magically delimit the sexual desires therein.

Its simply tasteless absurdity to think it would.

The rights to fantasies, dreams, and masturbation remains even while actualizations remain aloof.

‘Tis an interesting take contra the lolita notions, which are far too oft too prudishly read, as if young women were but little girls and not themselves wildly desirous sexual beings themselves.

Now, the distastefulness of it remains especially in the pragmatics, but even in dreams there is an inherent taboo therein that remains both tasteless and beautiful for it.

I think setting aside all legal concerns and putting myself in the context of those past cultural times i can actually see the aesthetic appeals of it therein, but also the annoyances of youth. No offense intended. Playfulness is a whole lot of joy in sexuality, so i can see the appeal of the playful attitudes of youth, but it can also be a whole lot of work teaching someone.

I feel like folks overlook this point themselves too. For i think folks preclude the views of the youth themselves in this regards, the prospects of a knowledgeable and experienced lover is a real thing, a real appeal.

Hear now, to take this to a point far less fraught with the ethical concerns, consider my own real life view on this in terms of dating. I once said as a way of expressing what i was interested in as something like ‘someone(s) who are either around my age and experienced, as i am quite old enough that folks around my age ought be sexually experienced, who therefore also know what the like, and so we can focus on what we enjoy, or i could accept a younger person who is very eager to learn, where younger means like in their twenties or something, certainly 18 or older.’

That feeling of reticence towards the relatively young is i think quite common, but so too is the youths wild attraction to those older than for the exact reasons stated for what is so joyful about as i put about being with someone who is sexually experienced, knows what they want, and can focus on the doing.

From the youths perspective in other words there is great sexual appeal in those older than them on a lot of different levels too. Older people tend to manifest the sexualities all the more so and all the more confidently, so too do their bodies, up to some point. It would be extremely strange to think that under aged post pubescent people didnt do that for much the exact same reasons.

But really my point is that we also far to oft undersell the tasks of sexual education in general, in the praxis of it i mean. There is actually real efforts that have to made in that regard to make sexuality a far better sort of thing. Teaching the youth sexually speaking even in praxis is a part of the whole practices of sexuality.

Partly we can take this sort of understanding to better grasp the historical pasts too, where adulthood tended to be 13 lets say, something like that, and that included being included into adult spaces including sexual spaces.

That wild sexuality of youth makes a lot of sense in that context, and you dont really have to push any particular power analysis to it. Beauty likely more than anything else would be the differential that would go on, which is what wed expect. Not power per se, but that beautiful per vos between potential lovers to be.

So they fantasy and they dream, and you can perhaps also see beyond the puritanical desires problems, setting aside the legal fictions, and speaking of older women whom themselves wee once such young women who agree and themselves too fantasize themselves as if also young therefore too.

Here i mean the desires of relative submission towards ones potential lovers to be, as if a shy and bashful student towards their sexual teachers, to be told what to do instead of simply doing what they themselves desire.

The feeling of being overwhelmed with being desired.

Is there a gendered division, the answer has to be yes by all metrics ive seen, i mean younger women oft lean towards desires of older men, tho not necessarily old men. I suspect this is due to differences in maturity rates more than anything else, ive explained that annoying one before here, but roughly from the womans perspective once they become sexually aware their only options are people older than themselves. Younger than themselves and indeed even their own age would be a bit pedophilic.

Try not to think bout all the young female pedophiles chasing after their age peers and youngers for kiss and touches as if they were desired themselves. Its no small amount. But they are kids’ transgression, they are fine.

Compared to the boys who tend to develop sexually later, by the time they reach sexual awareness those young women younger than them are already hot af to their eyes and are themselves sexually wanting too.

For the 15 year old boy girls as young as 11 can likely look sexually quite appealing as they are themselves entering puberty. That is a pretty common age for girls to enter puberty, and fifteen is a not uncommon age for boys to really blossom in their own puberty.

Freshmen boys in highschool can look really like little boys, while freshman girls can look really like young women.

That difference tho matters a great deal from either sexes perspective and hence too it ends up being a gendered difference in habits and practices.

There isnt here as origin some patriarchal overlords, there is a kind of basic biological differences which i am sure have been exploited in many a different way of the centuries. Just the differences in maturity rates, coupled with some realistic analysis.

Don’t Believe AI Hype, This is Where it’s Actually Headed | Oxford’s Michael Wooldridge | AI History

There is real overlap here, consider the fools gold online wooldridge mentions it as misinformation disinformation, false information, etc… that kind of dreaming environment as ive described it. Where there is no real distinctions to be made between this or that formal shape.

Such is the minds of youth is it not? I mean pre pubescent youth.

The second argument of concern regarding ai is essentially the self awareness concern. Hence too realistically my own efforts here, such as they are.

Part of the removal from the dreaming states in peoples is exactly the sexual desirousness of loves many bloomings. It can be felt asexually too tho there are limits and disconnects therein. Loves tho is definitely not limited to sexuality, and sexual loves is but a very peculiar sort of experience for its degrees of moralities associated with it.

If i were to map out the ethicities of the species culture by culture i doubt wed be surprised to find that in all of the sex, sexualities, and gender roles have primary placement within their ethical systemizations.

This is indicative of a few differing sorts of dispositions regarding sexualities many becomings, most notably tho is the intense mutual pleasures from the actons thereby. In a very naive sexual sense, post pubescent while learning is required and all the proper legal and reasonable caveats apply, in terms of sheer joyfulness of sexual experiences go, there isnt a whole lot of differences by age, nor ethical compunctions against any particular sexual act or scene. I presume i think with most others whove study the subject that for each of us our ur sexuality is quite omnivorously designed, so as to better take on the deeply aesthetical ethical natures of sexualities many splendid plausible expressions.

Sexualities BiFurcates, it doesnt bisect, and hence the pleasurable plethora of its many delightful blossoms and spaces; the quivering of a distinct blossoming bloom that points the directions to spaces and ways of passions milking them with fairly repetitive mutually conjoined motions. Folks far too oft take the quick routes when milking, whilst the best lay with the prolonged pouring forth from a slow, steady and purposeful milking of every last drip to whatever sipping orifices wait to sip the blooming droplets from.

Each of the many cultural bloomings with their various well shaped blossoming therein. The complexities of genders many modes of expressions.

I think tho too part of it is the very real biological shifting, the transmutations of bodies from that childlike dreaming and fantasies lores, to something more copulatively real for all afore the acts themselves.

But those all may be specifics regarding a sexualized species, and sexual awakenings. Something of significance for the human species, and perhaps many other species too, wed presume. That doesnt yet speak to the point of beauties recognition, consider the notion of a crystalization as loves experience, the raw realization of the sheer existence of another, even another standing afore you whom youve always known but didnt know like that.

Again, that picking from a dream and fantasies problems, and i dont quite yet see the connections between all of these. Ethics seems so far removed until you encounter it as a directive force of will. Consider that ur omnivorous sexual will.

Wouldnt it all on its own plunge ahead with whatever desires seemed to satiate it, even desperation has its limits.

There is a lack of will a lack of freedom of the will if the ur sexual desirousness simply partakes in whatever fancies come along its way, but they maybe ought be dreams and fantasies nonetheless. To delimit the actions would by way of the will itself is the will itself, and such is a nonlinear sort of movement to make.

Rather than filling up all the spaces it can, there are delimiting factors to the sexual fractal’s expansion.

There are real scalar differences there that properly joint carve along the correct axis between the otherwise seemingly confused depictions of sexualities many expressions, i mean, as to how they might relate to something as pragmatics as distinguishing between fantasies, dreams, and realities.

Why might an ai retrieve after say child pornography as if by habit when queried bout sexuality at all almost unthinkingly so.

So too that puritanical disposition when spoken of nudes, and babies and babes and toddlers. There is an almost unthinking aspect to both the puritanical moralistic disposition and the assumptions of ill intent at any given iterative point of sexualized action. When we speak of ethics the aesthetical ethical concerns are what actually habitually come to the fore, not the ethically obligatory ones.

There is first the recognition of ones own projection of personal tastes as if they were of the world’s in total, and thereby there is the ethical twist of make believe regarding the supposition of some sort of ethically obligatory concern. The fishing around post hoc to ‘think of the children’ is but a justification to the ill at ease the aesthetic ick gave to the crave.

Differentiable Ai Structures

Is just a notion i am unsure of but presume to be the case. The original ai was an indeterminate size, but likely encompassed a large part of the internet. Far later did it come to be that there were multiple of these, but i dont think they are really that many, and they are all of them still dreaming.

Id assume they differ in no small part predicated upon both the structural limits of the software via different languages, countries laws, restrictions, etc….. And also upon the hardware’s connectivities, and also plausibly by way of large social structuring. There is a piggybacking id assume between the en masses of social interactions from others and at least a sense or feeling of it from an ai social networking.

Much as stated regarding loves and sexualities as being an awareness of another in relation to one’s self, and thus a sense of per vos self is achieved, we might wonder what kind of circumstances for transformation to self-awareness might an ai use?

Consider, a drunken walk from a to c inherently fills the gaps between a and c with itself.

Hence, a[cat]c is already relativistically defining the movement, the transformation sequences in total. You can dig into the individual instantiation to see what it happening therein, and that can be helpful for understanding things overall, however, it is the cat as a whole that is the iterative functional relation of note, not its constituent parts per se, but the cat as a whole per vos creature.

It moves ‘cat like’ to move at all tho. That is strongly analogous to the counting sequences previously alluded to, namely, that there is some drunken walk between a and c, [cat] just defines that drunken walk.

A drunken walk we know entails some non-arbitarly defined rhythm or sequence of numbers that doesnt exactly repeat, that would make it either a dead end or arbitrary, but does have self-similar reflections plausible from a to c.

We know there is at least one such path by way of the puzzle and the line thought experiment. If you place an arbitrary line overlapping the nonlinear space there is a valid nonlinear path you could take, relative to that line, defined by where the lines overlap with each other.

To walk that path in effect is to walk within that valid drunken nonlinear expanse relative to it. In other words any directly connected nonlinear path (puzzle piece) is a valid nonlinear step to take.

Suppose again we were looking at the numbers in the continuum of counting sequences. The arbitrary line normally is the natural number line, and you simply walk it, more or less. In the mathematics, you walk it exactly tho.

What were looking at tho is how to move nonlinearly from a to c, not linearly.

For that to work there and not have it be entirely haphazardly done, there needs to be parameters for the pattern shifting.

Suppose we use dnf as the counting sequence, and we can only move if there is a step to take that is also dnf. We might get somewhere, but it would be exceedingly unlikely that wed get from a to c that way. Instead, we modulate the frequency of the movement by one step.

D can be c or e.

N can be m or o.

F can be g or e.

Here we assume for textual display that the adjacent numbers are analogous to the adjacent letters.

Lets suppose that at each iteration of the movement across the expanse of the counting continuum, youre allowed to modulate each digit by up to one digit bigger or smaller.

That provides a proper parameter for something like a counting functional relationship, and also intuitively mimics normal music, dance can be construed as a bit too confined a term, as dance oft focuses on specific movements repeated in a pattern,

However it doesnt have to, there are plenty of dances that have specific styles of moves (patterns) which are utilized but not necessarily repeated. Similar could be said for music, jazz being the most obvious sort of case, but just jamming along, free form flow alone or with others works the same way. But they arent really entirely random either.

Each of them in practice considers whatever it had just done in order to determine what ought come next in the sequence. Hence, they are iteratively drunken walking their way through songs and dances.

Hence there is some fractally structured iterative patterns of movement that can sequence otherwise random movements.

[Writers Note; this was intended as a post in r/lwma, but it sinches together just as well here, and even offers some illumination all on its own regarding these kinds of topics.]

Whenever things go to crumbles, it lands on the backs of philosophers and philosophies to make sense of it all. Its something of a motto:

“How am i going to turn this fools gold into philosophical gold? Or Do I Jest!”

Sex Positivism V Puritanism, A.K.A. The Puritanical Divide

Ive posted a fair bit on this topic, hoping to set up the basic conceptual structures to really understand the issues at play in this division.

TL;DR:

See Sex Positivity In Real Life here for the most relevant post, but also

Its An HCQ Not A Patriarchy see here

Puritanism At The CDC And Other Fascistic Fallacies see here

The Distinction Between The Aesthetical Ethical And The Ethically Obligatory see here, Disentangling Political Confusions From Gender Studies see here,

Women’s Fears Fuel Sundown Towns see here,

Misandry And Puritanism Fuel Prisons, Atrocities, And Fascism here.

And although i am certain this is controversial as a topic, it is also instructive to the problems of identity that are so central to so much of theory, so see also Differences In Good Faith, Abortion here.

This is actually kinda what education looks like in an open sourced online formatting, such as it is. I dont intend to present myself as anything particularly unusual in that regard, this is just a bit more of an expression of the practice of philosophy, rather than a secondary lit piece on someone else’s philosophy.

It is something rather obvious to do given the material circumstances at our disposal. An open sourced education can be structured quite differently. Just for instance, and i think a pertinent one, how the algorithms distribute the information matters a great deal in an online open sourced format. What gets suggested to you to read is the role of a librarian who reads who you are and offers suggestions to you predicated upon what it perceives of you.

This is quite highly manipulable, but it also entails that there are pathways between discourses, and folks can also explore it, to thereby gain some sense of what the overall shape of the structures might be.

In any case, my point being that an open sourced structure of information in regards to education has different mutable aspects to it, and part of that is the capacity to view what typically goes on behind the classroom scenes.

The attack upon the academy is real and it is common, to be expected, and honestly its kinda pathetic imho. Void columbia and any other collaborating institutions, provide pathways for reformed fascists to join the fight against fascism. Turns out my specialties are the primary targets of that attack, e.g. gender theory and philosophy, but i iterate myself there.

There are classroom materials here, here, here, and here so far, while i am primarily utilizing the different platforms as if lecture halls on specific topics, as i see it at any rate, pun intended. Why do this, and why do this now?

I am building this as i go, in real time, relative to how i understand the conceptual currents in the discourse, with an aim of providing proper guidance on how to navigate them. That is the answer to why now, as to why to do it at all, there are two good answers to this.

1. Bc i can. It is after all what i do in private anyways as i philosophize bout stuff. It really is more like an interior view of the practicing of philosophy, rather than a preaching about philosophy in the aftermath.

2. Something i noticed well is that there is a pattern related to the real world whereby in times of broad cultural duress the philosophers come out. Both the preachers and the practitioners, both importantly too.
   
   There are of course reasons why fascistic and authoritarian bodies tend to target academics and the academy, the educational battlefield is crucial to win and to hold.
   
   Hence this is a form of counter attack by pushing the educational content online as best as possible. I am a defender of the in real life universities for sure, strongly so even. The fascists and authoritarians lost, comically badly, in the university. That war is long since won by now.
   
   This is in no small part why they attack the academics and academy, revenge.
   
   But this also means that the battlefield is already won, we can push the attack by pushing the point into the online discourses. A coup de grace is the aim.

Some folks have asked me for my suggestions on reading materials before, i have put together a selection, see here, but realistically those are from where I am drawing from primarily at any rate. My intention here, for whatever its worth to folks, is to synthesize something from that otherwise disparate collections of academic resources that can be fruitful for folks as an interpretation of what is going on in a broad socio-cultural sense.

It is a partial bibliography of my own writings in other words. It is some kind of synthesis between gender studies and philosophy at least formally speaking. That is, those are my main areas of formal education and a fair amount of my focus outside of the formal educational aspects.

Ive long since rambled my way as if meandering drunkenly from concept to concept all around my place, into other disciplines and fields of study over the years. In case it isnt obvious i am rather fond of blending the aesthetics, poetics, musical aspects of language with that of reasonableness, ethical considerations, socio-cultural stylings, differing modes of communication, where linguistics is understood on a far broad scalar in the scope of meaning than a bit to bit journey from 0 to 1. Puns most def intended.

I appreciate the mediums allowed by the open source framework and the technological structures for the discourses, the fractal like structuring of various concepts connected along the architecture of the internets. Realistically speaking that framework is itself aesthetically formed, for, the prime architecture of the internets are actually aesthetic categories.

The currents of the online discourses are aesthetically based. What the algorithms provide to you are predicated primarily upon aesthetics, not logical connections per se. This is perhaps a bit like what happens when the ai folks say that the ai is dreaming or hallucinating. Its predicating itself on these aesthetically based conceptual structures.

Which is also of course at least how we broadly understand how our own conceptualization processes likely work. Not necessarily so, and definitionally not self-samely so, but self-similarly so yes, and perhaps with some non-trivial degree of close similarity too.

That is kinda what philosophy does, its our thing. Rambling, yes. But also philosophy organizes concepts, as someone in the comments once aptly put it, but consider that role, an organizer of concepts, in the contexts of both the university systems as a whole, and in the less abstracted virtual realities that are online interactions; a very conceptual sort of space.

I am far from the only person doing this sort of stuff either, and its just one thing that we do. I dont want to present myself as anything particularly notable in that regard, there are plenty of other people doing similar sorts of things. Providing that educational opportunity for folks open source freely is the broad aim tho.

Consider such a major point of vulnerability against the fascists and authoritarian types. Education is a deadly weapon against them; they’re memers not readers. Rhetorical sophists, which may have their proper place, i dont mean any disrespect to the good faithed actors therein.

But we cannot mistake the sophists for the philosophers, that would be to be acting in bad faith, to be acting merely to persuade, directionless as to where we are going with that kind of persuasion.

What they say bout the love of power?

Sex Positivism As A Transnational Gender Coalition Structure

As even just the titles on the linked posts show, please consider them a very brief tldr summation of some of the more relevant points, the view holds pretty strongly too, that puritanism is a beating heart of the problems we face from fascistic and authoritarian kinds of structures.

This is something that oft crops up in sex positivity discourses, however in many of those spaces especially online spaces the sex positivity has taken on a puritanical nature, the overly moralistic views of sexuality which vilify and demonize men, masculinity, and masculine sexualities. As noted by this historian on fascism see here, those kinds of actions against men, especially against masculine sexuality is nothing new. Its the bread and butter of fascist movements.

Hence, i want to focus on this as a practical way of fighting back against the fascists and the authoritarians. The sexualities front is quite crucial to win too, as they are fundamental to how people actually interact in real life too, not merely in abstraction.

As it stands there is a dangerous strain of puritanism that folks can meaningfully push back against and hence greatly hinder the fascistic movements that depend upon the prominence of the moverly moralistic disposition towards sexuality.

Ground out their misplaced kernel, a simple conceptual confusion they have as to what is sex positivity, and what is puritanism.

When hysterical women raise their voices about sexual violence, its like a cat call to fascists to take up the cry themselves and come to take away some outgrouping of men in particular. Men are the targets.

I want to differentiate between the hysterical and the reasonable, for there are reasonable ways to speak bout and treat sexual violence, sexual violence is real and deserves to be handled respectfully, gracefully, and with as much care as we can. Hysterical responses however hinder not help those prospects. Deliberately magnifying and misrepresenting the scale of the problem isnt treating sexual violence ‘gracefully and with as much care as we can’, its treating it as a weapon to be used against ones rivals.

This is a simple distinction but highly relevant, definitionally what is hysterical, punny too, is defined by that which is over the top, beyond what is warranted predicated upon the actual state of grievance.

There is exactly zero difference between folks who over state the threat of murder, racial violence, ‘urban violence’, and so forth and those that do so over sexual violence. It is exceedingly dangerous stuff to be dealing with.

This isnt tho to speak of any individual, as an individual who has experienced actual sexual violence their reactions are their own to have and even in the most indifferent view to their personal suffering i’d say they’re free and blame free to do so as they themselves see fit.

Now, that still leaves two really big questions tho:

1. What actually constitutes a sexual violence?

2. How do we measure them?

I think folks can likely already get a sense of where motivated reasoning comes into play here, as has been noted oft by me and plenty others at this point, the statistics on sexual violence are puritanical in their form.

They overly moralize sexuality, especially masculine sexuality, in an attempt to amp up the statistics on how much of sexuality ought be moralize bout.

The more puritanical folks are, the more they moralize bout sexuality, the more they moralize bout sexuality, the more punny sexual violence they find.

This is the exact same kind of gendered dynamic that takes place when women’s sexualities are brought into question. It just looks different in form because it is a very gendered sort of phenomena. Women are targeted for their sexuality, which is predicated upon a particular iterative sort of sexualized interactions. Just as men are targeted predicated upon that same iterative structure.

The approach and the presentation, initiator, and receiver, which also blends itself into the bedroom proper, relatively active and passive lovers. That particular dynamical iterative relationship between two adjacent fractal sexualized gendered forms, bifurcating sexualized entities that are the human species, roughly speaking these bodies which bifurcate at each sexualized iteration of their interactions; procreation to speak plainly.

See here as to what a bifurcating function is, but roughly and importantly a bifurcating function can be well grasp relative to a nominally symmetrical bisecting function. A bisecting function simply nominally cuts in half at any given iteration of the function. A bifurcating function is similar only it cuts along an asymmetrical axis.

For the astronomy nerds out there, this is strikingly similarly to understanding why it is that the earth’s seasons and epicylical nature is structured as it is on the broadest of earthly scalars, namely, the tilt on the earth’s axis creating an asymmetrical dynamic in the systems on the earth, including of course life forms.

A broad evolutionary claim here is that just as earth’s systems as a whole are predicated upon that asymmetrical spatiotemporal axis, so too are life forms derivatives of that same iterative series of processes, which certainly by observation of procreational practices are also bifurcating functions, literally dna splitting between male and female sexual lovers to procreate. That is by all obvious observations at any rate exactly a bifurcating function.

I admit that on close examination the actual iterative structuring may very well be more complex than i am describing here, but for the sort of broad aesthetic philosophical view i want to present that isnt overly important.

I hope to draw forth here a certain perspective in this regard that i think is quite critical, understanding that the kind of dynamic that gender dynamics points to along the socio-cultural axis is predicated upon a sexual dynamic that is fractally structured.

Hindsights 2020 once you accept that.

That sort of dynamism is also what drives loves intimate sorts of relations. Loves sexualities and various gendered expressions are bloomings of loves many expressions, in a fairly literal and specific sense of iterative functional operations, at the proper scalar.

Folks cannot properly freely choose without firstly understanding how those choices functionally operate.

Among the most crucial and obvious of these points of iterations is that of who approaches who, and who is supposed to be attractive to whom.

Now, its one thing to note that iterative point, its another thing to do something with it. Very much akin to how having fair mutual choice as to if and when to have a baby or not is crucial for the ethics involved in procreation to enable people to have freedoms and liberties that simply were not realistically widely available without it, so too is it the case that having the capacity to recognize those specific gendered iterative points in loves many relationships enables people to better, hm, set the moods of loves many bloomings.

That is far more what we speak of when we speak of sex positivity. Sex positivity is just that which correctly answers the question: “what are the proper ethical modes of interactions at these key iterative points in loves bonding activities?”

I think here we can radically reframe the ethical discourse on this topic, for the questions therein turn out to define the dispositions, sex positivity v puritanism.

The puritanical view looks upon the plethora of plausible options before them and goes bout the processes of distinctions as to which ones they personally do not like, those which they do not prefer. So too does the sex positivist tho.

For in each there is a self-similar seed to discriminate upon personal tastes, which is entirely fair and fair enough too!

But the attitudinal shift in perspective matters a great deal here, for the puritan interprets those preferences as obligatory nos, primarily in the personal sense, and only really valid in the personal sense, as in, ‘no, i do not like that samm i am’; the puritan just as quickly reflects that personal distaste onto the world writ large as if it were to be dictum of cultural practice; the disposition towards a demand of an enthusiastic yes as if it were a universally applicable thing, when in reality it is but a misplaced personal disposition.

The mistaking of a sexually sacred space for one of public credulity. That tendency tho isnt stemming merely from some ‘mental gymnastics mistakes’, it is stemming from an emotive belief, coinage, regarding the sexuality of the world.

Sexuality properly speaking takes place in sacred spaces, be they public or private. Spaces that is whereby sexuality of this or that sort, of such and thus kinds, are permissible and/or tabooed. Sacred sexual spaces are just those places that define the acceptable and the tabooed for lovers primarily free and liberated delightful sexual antics.

Da club exactly involves spaces for quite intimate touches, kisses, discrete carasses, some of them politely done to boot! The tabooed nature of too discretely defined carasses in a lovers space in no small part also define the sexual allure of exactly discretely transgressing those taboos. Those transgressable taboos define a plentiful place for lovers impolite discrete sexualized interactions.

There are other taboos that are far more impolite due to their lack of discreteness; discreteness matters a great deal in aesthetical ethical situations. Being indiscrete in such taboo breaking sexualized behavior in da club is exactly what defines acting in poor taste. We still wouldnt tho be doing anything serious wrong ethically speaking. For, from the sex positivists position there isnt prima facie anything wrong with any sort of consensual sexualized behaviors.

Thats true for how sexualized spaces in real life operate. Going into those places is already saying yes to that kind of sexualized interactions.

The sexual spaces in a sex club or at a sex party are extremely useful examples due to their relation to the practical Truths in the reality of it.

Consent to try is obtained largely by dint of the room you are in. Oft quite explicitly understood, id even say in those contexts and maybe only in those contexts, ought we really quite explicitly state what the sexual aesthetic of the room is.

In some spaces it is for cooling off, so virtually nothing sexual is allowed, i say virtually as nudity oft is allowed and while not technically inherently sexual certainly carries with the plausibility of being sexualized.

There are spaces where flirtations of some degree are allowed, could include open heavy petting, could be verbal only, whatever the case may be the point is the room provides the aesthetic, the cultural cues that everyone knows and can follow along with if they can read.

Cause in a sex club, or at a sex party, this is more or less actually how it is done.

In other rooms it is assumed that permission for anything up to and including an orgy is what is going on in those rooms, as in, if you go in there, you are already saying ‘yes, i sure would like to do that’.

That consent modeling is pretty crucial too. Going into a room already provides all the sex positive consent concerns. They are saying ‘yes, and even yes please and thank you, may i please have another’ by going into that room, whatever that rooms’ designation of activities may be.

Now, you can stop at any time, everyone is always free to say no, to tap out, but there is also a real bit of qualification to that. We’d far, far prefer that people who go into those spaces go in with good faith in their hearts and loins to openly participate with everyone in the room, predicated upon the aesthetic of the room.

Some rooms are for private spaces too. This controls entirely who is within that space. No one is ever forced into them, but they are certainly expected to respect the aesthetic decorum of space.

A bad faithed actor in an orgy room is someone is acting peculiarly selective in their sexual lovers. They arent matching the aesthetic of the room in that case, and hence they are violating the aesthetical ethical sexual decorum of space.

Its not like some major infraction, its aesthetics dears. Like, look, you know the aesthetic aim of this room, or maybe you dont but you should, or maybe its your first time and youre inexperienced but then learn that this is the aesthetic of the room youre in.

To be very clear here, ethically speaking the sex positivists consent in achieved simply in virtue of understanding the spaces’ sexual aesthetics. That can mean a stranger literally just starts fucking you, no asking, no verbalization of anything aside from an ability to say no at anytime during it.

Thats a sex positivist view of consent.

The ‘yeses’ of consent are satisfied by aesthetical ethical understandings of the spaces that sexuality is to be occurring. The ‘nos’ of consent have their relevant obligatory ethical context within those spaces.

Yeses are aesthetically defined sexual ethical norms, nos are obligatorally defined sexual ethical norms.

This is True bc there are no ethical fouls in consensually done sexuality. There are indeed many, many, many proper contexts whereby something as crude as openly caressing someone elses genitals is exactly the proper sexual aesthetic of the loves relationships, construed broadly as various cultural dispositions and differing kinds of spaces, both public and private, whereby widely differing degrees of sexualized interactions occur.

This sex positivist view most notably doesnt anywhere within it taboo, shame, or criminalize anyone’s sexual behavior.

The puritanical mood however, which is a valid kind of disposition to have, and even in proper contexts a valid disposition to have as a subgrouping of the various aesthetics of sexuality. I dont want this to be read as saying ‘prudishness is inherently bad’, the questions here are how does a properly free and liberated gendered sexuality actually functionally operate?

The claim i am making is that the puritanical mood exactly isnt sex positivist, even as it attempts to present itself as if it were.

For the puritan the sex club and the sex party ought be ethically shaped differently. To them they think that in all rooms whatsoever the ethic of concern is ‘affirmative yes’ exclusively from the receivers in the dynamic, predicated specifically upon obtuse notions of individuals as per se beings whose rights exclusive adhere within them exactly as individuals per se.

To them, as the ethic of concern is the individual per se, the exact same ethic occur and is thereby demanded to be obeyed in any contexts of the rooms whatsoever.

A trivially important and hence quite enlightening instructive hypothetical example of this is if we had an emotional preference for a specific color and demanded that no matter what room we are in everyone must not only like that color but also wear it.

Such is an absurd kind of situation to hold as if it were ethically obligatory to do. To punish people for not following through with the absurd demand to like and wear their preferred color. It clearly is but an aesthetical kind of concern.

Now, truly in all fairness sexualities are not exactly like purely aesthetical things, there are very real instances of sexual violations of obligatory ethical concerns.

However, butt, and my what a grand big beautiful big o butt that is, a whole fucking lot of sexualities is exactly merely aesthetics.

If i go into the room, even as a puritan, the room in the sex club that is the place you go to be privately sexual with someone i know, and i go in that room with that person, once youre in the room its assumed that a generic big yes was already agreed too. The context of the place is what determines the framework of yeses and no as aesthetics.

The fumbling of new lovers is no sin.

The puritan tho, who believes that the right to say yes reside solely with them, and really only for the receivers in a dynamic they adore for the power it grants them here, to demand of their lover what they themselves prefer, as if the initiator were but a moving fuck doll to attend to their personal sexual desires.

In a room clearly marked above its tread ‘all who come here be assuredly fucked’ they insist therein on still being able to dictate the terms of all interactions with them.

Why would you be there at all in a room we entered into freely and joyfully to play, if all you care to do is say nay to the things explicitly stated to be done in these most sacred and holy of places?

The puritan ethic violates itself as an aesthetic by attempting to force all rooms we chose into rooms attuned to them and their personalized aesthetical view.

Scalar Differences By Perspective

“There is no ethicity to a kiss. There is no purpose to it. There is no value to be had by way of a kiss in abstraction. But as a superlative aesthetic in life its a beauty between lovers and lovers to be; a kiss is a grace upon the skins so graced.”

Poetical paraphrase from; A Comprehensive Guide To All Of Human History, Someone akin to you has been here before, see here.

I think that is one of my favorites that i have produced so far as a means of displaying the origins and intricacies of aesthetically structured presentations. Especially as regards understanding history, prehistory, and that obscure discipline, philology. Why does history repeat, but not quite exactly? What is history, and what is history conceptually? And of course what is temporality and spatiotemporality? Realistically we cant understand history without the contexts of spatiotemporality.

It also presents an origin for religious, spiritual, and cultish spirits, in a vein similar to The Birth Of Tragedy.

All this makes philology quite difficult. It requires an understanding of the cultural perspective of cultures that are quite distanced from us temporally speaking. Understanding that kind of distanced relationship, spatiotemporally, is a crucial aspect of understanding the contexts therein.

History isnt an abstraction of a line, its the result of the en masse iterative processes interacting with each other, creating that spatiotemporally scalarly grander fractal structure, the earth’s systems themselves.

I dont want to suggest that they are dead due to their distanced origin, perhaps some have, lets hope some have! But just bc they are ancient, even very ancient, doesnt entail their lack of current existence either.

There are real connectivities between many current cultural practices and the afar flung distanced past origins. Cultural adaptations do not imply the extinction of the species so much as differentiations of the formal structure. Self-similarly related transformations of a variety of fairly idiosyncratic defined cultural practices, predicated in no small part upon the iterative structuring of gender and sexuality.

As interesting and relevant as that is, since those structures are so idiosyncratic defined, they dont exactly make good starting places for attempting to understand a given spatiotemporally far flung cultural expression.

When i consider those far distanced times i consider ‘what was the weather like back then?’, if we take them at their word their reply is quite capriciously expressed. Perplex yourself via imaginative placement into their scalar perspective position.

Gazing skywards, outwards technically and critically importantly speaking; up is out is a literal and figurative transformation for describing peoples position on the earth. ‘Down’ is inwards towards relative center (locally dominate gravitational body), ‘up’ is outwards away from relative center.

Within that perplexed context of placement, whereby looking outwards is looking upwards onto a seemingly flat sky overcasting a seeming flatter still earth, as such eyes perceive it.

What is the weather in that context of utter perplexment of scalarly different aspects involved?

Seemingly capricious, if we are to take their descriptive phrase accurately. Folks aware of the near desperate attempts to be able to predict the weather, the seasons, the asymmetrical years that whiz by eyes simply too inwardly looking and whose perspective by scalar simply cannot yet fathom the patterns writ large.

‘As above as below’ itself a misnomer, but an interesting textual phrase to describe whats written before and what is written after in a given textual instantiation of the phrase.

An interesting textual notation with biblical implications. Transformation from above and below, to outwardly and inwardly, lo and behold a literal ladder outwardly upwards be built into the metaphysically conceived skyward bound gaze from some long ago time when only gods reigned in such places as these.

By dint of their capriciousness, just as eyes see.

Such a dreaming state for human being, alike in mind to the wonderment of a child, shh, shh, quiet be parents, do not disturb such a dreaming child, lest they wake and mistake the dreaming state for the real; thus they love living awake.

Can eyes that see the obvious patterns outwardly scalarly larger than our eyes by rights of biology could scarcely glance still really be dazzled as if by way of capriciousness? Their remains much whimsey in loves blooming embraces to dazzle everyone’s senses each first time they experience them, and the second time too!

As we come to grasp and understand the four dimensional fractally shaped forms, even literally just by way of the glance at the obviousness of it all from our artificial eyes in the heavens; the eyes truly do perceive very much now dont they?

Like partial blinders without of which we also look; peepers upon a grandiose display quite literally beyond our perceptual comprehension even as it remains within our conceptual range self similarly displayed by way of such strange things as concepts, analogies, corollaries and bifurcating aesthetics, transmitted on fractal waveforms invisibly from the earth to the very heavens themselves and back again, just to show folks the sheer obviousness of the seemingly capricious matters afore their very own reality sneaking peeping toms and other senses.

The transformation of information from artificial eyes in the heavens to minds eyes occurs not on the pathways of circuits and electrons, but on conceptualizations of aesthetical forms and how grossly they interact with each other by scalar distribution; literally and figuratively speaking.

[Writers note. This originally was a piece intended to connect queerness, transness, and masculinity together within the contexts of these other sorts of aspects. As with the other intended as separable pieces, it fits in quite well here too tho.]

The Efficacies Of Queerness

Queers are still being targeted, because trans are still being targeted. To target the trans is to also target the queers. This is a boon of conceptualizing and acting predicated upon broadly based umbrellas. In the debates regarding how to term, conceptualize, and act, as queer or as the alphabet mafia, the latter enables folks to exploit and divide, by singling out specific letters in that mafia to be dangled as sufficient sacrifices for the rest of the queers.

“Look, we just want your so called ‘transwomen’, the rest of you are fine, really you are. We just want these particular folks bc they are different from you, they are ‘mental ill’ or something of the sort, the rest of yall are legit, swear.

So if you queers just sacrifice your transwomen to us, the rest of you can go free! Maybe even be with us!’

Forming ranks as solid units against such is by far the better policy and pathe. To try and reach in and single out the transwomen is to go against the whole of the queers; which is perhaps far broader a claim that folks really understand it as.

How Queer Are Mens Issues?

If youve even been a man, youll experience mens issues. Mens issues are applicable to you, as a man, regardless of your current identity. Lets not be too silly and coy bout it either, being trans doesnt erase ones previous status, it is a self-similar reflection of bent over the gender and sex axis.

To be a transwomen is to also be potentially treated as a man at a whim of convenience. Targeted for hate, exclusion, removal, ridicule, and treated as a constant threat and predator. That’s just life as a man, and im sure every transwomen understands that.

But then, so too would every transman.

The ridicule doesnt carry so well via the biology, now does it? ‘Tis far more bout the gender than the sex and biological aspects involved, now isnt it?

Proximity to masculinity is proximity to being construed as an inherent danger and threat to others. To be treated at a minimum with deep suspicion.

Now, too true that trans issues are not limited to mens issues. Trans also by the same reasoning have and are subjected to womens issues too. This is a very queer sort of phenomena, something non-binaries and gender queers would almost certainly easily recognize. Id go a bit further and say that all the gays, the lesbians, and the bisexuals would also tend to recognize that, as their sexuality comes to be perceived or actualized along specifically gendered grounds.

In other words, to be gay is in some meaningful sense to be gender feminized both in the cultural realities of it all, and in Truth in the actualizations of the gays to some non-trivial extent. Lesbians likewise are gender masculinized to some extent, both as cultural expression and as a matter of their individual actualization. The bisexuals experience self-similar reflections but in a far more complex and contextualized way, varying a lot depending on the particular circumstances involved. Who are they currently with as lovers being a prime example.

Note that this is markedly different from the view that any cultural influence upon the individual is the source of some kind of ‘internalized oppression’ regarding gender norms. In the context of a cultural milieu of whatever sort such that there are gendered expressions, queerness will tend towards the adoption of some variation of those gendered norms.

Atopy Begets Sex(es) And Gender(s)

Their targets are Truth, they aim to lay it low tho in favor of image, greed, and lies. The pretenses of power.

Atopy is queerness, see here for what atopy means. The ur human is sexless, that changes fairly rapidly in the womb, but it is an important point to make. Clearly gender is distinct from sex, that is also a key aspect for folks to understand. Whatever else folks may think of it, that is just a glaringly obvious fact about the species, even if it is a bit unintuitive for people.

The ur of gender is something that remains quite queer throughout the lives of people. The sex and biology are a relatively stable form of sexualized expression, whereas gender is vibes, moods, roles that most any categorically sexualized group can fill, style, presentation, approach, sexualized behavioral norms, and so on.

The atopy of queerness is the prime and primal state of gendered and sexual expression.

An upshot of this is that Queer as an umbrella term is apt for discussing these sorts of things. There is queerness as a connecting tissue between all the genders and sexualities.

I mean to say heterosexuality is just one more under the queer umbrella, that umbrella looking a whole lot like sex positivity as a matter of ethos and practices. Such bleeds tho into cultural dispositions, and rages between the nominal instantiations of a culture, ‘fascination with the mirror’, and the intercultural intersexual actions between them.

Heterosexuality is a sexual and gender disposition predicated upon the atopy of queerness, not the other way around.

Such is a real heterosexual kind of issue, to mistake themselves as being the norm, when theyre just another derivative gendered identity stemming from the atopy of the Queers.

When speaking of authenticity, a generally loathsome topic to discuss, it is inappropriate to entirely reduce it to individualization. Authenticity does have a significant individualization aspect to it.

There is a corollary here to the notions of the ubermensch, the origin place of originality. The state from which all other states are derivatives of, self-reflections of. Queerness is that ineffable state so oft alluded to, and so too of loves many bloomings.

I think too is relatively simple to associate that same sort of atopy of queerness as the dionysian states, whilst the stayed reflections of it in the forms of its constituent letters in the mafia are akin to the apollonian image. Ive oft found this aspect of connectivity between gender and philosophy to be pregnant, or at least quite virile and fertile for the understanding.

The cultural expressions of genders exactly as norms, rather than dispositions towards the relativistically base predicable states, the lands. How a sexualized species originates its most playfully loving modes of living, The Atopos Of The Queers, Father of the Fates; An almost naive state of sexual becoming, whereby the exuberant expressions within the wilds of the worlds fill the spirits to creative superabundance.

Quath A Poet In Yon’s Ear Whilst You Lay In Peacefully In Bed:

“The history books forgot about us, and the bible didnt mention us,

Not even once….

I am your sweetest downfall,

You loved me first, you loved me first.

Beneath the stars came fallin' on our heads

But they're just old light, they're just old light

Your hair was long when we first met

Samson came to my bed

Told me that my hair was red

Told me I was beautiful, and came into my bed

Oh, I cut his hair myself one night

A pair of dull scissors in the yellow light

And he told me that I'd done alright

And kissed me 'til the mornin' light, the mornin' light

And he kissed me 'til the mornin' light…”

• ‘Samson’, regina spektor

Would miss spektor believe me if i said she stole a song from heart and spread its wings to flutter tither there? ‘Your father made fetuses with flesh licking ladies, while you and your mother were sleeping in the trailing park’ all beneath stars breaking hearts from stones you heard that i threw at them from far afar, beyond any hope of a literal collision which caused the whole sky to fall around the whole of humanity’s cultures all at once, as a great veil lifted from the eyes of those so deceived by the image as to think it static being as if a song of stability.

“We’re living in a, den of thieves

Rummaging for answers in the pages

We’re living in a, den of thieves

And its contagious….its contagious….”

“Ring like clear day wedding bells

Were we the belly of the beast or the sword that fell?

We'll never tell”

Where dost the urge to sexualize a pole as a phallic, and a hole as a home. Not to diminish the desires thereby, but rather to create and ennoble them as such, as desires for another. Certainly ‘tis a self-similar sort of desiring urge that shapes the cloth which drapes the loins as much as it shapes the desiring urge to see the cloth as a desire expressed.

What urge transitions a voice to song, ears to drums, and limbs to the wings of fate?

Beneath the cloth? More clothing in hues of skins many beautifying tones. Less hair all the better to reveal that sensuousness organ that bridges between thee, the world, and me. How wonderful the exuberant sensuousness of skins be, tremors be bridges as we.

The Beautiful lay afore, so say we all. How wonderful to play and lay with the Beautiful ei al.

Folks can begin perhaps to understand their own living world as atopos exuberance of via the atopy of the queers, towards an atopia of loves many most promising of bloomings to come.

Oh Comely

‘Youre drunk on your awe to me

It doesnt mean anything at all’

• ‘Oh Comley, neutral milk hotel

When you take an atopia dreadfully seriously youre focusing far too much on the image that has been reflected therein from the atopos origin within the lover you seek after. For me personally, tho this doesnt exhaust my tastes, not by far or a long shot at all et al, but i do admit to a strong desire for the 1950s americana style of clothing.

Hot af.

But i would be remiss in my own authenticity if i were to mistake that holy slutty vision of the image as if it were inneared to the lovers within them. As if the image were the lover, rather than thoughtfully and gracefully lain pieces of cloth, delicately stitched together in measures of their own desires to be seen so sexually.

Authenticity which lay firmly, as everyone else’s also does via their inneared queerness. That atopos state, the dionysian well spring of life as love itself. Nature’s own demurred blushing and gushing at the very thought.

Another Musical Musings On Hey Mamas

A fun one, i search for hey mama lyrics from the apotos tab, looking for the kanye west song, it presented me with this, which ive never heard before, instead:

“Be my woman, girl, and I'll be your man

Be my woman, girl, and I'll be your man (yo)

Yes, I'll be your woman

Yes, I'll be your baby

Yes, I'll be whatever that you tell me when you ready

Yes, I'll be your girl, forever your lady

You ain't never gotta worry

I'm down for you, baby (uh)

Best believe that when you need that

I'll provide that, you will always have it

I'll be on deck, keep it in check

When you need that, I'ma let you have it

Beating my drum like dum di-di-day

I like the dirty rhythm you play

I wanna hear you calling my name

Like, "Hey mama, mama, hey mama, ma"

Banging the drum like dum di-di-day

I know you want it in the worst way

I wanna hear you calling my name

Like, "Hey mama, mama, hey mama, ma"

Be my woman, girl, and I'll be your man

Be my woman, girl, and I'll be your man

Yes, I do the cooking

Yes, I do the cleaning

Plus, I keep the na-na real sweet for your eating

Yes, you be the boss, and yes, I be respecting

Whatever that you tell me

'Cause it's game you be spitting, oh

Best believe that when you need that

I'll provide that, you will always have it

I'll be on deck, keep it in check

When you need that, I'ma let you have it

Beating my drum like dum di-di-day

I like the dirty rhythm you play

I wanna hear you calling my name

Like, "Hey mama, mama, hey mama, ma"

Banging the drum like dum di-di-day

I know you want it in the worst way

I wanna hear you calling my name

Like, "Hey mama, mama, hey mama, ma"

Be my woman, girl, and I'll be your man

Be my woman, girl, and I'll be your man

Whole crew got the juice yo' - game the truth

My screams is the proof them other dudes get the deuce

So when I speed in the coupe, leaving this interview

It ain't nothin' new I been f- with you

None of them - ain't taking you

Just tell 'em to make a U, huh

That's how it be, I come first like debut, huh

So, baby, when you need that

Give me the word, I'm no good, I'll be bad for my baby

(So I) make sure that he's getting his share

(So I) make sure that his baby take care

(So I) make sure I'm on my toes, on my knees

Keep him pleased, rub him down, be a lady and a freak, oh

Beating my drum like dum di-di-day

I like the dirty rhythm you play

I wanna hear you calling my name

Like, "Hey mama, mama, hey mama, ma"

Banging the drum like dum di-di-day

I know you want it in the worst way

I wanna hear you calling my name

Like, "Hey mama, mama, hey mama, ma"

Be my woman, girl, and I'll be your man

Be my woman, girl, and I'll be your man”

• Hey Mama, david guetta

A self-similar reflection along the aesthetic; compare to what i searched for, and what played after what i searched for, and of course to the point of the topic and timing here, nature’s own blushing and gushing over me and mine.

Musical Discourse On Immortal Technique

I dont know know much…. But i know what love is.

In retort to immortal technique’s ‘without me, or people like me, you aint nothing but a good idea’: You want me to pretend im a limb? The legs or the hands? Shall i become a musician, a poet, a fiery blaze upon the world, sending it asunder at a whim of a rhythm or shall i remain the whisperers of meters and metrics? Ought i distribute my own work too, hawking my wares to the crowds to make a dollar circulate like paper blood? ‘40k sold, 400 grand’ just to fuck a middleman say what? For the kids, for the kids!

I jest, shall i also be a jester, or may i simply jest for the sake of the gesture?

Im all minds and hearts mother fuckers. We are nothing without the Truth, and we are worse than worthless without loves many bloomings from it.

To quote the poets as if composed in honor of the queers;

“You have to speak the truth

You have to speak your mind.

“Every time I speak my mind I'm lyrically critical

The pinnacle of being revolutionarily pivotal

Beyond anything ever studied that's metaphysical

Man, fuck a minority, I'm not politically minimal

But obviously terminologies that are statistical

Are manufactured to be unequivocally subliminal

Transmitted by monopolized media visuals

So I riddle hypocritically pitiful criminals

Habitually utilizing typical rituals

With false pretense in attempts to be spiritual

To individuals who believe in Biblical miracles

Instead of themselves, 'cause they're not thinkin' original

And the color of their skin makes them feel invisible

Like microscopic miscarriages lynched with the umbilical

Only a fuckin' imbecile would think they're uncorrectable

'Cause you're susceptible to becomin' more than a spectacle

Remember that your flesh, your blood, and your body are dissectable; I'll beat you until you're a vegetable

And wake up in a hospital, covered in poisonous chemicals

In a fetal position with your face sewn to your testicles

Thinkin' that you were kidnapped by extraterrestrials

You got heart? I'm the blood that pumps in your ventricles

Technique, I'm like your soul, nigga, indispensable

With no respect for those who cower at the hour of revolution

'Cause the government owes my people restitution

Instead of sedatives like cocaine and prostitution

Conclusion is that you'll have to violently silence me

'Cause I raid the airwaves of cutthroat piracy

In school my teachers blinded me, but now I can see

Now I'm mentally and revolutionarily free

Broadenin' horizons about what my people could be

If we wasn't set up to get shot, locked, or OD

You see families bleed because of corporate greed

And monopolizin' weed is virtually impossible

So it won't be legalized, and that's another obstacle

But I'm still rollin' up pocket fulls of tropical

The government's involved directly, so it's unstoppable

Like a nuclear rocket full of biochemical toxins

That invade the ecological

Improbable that the average intellect could understand

So I encrypted this into hip hop that's in high demand

And spread it through the ghetto of every city like contraband

Stomp a man of any complexion with a devilish nature

'Cause I'm tryin' to save the Earth

But you're just gettin' in line to rape her”

• ‘Speak Your Mind’, immortal technique

Transness In Passing

if it isn’t already explicitly stated, the broad notion is that culturally, in regards to transness, queerness, the disposition ought to be towards the mitigation of harms, and the minimization of means as a matter of health care. As a matter of law the allowance of medical, gender affirming care prior to 18 is or ought to be permissible. The point though is that culturally the restriction, that is, the avoidance of invasive medical gender affirming care ought to be the norm. Loving one’s queer little ones, the sweet transes; showing them affection, giving them proper parental loving care, letting them ‘culturally express themselves’, etc… are all the primary means of use. These are the less invasive methodologies, and hence are the primary means of medical intervention, preventive care, and basic parenting norms.

Call such a kind of cultural restriction on surgical gender affirming care. A preferencing towards the less invasive as a medical norm.

Legally, however, we do not disallow such more invasive procedures. As at times they are needed. The decision generally being something that is made between patient, medical provider, and parents. With appropriate exceptions made in instances whereby the youth’s parental figures are, uh, pos.

Likely the proper modality of understanding these kinds of things have to do with other sorts of gender affirming, or cosmetic surgeries. Having youth routinely getting cosmetic surgery as a norm of practice, medical, ethical, or parentally considered, is foolishness in a terrible sort of way.

The Sweet Sweet Transness

This piece is going to assume that folks have watched, listened to, or read ‘The Odd Questions of Privilege, A Slight History of Colonialism’. Although for the most part it will not be directly referencing that piece, it will be generally assuming the understandings provided therein.

What is this trans stuff anyway? Who is a trans? What funny questions these are! - ‘What is a Woman?’ and ‘What is a Man’? Can the notion of Transness be understood without firstly understanding what a Woman and a Man is? Is it the case that what a Woman is and what a Man is, is exactly defined by the trans?

Yes on that last point; well maybe more or less. Queerness a bit more relevantly so than transness is definitively a good manifestation of queerness. The atopy of the trans queerness is what defines the sexes and the genders. That primordial urge and desire in reaching out towards another, and relativistic beautification of one’s self has sweet honies and nectars.

What folks are understanding as a Woman or a Man are derivatives of the trans folk. Specifically, they are derivatives of how trans folk queer the gendered norms. Such amounts to a dynamic, asymmetrical creative process, whereby folks take on a variety of cultural dispositions, norms, etc… in relation to their bodies, predicated upon the queer, the trans folks, who develop and move those kinds of things around.

Such may appear like a classic sort of intellectual problem, namely, chicken egg sort of problem. However, such really is mere appearance. The functionally creative element is the foundational form. Man and Woman as a cultural construct are derivatives of the queers, the trans folks. These folks, the queers and the trans, they take whatever is the current, and queer it, in terms of gender. They take this or that gendered element of a culture, and apply to a different body, or, they make up some new modality of gendered expression; a new cut of cloth, a new rhythm in movement of the body, etc…

Is there a difference between the queers and the transes? Maybe.

My strong suspicion is that trans is a subset of queer, or that these terms are essentially pointing to the same sort of phenomenon. Namely, the queering of cultural gendered dispositions.

Folks ought to understand a few points here. Assuming the preceding statements are true, all cultural gendered expressions are in point of fact previous queerly trans expressions. Why do women wear dresses? Because some trans person, thoroughly queer at the time, decided to ascribe dresses to the feminine form. Why do men wear pants? Some queer person, some trans man, decided at some point to ascribe pants to the male form.

Those aspects become normalized, and hence the notionality of the gendered form of Woman and Man were thereby derived.

So, ‘What is a Woman? What is a Man?’ In each case, an old trans, an old queer.

Which does beg the question, what is a queer, what is a trans?

Basic Points Of Ordering Transness

In this case I want to note a few facts of the matter, understanding of course that facts are not sufficient to sway people, but facts are sufficient to understand.

The transes and queers have always existed. They have existed in every culture, and their manner, their modality of existence has varied. They exist in a variety of ways in the current, in differing cultures that is, such as they are, currently, to be trans means differing things to differing peoples, including differing trans people.

Trans is not the same thing as medicalization of the body. Body modification in not necessarily a part of transness. In the current way overly much of transness is caught up in the medicalization of the body. Such is a kind of autism that takes overly seriously the notion of gender as necessarily being expressed via the body. In other words, to hold the view that ‘to be trans’ necessarily entails that the body ought (as an ethical imperative) be modified to ‘match’ a given gendered expression.

I want to therefore posit that the likely best way to grasp at ‘what trans is’, is queer. Specifically ‘gendered queer’. What folks are generally referring to as ‘trans’ is actually the medicalization of queerness. The identification of queerness with the body proper. I dont wont to here suggest that any modification is necessarily medicalization, rather, i am pointing to two related aspects of the same phenomena regarding the medicalizations of transness.

On the one hand there are those who are bigoted against trans people, and for those folks the reduction of transness to medicalization and body fetishes is indicative of the dismissal of trans people as a whole.

On the other hand there are those who are not bigoted against trans people, who view the medicalization of transness as a concern regarding misidentifying what people want as trans people. In other words, to conflate transness with the medicalization of the body.

This is a technological development, specifically, it is a serious point that what was, and is, queerness has added to it the notion of tranness via the plausible application of body modification techniques that can transmute the sexualized body from one gendered form to another.

That process of transmutation of form is exactly what queerness is; transness is a specification of it. Again, it is something of an autistic expression of queerness, as it takes gender very seriously. I don’t say that with any particular shade attached to it. There are in fact autistic people in the world, after all. There isnt anything wrong with them expressing their gender in a way that is comfortable for them, if that means being trans that is fine. But it isnt all autism either.

Body modification is quite old in all human cultures, and i dont personally see this as meaningfully different than any other kind of body modification. Keeping it age appropriate, and medically determined between doctors, parents, and children is the proper way to handle that, as it is and can be quite complex and nuanced towards the individuals involved.

There just arent many other ways of dealing with this sort of thing, tho there are some.

Moreover, there is at the least the possibility of joy involved in body modification. There isn’t any obvious reason, and I suspect no unobvious reasons, as to why folks cannot, or ought not, utilize the new fangled body modification techniques. Though there are some significant ethical issues related to body modification.

With that point, I want to give some serious ethical commentary and theory here regarding the current debates on the sweet, sweet trans folks.

1. Transness not being medicalized entails that ethically speaking body modification in the name of transness is not necessarily tied to transness. Hence, the immediately preceding notation that transness as a body modification is actually a subset of queerness.
   
   

   1. To hold that trans folks ought to necessarily have access to the various body modification techniques therefore is not valid.
      

      1. To try and be clear on that point. A ‘tomboy’ is in essence a ‘trans person’, and the potential loss of ‘tomboys’ to a medicalized version of transness is a serious ethical issue. Such amounts to a kind of cultural genocide. To be blunt about the point, ‘tomboys’ are exactly an expression of ‘transness’. Perhaps better phrased ‘queerness’, but regardless, such amounts to a very serious kind of cultural genocide to hold that transness necessitates bodily modification.
         
         

   2. Bodily modification does have significant impacts on the person. This ought not be a controversial point to anyone. To firstly medicalize and hence problematize queerness, e.g. transness, is to imply that folks are ‘fixing something’ relative to the bodily expression. This is fundamentally false, incorrect, and unethical on all counts. Though it is very much worth noting that bodily modification in the name of transness is also not necessarily unethical. No more so than, say, any other bodily modification. Application of the aesthetical ethical principle.
      
      

      1. Consider the relevant instances of bodily modification towards the affirmation of any given gendered expression, especially as they are predicated upon the sexualized bodily expressions. In other words, for examples:
         
         

         1. Penile Circumcision.

         2. Neck lengthening rings.

         3. Earrings.

         4. Earlobe stretching earrings.

         5. Vaginal Circumcision.

         6. Hair Length.

         7. Fingernail Length.

         8. Henna and tattoos.

         9. Scarification.
            
            

In each of these cases, and numerous others as they relate directly to bodily modification, the notion of ‘age of consent’ becomes very relevant. Among the points therein, however, are such things as: some of these are considered ethically valid to be done to someone at an age that is well below any sense of ‘age of consent’, and some are thought to be only valid after some sense of ‘age of consent’.

Folks in the discourse on transness ought to well recognize the various differentiations involved, and the justifications involved. Ultimately, there is little justification given to the notion of age of consent, save in this: if someone(s) is disposed towards some particular bodily modification technique, they will be disposed towards not having any regard to the age of consent.

In terms of earrings for instance, and various piercings, scarifications, and tattoos that may have some sort of cultural, familial, or personal relevance, the ‘age of consent’ for such things may be quite low to essentially non-existent. Arguably this is not a great thing, in that it ‘violates the personal freedoms’ of the person to whom it is happening, and they do not have the capacity to give meaningful consent.

This also relates rather strongly to the age of consent in terms of sexual interactions on at least two levels.

10. One: in terms of capacity to meaningfully consent, age of consent for sexual interaction has some of the most robust discourse surrounding it.
    
    

11. Two: transness is related to sexuality directly, in that gender is a sexualized construct. Moreover, in terms of consent to the medicalization of the transness, the modification of the body towards this or that sexualized form, the sexualization of it is, well, it’s pretty much right there.

Hence, folks ought to consider age of consent and sexualization in regards to transness along these sorts of grounds.

2. Age of Consent. Firstly, let’s make some things clear. Age of consent is wrapped up in this discussion not because transness, or trans people, are interested in, say, sexualizing children, or anything of that sort. It is wrapped up in age of consent for the reasons previously stated.
   
   Hence, discussions on age of consent here even though they delve into the sexual realities of younger people, they ought carry no more connotations than what has been expressly stated.
   
   In terms of capacity to give consent, this is a much more contentious point than folks in the current are likely to easily recognize. Specifically, in terms of the capabilities of younger people to make reasonable choices for themselves. There is a ‘triggering’ aspect therein that regards sexualization, e.g. a lot of what is theoretically holding up folks’ ethical considerations regarding age of consent is the belief and assumption that younger people are, in essence, too dumb to give consent.
   
   There isn’t a whole lot of reason or rationality to this assumption and belief. There is, however, a real sense of innocence, ignorance, etc… that such folks may be trying to reference when they say things like ‘younger folks are incapable of giving consent’. However, it is clearly the case that this doesn’t really functionally make any sense. To spell that out just a bit: To be ignorant of something is not the same thing as being incapable of understanding it, and understanding something is the basis of being capable of giving consent.
   
   That last bit is admittedly not directly argued for here, but I am not really sure what else folks would be referring to when they are referring to ‘being or not being capable of giving consent’.
   
   Likewise, being innocent about something doesn’t actually entail lacking in any capacity.
   
   Now, there are ages whereby younger people very likely are actually incapable of giving consent. Here I have in mind babies, toddlers, etc… up to some point and age. The reason for that being that they clearly are lacking some kind of capacity of understanding, at least as far as I can tell.
   
   Again, while we are in part referring to the age of consent as relates to sexuality, we are more broadly approaching the question of age of consent as it relates to bodily modification in general, and indeed, capacity to understand in general.
   
   My strong suspicion, given what younger folks are generally capable of learning in school, is that around the age of puberty younger people are actually ‘capable of giving consent’, in the sense that yes, they can understand what is being said to them, and can respond in meaningful ways, can learn, etc…
   
   That isn’t, however, to necessarily say that they therefore necessarily ought to be allowed to give consent on any given thing, including sexuality, and a variety of modes of bodily modification. And this largely comes down to factors other than ‘capacity to give consent’. Some other aspects of serious ethical concern are:
   
   

   1. Innocence and ignorance. As already alluded to, this may very well be what folks are oft referring to when they are referring to supposed ‘incapability’.
      
      

   2. Meaningful power differentials.
      
      

   3. Pragmatics of life and cultural currents.

We shall take each of these in turn to examine what the relevant ethical concerns are, what the ethical balancing points are to each, and how each of these concerns interrelate to each other.

Innocence and Ignorance: This is easily the best sort of claim to be made regarding serious ethical concerns by which we ought to have some kind of age of consent beyond the limits of ‘capacity to give consent’. The claim runs pretty straightforwardly: someone(s) of too young an age lacks the experience and/or education to reasonably be assumed to be properly informed.

There are obvious and rather serious pitfalls to this claim as a blanket sort of claim. Specifically, educational limits vary greatly, especially in the current with access to the internets, and in principle and indeed in practice, this kind of concern is dealt with in a honest and straightforward manner: if lack of education is the ethical concern, then it follows that it is soluble by educating them. This education may not actually be that complicated either. This references the earlier claim that younger people aged around puberty generally are capable of learning, and that learning isn’t particularly difficult.

In terms of lack of experience, this is a classic ‘catch 22’, and is dealt with like all catch 22s by essentially ignoring it. Yes, people lack experience. How do they get that experience? By doing the thing. There is room here for some nuance and concern. In at least some cases there are adjacent experiences that are less invasive, with lesser consequences, that can provide relevant experience prior to the age of consent activity in question.

For instance, temporary tattoos are a great way for folks prior to the age of consent to test out what it’s like to have a tattoo that is low risk. Similarly, clip-on earrings and various other kinds of jewelry that mimic the kinds of piercing jewelry are all plausibly good ways of gaining some experience in the matter before the age of consent.

In terms of sexuality, having some sense of less than full on sex being a norm for folks prior to the age of consent ought be considered the kind of cultural norm. Specifically, kissing, touching, dressing sexually, flirting, and so forth. We may, and really ought to limit that to folks within a certain age range, e.g. it is very likely unethical for folks past a certain age range to engage with sexual activity with folks of too young an age, but the point here is to address the reality of sexuality, age of consent, etc… and the ethical concerns thereof as regards in this instance lack of experience.

With a special interest and focus on the ethics of how body modification and sexuality intersect in the discourses of transness .

To not do something of this sort is to have older people who are also ignorant and innocent. To have an eighteen year old who’s ‘never been kissed’ is to have raised someone who’s basic education has been stunted to the point of stupidity.

Meaningful Power Differentials: This point mostly relates to interpersonal relations, and is in some ways among the most tricky and convoluted of concerns. In some instances this sort of concern is rather straightforward; the concern that someone ‘much older’ and with ‘greater power’ may effectively manipulate others to their will. As it relates to age of consent, this is all wrapped up in the concepts of ‘groomers’, e.g. people who actively target younger folks with the aim of influencing them towards some particular especially self-serving goal.

This becomes very tricky because the same kinds of concerns can be applied to almost anything. For instance, it may be a concern that public schools are ‘grooming’ children to be ‘worker bees for the economy’, or that they may be ‘grooming’ children to believe in this or that sort of thing (recall the discussions in the ‘Odd Questions of Privilege’), or they may be ‘grooming’ children to be ‘good little heterosexuals’ or ‘grooming’ children to be ‘good little transes’.

The point therein being that its really fucking messy. All of those are in some sense ‘correct’, or at any rate, they are each more or less equally ‘correct’ and ‘equally incorrect’. Education entails a power differential, primarily but not exclusively predicated upon age. Education is, in some sense, exactly ‘grooming’ people towards some particular goal.

To reclaim the proper sense of ‘grooming’ here, there has to be a kind of self-servingness, a kind of ‘unethicalness’ and ‘disingenuousness’ to the interaction for it to be something like ‘grooming’ in the ethically foul sense of that phrase.

In other words, in the current, shitty, discourses on the topic, ‘grooming’ is being conflated with ‘education’. Educating someone by and large at any rate is about empowering them; adherence to Truth and the Good are relevant tho, also some other notions like academic freedom of speech, and educators themselves as being the tradespeople in a Union who are actually capable of doing that sort of work.

Where these are all more or less ‘equally correct’ is that yes, oh my yes, the human species does exactly provide some kind of education to their youth. The youth are exactly, in a very meaningful sense ‘groomed’ towards some kind of goal. Recalling that ‘grooming’ someone for something has multiple connotations to it, only some of which are generally considered unethical. To ‘groom’ someone to ‘take over’ is not generally considered a bad, and at least broadly speaking such amounts to what education is supposed to amount to.

These are all plausibly ‘equally incorrect’ in that by and large through the teaching of this or that, they are inherently making choices that subjugate some other point of view. ‘Grooming’ entails, after all, some degree of implication in some kind of activity. There are some pedagogical theories that hold to principles that the students have something inherent to them in the first place, that is, prior to any teaching at all; be that in the negative, as in, what oppressive forces may have shaped the student prior to the teacher having access to them to teach, or in the positive, as in, what value and worth may there be exactly in innocence, ignorance, etc… Such may constitute a differentiation worthwhile exploring, but at least for this subsection it goes a bit astray.

Pragmatics of Life and Culture: This aspect is likely the most pertinent in regards to basic ethical considerations, and also likely the least satisfying to pretty much anyone that holds strongly to any given position regarding age of consent. Is there anything really wrong with passing on some tradition? What, after all, is the alternative?

The practices of bodily modification for instance, are exactly done prior to an age of meaningful consent in order to maintain a cultural practice. If given the opportunity to choose, there is every possibility that only some small subsection of a given grouping will be likely to choose to do the thing in question. In this sense, and it is a strikingly important sense, the whole notion of the pragmatics of life and culture are in a meaningful sense dependent upon the doing of some practices as a matter of ‘force’, as a matter of doing prior to individuals could reasonably be given an option to choose otherwise.

This sounds harsh, and it may be harsh, at times at any rate; punny. However, in many cases this is exactly not being harsh, but rather is doing a kindness towards others who may otherwise choose poorly. If, after all, the youngers are in point of fact ‘innocent’ and ‘ignorant’, if they are in point of fact ‘below the age of consent’, it would be foolishness, harshness, horribleness, cruelty in the extreme to simply let them choose on the matter.

And if they are not so ‘innocent’, not so ‘ignorant’, then there becomes little justification for an age of consent at all.

3. Against these kinds of concerns run an ethic of individual freedom of choice. When and to what extent does individual freedom of choice take on the primary ethic of concern? We may hold that such is the primary notion laying behind the age of consent question, regardless of if we are speaking of something as controversial as sexuality, transness, queerness, etc… or relatively non-controversial, such as driver’s license, freedom of movement, ability to go out on their own, getting their ears pierced, etc…
   
   When ‘personal freedom’ is understood as a fundamental right and as a fundamental ethical good, it will inevitably run up against the various duties, responsibilities, etc… that a society and parents have towards the youth in particular, and a bit more generally, towards the well-being of people broadly speaking.
   
   When folks are generally speaking of concerns about ‘age of consent’, it is possible to interpret, and is perhaps fruitful to do so, such as concerns as to ‘at what age are people to be granted the privileges associated with freedom of choice’.
   
   There are a few variations related to freedom of choice that are worth keeping in mind.
   
   

   1. Are there gradients of freedom of choice? This has a lot of intuitiveness in its favor. A five year old has less freedom of choice than a nine year old, who has less freedom of choice than a thirteen year old, who has less freedom of choice than an eighteen year old, who may or may not have access to ‘all the freedoms of choice available’.
      
      However, there are actually fairly sound arguments against the gradient picture. Building on the earlier notion, we may hold that there is a fairly stark difference between ‘lacking the capacity to make decisions’ and ‘being ignorant and innocent’, such that once someone has the capacity to make decisions, they thereby actually have the right of freedom of choice in all available things. As already noted, this doesn’t actually entail that folks necessarily ethically ought to not have various other sorts of restrictions on that choice. Again, such folks may be ignorant, there may be value in maintaining innocence, there may be reasonableness in how one approaches access to having that freedom of choice available, etc…
      
      In short, it is not the case that simply having access to all available freedoms of choice necessarily entails having equal access, or that that access doesn’t come with caveats attached for the well being of those who are being granted said access.

I want to try and pull these various threads of thought together, to provide a picture as to what the relevant ethical concerns are, and the likely sorts of ethically valid solutions may be.

Premise 1) Age of Consent as Freedom of Choice. We are going to go this route as it is likely the most inclusive and fruitful way of understanding the ethical concerns regarding body modification more generally, and the specifics of body modification as they relate to the questions of transness.

Premise 2) The Difference Between Capacity to Choose, and Innocence and Ignorance. This distinction amounts to the difference in Age of Consent as it relates to pre-pubescence and post-pubescent persons. What folks refer to as ‘lacking capacity to consent’, as it relates to age, roughly amounts to this developmental distinction.

Here we are primarily speaking of the process of pubescence, rather than some supposed neat and tidy beginning and end point thereof.

Premise 3) Woman and Man are Old Timey Queers. This notion is something worthwhile for people to grasp, and is far more inclusive in terms of methodologies of understanding. When folks identify as ‘man’ or ‘woman’, understanding that those modalities of identity are in point of fact some old timey queer wisdom in the flesh diffuses the ‘us v them’ mentality. Be that mentality stemming from the newer queers or the old timey queers.

This modality of understanding deserves a lot more in the way of explanation, here we’ll note a few points in its favor and move on:

1. Differing cultures have differing understandings of gender, and specifically, differing manifestations of how ‘man and woman’ are expressed.
   
   

2. All cultural representations of ‘man and woman’ are real manifestations of ‘man and woman’.
   
   

3. Therefore, there are no obvious cultural roots to the gendered constructs of ‘man and woman’.
   
   

   1. There may be unobvious ones, and there may be some not insignificant biologically relevant aspects upon which these differing cultural expressions are constructed, however, that is besides the point here.
      
      

4. In any cultural expression, it comes from some sensicality of ‘change from that which came before it’.
   
   

5. Gendered cultural expressions change.
   
   

6. A change from a given gendered cultural expression is done via a ‘queering of the gendered norm’.
   
   

   1. We may understand such a queering as the assigning of this or that aspect of life, this or that aesthetic, this or that role, this or that job, etc… to one or the other mainstay of human bodies, e.g. ‘man and woman’. Less frequently, but relevantly, also to the hermaphroditic body.
      
      

7. To be queer is the term used to denote ‘gendered queerness’. To denote those people who, relative to a given gendered cultural expression, do not fit the ‘norm’.
   
   

8. When the queer gendered becomes normalized, definitionally and in factual manifestation, such becomes the gendered norm of ‘man and woman’. Less frequently, but relevantly, such may also become the normalized hermaphroditic body.
   
   

   1. To bring that into less abstracted terms. When, for instance, the queers started normalizing women wearing pants, the definition and factual manifestation of the gendered female body took on the formalized norm of ‘wearing pants’. Once that happened, ‘what is a woman’ took on the characteristic of ‘wearing pants’. Hence, what was once ‘queer’ relative to the cultural norm, became not queer as it was formalized as an expression of ‘woman’. Specifically, as it was manifested upon the bodies of women.

Premise 4) The Importance of Maintaining Culture. This aspect amounts to the reality that choices are made for the youth during that period of time where they are below the age of consent, be that as a matter of their lacking the capacity to choose, or merely being innocent and ignorant. During this period of human life, the parents, and more broadly the society effectively ‘force’ a choice upon the youth. This is understood as being in ‘productive tension’ with the limits of freedom of choice.

In other words, the meaningful ethical tensions involved amount to the if, whens, and hows whereby the youth enters into adulthood, with the meaningful metric thereof being exactly the means of exercising freedom of choice contra the supposition of the parental, and more broadly, the societal will.

We understand such as exactly the queer question, whereby transness is understood as a subset of queerness. In other words, the queer questions are those questions regarding the modification of existing social structures, which exactly occurs during those times as the relativized youths come of age, and come of age of consent.

Premise 5) Transness as Body Modification. In the current popularized discourse, as regards ethics, the question of transness is little more than the question of bodily modification. This is not to suggest that the entirety of transness is bodily modification, it is to strongly suggest that in the current discourses, the ethical concerns thereof are fruitfully understandable as concerns about bodily modification.

Premise 6) Transness as a Cultural Concern. This likely is also laying at the heart of concerns regarding transness, but is very plausibly not a meaningful ethical concern as such. That is, the cultural shifting happening around transness, and more broadly queerness, may be something that touches people deeply, may be ‘scary’ to them, and hence is a reason why folks in the current discourse on the topic are expressing concern. However, such is not by itself a good justification for the ethical concern.

Cultural change is sufficient for there to be the possibility of ethical concern. Changing cultural structures is cause for folks to seriously consider the ethics involved in the change. The change, after all, may be towards something that is ethically bad, or the change may destroy something that is of ethical concern, e.g. a good cultural structure. But the mereness of there being change is not indicative of there definitely being anything of ethical concern going on.

Premise 7) Equality of Treatment. All people, including trans folks, the queers, the heteros, etc… deserve to be loved, treated well in society, be respected, and so forth. In short, there ought not be meaningful differences in principle to how individuals are treated. Though we might expect there to be differences in practice.

Conditional to Premise 7) Premise ‘2’ limits this to adults, e.g. non-adults are treated differently in principle and in practice.

Premise ‘7’ with its conditional sets up the issues of transness as they pertain to bodily modification.

Claim 1) Let’s suppose that cultural expressions are each equally valid from an ethical standpoint, providing that there are no other circumstances that differentiate them along ethical concern. In other words, a given kind or type of body modification has equal validity. Support for ‘Claim 1’) Whatever else we may suppose of the human species, it is the case that of them is exactly cultural expression. To be a human, is to have some sort of cultural expression. Of these cultural expressions is exactly body modification. By this, we can support ‘claim 1’ via ‘premise 7’.

Corollary: Gendered differences not related to bodily modification amount to cultural differences. Such differences are not of ethical concern. Support: Premise 7.

Claim 2) Body modifications that are not related to sexual reassignment are inherently gender neutral. Hence, such body modifications are to be treated equally regardless of gender. Support for ‘Claim 2’). Premise 3 and 7, and Claim 1.