*esse est percipi*, maybe, maybe, maybe
my goal, for anyone reading my stuff, is to deposit you back where you started, different only in that you now have more tools (non-compulsory, residue-free tools), thus increasing your own freedom
this is not advice, and would in fact be completely indefensible if it was
started by wondering, from an observer-first experience of reality, what I would experience if I physically walked (not advice, don't do this) into a grinder
I think I would experience it breaking?
it seems like physics occasionally breaks, in a "just in time" kind of way (clarified not to scope the phenomenon, but to note that the phenomenon might not be otherwise observable)
for reference: I can look at the sun directly (not advice, don't do this) for half an hour, the 30min mark being when I halted that particular test, out of boredom
to me (which would be a glaring hole in the system were "observer-first experience of reality" not already a system with a well-defined observer-shaped hole in it) this suggests a conversation happening between me-as-observer and whatever's running physics for this thing
I wanna play with that
I think, by definition, I'm the only one (from my point of view, not yours) who *can*?
and if this *is* a conversation, how do we develop a grammar that has more tools in it than mortal wounding? or is volunteering for one-way transformation into something unknown the only way to get anywhere interesting? although when I put it that way, navigating into the unknown is immediately an engineering problem: there's a huge gulf between "what condition would I be in if I had already done x" (e.g. if I had already looked at the sun I would be blind) and "what would doing x feel like to me" (e.g. it is unknown to me how I would experience the process of looking at the sun). accessing the unknown-as-process is as straightforward as just ... being silly with someone watching. no need to get a wood-chipper involved.
this is not advice, and would in fact be completely indefensible if it was
my goal, for anyone reading my stuff, is to deposit you back where you started, different only in that you now have more (non-compulsory, residue-free) tools, thus increasing your own freedom
although I think this whole thing ends up being an argument for improv classes
(still not advice)
---
I'm reading the wikipedia article on that company that makes tablesaws that stop running when they touch flesh
this technology was tested with the literal inventor's literal finger: "after two false starts, he placed his finger into the teeth of a whirring saw blade. The blade stopped as designed, and although it 'hurt like the dickens and bled a lot,' his finger remained intact."
if I may repurpose a line from that article (as of version 1292534201), because the parallel makes me grin:
> Even with these safety features, the [universe] is still a dangerous machine, and must be used with great care.
---
for best results, please re-read while listening to Julie Andrews' 1965 OST recording of "I Have Confidence"