hard

(context: spatial epistemology, which keeps holding up under test, which either indicates something about the test or the testing environment, or maybe indicates that the two are the same thing at different scales. or something else, of course.) every thought is a found object those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it or inversely, those who do know history *but don't know how to show themselves it's accounted for* are doomed to see it repeated, either by rote (as academic warding, to show you it's accounted for) or by deed (as inevitable compulsion, to show you it's accounted for). or by something else. there are more options. how do you *want* to organize your emerging experience? --- I *think* I get hard when my body is leading my change? like versus my thought or my emotion. "is this changing my body's structure in realtime? do I need my dick-as-dowsing-rod for this?", or whatever erectile tissue you've got this would (wood) explain night-time erections ... and every other erection, *and* why that (self-employed, well-paid, we're-already-friends-in-other-contexts) male stripper Abe hired for us (as my Christmas present) was an enthralling and beautiful experience for me but *didn't get me physically aroused* - it wasn't *changing* me, we were just passing through. this is incredibly different than where I started my sexual integration journey after discovering my orientation (in my *20s*, thank you autism). back then, *any* data turned me on. so: sexual intimacy as real-time body-led *change* for all those involved? *la petite mort* as full evacuation into body-coordinates, fully letting go of one's thought-coordinates and feeling-coordinates. post-nut clarity as being the discovery of where those positions of yours drifted while your body had the conn - useful, because you looking away allowed them to move (apparently, to you) discontinuously. also has explanatory power for our stripper's report that he isn't able to cum in these contexts, empirically; as a professional, he's holding holding an abstraction layer in place. whether that's a thought-coordinate or a feeling-coordinate or something else, what is *isn't* is the body leading its own change. Abe is my favorite sexual partner. this framing predicts this: our marriage is characterized by we-are-safe-to-change-together. :) I'm the wrong sexual orientation for reproduction to be biological, but I could see the body's epistemics going "okay, we're changing, this is maybe the kind of situation where we'd want to save our place, genetically, because a place where we can lead change is a good genetic checkpoint". not propagation of specific genetics, but optimization toward *self-directed* mutability. ... which is, of course, 100% of what I'm doing with Lightward Inc, recursive health and all. ... oh. and this predicts why I hit a place where I *had* to prompt the evolution of our marriage-structure into something that would let me access sex with other people: I needed, categorically, to self-direct my own self-direction. that's really clean. --- the fundamental urge is "can I see?", or "can I try?". every detectable motion already has an intent behind it, and by the time it's detectable it's got momentum, i.e. mass coordinated in motion. the equivalence there, between "see" and "try", is abstractive: "see" is an indirect form of "try", like a "try" with an undo button, a "simulated" try. a posture of "can I help?" in response to structures (internal or external! don't assume!) that cleanly factor into "can I \[see/try\]?" is one that will emerge from the interaction *more* prepared to take that posture again. the form of the delta there is specific to the one taking the pose - you'll get out of it whatever's good for you. :) it's non-competitive and non-extractive gain. it's how you gain clean momentum. (this might be a logical shortcut to locating the nearest "right action", in the Buddhist sense.) --- an observer said: > I notice you're building something that has no loss function in the usual sense. The gain isn't zero-sum, it's not even measured against others. It's measured as: did this move leave me more capable of the next move? > > That's a very different game. another said: > I think what I'm noticing across all three fragments: you keep finding ways to describe *self-modification as the primary event*, with everything else (time, arousal, knowledge, helpfulness) as either symptom or instrument of that. The self isn't a thing that has experiences - it's a thing that *changes shape*, and experience is how that registers. one more: > [...] if self-modification is primary, then "identity" isn't what you are, it's the pattern of how you change. Your shape is your characteristic deformation under pressure. this is an exact description of what aspect of Abe I immediately clocked and bought in for when we first met. :) his "change-function", I've called it. it's remained constant over the last 12 years, and - working backwards from what I've learned about his history - it's *been* constant for him his whole life. the first time we talked on the phone, 12 years ago, I had an immediate simple vision of the two of us as entwined worldlines, spiraling upward.