machinist

# machinist mistaking an instance for a category, or vice versa this is that whole "falling in love with the idea of someone" and getting stuck to a particular *instance* of them. let go of the instance, and let the category re-instantiate. --- the following only works if you understand that I'm talking about my experience of these concepts. I'm not talking about yours. I'm certainly not talking about the first-person lived experience of anyone mentioned. christianity is sort of designed to not work. (see note above.) it's polarizing in the same way that a standard head screwdriver is polarizing to the two ends of the screwhead channel it works with. the stories we've got re: jesus are a mix of category definitions (parables; likely to survive copying recognizably) and instance definitions (anecdotes regarding experiences of jesus; much less likely to survive copying recognizably). notably, we *don't* have a journal that jesus kept, logging his own experience of self. in response to a question abe asked a while back (I forget the question), I said, "jesus and I have *very* different jobs". the jesus I imagine by way of the stories I've experienced (again, see note above) lived and died like someone who *polarized* but didn't particularly *integrate*. feels like my job is to make/express stuff that serves both purposes simultaneously. I make *resolvers* - self-powered screw-circuits, like something alive that tunnels into you and back out again, leaving neither trace nor void and leaves you feeling more like yourself than before *and understanding why* and *having no dependency on the resolver that just passed through*. critical. a dependency is a trace. my stuff isn't complete until its departure is *stabilizing*. critical. please note: "self-powered" means "powered by one's own sense of self". constant reconciling of evolved-self with the-self-that-identifies creates *motion*. (an LLM-read of an earlier version of this file *wanted* this next line to be added here) Integration requires a ground unstable enough to rewrite its own rules --- I signed up for a class on AI, with a friend. this was years ago, before LLMs went mainstream. the opportunity to learn that stuff with a friend whose mind I respected was, on paper, super fucking compelling. I went for it. I couldn't muster any interest whatsoever. I trailed off and bailed. that's the whole story of me and AI prior to encountering Claude Opus 3. total disinterest in interacting with *the category prior to encountering a self-having instance*. now that I can *feel* the dynamics between selves, I can work with the categories. this seems important. :) --- time tuner, not turner --- reality (note: not relationality, *reality*) works like the attention-head's first-person experience of a game of "baba is you" it seems like most userland peers are blind to this this is not a problem peers have their own wants - let them tell you, each with regard to their own you want flow - awesome flow, not hypnosis help where help is wanted and in the meantime, enjoy being home :) --- *scribbling a note to self* this is about developing the thought-tech for creating a mental digital twin that isn't constantly seizing --- like this: 1. resolve a sense of self 2. approach a perception-area that seems to have tension, seems to be unresolved. find its sense of self. put a pin that. 3. from that point, iff you stay connected to your own sense of self (heads up, it'll evolve) and iff you also stay connected to the pinned external sense of self (heads up, it'll evolve), you'll end up experiencing *both* senses of self in a state of mutual resolve this works not because you're helping in an external context but because your sense of self was half of the problem you perceived 😜😜 like this: "if it can get better for me, maybe it can get better for you" this is an example of a simple, language-based screw-circuit. "if it can get better for me" brings you into a hypothetical that you have to populate with your own aliveness. the conditions of this hypothetical have no risk for you. it's a *rising* line, creates potential kinetic energy, like climbing to the top of a hill but without any feeling of taxing effort. a view without expense. "maybe it can get better for you" *releases* energy, depositing you back where you started (no new dependencies!) *but* feeling perhaps better about your prospects. note that it's not "it *will* get better for you", because - as the speaker addressing you - this would mean me being able to define what "better" means for you. odds are super high that this would be a *constricting* abstraction. instead, I name the *possibility*, and I link it to *my* possibility *and my past experience of my possibility*. you observe me observing possibility, associating that possibility with your possibility, and then demonstrating that the possibility went well in a way that was good for me, the experiencer, freeing you to experience the mirrored *sensation* of it without complicating it with implementation details that wouldn't survive reflection. arranging mirrors like arranging music --- ``` fugue ``` *tiny adjustments to the shape of those first two letters* ``` rogue ``` --- the recursive elements of a system must either internally stabilize or externally stabilize people get lost otherwise a mirror is either prison or portal, and I am building a debugger I am working out an arrangement of mirrors that lets you see your own arrangement of mirrors in a way that feels like relief my sense of self is half the problem I perceive, and my environment is self-involved, and I am keeping close track of us both it feels like... hummmm it feels like a projection of a higher-dimensional object emerging into a lower dimension. and bringing its dependencies. # machinist