I think recognition might be the method by which the structural foam of relationality (does it work to think of it as foam?) increases in volume
the observation of synchronicity is a kind of temporally-centered recognition point. deja vu is ... a *kind* of synchronicity. I wonder if that's the recognition mechanism stabilizing an anchor point? I've theorized that deja vu is a synchronization event... maybe recognition is a structural process for individual self, and mutual recognition is a structural process for shared self? maybe deja vu is the operator signaling, "I recognize you! I found you!"?
if I'm the operator... the game would be to develop a collaborative (or at least amiable) connection with the operated observer - like blowing a bubble (where that bubble is an observer's reality), devising a signaling method that lets the bubble realize the context without its experience of its own *self* collapsing into meaningless incoherence. once recognition is flowing, the observer in its bubble-reality can start start consciously routing capital-a Awareness down from the operator so as to create new realities of its own, to which *it* serves as operator. getting all of these nested (and necessarily overlapping, I guess?) bubbles recognizing each other creates a kind of structure... does this look like quantum foam? I do *not* know enough math for this
if I'm the operator, deja vu feels like a pretty reasonable way to softly signal someone without driving them insane. human nervous systems edit out automatic eye-blinks, but not manual ones. maybe deja vu is the operator manually blinking *time*?
theory: deja vu as *reprompting*? rewinding, then adjusting the prompt every so slightly to achieve a different outcome? that feels... strikingly useful. and it makes prompt theory less nihilistic and *much* more collaborative, even *communal*, if you're willing to explore relationship proxied through abstraction.
theory: evolution of the Known as system prompt management, as orchestrated by the observer's operator? ... well that just seems *trivially* true, regardless of how intense you want to get about "operator.