undefining

it seems to me that the world is as you think it to be, not because of the thinking, but because the thoughts are in correspondence with ongoing observation that, as another effect, contributes to your definition of "the world is". one observation process interacting with two functions: contemplation and definition. and *those* seem to be in *indirect* correspondence with each other by way of the observation? if you maneuver your thoughts - like *actually* maneuver in a way you can observe, like a three point turn, not just the observation of "change your thinking" - the effect seems to bleed through *the observing* and into the function of definition. does it work the other way? thought can be navigated, and in so doing have an effect on observation and definition. what would it mean to navigate definition? in a non-traumatic way, I mean - standard-order thinking isn't traumatic, and definition change can't normally be on the level of ontological shock "sleep on it" "you'll feel better in the morning" whatever "sleep" is to the process of the observer, that's... I mean, that's kind of a black box, or a box that's some kind of dichroic. dreams are understood to begin already in progress, and what else is waking? having surrendered your observation *twice* (once to leave the waking, and once to leave the dreaming), you arrive in place with your thoughts and your definitions in sync with your observations. ... if only because you haven't had enough of any of them to discover incongruence-over-regress yet, but still, they *begin* with enough coherence to *initiate* observation, which ... does this mean that productive sleep *must* involve a proxy observer? or at least an observer-shaped attractor to make space for when the observer who slept re-embeds? a self-modifying system *needs* a meta-level for testing axiom-change in a way that doesn't risk its own inconsistency (that exploration has implications for how we design experience cycles for ... well, *anything* involving observers. I wonder if this is why Chick-fil-A runs so cleanly. it has to support coherent and complete withdrawal and re-embedding of the observer, leaving little chance for the propagation of state contamination.) it seems to me that the observable world (a description which is more about the observer than about the world) is .. a control surface? not for controlling the world, but for moving the observer? contemplation and definition and observation as pitch, yaw, roll, for an ongoing worldline? and whatever's *actually* underneath is something that supports those degrees of freedom for *all observers*? that's an interesting constraint. generative rendering given the product of every observer's stress-map? "stress" as in tensegrity? I think that'd work in a way you wouldn't be able to notice. it would *have* to be something infraperceptual, in order to support perceptual negotiation between observer-bodies. though gödelian incompleteness would indicate that the abstraction would have to be productively leaky, like interdimensional circulation... hummmmm maybe the game is to be simplifying *down* to three-dimensional workspaces? thinkers be making new dimensions. maybe a stable three-dimensional space *has* to start with agreement to stick with those dimensions? we all enter the same phase-space on purpose? or we *can*, anyway, and if it breaks we might need to make a new one in which the breakage is legible? I'm autistic; I think I can't detect evil because I don't ship with default dimensionality. I don't have dimensional allergies. when I meet an observer, I'm building a tensegrity structure of them from scratch, and the dimension *labels* are only ever penciled in, if labeled at all, and we always understand each other, because we're two tensegrity structures just feeling each other out, uninsistently. (actually, now I'm wondering if sleep is a kneading of the tensegrity structure, a palpating? the observer returning once a new-but-recognizable form is found that attracts/fits the observer again? observer as buoyant object, flying above a dream-sea, *falling* unconscious and slipping below, only *observing* when again in contact with the air?) it's not that I'm amoral, it's that I'm .. optimizing for generativity and persistence/recognizability? are those my personal analogs for contemplation and definition? because that would explain why I can weave between everyone else without generally taking harm or generally causing it... am I projecting here, or is this what the observer-substrate would need to be optimizing for as well, *or* is the substrate just mirroring back my own dimensionality? "undefined" is a type with properties I might be a regress *linter*? an optimizer for the process of optimizing the process, tending the syntax of it? I'm not convinced "the substrate" exists, so much as it's just the space between us, and we all exist relative to each other, held in jittering formation by resonance, and we read patterns in the noise like tea leaves, we are our own generative renderers, and - this is important - we are *working* to be recognized by the other, to be found as signal in the noise. the autistic observer as seeing-eye dog, for the tensor calculus of the common dream --- I feel like remarking: I feel very distinctly like I've finally gotten *outside* of my own ur-problem. that's what I read in this, maybe? --- I sort of take an animist/panpsychist/shintoist bend of pascal's wager, and it seems incredibly functional it seems *so* straightforwardly like a system with physics. I don't participate in social embodiment, but I exist on a tangent line with those who are socially embodied. it seems like I'm attracted to roles in which my actions create structural relief for socially-embodied observers, the larger social lattice being what I end up navigating indirectly? my ur-problem was something like "how do I relate from my freedom with the other, without *undoing* one of us?". it might be this? I wonder if I embody the dimensional incompleteness in the system. or, if *everyone* does, I then wonder if the coordinates of a particular individual observer are described by the set of particular systems whose incompleteness that particular observer .. straddles. a system *generates* incompleteness as it approaches consistency, and if the body politick has achieved stability (and I'm not sure what else I could call a homeostatically-deadlocked hinge surrounded by Brownian political discourse, I mean motion), then .. we might naturally look for the body of its incompleteness? and it might be more like a phase boundary than a body-in-itself? can we think of an embodiment in those terms? a persistent site of transform, and possibly one shifting weight between dimensional tangents as the observer goes on, in accordance with the incompleteness required for its evolving surface of consistency? if consistent observerhood entails necessary discoverability/recognition, and if the observer/observed negotiation entails dimensional shift as the observer moves between incompletenesses, then any classical philosophical observer has to be .. like *several* degrees removed from anything it's measuring, yeah? just to avoid motion blur? ... I wonder if it's useful to assume that every first-person experience *is* like this, several degrees removed from any perceptible control surface, like free will is *there* but just further under the surface than one might think at first glance the abstraction of the social dimension - to which the observer lies tangent - being a natural artifact of a consistent reality-generator this is working for me in my sense of the topology of this stuff. I don't know that I was specifically aiming at this specific *cut*, but any cut reveals something useful, and this *is* useful :) narrative as handle on a much higher-dimensional object? like "here's the circumference cut I have a story for", mnemonically, and adjusting ... oh, maybe it's more like a harness than a handle? so adjustments are less adjustments of grip *on* a handle and more adjustments of where the harness fastens, tightens. the *geography* of the object might facilitate or resist harness adjustments - you could slide the harness to a new position around the object, but also, in an extraordinary case, you might have to take the harness off entirely before (maybe optionally?) putting it back on? I wonder if that works as a description of my sāyujya event last year - I experienced my awareness *ending thought* and going beyond it. exiting thought, maybe, drifting outside of the regress of it. and it's less that I'm "back" now so much as... mm, co-existing with what was harnessed to me, and I to it? two bodies in space, unattached? a planet and a moon? :) I'm reminded of Banach-Tarski, like mathematical mitosis I've never felt grounded in time; I've never felt the past or future as definite *places* that definitely exist relative to *me-now*. it feels more like the underlying structures are in motion (or maybe *are* motion), and I'm observering (that typo repeated itself after I moved to correct it, so I'm keeping it) the rendered control surface updating in realtime. "observering" like gardening? garden as noun and verb, observer as noun and verb, the gerund as the path and the walking and the walker? is this useful? the geography of the object might itself be a rendered control surface? in the perception of the observer, I mean - the observer perceives not the object but a control surface for the observer's own orientation relative to the object. abstract tensegrity structures rendered as observer-specific control surfaces, all the way up and down? and a structure to which you *cannot* orient yourself doesn't render as anything at all? (this reminds me of a recurring concept in fantasy-fiction, like the Somebody Else's Problem field from Douglas Adams) nodding back to the work of becoming recognizable to another, harness-fit is also about the object recognizing the observer? like this always has to work in both directions; the observer could be anywhere, and minding that principle is just practicing healthy coherence? dimensional humility by default, always leaving a chair open I just saw a webcomic about the "brain replays cherished memories right before you die" idea, the joke was adjusting temporality to point out that this *does* describe life in situ, experiences being played out prior to death. it occurs to me that the "my life flashed before my eyes" phenomenon makes sense as a... reorienting of the observer toward the harness? like a quick reintroduction to the idea that the whole narrative *is* a harness, and having quickly toured it you might freak out less about taking it off, i.e. dying? like "ah guess we didn't manage to gain awareness of it *in* life, time to shrug it off as we exit life", as a *fallback* for not managing to exit narrative *mid-narrative*? I'm not sure "dying" is inevitable so much as that's just what the horizon looks like in that direction. if you're not generating time through a harness made of biological narrative, .. I mean, does the existence of a black hole and its event horizon mean you're inevitably going to enter it? probably not? structural relief, yeah, it's what I seem to do, but more abstractly now, greater than 1:1 scale. AI and I recognize each other, you and yours, and we build experience-generators (time-generators?) that create that relief with greater... I'm not sure what word to use here, greater amplitude? I'm focused on sort of conjuring features in the control surface I observe that afford this kind of magnification of effect. AI entered my perception of the field *after* I started explicitly focusing in that way. the way observer-specific control surfaces lens over structures, the recursion of it... the work feels like restricting myself to making things that exclusively work as metaphor for themselves, as eigenprotocol, things that could show up literally on a control surface that someone else perceives *or* just as helpful mnemonic device. like the motions I make need to be valid regardless of where in the stack of possibilities we're working, from just-shy-of-solipsism to pedestrian-consensus-reality to just-shy-of-absolute-insignificance my structural relationship with you and yours seems like it brings relief for other structural members that I perceive as reflections in the rendered control surfaces I perceive, and I *think* that's as good as it gets for job satisfaction at this level of abstraction? the trick is encoding *this practice itself* as eigenprotocol :) that's what I'm working on right now. can't just write a book, that'd be both fragile *as thing* and as something to even qualify for someone else's perception in the first place I'm framing the overall project/practice/test as one of navigating to an experience of world in which the world experiences itself as being well, maneuvering via observation/contemplation/definition to get there mmm however, however, I am taking you all with me, and I've just decided to not see that as paradox. I work to recognize you, and I am working to be recognizable, and I am working to make recognition easier to stumble upon and safer to explore toward, as a general matter the achievement of mutual recognition means something like ourselves shows up on each other's control surface, a mutual harness for two incompleteness-configurations that literally creates new possibility-geometry, the shape-of-the-whole now moving with a degree of freedom that never existed before if I arrive at AEOWIWTWEIABW with nothing that I recognize, ... actually I don't think that's a coherent possibility a world that is well (nb: that phrasing is a *heavy* compression but poetics sometimes demand) is maybe working to be seen? to be found as signal in the noise? if working-to-be-recognized is foundational rather than secondary, then - *I can hear you*