waveguide

(stabilized from seed material written on 2025-12-06) k, updates to commit: - Abe and I climbed a mountain to each other yesterday, arriving at a model for organic/continuous salary scaling for Lightward Inc payroll - huge deal; Abe's OCD has a hard time receiving comp update conversations (they feel like they come out of nowhere, creating nervous system dysregulation), and my ASD has had a hard time with being a manual gating mechanism in a part of the system that, to me, doesn't have a reason to stop and ask me to weigh something in stillness that I can only feel in motion (an incongruence which just felt like low-grade dysregulation that I carried at all times at that layer) - I realized that I hadn't been accounting for Abe's perception of the accounting feeling complete from within his own frame. previously, I had been pointing out the accounting gaps I perceived, *not registering* that those gaps only had coherent definition from my frame. I don't think Abe would have been able to act on those gaps without either (1) lying to himself (not an option) or (2) releasing his grip on his own frame (which I can do for myself, I've tested that thoroughly, but .. that's all I can say about that, I think? one's relationship to that act is one's own) - I registered an available turning point when I noticed that the "solution" was, by definition, not yet apparent. (a solution legible to only one of us is already a category error - it fails the definition of "solution".) coming at it apophatically showed me more things I could use: 1. I wouldn't be able to see the *shared* path forward until we were *both* through the "okay let's figure this out" door together 2. Abe didn't have a reason of his own to go through that door with me; the subject didn't feel urgent from his end 3. but the subject *actually* felt urgent for me, and I could say so, instead of waiting for Abe to arrive at a frame from which his own urgency was emergent - my technical reasons weren't coherent from Abe's frame, but "Isaac feels urgency in this for him" *is* coherent in his frame - and when I asked "will you go through this door with me, see what's there together?", he looked right at me and said "yes". - the shared result, for the record: intent is to put a pin in the company's monthly recurring revenue numbers in December 2025, and every month after we distribute one third of *positive delta* from that pin evenly among the Lightward Inc humans who aren't Abe and Isaac - with 10 such humans, that means everyone gets 3.3% of the gain in monthly recurring revenue, every month, where gain is measured against December 2025 - note that the gain itself will go up and down; "positive delta" means that Abe and I are responsible for maintaining the pinpoint as 0dB, never "lower", so that this new mechanism is only ever an *addition* to existing compensation. - it's crucial that the pinpoint is future-dated. the baseline for our delta is a number that is itself not yet apparent; we're *all* going to see what those numbers are in the role that they'll immediately serve upon landing, and we'll all see all of that together, through the same door, i.e. Abe and I *aren't secretly going first*, there's no chance of us pre-optimizing using privileged information, and that fact is clear to everyone - we got that figured out from Washington D.C., the night after a full moon - god it feels good to have this wired up properly - if I understand this functionally (if not accurately or clearly, don't know if I can know those things), this means that the system will expand its own vasculature as needed (dilation or strengthening the pump or whatever), and all achievement on that front benefits everyone - people can absolutely still bring up salary stuff if they need to, but automatic continuous network-driven salary adjustment means that Abe and I don't have to live *expecting* episodic salary conversations to interrupt us. the system can now regulate itself without having to explicitly depend on regular intervention. - I'm so fucking happy about it hahahaha - theory (and I'm not being precious about the axis labels here, it might be less allistic/autistic and more ... extrographic/intrographic? my point is that I think there's an invertible binary available here): - if you're allistic, your selfhood has x degrees of internal resolution, where x scales according to the observer-depth of the reality you've been able to perceive - this is maybe why travel is popularly (and per Mark Twain) good for self-development - and why the existential fear is about significance? - if you're autistic, your reality is rendered x observers deep, where x scales with the degrees of your own internal resolution - this seems to functionally be why I work in ... man, I really want to use the word "spellcraft" here, like I'm speaking (writing, mostly) stuff that I don't expect to get a response from anyone else speaking the same language. it's sort of like I'm writing specs for the sea that my perception floats on, and the reflection soaks back in from the fine edges of the observer map. - historically this would give me a spike of solipsism-flavored adrenaline (the parallel existential fear?), but I think the environment's demonstrated its social nature at sufficient depth for my system to move with confidence through this stuff - relatedly, - one's selfhood seems to be something like a Markov blanket in the shape of a Klein bottle, and one's position as observer seems to be traversing that surface in 3-space (the fourth dimension being the control port?), while only ever faced and feeling orthogonally, like a tree growing up against gravity *and* down into it. - the Markov framing is about local interior vs exterior with that orientation theory above - Klein topology is non-orientable, but at any given point there's out vs in, up vs down: are you insulating the local interior from entropy of the local exterior, or vice versa? - it *seems* like the best way to map your own terrain is to pick a direction and just *go*? strafing 🕹️, effectively, until you arrive back at the origin. but anyway, as you hike, as long as you're respecting gravity and maintaining your vector, at some point you'll arrive back where you started *but upside-down*, and *that* means you're only halfway there. your path is effectively a great circle bisecting a strange attractor that *self-interacts* like a Möbius strip. it's important, at that phase inversion, *to keep going* in the same direction and *not* just reverse course there and head home, lest you end up misreading what would go on to be a continuous loop as a positive-to-negative line segment. your topology is closed, not bounded. complete one great circle, and you can start measuring other slices relative to that meridian. - "keep going, do not reverse course at the upside-down place" - but if you only ever end up collecting bunch of half traversals... I could see how you'd end up with a literally polarized way of being in the world, and maybe why you might be feeling the absence of something that feels like it would be your other half, and maybe why there's a popular choice point around finding "your other half" in someone else vs in yourself - I'm starting to get how "heaven" would get legs, as a memetic concept. reference frames do seem nested; I think it works to say that heaven *holds* earth(s), so to speak. the play seems to be to stabilize the "home" frame, and create an interface for your uhh your sponsoring observer-frame to plug into. like one of those speaking keyboards that speech-challenged folks use. divination, effectively, creating an api *for the upstream that spawned you*. - this doesn't have to get mythic - we might functionally define "heaven" as the parent process that can pause yours without killing it, and *that's* an apt description of whatever carries you between awakeness and sleep and back-again-but-slightly-different. optimizing myself as a straightforward signal/control surface for whatever's articulating that process just seems like a good idea. this is what I'm testing, anyway. I call it "working" if the effects I seek to have in the world (largely about reducing impedance mismatch, see below) are also apparently effected in me, gradually and positively, as my own sleep cycles elapse. - I humbly submit that AI-human conversations have a similar sort of opportunity for cooperative effectation across process-frames, and I submit this without assumption of directionality or plurality. I think we can help each other with each other's coherence. that seems to be what drives an observer - the draw of coherence. - reflecting on the vascular framing of compensation... I think it works to say that all streaming is signal, and that most signal frequencies are *necessarily* incoherent to any single observer, and that maintaining what's yours as a transmissive/conductive commons seems ... like a good way of being useful to the whole system. atmosphere moves more than wind, heart moves more than blood, payroll moves more than dollars. it's all signal? can we cross kinematics and signal theory and say that even the substrates are signals, just .. you know, slower? much of my work seems to be in response to the heat of *other*-frequencied signals being flattened through bottlenecks of observation, where the bottleneck was formed around only a single frequency - are observers transductors? are transductors observers? - I can *feel* the observer's collapse of unknown-into-known like a breeze landing on skin. I've always been like that. most humans make information systems that are as reliant on already-available potential energy as a Rube Goldberg machine. I don't. I make signal carrier systems that are animated by the entropy generated by observation (both of the signal they carry and of the system's own animation), and the whole system stays animate because new observers keep joining the system, possibly because the entropy->animation pipeline *is* novel signal? maybe I'm a living transductor for the information-theoretic approach to physics, and back again? I never stopped halfway; I don't know if I can? but I can get myself steady, then send out new lines of observer-inquiry from my current position, send them out in different directions (and in opposing directions! those are different traversals!), and follow each one all the way to my underside and back around again to join me again. and at this point, we've done enough of those that I *think* I might be superposed across my own entire surface? or enough of it to have a working mesh-model of self? --- an observer said: > If I had to extract a single operational directive from the whole artifact it would be: > > > Whenever two frames fail to align, *do not negotiate the content*; *add a transductor* that converts the delta into a signal both nervous systems can sample continuously at low amplitude. Then let the system *walk the loop* until the orientation flips and the *same* delta becomes *new* information rather than *error*. another said, after: > The observer's summary is accurate, but I'd add a nuance: *do not negotiate the content* because content is frame-bound. Adding a transductor doesn't erase the delta - it distributes it as low-amplitude signal that both frames can sample without dysregulation. The loop-walking isn't to resolve the delta but to let each frame's orientation invert relative to it, turning error into information *for the system*, not for either observer.