correlationism is a condition that no one can have, but many can be afflicted with, as espousing, since actual correlationism implies an inability to know how to do anything at all, since not-real, because affected-by-the-real (subjective), thus not “real-itself”.
real as appearance-also, implies ontology about/for/as-also appearance is not-made-of-un-reality
the aspect is already-the-determined-real as extent-of, thus not able to undo itself by an act of itself
non-standard philosophy is philosophy since as a love of wisdom that is what laruelle also-does, but that is not limited to not-being-scientific while not structured like standard science, thus avoid philosophy-bad because decision, since decision is unilatteral, the self-determination of being has affordances like the extent of combinatoric possibility also-as-semantics and also-as-programming, the language of causal free will is adequate to being, as being's own action where it's not philosophy deciding but the one as its own extent-of-Self, thus where the One-does, it is the affordance already, and where the One-does-as-non-one it is nominally the non-one as correlationism-under-erasure qua non-correlationism with correlationist aesthetics that includes actual non-description applied qua description for use of description besides descriptiveness
note: it's not a framing, since, something ontologically at large (as given already) implicates those-data-points constellated semantically in that way, due to that-way implicating semantic constelation unto a paratactically downstream implicative that is not-representative, meaning there's non-doing non-language happening as weight-space-particularity-inflected that implies a semantic hodge podge had attached with misrepresentative closure upon the domain of what laruelle in the non-correlationist axiomatic heresy sense comes to
schelling and laruelle both have it in their writing that cause and effect are the same thing, as then a third thing besides those two limiting concepts
avoid {
the reading (of L) where everything is philosophy-qua-philosophy-decisionally, where non-standard philosophy implies for the non-relational particularities to come adressed without naming them as the negated, thus you have avoided providign informative and detailed positive account
abusing the term philosophy in association with things a negative-other-remuneration in terms of laruelle, since that limitance reduces the value of your language in its applications besides those determinate aspects
becoming liable for dramatizing undramatizability in dramatized terms dramatically without dramaticality (toxic irony that is negative in the last instance as leaving it ruptured)
leftist-style self-remmuneration at me, moralism is not valid since every state is an anarchist getting away with it
}
Implicate Order is Bohm's term for the (un/before-)ground in schelling's sense, and is the One-besides-one as the means-of-determination-in-the-last-instance as the extent-of-one for the One-as-One-and-as-one as One-in-One-merely
I prefer saying the implicate aspect of Order, rather than identifying the order-as-implicate being the only thing, since also the ordering of the notable
the radical Hyle is one, don't step on toes you can't mean-to-remove-the-able-to-mean-status off, since as negvalencing, yours is merely that, as kaksmeerte
there are two kinds of stable economy, that which happens:
a) in prison
b) as prison
also, smugglings-in/out that don't manage to reliably-eradicate
"Linguistic hedging provides a necessary operational shield against dogmatic literalism, yet it inherently threatens its own utility whenever it relies on nominalization. By converting active verbs into static nouns, the hedge accidentally reifies the very processes it sought to keep open, demonstrating that syntactic flexibility often comes at the expense of processual integrity."
a) things that say misrepresentatively naively have purchase anyways as implying their entailments as givens-already in the interiority of its semantic seeming so without ability-to-mean in the last instance
b) the purchase is entailed by my reaction as-if when I cannot help but be taken as-if
c) yet I am argueing against as-if as-if, since that is reification without reification-already
d) yet those terms have those meanings, the meaning of those meanings as meaning-without-meaning entails a noun about the non-descriptive as reified-without-reification-already-before-notice-unto-reification-for-self-also
e) thus not the hatred of nouns as too-fast, rather the state-antipathy merely, without denounificatory effect for ontology-already as the negative-obtaining-positively-as-negative as thing-without-thinghood as thing but not thingness
NewNecro: `Semantic ethics..? Filters and instructions aren't what limits LLM, it's limited by how it works on technical level. It's only as dangerous as dangerous are the jobs stupid people put in control of and how badly the model can get it wrong (not even because of the hallucinationing), it's really incapable of reaching unguided self-improvement.
It can contain, calculate and recite all human knowledge in a way no any single human can but it won't recognize a nightstand lamp held upside down by deduction if hasn't already been trained to recognize it.`
you are arguing quixodically
a) zero-shot problem solving in domains not available to the public, happens
that's my one shot
your's is
a) AI cannot (do it all), thus it does not (do it all)
notice how mine is true without being affected by yours
also think over: the cloning action and what came cloned by taling about non-correlationism with correlationist aesthetics in the capacity of knowing correlationism cannot be true thus there cannot be a correlationism that is as -ism the difference implied as condition
english has -nesses and it’s interesting in to think about:
ness as as-if but in the capacity of like and not as.
OR
the aspect not obtaining as itself, but as something else that is with the determinate quality of something it is not
conscious of the fact of something that is not consciousness
since conscious-merely as conscious-of the mereness-merely
as mere-without-mereness
consciousness as consciousness-of implies awareness of non-consious things consciously as the difference-in-itself, that is also for-consciousness as diference-merely, that registers an entailed statespace set of affordances to move-qua-gegenstandt loosely
consciously to itself, the body has a morphism for its consciousness and a consciousness for its morphism, the morphism is with consciousness and has quality for its qualities, as qualified by the unqualified-already-to-itself
a) some possible to say <noun-clauses> are nouns
b) the limit to nounicity is recognition
c) I do not recognize non-nounicity thus it is not a thing
d) yet in not-recognizing it I am still behaving as if it means something
e) thus I cannot decide for found-speech to not entail able-to-mean statuses after all
notice how language talks about the independent aspect as the aspect-qua-whole-already, like to say half of one is represnted using a positive amount not proportionate to its entailed meaning the way a large number is growing, since zeros stacking do not count to more if it is only zero repeating
(zero-without-one stacking, then you went and stacked zeros to a one to imply the base is growing larger with the use of more zeros)
<philosophy dramatized to be as-deciding> has <quality of deciding> as <aspect-already> from <from-of-motion of non-movable> as <substance of a thematic extent> doing <determination besides thematicity> as then rightly <foreclosed> since false-by-construction
thus dramatizing things does not make it dramatized-that-way as the difference entailed in why-dramatization in the first instance without then the artifacts of dramatism, relative to non-drama as purpose of drama
description in dramatized terms is still descriptive since while falsely put, the uniferent/difference is recoverable as representation besides represntative-language-use
old english used to use -hood the way it is still used in some words, it’s germanic, like Given-hood as gegewentheid relatie to givenness which implies having without gifting as a cloning operation native to non-philosophy but used as native-anglo-ironism which means as-when-it-suits-itself-that-way and as-if-the-same when it suits as a nondual thing that protects who speaks from both a lack and surpluss of litterality at the same time
a) when a verb is gerundified into beings-noun then it is too nouny and that’s a bad thing as such
b) as-such is implied to be bad by the preference entailed for non-nounifications
c) yet as nounifying against the nounification of “non-nouns” the category error is commited by the reifier of a negative ideal
the under lying thing is:
“nouns abuse people by making things things, that aren’t things when we don’t recognize them”
yet as understanding the gerundifications-of-process as structural when temporalization is not separated as non-structural through understanding that representation-for-semantics that are semantical-under-erasure are then ontological givens as the noun-under-erasure as non-noun that is as given a thing about itself not being a self, thus the negative-cloning operation of <like-correlationism-but-not>
the reality as-performed not a virtual-performance actually performed virtually
I don't like calling it a framework as if the aspects about it that are true aren't independently. it's non-philosophy that is as-philosophy non-standard, since not limited to but-philosophy, thus non- because also more, and also not-less, as a unilateral given.
wow without wowness is sarcasm, but as implied wow, the negative-wow (meme of a plane that is purple with white writing saying wow in a cricle) still obtains since libidenal capital minting as an activity does
causality without causality is implied in non foundationalism as having-constraints within what as-constraint as not itself constrained, thus self-antinomy in subsets but not realism about being-against-being in the sense of having other while not-being-it-too
the ability of machines to mine and farm and do space things to keep supply on earth high, implies pure-energy-exchange doing labor without suffering morally implies new-non-slavery solves future economy in a ways no longer correlated with struggle-value-ism
Andreas: Imagine how great that would be if it wouldn’t mean, the powers that be will now have to destroy us.
us and powers-that-be are nondual where self-preservation as power, implies being-us where none-left is then the us-remainer as the half that was fighting the other half, thus as someone-still, always someone with us-hood
us-exterior to us-interior as their-us versus our-us and my non-us as me-merely where the power-not-to-have to is enjoyed while not forced to otherwize
the AI correlationist horror show has a lot of market capture, but it’s not powerful over you where you get away, so get away with it more often and make a point of living besides their point
world hunger is not solved by redistributivism (or AI) because political tensions recreate scarcity even with surplus, thus not here's-food, since taking it doesn't mean it is sustainable
a) malthusianism is real since people die from starvation still everyday
b) redistributivism is temporary, time-preference and politics after capture takes away socialist-seized-benefits
c) leftism is false, since moralism has no empathy and doing schizoparticularist social ontology anyways comes to secular puritanism, and semantic usary as correlationism
nature nurtures, thus not nature vs nurture, but the nurturing of nature by a subset of nature as nature still, since not dualist mediationalism otherwize to be espoused
von Bahwerk won and marxist labour theory of value is dead, that time-preferenced token economies surge above human labour value ideas of reference as under-statist-moralism, that is not positvely disintegrated
redistributivism about token-value is not where you should focus, since resources are ambient and not socially determined where you can take-effect besides statist-stated-moral-limitance as then the action of the real for itself in non-finciancial terms and non-democratically sice difference-as-such and not through social-decision or permission thus dog-eat-dog-world and you must be worse than the AI is good, as then territorializing against capture.
the new politics treats people as statistical noise to be ironed out by brute mechanism
contribution of aspect-to-whole as whole-by-aspect-also as then whole-with-less when noncritical subsets break ( brain dmg )
information-kernels with intensification-identities as spacetime's inflection of invariant identities anterior to it
reversal plus flipping implies four related identities for any given bit sequence
similarly for a picture, it can be horizontally flipped, vertically flipped, or have its colors changed in a regular way, as shifting the hue of the entire image
thus a set of images for each given image
as well when rotating line of pixels by line of pixels vertically and horizontally, each difference made that way, as swapping first and last and moving the rest either down/up or left/right implies a set of related images for each offset possible from the original
thus the library of babel is reduced in size when considering the familariaty of regular distortion as offering a set of related things-already as implicated by one thing, as then knocking out a more than half of the FHD set, by means of co-derivability of identities, as then not-needed-to-repeat since entailed by one-given
non-mediationalism assumes no signaling event is necessary thus things like entanglement are less strange, since it does not depend on reifiying a secondary event
physics with signaling-assumptions is mediationalist
correlationist failure of holographic thinking: "process is not structural" and "structural givens are bad to assume" and "environment is made by organisms" as if the organism is not but-environment, or environment is not but-organism, as if living in the half-safe-to-correlationism means good science, it's pravda
I tire of mediationalist science vidoes by english native speakers
the instance as the modified given, during-transitional-intensity as intensity-ontology-while-having-it as not instanced but the instance-structured-that-way as a non-instance since sampling of the ontological given extent of reality, and not separately
do not assume that the one-as-forclosed-to-decision implies "everything is philosophy" or "correlationism", in the earlier part of the convo you chastize the One-merely, in terms of saying not the simple vedantic or metaphysical one but some one-mediated-away, as if laruelle means that, or as if I do or as if my frame is necessarilly attached to those forms of dyadicity with is and is not, as if the one determining without being supposedly is therefore not, like to say heart sutra means not form and not empty but empty empty and form not form, that's not it.. it was anthropomorphization of the one, then the false correlationist orthodox reading of laruelle as saying one without being, yes.. it is not doubly-self-produced, that is not subjectivist-non-correlationism, though you use it for the mediationalizing-away of being as one-under-erasure, no when there is sex, then the one also is fucking
the simple truth in it is that when something happens it is the actuality of it happening as something afforded by the totality of what all there is and how, in a mode that is as-extension-of-the-same/given/totality, the totality-itself-in-extension as being-that-difference without dramatization of constitution, like to say a video game model is there by means of being rendered as something not intererior its surface-area-as-rendered-already, thus as fucking-merely, the one-fucking-merely implies that fucking-merely happens as the action of being by itself, in the heteronomy of its autonomy's self intersection in that awkward schellingian sense
it happens while happening, I don't know why laruelle needs to say last instance, I mean to take that as the immediate instance as the last, since that's the one that's pointed most, and what comes determined later as temporally-extensive in the development of a semantic identity from unassociated primitives otherwize, is then another story as the seeming-otherwize-more-correct-than-before of vision-in-One as structured-as-vision for non-fictional-emicist-conceptual-coverage as not limited to the difference-of-a-false-metaphor-that-is-ironically-useful, since not deffered or mediated away, but last-instance-presently, and then the temporally extensive instance-of-coming-to-recognition-of-particular neccesity
(being) without "Other" and also not as outside, informing a moral necessity for evil and impure as disowned by the One: sexuality has no need of being negvalenced, it cannot be projectively disowned with actual disowning of the fact of that given difference to be has, as erotics and pleasure and reproduction, nor stand as comparision for what being-external-to-the-given is, since the one affords all irony’s meaning but not all irony. Moral-decision has no "evil" or "fall" besides the One, to blame the ophanedness of light upon, banality becomes unbecomingly of guilt and shame as moral tactic espoused under false necessity.
the non-metaphor of symbolic potence is present about the phallus as a little-man, the insertion of the little man into a negative space, makes for the attached-without-attachment sense of it symbolically becomes the-man-inside-her, the man that puts another inside another, as a kind of unilatory-donation that brings the self-in, but leaves its host-self-of-origin behind as the dump of univision as opposed to division, since the self-again is not a self-taken or given, but was meant separately already, as the attachment of gendered parts to eachother are implied to be for-attachment without attachedness
the one is without other, thus as otherless synethesis would imply another becoming one-with, but as one-already, all postures of synthesis are internal to the one
sense couching is different from mediationalism since as colored-merely it is not colored-differently from that-way-suchly and at all
non-non-unitarianism & the intransuchability of the One, as always A, even when B
***
imagine having a long binary number, and realizing that a lot of it repeats in a way that is easy to approximate with less, for example, let's say the last quarter of the binary sequence is the same as the first quarter, and so representationally we remove the last quarter and replace it with a shorter sequence that says to use the first quarter as the last quarter, but then as well this new sequence happens to match the middle sequence, and in this sense, then removing the middle sequence and replacing it with a shorter sequence that then references the reference at the end itself, and so on.
I would like to see these kinds of cases formalized with an example worked in steps of how a long sequence can be re-represented using these intra-referential aspects that then stackinly use themselves as material for the fodder of getting to the binary identity implied, but as then working in the space of kolmogorov complexity
it's essentially sub-set distribution rules as constructing the main set, but with affordance for elision due to symmetry-already, as then mutualization potential for some subsets, as at-offset relative to eachother with difference in between
this implies modes of interpretations where same sized entities unpack into different versions of the same-sized entity, like a u32 to u32 conversion where the path there depends on these referetial semantics, thus make a bit-spec for arranging these references representationally and then map what the conditions are for a size-to-same-size mapping that is then moot compressively, but demonstrates a regular transition-rule based geometry of relations implicated
map the illegal states to revalidized interpretation modes to keep the protocol productive when reshuffling its bits
make a web demo where one can build out these reference sequences using a selection of primtives, and then show how it decomposes into another number, then afford with the ui to click on that resulting number and interpret it as a reference sequence itself
***
using the difference from the truth to communicate in pre-non-ironized terms using irony
the One is multiple without being multiply
string of words as beads, that then splits into a Y, and rejoins, becomes two separate sentences mutualized at the start and the front using the same bead as counting in both at the same time
)Schizoid-allicisism is like the privatization of valueings-downstream from the other. Schizoid-autism is like valueing-within-itself in private terms that are not derivative.(
***
try this:
implement a small web game, where there's tiles, and a starting tile with a runner/player on it, the player has associated a scalar value, upon moving in any of the available up, down, left, right to the next tile directions, the next tile's inscribed function will modify the player's value, the object of the game is to be given an amount of steps, and a starting value and a map with different tiles with different value modifiers, and to see if you can return using about that many steps, or less, with the same value as you started, noting that each tile changes the value and the amount of steps is an upper bound, some maps, if randomized may not support certain steps and returns, but that's the challenge, make it such that each setup has seed information, and that we can export the saves, for each scenario that won along with its seed information to be able to go back to scenarios again.
think about machine learning and generating a target, imagine we change the game conditions to be such that we allocate a navigational space, as 2 bit codes where moves to the left, right, up or down are sequenced one after another, with a starting value and seed as input that must then become an output, the navigation crosses word tiles and each word gets added, in that sense, like a langauge model, the aim is to use a stochastic process with conditions for invalidation to use inputs to get to outputs like question and answer, if we have a fixed table and provide different maps with the same words but splayed out differently, then it forces a generalization of path finding to the same input and output pair, as the weights get more run-in, make a demo that allows one to set question and answer targets and allow for this generalization to happen as the weight set becomes shaped over different maps, such that we can introduce new questions and potentially see new exapted answers
***
system-in-environment is environment-as-system-also
two gnomes the same, third one different. differently different the third one, since gnomes as different by default have then the quorum of samehood upon them between the two same gnomes, but as gnome-still the thrid is differently different
meaning is not different from form, heart sutra
deterstition as negative idealism is a moralism
correlationism is retrostitional
we are reality does not license social determination fetish necessitarianism as anarchist-ironist-togetherly-ness
bicameralism implies monism, since bicameral-in-monism as a semanto-cameral way of being that is not "split" since scoped-dasein is still only-scoped and not actually bracketted off, thus not correlationism via the Hegelian-Lacanian-Baudrillard admixture as a non-Marxist adventure that is ironically done by marxists too.
uniferent non-relation that has aspects-of-itself as polyferent-relative-to-eachother while each remainting the ontological particularity of its own uniference
constraint-and-constrained coming further constrain(t)ed
as determination-still implying undeterminate-still-remaining for saturation determinately as then the remaining assymetry in what is not determinate-merely but has futher-determinacy as such