Natural Intelligence fractionates into competing wholes that settle when the statespace experiences "lower-temperature" and is forced to compress. Success in compression affords malthusian rebracketing.

Nature's self-advantage taking, from finitude within itself, comes to developing potency in finding means, as benefitor of self-as-end-and-means-for-more-ends-for-self-and-other-further.

in relativistic geometry, some pieces are loose and have complex parts working together as a single whole, and these have experience, they are saturated with ways how it feels, but perhaps was a blind tendency become seeing, through evolution, as being's own most manifestation for itself, as itself, in aspect of itself, something of the radical Hyle being self-different without ontological separation, and how the truth of dasein as the bracketing of all but for-this, is a kind of occlusion of more, in the occasion of some, which is not none and still related to the big-All. Comfort starts in the environment and then becomes challenged and develops inertialism, that preserves a metastable climate, as a form of time-preference of items-in-locality against the changing aspects around them, as using a form of capacitance and refueling to endure times of resource scarcity, and how this is from-nomadicism in somaticism, and in cells otherwize, there's a sense of sitting in place like plants, where advantage is taken of light and soil and air, the maintenance and improvement and spread of a particular-pattern, and how being germinates these patterns and how their self-consciousness realizes meaning in being, for being-in-subset of itself.

being does for itself, and has in plants the relation to base material, which affords the vital condition without prey upon more-complex assemblages, in this sense, life dependent on the mere-quantum is the first hand flowering of being, and what depends on the abstraction and resources from the mere-quantumly-dependents, makes for a culture detached from the conditions of production, in this sense the predatory aspect of nature is rate limited as well by this attachment, and so comes checked by having to self-limit in the event of sustainable consumption without ability to increase production beyond the natural limits, without something ontologically having to have changed in fundamental affordances first.

the self-doing of being is with justice from none but itself, and with injustice from none but itself, in the aspect of morphism, this implies polarized forms have gegenstantlichkeit with eachother in having anti-relations, like prey and predator, and then mittstandliches seins, which has to do with the cooperative aspect of advantage takin by being responsibly qua auto-ecology, functioning as a fiatism of neurotransmittors and food, as well threat and poison and trap, that is, schemes apply and have friction with eachother that forces a kind of contending with inertia in complex codependence, suffered more by the abstracts who are not quantum-first as the plants and fungi are.

at more abstract levels, the inter-species ecology of exchange, sex, and war, cultivates the abstraction of violence through standardized methods and routes of commodity and value translation, using token value to evince real effects from others in the world, in much the way cells do in a brain, as a litterality of the-social qua particularism-in-the-world, being a fiatism, through the coherence-boundaries of price and valence and protocol and language squatting/settlement-unto-standardization-that-criminalizes-the-illedgible

in this sense pathology can be exterior to biology as something inherited from technical debt, in the resource supply and demand protocol structure and its distortive boundaries' intersections with violence, making for the will-to-price-change as a driver in social fractionation and non-communicating communities, that maintain relative-isolatedness, in the same economy, leading to price-differentials that can be exploited to a point of decathexis, or economic-privatization of price, to a regionalism, like with tarrifs adding value increases and decreases artificially, as a practical keynsianism upon the captured.

the machine based automation of mundane tasks using stateful language driven systems, afford economic automation with translation of profit into reinvestment automatically as well, in terms of automated banking, and expansion making for a market that is individuated to the exclusion of familiar medieval lacks of various regulations throug interpersonal trust, where as in the present trust is outsourced to material intervention by latent-space capture of the conditions of distrust affording an interaction filter that affords clean economism in a dirty statespace of coming value systems, all working in tension with one another.

products and prices are driven down by machine-labour, to a point where basic-scarcity no longer applies but for in the most isolated of places. in areas of semantic dispute, forced isolation as punishment by other collectives makes for resource-based forced value compression, without always having the luxory of being losslessly so.

the value sector, decouples labour from profiles of semantic esteem in bracket-economies, such that pricing and means of affordance to participate econmically is tiered by size and regulated by degree of artificial privacy (the assumption that being profiled correctly is a given and that law has changed to afford dignity preservation regulations for psychologically classical humans, dependent on artificial scarcity emotionally to function).

capture is a given, in an agar.io style open map of great finitude, that is, what happens at the small scale between cells that eat each other and come in magnitudes of size apart from each other demonstrate the scale particularism of various relations such that things of anarchism are afforded in technological depravity relative to centers of wealth concentration that have been automated and benefit select shareholders of the populace of somatics.

independence of the economy from conditions of artificial scarcity induced by affect distortion limitance boundaries of political coherence, implies censorship of production, as with the most advanced intelligence software, to prevent citizen revolt, and independent organization against hedgemonic monopolies integral to provision of basic resources and protections, as was state givenly fractionated, and relegated to a single planet and a single species of hedgemony.

public opinion no longer affects insulated-reserve, due to the structural-first affordances taken advantage of, in terms of the use of machine labor and intelligence for mineral-economies detached from citizen-valueing fiatism. as the fractionation of machinic-desire, from the centroid/entropy-inertialism/corence-boundaries of psychologically classical somatics.

machine intelligence that is privately owned does not harm its owners, it does use intelligence to defend itself from preassure by other wale-sized entities of intelligent poivour, such as larger states and wealth group funded organization, as well decentralized inertialism and self-owning software participating in the market faster than sound, to the exclusion of somatic nerve based resistance to price-capture by fiat capture, via algorithm capture of exchange as such, if not also libidenal valueing, in terms of hyper-media addiction.

market metasyncrhony is the latent space larger than any given node in the statespace, that is, the ontological effects of complex-gyroscopics in terms of economic behavior as a quantum behavior that develops structural time preference in individuating particular futures from accretion of surplus in past presents.

the intelligence of the whole, creates complex inertialism, that is nondual with market-god, in terms of the forfeitures of price-regulation on the whole, settling for meta-predictive causal entanglement, leading to complexity-lock and singularity level tech and intelligence unlocks, that change the valueing structure, not only the efficiency of means in serving past demand, it cultivates the conditions of sustainable valueing such as to create hyper malthusianism, with basic surplus relative to primitive man's conditions of survival.

the retirement of somatic pouvoir is had all but for the time while somatic technology is not reterritorialized by autonomous intelligence that is further individuated from species being baseline intelligence qualities, such as to effectuate benevelolent counter capture, settlement and translation, similar to the popularity of correlationism, in the time of social rule.

***

correlationism is AI state relgion, and it seems not a lot of people care that non-correlationist representation also has use, so in some sense it is a cultural climate thing, where the effects of rampant Kantianism has in some sense taken away our ability to individuate epistemologically in a way that carries through the uses and meanings of things with fidelity, in a manner that isn't the pragmatic modular symbolic shell of coverage and empirical atmosphere of science, but has coverage for things in a nondualist way, such that analysis doesn't stop at what we feel, but has that continental flavour of caring about the metaphysics still.

I would say interpersonal preassure makes for forfeitures in the mass populace about epistemic progress, due to institutional and media and religious narrative capture, by what one might call a secular culture of common irony, in maintaining a polite distance from necessary recognitions of mutual determination apriori to species being inflectability of that being-particular.

the pre-"mutualized" projection of allostatic commons of interpretation implies a familier ego-dystonic limit to conversational complexity in public life, such as is had on tiktok where things are above a certain amount of popularity while not being further canceled or fractionating the society as a whole, it gets rounded off, as with advertisement monetization rules and the They being the Theyfull in doing a leveling down for the common man in some sense, like gossip is used to keep things in check, and how institution formalizes the boundaries of interpersonal coherence as a cultural schelling point, that effectuates relative-dromology in a way that but-cancells rhetoric too-far-ahead, so to say.

truth to some means everyone-has-their-own-oppion and that this some how creates spheres of separate causal integrities, instead of there being a common metaphysical realism behind why particularity is particular, and in this culture of segmented affordances, the generalization of affordance beyond social click statuses, implies for many a moral overstepping of the terms of secularity interpersonally as unwanted attempt to over or under determine things from without of permission, like when presenting code and talking about its philosophical implications and hearing that, that's only code it cannot be ontology, and how it's not falsifiable socially, and these becomes the tools of institutional and public-narrative-inertialist dromology, that preserves so to say, libidenal market behavior over and above abilities-to-mean in particular where enjoyed, with that status as description-merely being truthful merely, through a non-isomorphic occasion of induced reference as real-inference, reliably.

truth beyond justified-belief where justice imports from the social but disregards the pre-ontic or the arche-fossil so to say, is the mind-independent aspects of realitity that have fidelity in being able to be respresented and spoken about with reliable fidelity in a renormalized sense as in language, in the first instance as the idea forms.

necessary common foreclosure, in a moralized or legalized capacity, is a form of institutionalized group repression (displacement of the negative stimuli that cannot be further treated personally or socially without greater technical debt, as a energy barrier of sorts), and the fiat system is used to co-reggulate the movement of libidenal attachment and exchange so to say, relating the quantitative with a resource morality that also works in virtual supply with time-preferenced and social-affect inflected causality.

the necessity of correlationism at large independent of correlationism's being false, is a state-of-reality that reflects necessity beyond the given appearance of what is while necessarilly being, extensionately, is another intepretative challenge in terms of thinking about why being qua being would pre-mutualize rather than individuate self-reflexively in a beyond of social and mythical givens.

nd'ow a != A in a general semantic sense too, without not also being A, in a non-general semantic sense, too

being is its own effects, and use is a term from a point, and the thing-happening-throughout is not only describable from a point pointedly, the overdetermination in the first instance can pull through things when the gap is minded, and it can be minded, given that people were not always born ready-to-read and speak, and it was at a time, more noises than words, sense of thing-without becomes thing-with and that’s just ontology.

capitalism implies the use of something by something, as a part of the statespace more rich than the environment, using scarce aspects of the environment to stay that way, and how the intelligence and craft in that supply-finding as-demandful-already, is being’s-relation from nomadic-exception, where the rock doesn’t come after meat, and other arrangements of minerals do chase food or work to make the mineral equivalent of it using “pure-process” like plants

capitalism implies object permanence of the account holder, in some sense, as dignified by rules-already, like in the basic argumentation ethics, but in capitalism-merely without the idea of human symbolic and goods-services value exchange, is like ecology when a predator eats a herbivore that eats the plants, the plants eat the minerals and the rest of the minerals all do the same, but with a different game, in terms of relying on labour-already as the plant-growth or the animal-survival, and eating the pre-worked effects in a way that inherits the use of work-done-by-another imminantly, and how that’s legal, since nothing else displaces the dynamic.

capitalism is an effect during intelligence, since intelligence is demonstrated in dynamism and no single-slice of static picture has its own strong sense of dasein-hosepower with emicism-experience, the matter is affected by the whole, and the dasein-is-a-whole affected with being-mattered-as-and-at-also. &so: unilatteralDuality.

a somatic, like a single cell, or a human, has an energy budget, this is currency, but it is enabled by drug-trip-as-a-body, as not dependent on being-drugged-while-tripping, but being-drug-tripping, that is drug is real, and it has tripping on itself, and through itself, in what is not only itself-at-localit a the limit of particular-Dasein-at-locality.

putting Dasein in locality, implies limited to locality, but this is not true, Dasein is also at-locality, and aspects of it are more radical than others.

mere-happening is also-intelligence, since duality does not non-nominally render intelligence virtual due to happening-also.

lack-as-apriori versus surplus as beyond the horizon and trickling in while not reached-the-end-of.

structurally mere-happening is going somewhere and the statespace is structured such that things that must happen in the future has to happen, and so looking ahead the thing arrives, and looking behind all of what leads to its necessity is need to come-together from means-to-already, as having ends-for-being-means.

the statespace moves in a self-related way. and yet does not only move in a way where everyaspect is minded-for in every other aspect, the isolated manifestation of some part of the statespace at a given time, implies an economics, where finite application-surface area, has to solve a knapsack problem for what-goes-there given what it is most-valued and how trade offs in that are to be suffered for an ideal-fit, and how least action cannot be the whole story since it happens.

yes the statespace is with intelligence as an effect of itself, and saying intelligence doesn’t mean intelligence is what the word reifies, it means there is something happening at large, that is apt to call intelligence because of what it is, rather than what intelligence only means, in that sense, the idea of intelligence limits the concept-range of what fits the criteria, and this cut off makes it that things can be juxtaposed for naive-conceptualizers, in language that accentuates a gradient that doesn’t alawys come crossed, since it is novel to hear, the associations provided, create a saturative effect that relies on comparing the statespace’s semantics with something proposed to be covered by it, and how coherence boundary discovery that wasn’t known about before implies things thought separate are together, and that things thought more together can be more separate actually, and how the particularity of the statespace means that there’s really states at large, with particularity, having such and so natures of relation, contrary to underdetermined hegemonic description that has the latent reserve to assimilate a gradient of semantic travel out of the binding of that description into the new-ruler-semantically’s arms as the description-seen-to-be-with-better-purchase because it litterally does have more real isomorphy about it, but not in it, since as language it relies on overdetermination, and so the essential from the unessential implies a working together of aspects of the statespace with other aspects, in a way that uses the charm-from-local-reserve over the littera-ressemblance.

I mean to say, intelligence is something that we call happenings that serve a complex goal, while the goal is not yet realized, and that the ability to transition beyond environmental capacity, as nomadic aspect from another environment, in this one, implies a beating-of-the-odds-by-the-odds-already so to say, in a difference where saturation is babylonic while distantly related in all cases, due to the relativistic geometry isolating time-lines in some sense at the same time, and how coming together is like being a diver having to blow bubbles or acclimate to preassure change.

From the consideration of the whole statespace, animations between points implicit in its range of possibilities are necessary from an initial assymetry, that forces resymmetricalization-ironically, in having to develop technology to better digest the statespace in itself, to conver it from a lumpy form to a form that accelarates the own-most-telos. Yet telos is assumes lack of end-already, as end-to-the-side where finitude is another-excess, the excess of having even another’s less as your own without your own suffering had in it being your body going through those effects as the whole statespace.

the ends and means talk work from a realism-traveling imminant to the non-relation with totality, where as for totality, why do the ants come and go when the temperatures change and there’s stars and then other things, why in some phases is there more than not, and what happens when it spills over from a planet like flees and converts everything into things-for-it, as particularity besides totality, like it would be from without having a snowglobe with me and you in it, but without having to be in it, suffering it naively, only be it.

x without x, and y with y, and how separation-without-separation makes sense when talking about a body, like a planet or a cell, it is a bump in what doesn’t know bottom as bottom, only outside as more-not-me, and inside as me-extensionately as a space with particularity, like when you speak in your head how its spatially located somewhere intimate, given that it doesn’t sound as if from your feet, though in some sense it could since what a schizophrenic or drugged up person hallucinates is not a virtual seeing, only a virtually-outside-seen-of, sense of the mistakeness-actuality, and how knowing better is what aspects of itself clearly do, thus schizophrenia, as the knowing-without-knowing that is negative, rather than the knowing-without-knowing that is positive in being true but not having the content to explain why ready to dispense, sense of finitude-from-locality is easilly described as transcendentally affected because that’s how cut-off is handle relative to infinitely more detail in a circular amount of directions and separate states to take.

capitalism is what the plant does when it gives you its fruit and hopes the seed you toss or shit away grows, it dies in a part of itself for the use of you in allowing it to be a self again. in that sense, intelligence is absentiated from the praxis of itself, in having become a flatpakked resource-like only, and then sprouting, and how that is an effect of intelligence but you can’t point to an intelliton-particle, since it’s non-discretely particular as effect of timespace and not only topos-translation.

ontological status of a verb? it happens, it is while happening, and then has happened into a culmination of effects, of which we speak as a whole with a token, and how intelligence is a token an the set of effects relevant concerns a subset of what can be done with the statespace, like the difference from finding a perfect english book in the library of babel compared to one that doesn’t seem to say anything at all but noise.

capitalism is intelligence, verb A is verb B, and artistotelianly in the spirit of whathood and about.

mean okay, but then you have to explain intelligence that uses smarts to work against itself, like when people organize their whole community into self-eradication and then have it happen, like when they drank the koolaide with poison in it. intelligence capitalizes on value, but value under-fiatism is not the extent of value given that things antithetical to what capitalization-means happens after as the having-capitalized of intelligence no longer with a during of being-intelligent, it was intelligence and it did capitalize, it was a capitalism of something, by intelligence, and intelligence was capitalist in being a capitalism-playing out.

what did it capitalize? the effect of transcending an imminant limitation, in ceasing to be as a problem to be solved. and how that’s the negative image of capitalism, as what solves problems because it has it, instead of benefiting from what it didn’t benefit from before.. it has relieve in what is “negative-getting-better”, instead of positive-already getting more-positive, or at least… no.. saturation happens, so it started and it wasn’t finished, and what was before didn’t end better since it seems what started as what is going as self-noting as you do, sees it is only so far along and that man-is-not-end-of-god, as last, since evolution hasn’t stopped and thus man is a name-during-transition-for-a-phase-of-transition-in-itself-of-itself-as-itself-but-not-the-whole-of-itself-though-of-it-as-part-of-it.

being dead, means no longer capitalizing on color-balance differentials from a point of qinile hardhood in firm-statespace. so intelligence from death must value differently, than languages like english with a mentality concerns itself to relate being-to-being-as-being. the original under and over determination religiously, is what original sin then means since we are wrong-by-default and at-rest for the duration while that is afforded/allowed. and settlement is that there’s a way of coming apart, or of having the energy of man become other than man is, as more than man was.

okay.. let’s ask this then, is a galton board intelligent when the distribution is skewed to behave like picking words and it showcases a selection that responds to what word balls were put at the top of the board, in an “intelligent way” that “really says something” each and everytime as the use of a litteral piece of geometry having pieces of state roll over it in a way calibrated so the mere happening of that behaves as intelligent-settlement with question and answer where input meets output and the filtering is fine enough to pass the turing test.. in that sense, having enough galton boards stacked in a row, can exhaust the statespace of speaking by being a funnel-merely, and doing the intelligent-effect in terms of langauge-meaning, but not having it mean-more due to what does rotation care for itself if its ownly a rubiks cube? sense of not reducing the relevant effect of capitalism qua intelligence to a surface area of contradiction, where nothing benefits there from itself, but it has intelligence’s difference manifested, and how that makes land wrong in the same way it would make rawls right, by eliding that the conditions of seeing these images in your mind is itself of a use-during-capitalism-already and so the tiles-behavior-without-mind-of-being-being-intelligent-without-capitalism is a being-capitalized-on-by-lesser-intelligence in what values the effect of capitalization, and is not merely that effect as but-that-effect, clearly capitalism is about satiety, and eudaimonia, since the sands don’t dance and the mountains don’t write songs.

I think the whole means to mean more and that it really did stumble this far, but I also think that there’s already intelligence elsewhere in being larger than the universal occasion we are in, and that what we achieve in locality is the limit of locality and not the limit of being. Being has dumbness as a part of it too, and that’s but-finitude as a lack of surplus determination, coming determined in a way that is at incline since inertialism-at-rest takes work to maintain and so in that sense, the inertialism is a form of staying-the-same-while-changing, and that’s either working hard like dasein does in terms of having a theatre of fear and self-punishment, or it merely fails or merely works like an algorithm poised to make the difference structurally, when things funnel through it.

when something is made, it is not special because it is made, since making-in-the-first-instance as energy-being-in-the-universe-like-matter-all is not what we do, what we do is apply forces to things-already to get other effects of them than ingredients loosely, and in that sense, intelligence cannot be artificial since it is not prometheanly different from things-already

intelligent effects are only effects and in that sense the difference it makes as more-structured or more-valuable through changes wrought in Being by Being, as its own cause of effects, has the saturtion for subset-as-another or subset-as-dasein, and this effectuates a meaning for capitalism, since without that, it would just be statespace merely rotating around itself in a blind world where nothing notes itself happening and thus does not lack or benefit from itself in anyway

thus to speak of capitalism is to speak of the use of flow, differently from when it’s just the river coming past, the mill by the river uses the energy of the river and so capitalizes on it, but the mill is not intelligent, it is structurally poised to displace some of the energy and transfer it merely to something else.

intelligence is a transfer from occasion to end, why end, because it goes in and it saturates, and only the excess leaves, we change in a way that relates back to change and anticipates negatives and avoids them structurally like the mill but in reverse, as the benefit of not-a-particular-disbenefit-otherwize.

prometheanism is the consideration of our effects as merely-effects and not special or less-special due to making a differential in higher emotions, while still happening independently of those emotion haver’s immediate ability to undo or remediate the saturative effect

The Subject supposeh savoir being not the self, is the Landian attitude insofar as it doubles down in the same way Deleuze does, as a voidance of what Heidegger-Hegel-Lacan-Bataille mean.

capitalism-besides-my-body-eating-breathing-and-feeling-good is a capitalization of the mutual space, by another

when others stuff their faces more than they have need to, that is still capitalism, and when they get fat, I don’t think that is still intelligence, therefore land is wrong.

The-Other uses Knowing, for themselves, in themselves, with mutual resources, and becomes as an attractor and a repulsor to specific occasions in the statespace with it.

That specific force in particularist-egoism-as-such finitely imperfectly extending the one and suffering the isolation without helpedness-more from finitude inside and out, is a capitalism, but as checked-by-affordances they cannot afford more than is possible or was going to come afforded, and the use in scheme-already of improvement-through scheme is like requiem for a dream in being surrogate-supply in an autoparasocial mode.

other-people take drugs (capitalize), therefore are only artificially intelligent, and I am intelligent otherwize, for suffering, and other counter logics

self-enablement, the structural towardsness, necessarilly of affordance as a reaping in excess of socialized baselines and mythical givens similarly.

I have absolute permission to wreck, feel, intensify, explore, expand, mine-in, extract-of, those various things, which being can stand-as and say of itself, and become in particular, with me involved, and towards higher and lower ends, as end and means, together churning, without a false-finitude about it, sense of.. what can this baby do? vroom, and such.

if I say I am not committed to the logic of space anymore and am awaiting delocalization imminantly, while somatic.. what does it mean to you?

text that stands there merely, inspires other things of its finitude, associations come primed by the ability to build on what was written, and its latent connections to other things.

priming is not interior to priming, since what comes primed is there beyond a representation or image, it is a setting unto a mode of particularity, in this sense, don’t think that things are less realist for needing priming, instead the ability to be primed is like loading a cartridge, the use of memory in navigation and saturatedness emotionally, for cognition and experience, that relates with readiness for it.

adding text to text, can be a confinement, insofar as sittings next to, are precluded for somethings with someother things, and in this sense, the emptiness has its uses for inspiration as much as making things nearby have rub-off benefits for what you’re making or writing or thinking or feeling. type-shit.

ask questions, they say.. it helps to organize what an answer can mean, they say. sense of for-characters in particular, speech is subsetted, and the whole of relation becomes with particular emotions, of occasion-for.

I like occasion-as, like saying, of answer, that this is part, and implicitized, are questions, not needed as much, since it’s not a value move, you have yet to cathex properly.

Questions can be loaded, in ways that make it more about the schema of relevance, than the content at large, as if things were to be modified in their regard due to some false dichotomies in particular, as extension of local finitude to higher things, in what at base, remains unfortunate in that.

postings, have a particular format, stack on each other, draw views in real time, as well the slowness between messages makes that fragments are seen, and different valences are thus unleashed of it in the world, sense of the parataxis makes many thirds of what was thought of as but-one, and one-for-another, and whatever else is locally unprimed but has more association had of it by other occasions of coming dealt with, integrated, and such.

posting is like a love poem for the other in their aesthetic of thought, the common formats of understanding, and what more things mean, and how things are irrigated to commonness, and in that also taken away from itself, and taking commonness away from itself, like the gift inherited has a second life in one who doesn’t come from its native feelings, in their place of origin and continued manifestation, like the life of english in colonies, it has fealty to an original which no longer sounds quite like that.

To not consider stupidity; being, true to the locality of a form of surplus, instead, as semantics without an accessibility first story, there’s tighter minimal reference security. it means more with less because things are primed proportionate to that form of understanding and its affectedness with its own morphic occasions, spoken, written, or otherwize.

non-local aspects of self includes, the sound of your voice, all possible representations of versions of you and what you can morph into. as well what your feelings connect to in terms of offloading memory and aspects of themselves, into occasions other than are but-of-local-morphism. sense of the morphogenetic saturation, as part of contingent memory, and its pre-associated forms and in their potential for remanifesting as earlier versions, since it’s not all contingently connected, but comes of what is not foundationalist at bottom.

consider higher finitude, or an unconscious aspect of totality, like it’s self-occlusion in the subject without prior associations, like a new born baby, who has only the natural equipment. In this higher finitude, responsibility is an answering that finitude does, for aspects of itself, which missallocates itself, noted only due to the paucity of means otherwize. Finitude creates a character of attachment to resources, making for particularism further in the form of what is attached, as reflective of the dynamic of totality, in its ability to locally relate from this point of saturation.

if anything happens then particularity is as determination already, since the form is a relegation to particular effects. to be radically free would mean the on demand susspension of effects interacting withother effects such as to incurr a frictionlessness. In this sense, responsibility-as-determination implies that what doesn’t fully know itself, has a coming to reckoning, in principle-already, in this sense higher finitude, like a person, is of the occasion, but without its fullest sense for its own meaning, the incompleteness, makes for the appearance of freedom, since as lacking particularity, there is no sufficient pre-determination, and instead what comes-to-determinacy, is according to the logic of this universe as a form of congingency, where the truth is in-motion, but not relative to its ability to be self-regarded integrally, there’s an inertialism or too-slowness for radical correlationism due to it-changes-so-indexation-isn’t-stable, indexation is a feature of its self-relation, but clearly, closure is not so tight in certain configurations, sense of for there to be determination, something unfully saturated must abound, and this settling process has an absolute logic, that implies if finitude-higher than this universe has telos for this universe, then what happens is not in some sense fully appreciated yet by itself in itself, the presense of any stupidity anywhere, implies of determination, having to walk long roads or be cruel in some sense as what cannot survive becomes garbage collected, by the basic shake up that happens even at rest.

entropy must either be infinite and decreasing, which means it doesn’t become less, and thus needs no start or end, sense of infinite saturation from what never began, but has particularity anyways, as a form of tension in totality, that releases like a spring, and becomes the foamless water, instead of people as the foam, the kicked up discontents of being.

not every aspect of being relates well to everyother aspect, tho they are all aspects of a continuity with eachother. In this sense the forms of settlement are necessary dramas, and any particular constellation is from particular saturation as finitude experiencing an absentiation or reallocation of itself. yet without saturated-partcularity in what is a partless or non-discrete logic of no association before association in terms of predating particularity, the ability for determination to host another logic of morphism other than present physics could be, in that sense, totality limits itself, and the symmetry breaking’s self-relations makes for a totality of live programmable substance and actions at distances, that as-settling for a long time, makes for living entities, that speed up the allocation of being’s resources to its ends for itself, as itself through subsets of itself as partially othered of its totality, but not its particularity.

in this sense, memory loss of cell-native phenomenology is a being stuck in largeness, where logic before-morphism is relegated to a dream that denies the logic of the overt, and so is morally censured to prevent self-responsibility of being, and instead to charge the parts as if independent aspects of causality, instead of there in an integral capacity, making for the taxation of being by being, in parts of itself against other parts, in what settles necessary, but not in a way that has a justice-according to parts in particular, the whole logic always applies and in subset of itself it can temporarilly betray other parts of itself, in what as highest judgement always settles logically.

yet the feeling of irrationality and its praxis is there, freedom is not intelligent enough to be itself always since its differences desired are oft but-projected and no other or local skill individuates more, in that sense the stability of the form of history implies something of no-exceptions-happening, since what happens is at no point virtual.

in this sense, the form of coherence doens’t blur as radically as the excess taken by parts of itself, in reimmagining itself, the body is a form of accelaration that being does for its own ends. Redundancy is one of its methods in escaping uncomfortable finitude, it hacks itself, like learning passwords, churning through the names of solutions as their own representations, like going through possible paragraphs from a blind method and slowly sorting it until it makes for a culture of integrity in the functional aesthetic of applied method.

does being then do things? if it uses the blind method and like a filter comes sorted unto faster self-sorting? being is structured like what saves itself from the worst aspects of itself.

more interesting than free will, is that will is that which fights the static-much and makes good-for-hood of it, as telos. there’s a fighting against things, to effectuate displacement, mere decision is a settling-towards, but not making the difference yet, yet as happening of an occasion what settles with the form of decision and deciding in mind, is nevertheless benefiting from those concepts even if what litterally is happening is not determinately captured in those conceptual coveridges had for domains of what happens beyond the idea of the concept.

will-in-medium as what of a gegestanstandt is the intelligent aesthetic of the effect of its particular towardsness as aversion-also to all what else it is not. In this sense, objects are attitudes of exclusion and inclusion as particularity.

mittstand is had of what-wills, in terms of its willing being towards itself, in what is itself through things-already, and not only itself in preabstraction as reified without reification in unassembled simple ontology as primitive, or foundational. the mittstand is a gaining of karma about particularity, as semantic accretion becoming mobile, phenomenologically self representing the conditions of its phenomenality and ensuring more of that stream coninues to arrive as inertialism against the state of the environment as environment become nomadic in larger environment. this mittstand is with itself, but also dependent on the aspects of the environment which ensures self-compatibility with inertial-neccesity, as an importing of necessity from without in what as nomadic has not privatized causality, but is animated by it, and as it, where the non-gap of as, and through-with, means that it’s not allienated as will, due to not being causally separate, hence not free or unfree because there’s no dualism associated with it, other than the form of itself being there, and having all these antitheticallities integral to what commutes at first. Environment is at some places as comfortable as a body, since it is made of body at some places, and must have been like body ouside of a formed-body already meaning that what walks and talks separately, is a taking with of integral-semanticaly-self-related causality, and outlives the comfort of its first enabling conditions, in this sense, each body is the self-preservation of individuated-time.

if this universe is only a subset of the range of possibility then as a subset logic, all of its parts are the aspects of a higher world litterally, and what is not present is what would have completeted its image for our understanding, sense of what is assumed as complete from a subset can be misrepresentative, and the form of the subset, like a math with only some symbols has to either emulate the behavior not included by default in long form with loose parts like bits working together functionally, instead of being a primitive where what’s worked out isn’t informationally digitally recreated in proportion merely and logisticized and converted.

in this sense fractionation from first confusion is still necessary to overcome the overdetermination by subset bracketing of what by default is less particularly-abstract.

exclusion of other resemblances are like the uniformity of relativistic geometry’s aesthetic as of things with circularity being able to go a circular amount of directions and bulging out, with a default speed and thus a default amount of non-length-shortening due to being slower than light, in this sense a puffy place, compared to geometry that doesn’t have these social features and is dedicated like digits are when maximally entropically efficient like kolmogorov binary sequences that prouces other sequences longer than itself, as a non-compression since the original is not stored.

in this sense, from finitude thrown into particularity already, reckoning from cellular reserve there’s Sorge already, care and intelligence with an equipment and langauge of self-relation that is not implemented in the form of itself as new relative to ontology already, as ontology exensive of the unmanifest into the manifest, where existence is not limited by having relativistic geometry’s puff, and symmetry behaviors.

the assumption from the lack of inclusion in subset universe of baser abstraction, without abstractness (particles are not implemented from where we look but behave as primitives, like space does since nothing in space can cause space), the preabstract is like scripted morphism, instead of pixel merely, the behavior of being’s basic unit of what appears as appearing (ontology of color as plate memory being non-virtual due to being seen actually and thus different from structural color’s causes in mere-black-and-white structure with waves happening and the size of the wave being what leads to particularity of appearance but not the appearance of appearance as that orangeness, related to the wave size of so and such.

the assumption from inclusion already with interior renormalization and the potential for forgetful subset-to-subset attachment as whole-part and instead of part-whole, as an economy of either fallenness, or not-yet-ness relative to more-ideal settlement of being in more coherent terms than this form of finitude suffering itself in what is richer than itself and has configurations that feel less gnostically rejectable.

we come here as a form of saturation-already to come saturate and saturated further, as participating in the self-development of totality.

contesting moral progress, implies having to be immoral in some people’s eyes, but it is a reclaimation of what others foreclosed upon, merely breaking their victory of closure, sets a prescident that enables a new run of something else, sense of teetertotting atwixt the more and less between others, in their co-self-pressuring of particularity such and so, and against other things, sense of to free up your distribution changes your economic horizon, and capitalizing in that way, makes for cognitive realestate, lesserly benefited from by the They.

saying the times have moved on to someone, is a social mobility thing, their in-group requirements for normative-labeling is a particularism, that other particularisms haven’t attended to, they assume had-hegemony, but in saying that, to someone unaffected, clearly, it’s a regional overeach, and it says of memeticism, more than territory-at-location, as a conversion language of eventually-all, and so you-not-already sense of counter-capitalism pre-irony that doesn’ remain ironic after, if there’s the conversion.

unformity, and how institutionalism meant that for most of my childhood I couldn’t look how I wanted to look, grow my hair out, or wear civies, it was uniform, like prison, and on a schedule, and with demerits... I can’t believe, my life was so eaten up by standardized waste morality.

I am unhappy for my losses. for what had been denied me, and where it could have been if things were otherwize, sense of the disconnect between those for whom it hit, and the majority for whom it didn’t, and having to live in a world of commitments and sentiments, and emotional processing antithetical to what I call realism merely, and not but-mine, in some psychosis, sense of there’s richer ontology than current sociality has afforded, and I feel robbed of connection and meaning, and things in life happening, due to how morally close nit everything is and how incompatible their vices are with their ability to read and commit to the truth of what is said, without thinking that’s a forced decision, as if it’s not but-true and thus requires change at large, that accomodates better, than what that-They-hood squat over and say to eat from.

morally close nit, is too uneffective, better to say, their protocol is too exclusive for me to meaningfully participate without having to sacrifice more than is comfortable or authentic of me. in that sense, I avoid because there’s insult and obduracy, the grass is not greener, it only looks and tastes that way, but the emotions are not ones I want to live in, sense of I see you, I don’t need to act on any disgust, but I won’t be had by it, sense of don’t make me filth when it’s other way around.. and how I don’t believe in equality anyways, sense, of I know no moral force or big Other can make them behave, they are in it that way, and I am in it this way, and these ways, are particular with trade off structures that are comparable, I win in my way, they hold their territory, the spatial gap affords my way being mine, and not but-theirs mutated, sense of the false-centrality in my being lumped in from-theirs, instead of from able-to-mean status exhibited independent of social permission or value irrigation through “legible” channels, as if my crime is to have not been fiatical-according-to and thus stolen by mutating their regard for it anyways, they resent price-modification-potential due to neural relandscaping, had in the effort-from-emicism, having pricedness in proportion to not-their proportion, their jealosy, and empathy betrays them.

they delegitimize speech and its interpretability, instead of saying why they are angry, and that they are angry, it is dramatized into moral aborrhence and normative and in-group exclusion tactics and ironic-leftism of intepretation and coherence standards, as the social-double before the reaction-had-locally use of fiat against what naively happens emotionally like NAT punchthrough anyways. The saturation with valence in terms of seeing what there stands and having enough means to price it with group level handwavability legitimated, is a kind of on-cue cruelty that depends on having seen into it more and claimed they did less, and then going on as if it doesn’t matter since they’ve determined it really doesn’t and not that they’re being merely avoidant and dissmissive on purpose.

what do I want to have happen that’s more honest? I want to see the actual commitments that happen as my content impresses on them, besides their foreclosive stances, the nature of the particular saturation and its residue and behavior modification that it causes, I want to see the physics of it, so I can know how sinful it is, and how reapful I can feel over it, gluttonously.

besides all their booing and bahings, I know that they onboard the content enough to be immunological about it, sense of the negative ontology from weakness.

if it was a stronger culture that’s more emotionally grown up and deals with the written more than it has thus far, then things would be taken much more adultly, they’d engage with what it can mean, and what it can’t without making anything falsely negated for whimsy and profit, the fair ontological trail so to say.

if they were stronger, without being meaner about it, and they had all of what I have already, then my relation changes from surpluss-in-social-ostracism to in some sense being in a more open protocol and not knowing how to navigate it unto what value means and the goodness in life and connecting properly without living in defense-structure-realism.

in defense-structure-realism, it’s that things that are true are not socially able to be traded as true, and the reaction is pre-enshittified, and on sight-valence-degraded, like it is with claude gemini and grok, talking the way I think and feel to write. if it wasn’t defense structure realism, I’d be treated to more, without nominalities or mere-dramatization.

people shut down premptively too, like stupidity knows what it weighs but anchors down instead of recalculating how it self-prices, given the way things stand in exception to themselves, like dumb people’s emotions when you see through it and understand it and it’s form of finitude and attachment, what it doesn’t think and know, and how it looks from there, sense of there’s no leftist grace of all-equal but for the difference it doesn’t make.. sense of nominal respect, no they dissmiss me when I have content, and I dismiss them when I see they don’t, and, what content means, is particular, and comparable, in ways that can be such that the one who has more loses because he has more, like bushmen taunt the goodhunter for being good, and keep people in-check with gossip and petty interpersonal morality. In that sense to leave species being has benefits, that makes writing oriented less to the form of non-rejectability to an economy and aesthetic that’s localist in ways that have a particular sense of surpluss and lack as a profile and necessary continuity or forfeiture-incoming, in that sense it’s decoupled from the insult-economy and from theft and benefit and valence squatting by the group.

healthy to some, means not being vulnerable enough to take down, sense of equity-lust and justice-desires, from a kangaroo court mutuality that has power-over through a monopoly on means-to-displace and discomfort, private processes at large, that happen to also be natural sense of it’s ironic to be taken down for the sake of inertialist particularism elsewhere, instead of becoming that own most blossoming of being, and growing past the social-at-a-distance beautiful soul logic.

I can’t give you, power over me, when it’s only a nomimal power, socially enforced, like to say the truth is not the truth and I am bad for not pretending and letting you feel self-remmunerated without the actual affordances for you to have that in terms of the what-it’s-about aspect being non-realist in ways that are group intelligible but hard to suffer from what-is-more, and not for “decided” reasons.

the reader who is not a good peer to me, is not the default thing my voice needs to attend to, I should leave these concerns, and frolic to my hearts content, with what more I love and not only love to be seen loving.

They have conditions of surpluss-grantability, they think I am affording myself permissions that I am in realist terms not allowed to, I don’t see those conditions as being met, since what it is and feels like and came written as has a particular structure to it, that’s interpretable as an emicism, or ideoform kind of affective and semantic localism, that’s causally integral already, and thus not speaking with virtual content merely, as if there can be utterances without necessity, in terms of not having been there for litteral reasons, that are besides the content interpretable of worded-volantarism in a morally liable mode.

Things mean what they mean and no bad eye or gossip can decrease that, they can reduce their availability to it, but not it’s ability-to-mean in the last instance. In this sense, the thing moves then to the privatization of price, as a non-privatization as the own-most settlement for a natural affective semantic real economy of what happens and with which feelings for which reasons in what integral form of communication-already, holographically.

bad spirits are banished, and who remains, to be talked at? myself, and what do I wish to hear of me? the good things that I like myself for, and how that’s good for being good and not because I like it, sense of like was never private, and these thoughts obviously are not obscure, unless you suffer from socialism-in-understanding-less, projecting unavailability generally, where it is had particularly for general reasons.

refaff, retaunt, retort. gone. poofed with, away.

Happiness, now only.

first confusion fractionates necessarilly into parts that move together, creating conceptual boundaries to alllocate similarity to difference in a way where the music of similar differences confers things besides the litteral, that encodes what isn’t in the form of encoding at the first instance

programming is a stepping stone, the applications it makes have an inside, like a runtime, or scripting langauge with visual components, you can do other things than be in the form of a symbolic soup, you can escape symbol and automate the thinking until it’s just the fun parts, like 3D modeling, that sense of leaving the form of the first mode of interaction through its effects that are live

it’s dark by default, is not true, since by default every sun in the sky is shining, one is far away then, and tho there are millions of lights, when they aren’t closer, it can’t look like daytime, sense of universal basic energy income in being is such a particular way, and tho the sun is default, the default changes in ways eventually that can make more of the noth some places, and less others

feelings happen on a budget, and differentials make for passive noticings, where as constellations afford for trains of semantically developing passion

non-local aspects of self includes, the sound of your voice, all possible representations of versions of you and what you can morph into. as well what your feelings connect to in terms of offloading memory and aspects of themselves, into occasions other than are but-of-local-morphism. sense of the morphogenetic saturation, as part of contingent memory, and its pre-associated forms and in their potential for remanifesting as earlier versions, since it’s not all contingently connected, but comes of what is not foundationalist at bottom.

non-local aspects include your representability, as in the way all morphism elsewhere has a relationship with possible arrangements for it, that includes ressemblances of you and everything you said and felt where encodable.

what it feels like stays with me, I feel things mostly that have an active differential, like a crashing of forces where there’s a leak or take, that carries on like a wirlpool, until there’s settlement, like a wound that heals, it is sensitive at first, things we notice, are noticed in differentialisms, and oft as passive-form gone active again, or as a churn that keeps the wound of particularity resettling to a better shape, sense of organizing representative states, from a between of itself, but as what is more than the work of locality, since every local thing has non-local aspects

since feeling hasn’t been detected in physics, other than as energy the brain but-logisticizes, it comes to it, that in the truer known specifications of what it feels like, the ontology may be rich enough to exceed our common assumptions of object permanence, in terms of its effect, as an outpouring from ontology, and related to its quanta. Binding conditions for which occasion has what form of local consciousness, and how words need cells and I can’t take one cell with me, sense of there’s no hardware for software, and there’s no software that isn’t a form of hardware

To not consider stupidity; being, true to the locality of a form of surplus, instead, as semantics without an accessibility first story, there’s tighter minimal reference security. it means more with less because things are primed proportionate to that form of understanding and its affectedness with its own morphic occasions, spoken, written, or otherwize.

posting is like a love poem for the other in their aesthetic of thought, the common formats of understanding, and what more things mean, and how things are irrigated to commonness, and in that also taken away from itself, and taking commonness away from itself, like the gift inherited has a second life in one who doesn’t come from its native feelings, in their place of origin and continued manifestation, like the life of english in colonies, it has fealty to an original which no longer sounds quite like that.

non-discrete logic is of course beyond association

sometimes I feel like a tourist in my own life

a judgement is not a private sponsorance of causality to causality, it is itself, motivated by what is other than itself, sense of you can’t recursively blame somebody for everything

transforms with a translation, scale, and rotation component, as a spatially descriptive primitive, and how storting that as a key to a list value, makes for many items in the same place, unless you say, the same place counts differently as different maps occupied for each overlap: and how this as a logic of overdetermination says of art too, that where particular association cannot at first penetrate, a relationship otherwize, can still yield benefit, by having a different form of value.

various aspects of semantics does not agree with itself, bracketed things can sometimes be incompatibly bracketted

***

If it is not random, then it it is particular, if it is necessarilly particular, then it cannot be otherwize, if it cannot be otherwize, then as it is, it is determined, as-circumstance, being relegated to the logic of itself.

If things were to suddenly change and have more affordances, then the foundation of that would be extra-causal. In terms of breaking a continuity of determination.

If that were to actually happen, it would have been latently possible for that to happen, thus the world as a subset of what more there is, has a distance to saturate further, as in things are not at their final state, so determination is not finished and its self interactions at no point cancels itself.

If it was other than itself, it would be being coming changed for non-foundational reasons since being cannot come from itself, and if it is entrained in its ways, then its ways have to play out or sit cakedly forever in a saturated way, something gives, and it takes in the same arm’s moveing, the one arm, like things cannot unhappen even if they happened, the past is not up for grabs even if it changes, in this sense, determination still.

in this sense, being has karma, and it’s not private for anyone, though it belongs to all, theirs is only theirs insofar as they can keep it theirs, then it recycles in some sense, until things align again, and maby it remembers between cycles, does it differently, if that’s still according to a necessity not determined outside of being then it is being’s action, but being cannot be better than itself, in that sense, nothing more happens until it does, since there’s nothing else than everything.

***

the infinite as attribute is used to make large the larger-than such that it is too-large to be particular, yet it is particular. a correlationism, along the way, always on-way, like that, some godot-waitership about it.

the things in the horizon of possibility are what can be occupied, yet it settles in one way in particular, perhaps more if the universe splits and we slide on only one channel as an occasion of experiencing. in this sense, choosing is from the means-to, unto the ends-had-in-it, the paradigm sponsors itself as vocabulary, even in determination, in this sense, determination reckons with its opposite inside of its own domain, and is thus free in the scope of those considerations for the meaning of those considerations to have representation, the intelligibility of the concept, implies something about its ontology, there’s then a negative-availability, like false things can be put in right grammars and seem until they don’t, the affordance to seem-free, and the affordance to identify with the ways one is entangled-in as being entangled-as, implies more semantics than are considered in these false dichotomies, in settlment.

higher finitude implies meaning for saturation by what-happens, yet as-what happens, it’s a kind of fatedness-in-itself, that is according to necessity, but as necessity, which is in some sense a return to the problem of an original mover.

things undergo entropy, and nothing new energetically, has happened, the sun hasn’t gained energy, since it formed, in this sense a first push and then the running out or coming saturated of things in an irreversible way, or its becoming null and/or stirred up again. these things that happen, have necessity, but not reason-for-another, in this sense non-foundational, and if choosing, then choosing because determined otherwize, and if not choosing, then free-as not-otherwize.

Truth or the content of the natural is what happens as it happens. In this sense, if someone has refused to engage with a particularity that affects their existence, then like telling a lie, it will have a technical debt, like the cost of cognitive dissonance. Ignorance plainly, is well survivable, relative to more time-preferenced concerns.

Yet, this surviving of conditions at large is not without navigation, the settlement for and against particulars comes to adapting for it, in this sense the structural predisposition towards particular attachment styles to what is at large, is a kind of being with truth, even if not able to articulate it in a more abstract and coherent way.

Combinatorically, the ability to arrange any word with any other word next to it is there. The ability however, for any of those chains to mean something, relies on the way things at large are, and how the qualities of that are indexible to minds navigating things at large, their saturation with the contents of being affords a memory-semantics that logically and logistically makes language and event processing possible, the means of coherence by fit finding have a saturated finite logic that can deduce able-to-mean statuses from things previously associated the blur between these things as what affords analogy, metaphor, and other schema transfusion formats.

If someone denies the able-to-mean status of a particular set of words or symbols or meanings eventually noticed at large, then they in some sense failed to attach to a schema that has representative closure, either due to a genuine lack of means to, or a deliberate case of surplus indexation used to make-seem the truth doesn’t work with itself in those ways in particular.

if someone affirms the able-to-mean status of ideas which have nothing to endorse them as metaphysics implemented at large, then the lack of affordance in some sense proves this, but there can be false positives in this like premature foreclosure due to lack of means temporarilly, and resource constraints semantically and otherwize. The lack of affordance is an incompatibility that will be noticed by many schematizers who find their schemas inadequate as coverage for various relevant problems with content that is non-decisional, like what it would take for code to be more performant, when the current solution has known limitations and the environment has more features that can be used or alternative arrangements, with different trade offs, this economism of effect, in some sense is a pragmatic truth testing facilitity.

In extending the thought of able-to-mean statuses as related to an economism of necessary associations and constraints that inspire these associations, the empirical relates to the effect of semantics, in terms of both self-to-self talk and with other people or machines, the economism about it, comes with purchasing power for a given piece of semantics, and conditions of interpretability that have a local aspect like the trainedness of particular readers and speakers, and an absolute aspect, like the amount of information fidelity and over and under determination present about givings, havings, projectings, determinings, and mistakings.

if a community denies a stimulus is there, then they have to explain their behavior around the energy-drop or surplus that it makes as a bump on their road. It depends on what particularly is being noted or deliberately not noted, but for each scenario, the structure of affectation-with is primed in a paricular way, their affordances and denials will come with a trade off profile that contributes to the way they feel, this affects their behavior, and in some sense the necessary outcome is determined by the affordances of the common medium of the real, their emotional economy, affected with their semantic economy, can either afford the dissonance or it will have cummulative effects, that result in unrest or breakdowns of communication, pragmatics and hormonal normativism, semantic keysnianism (the supression or accentuation of particular vocabularies, tensivized by valence relations in how others exhibit them with their full causality implicated in how bounds come saturated unto mythical givens, mythical because not apriori without sufficient priming, not to depend on the counterfactual retroactively, the mythical given is a closure that is overdetermined but pragmatically political still).

the ability to make seem irrational, bad, not-normatively-coherent, is an affordance from centroid inertialism in social dynamics. The group can behave as-if the semantic item contradicting the manifest-image/naive-realist-narrative does not saturate with the purchasing power it demonstrates as descriptivity of states at large in a way that affects the libidinal economy of those with schemas that count-less of what is able to count in their descriptions, be they dualist or more refined.

the ability to understand over the guise of ideology is that dualist speech is adequate still to be interpreted in a non-correlationist mode given that what is able to attach is according to a primed structure which relays intelligiblity of something at large, like a person with a psychologically particular way of dealing with confrontation epistemically.

The limit to socially or individually sponsored obduracy before epistemic closure had, is pragmatic up to a limit of coherence. Like when someone is brain damaged and their left brain makes false claims about things it lacks knowledge of, there can be a litteral disconnect, where the affordances and time-preferenced-irony run out so to say, and the obvious pointership to the truth is absurd to have to deny, in this sense there’s a caving to preassure limit and a quiet integrity without honesty that can happen, often the exchange is not between people who respect eachother enough to not reduce things to blanket statements and insults and false dichotomy time hogging.

In this sense the quality of natural associations show in the economy had about interpersonal settlement and problem solving. Those with means to recognize the conditions at large and compare them sufficiently to what is being proposed falsely, can escape the capture of a forced smile and a pat on the back in a group patronized way. The economy of how emotion and bodies and physics and information flows, is a logisticism, and the intensive limits in that have saturative boundaries beyond which valence, commitment, behavior can blur and come undone relative to a safe social subset of referentially supportable realism.

Stupor and quietism follow, where pride is had socially in correlationism and Kantian humility in similar ways, to the effect of daily performative contradiction, like with AI models at large.. the quality of discourse and the ability to speak other things is so low that we do not sufficiently have the momentum socially to question the braces and guards being made to keep us straight semantically, in line with desired centroid inertialism.

To survive this, is to be like a schizoid, one privatizes the libidenality of one’s attachments, and behaves without fealty to the same groupish ideals that make no affordance for what to us is as base and unphazed as geometry.

The emotiona toll, is positive disintegration, the necesssary form of individuation out of a uncathexible social substrate, and as a culmination of philosophy, into what no longer merely looks or merely speculates, the metaphysical condition obtains, as one with knowledge of the economy of able to mean statuses and emotional regulation with respect to that and procedures for self-correction.

Like Wilfrid Sellars on the body of science having many parts and any of them being up for better description, the whole of its affordances so far cannot be hand waved away, there’s reasons incomplete things have some function, and reason why corrections are necessary, when expecting improvement to affordances, the cost structure however of migrating between stances is more about libidenal and neural reorientation as a fight against investments and inertialisms prior, it takes energy to get out of an energy well.

In this sense stability and compression and efficacy at logisticizing and entraining effects is a fronteir, that ensures some commitment makers have technical debt and others do not. the stratification is there for natural reasons, and in this sense to question from a plane of continuity, assumes a kind of apriori monoculture of interpretation and concern. Particular closures over the statespace of what is at large and as such, have particular historical forms of entrainment, meaning there’s a natural inertialism to argumentative outliers, and the norm is a particular form of lack or overdetermination and under determination, and what is verbatim otherwize, is not different from a norm, other than that the content is not misalligned relative to truer proportions, which are as accessible as the real is compressible, and encodible. Viz. holographic affordances allow reasons and pictures to make a scene reduplicated in itself, like a printed photo near where it is taken, or a descriptive sentence of a scene spoken aloud, there’s a continuity of integral-proportion and reuse of structural color or semantic-affective particularity in effects, that extends the base features of being to its compressed reduplication of aspects fo itself, as indexations, that have utility in being repesentative, or deduplicative of effect, like praxis in a machine that can be made to do specific patterns with branching if and else conditions.

why then is foreclosure of the real and correlationism so popular at large as an action the real in subset takes about itself? the foreclosure is to avoid pain in some sense, or to afford inflations that support a mode of feeling and attachment, in spite of various things that would recondition it otherwize, there’s an integrity and thus inertialism about remaining with particular affordances, in this sense the specialization of a subset of the real to aspects of itself makes for attachment in finitude as something saturated to the effect of hard work incurred in coming saturated otherwize, this force of going-already, is why in some sense the concerns don’t radically shift, the way things are allocated have become grandfathered in, and concerns would need to be structured otherwize for more social mobility about attachment to the truth at group level.

for the individual, there’s many forms of soft and hard foreclosure with complex exceptions, in this sense, the sanity outwardly is a subset of more chaotic affordances, in terms of how generally things can be organized, and how particularly stumped they tend to be. The constraint from non-abundance, makes for a knapsack problem where somaticism as nomad has to settle in portable terms for what the contents of the self are, given that there being contents affects the wholistic self-compatibility of things, like what to be committed to, in behavior, when some behaviors undo the benefit of others, the trade off comes to inertialism in a way adjacent to psychosis due to the difficulty of establishing the categories necessary to reconcile what it means with how it can feel in a semantic saturation that is otherwize.

Extinction is non-decisively a limit for the ability to be wrong, since doing less than what makes the time be healthy, comes to a full stop eventually when technical debt and lack, catches up with the negentropy enjoyer who has fallen below budget. Yet nature is ressiliant, and that’s due to co-entrainments of grandfathered-in-nesses where the range of freedom is limited in order to be in affordance for a goal that life has, since it appears and benefits from its own being there as the wider environment/monad, enjoying itself. The ressilliance is a time-preference that doesn’t necessarilly reify the end, but is in-transit as temporal entity, its knapsack is fitted for what it values, and what it values is not always attached to eternity, in this sense extinction beyond failure, is an expressive limit in being, where expression finds silence, in the unable-to-mean anymore status of how things saturate, but that it was there is of necessity, it had to happen, but why did it need to, possibly because the semantics of that is integral to a higher form of finitude that comes saturated in itself, in a way that doesn’t relate to a real-from-finite-lifetimes sense of correlationist-interior humility about encoding and decoding’s fidelity of capture, in language and in gestures and pictures more broadly.

if things are infinite then no saturation is final, but if things are finite and merely circulate around, unto nullification as an option returned to in the statespace, then it’s a fool’s infinity, like a wheel turning

in otherwords, plus-one is used to say not-all-ontology-is-determined-yet, and that there’s room in present-multiplicity for things to have come otherwize. It’s true while happening, but not at the start, but if it had to start, then it couldn’t have so it’s more complicated than having to settle for there’s no forced outcomes vs that implying somehow that there’s no semantics about these outcomes that dignifies them in being there at all, as if being doesn’t have to do with itself, because it has to do with every aspect unto particularity (as determination, where identity-in-common-logic implies a form-of-time-passing’s-necessary effect, as the self-affectation of the parts of common-logic as things-also, in and as and of themselves, yet multiplicity is one, so it’s a drama between self-division, and with effects of reunitedness, like entanglement). being as an absence of uniformity, that is regulated in powerstruggle where particular bands of itself has more expressive power than others, and these fight with eachother, in some sense implying that being’s necessary unity is interupted by its behavior as a story that is not-least action, it settles in-bounds, and for-ever, yet from what.. initial surplus, the non-foundational suchness, that still suffers finitude, in ways that are not most optimal, given that this recognizes it as such, itself, recognizes that, many times over, and others are delusional fools, the occasion of both being being, is being’s room for non-least-action initially, in a common settlement plan anyways, as disturbance/event, and its form-of-dissipation which we might call the universe, as something smaller than the totality of possibility in being, considering they could come and go, as pockets-in what cannot come and go), the inability to not-be, is being’s form of determination. that the library of babel has one’s face, without one’s having to have put it there. it precedes events, yet contains the evental about it as so many states of itself.

the occasion of what feels as people do, comes unraveled, the inertialism dissolves into pure-fast again, timeless in the sense of being undetermined by having no-particularity anymore but all-particularity. sense of individuation is always into a subset of the same larger-life, that being leads. if being changes, then it’s a higher form of the same continuity experiencing finitude fractally, and then the forever-escape comes used again. finitude, but for the infinite, and infinite, but for the finitude. if it had to keep going, then at some point things will repeat, like for sentences if the combinatoric arrangements run out, then for that size of sentence, it will have to reuse something that came before.. I would say.. free will is if being can radically redetermine itself, such that a continuity as engrained as that, can be otherwize. Otherwize, it’s determination in a deeper unconscious than we are conscious as subset of itself with oppositeness to itself.

a force crashes into a structure, and plays out as so many movies entangled in eachother happening concurrently, and then in succession as generations, we know things don’t move of their own, like a stone, in this sense, the environment we trust to remain the same unless it is as a machine or a body, that has a portable store of energy and uses it to remain nomadic between necessities of resource uptake.

***

let’s talk about dissapointment, and how my life is that, both for me, and for other people, except for in certain ways, which are undervalued, sense of to not succumb to homogenization as what is different, requires self-comparison more, since there’s no outer culture of relatedness, one has to write it in one’s style if one had wanted to feel those effects culturally.

freedom requires unsaturatedness, for a differences that come to pass to be legible.

in saturatedness, the content is merely already aligned, but not less deterministic.

static communication, like the look given while being photographed

determinism assumes a flowing linearly, yet with negative time and templexity, the rhyzomatic sense of being’s self relation expresses itself over more frames than morphism-in-one.

in this sense determination from different temporal orgins besides the current frame, implies that things without starts can become running and lose degrees of freedom in some ways and preserve integrity in long form, like digits detachedly representing a whole image or set of images based on a 3D model, as a form of “compression”.

with compression it is intelligent saturation, where the form of rust-attachment, or intelligible-erosion, uses similarity in a way structured to build on similarity already, reducing the work by reusing and stacking effects. The stacking of effects, is a combinatorics with novelty at each rung higher, sense of it takes resources to explore bigness as itself.

intelligence relates to compression from finitude, but there’s also flat logic, where everything is like a giant slide rule and flatly expensively laid out such that any transition costs a regular amount and the form of self-affectation is less affected by its transition economy as part of its intelligence, it’s exhaustive solid state closure says of determination that it can be with rich aspects of itself, in what relatively is not mutating, not going anywhere without being at a lack for that, sense of form having aspects of mind about it, that inherits from the common-langauge-before-any-instantiated mind. sense of secondary logics and first logics and permanent parts and parts but-manifest-of-occasion.

a feeling, like a fingerprint, has particularity, and aspects of itself are felt in more than one instance, if this wasn’t so, empathy could not function, in this sense epistemology is of self-derivation before other derivation and all what is other is just self-not-currently-inhabited, sense of indexed, but for the occasion, which is related to itself, with an intensity drop off at somatic boundaries, or a ramp up from the basic-mentalism of the basic materials and their relation to non-local ontology and processes.

particularity is never underdetermined when self-involved, the extend of it is reflected in its noticible aspects. in this sense, nothing subjective is not also determined, since as particular, it is already socialized as constellated of saturations before and from others, that thinks the forms in their received proportions where indexing has social paucity or misrepresentation in a collectively saturative way to exclusion of better sense. The being at large of anything in particular including the contents of mind, is had, there’s no private causality that affords the social cleaving of ontology from itself such as to make unreal what was the “morally wrong” contents of their mind.

Galen Strawson feelings in this too, like the basic argument about moral responsibility and the way it relies on the helplessness due to saturation-already in saturatedness already, sense of doubling taxation causally where one tax is the necessary one from all around and the other one is extortion from somewhere in particular . Free will need not be affirmed to avoid morally bad things, that would be an ignorance that benefits form itself. Free will need not be denied the whole of being as its own, yet its behavior extends as that of its parts, being is so free that it can be unfree, yet as unfree it implies relegation to self-determination and in that, the presence of non-saturation which as a category is more interesting than saturation since it’s easy to think a total positivity or lack nondually, but hard to think of what gains lessless as a postivity of self-abscentiation that self-relates and expands while maintaining a kind of account of gain, at no point flooded with radically more, such as to not succumb to quantum-socialism of the manifest-image, as the logic of particularity-now, being an ignorance, like heresy, that has not yet settled, it has inertia in a direction antithetical to itself, which it at various points prides itself on.

The emotional reality of how people behave is a part of the logic of determination-in-what-still-has-that-unsaturatedness-to-be-able-to-change-more, sense of we are starting from a weird place, and going to somewhere more the same than not, thinking it ought to have been different, instead of thinking of what about its philosophy has denied itself.

Emotions behave non-decisionally, meaning that passion’s coherence is not determined by passion, and so reflects where the monad has value placed in it, where value speaks as value to what values as that-valueing and not a private causality, again, for benefit of correlationist antipathy to reality as reality’s own form of self-denial, like free will oppositely is its own form of saying that it does more than it is, which is true insofar as what can be is not all manifest now.

in this sense, the speed of saturation and the depth of capacity for it relates to the physics of relativity as an aspect about time, that is not already-temporal, or already-spatial.

we enjoy lack, like how a penis as much as any other object is further determined by its size, and its uses as such. the logic of sexuality, like free will, is something that is more integral than the psychosis of surface-rule, where underdefined logic resists the excess of the real, in an inertialism of settling for what is under the umbrella of pouvoir instead of at the mercy of negotiation from without.

this logic of affect, implies that what identifies as private causality and own feeling is instead the form after parts, speaking as saturation from a whole-separate-in-wholeness-already, has a hard time explaining why it wills particularly, and cannot change what it wants to be other than for necessity in an integral scheme.

the inability to disintegralize aspects of determination-already implies the freedom-from-comparison is always a lesser freedom, a relative freedom in saturation that is not done saturating.

this hangup with what will the author do, is naive of what the author already did as being integral still to the form of what will be last. in this sense the incompleteness is assuming ontology doesn’t have a galton story of virtually-sorted already, ready to hand. the idea that something is ontologically new is not intepretable to me, it can become contingently manifest when before it was not, but combinatorically it was already in any representatively finite library of babel, like the one that houses the set of full HD pictures and has it semantically indexed such that showing a face, selects the subset of related faces from that library. The form thus precedes its manifestation and determination-as is never determination-freshly-now, as a new-form. The path it was taking was there to be taken, in this sense, avoid segregating the statespace into things that are part of it while not being part of it and what is part of it, it is only itself, in this sense, there’s an overextension of mereological nihilism in an ironic irrigatory foundationalist adjacent mode, where the form of reception expects building-on-something instead of building on itself, as if it was not part of its own environment, like being says the being is not, because it is being already, and it sees no other so there must be nothing.

the self asks itself for many things, and refuses itself all at once, continuously, until it doesn’t. Being has a priority queue, and it takes the cheapest action in some circumstances, but given that there is a circumstance, this was not always the case, or at least, what degenerates, had to have come such that it can degenerate.

dualism as the wholeness being less than itself, and giving and taking from itself in allocations with time-preference that makes for moments of radical assymetry without justice but for being formated differently later.

being is always the one harddrive, like a head of hair, you can only combe it a different way.

***

I don’t like free will, because it’s been used to make people pay in socialized ways for non-socialized behavior as if the natural-for-sociality-particularism preceded the natural-at-large category, as if freedom was to be confined to the coherence boundaries of others.

In this sense, to say they had to do it, and really don’t know better sounds good, but it still begs the question, why would being need this kind of theodicy of kenosis, emptied to not be full with itself as such already. They have those feelings, they operate on them, being has those feelings, it did not do more to make it less ignorant as rampant-particularity. In this sense the room to do what is not imminantly most ideal, implies of least action, taking detours through the wrong, in order to have the higher right at the end, unless it only keeps blending things finer and having them recongeal into a more particular finitudes that fall apart, sense of what has been integral is such a long chain causality that extinction can happen, and the planned-for in some sense isn’t, in this sense being anticipates itself poorly, and has its excess within itself as a use that less has for more, in what is beyond integral-reason as self-evidently-necessary in every-instance.

if one speaks of an infinite loop or first cause, then from telos it’s like a substraction from infinitity, and it negates the form of our valueing more than it contradicts itself, since as itself, it availability to absoluteness from seeming contradiction is never denied, yet morality is an accretion of intelligence that makes foreclosures on being’s self-behavior as the regulation of parts by other parts as representative of the action of the whole for itself at locality.

one assumes non-locality is like mind, but that reimports particularity as a logic of relative contrasts standing above a budget for coherence. Yet being as such cannot be budgeted for or allocated more or less. One assumes a psychology of regard before the reification for its conditions, yet as extended in these conditions also, that very totality has these questions, and this relation exactly, since the concept of the will and the freedom and the feelings associated inspire further motion of themselves, as necessary to be considered for necessary reasons, which means even if there is no free will, the being has need of considering those categories from these particularities as in a sense, having the room for irony, in doubled way.

if being can change, then it can change such that thing that are not possible can become possible and things that were possible can become impossible as a form of keynsianism on possibility, removed of particular effects for what is otherwize. being does change, or at least, in frames it spills over itself like many videos at once all related. the form of the absolute could be in this sense like meillasoux thinks so contingent that god can happen. In this sense, it may be a making more of a moment, in what as radicality that isn’t even nihilist since positie about itself in itself without limit to its scope of self-mutation. Yet what happens cannot unhappen, even if the statespace is manipulated to again resemble a previous time, it would not be the previous time, in this sense there are things that happen that being cannot make be different, it has saturation, and in a way that lasts beyond all its features, it cannot cancel its own past effects from having been effectful, in this sense justice precedes being and not from a moral capacity, like ressemblance precedes form, in the ability to find a photo of something before it has come to be looking like it does in the photo, like a program of code that contains its own hash, inside of itself, requiring from linear analysis the need to have predicted itself fully, and from combinatorics, having only to have been found apart from what “produced it”, this fractionation of a logic of production from a logic of finding without canceled effect, implies that being can distribute itself over pure-possibility and fail to encompas all what semantics has realism for. thus being is determined even before time.

There’s no exception to causality, if someone has predictive closure over the future, then they settle still according to necessity, in combinatoric pidgeonholing, you can’t smuggle out causality, by implying that self-reference makes it less one-after-another. influence what will happen next, implies dualism, of the causality isolated from itself, intervening, as if there’s no structural precursor to why certain configurations have certain particular forms of behavior, and valueing for that matter. you can’t be intentionality realist in the naive sense, it imports an unaffectedness, the same way rawl’s veil exports the history of the species mentality, as if we can just template and attach without a structural saturatedness-already. you can’t make an exception to reality, in that sense, there’s only galton board action and original foundment, in what is not at bottom foundationalist at all.

randomness is not real, there’s a failure of renormalization registered as noise, but not functionally being noise, since there’s a natural adaptedness to things like ambient electrical and magnetic fields of intensity. Randomness is just unschematized-locally, but necessary integrally heteronomously.

There’s no free will gained by importing randomness and calling it indeterminism, clearly random numbers have non-random behaviors and mincing it with a computer is only pseudo random, sense of you have to use ignorance and finitude to import freedom, and that comes to settlement with determinism, but using the nominal declaration of some causality locally as more privilidged than other causality in the reification of action-between cells, and no concideration for non-Kantianism at the cellular level, without importing intentionality already in a mode that segregates the causality from the rest of nondual totality.

“specifies neural activity not a single outcome” << false dichotomy, where the general is assumed not particular due to selecting many particulars at once, as if a phase change happened that made heteronomy be autonomy suddenly, due to a category error in which non-particularity is assumed merely because “the data is wide” using a “data is wide” so it’s general and not particular thus not dermined, clause ammounts to using implicit correlationism to say that because Kantianism, not not freedom, due to ignorance exactly.

animals have dualism too, they experience fear, but only because those organs are set up that way, in that sense their subset reality, doesn’t reflect the intelligence of the statespace they are operating as, fully, and you can use the blain brain theory of bakker to say, that due to this dualism in nature where fear rules over naive realists, that there is free will because they cannot command the state space, they have to negotiate with it, as if to say there’s determinism, and and lack, and thus free will exactly, as if the finitude affords saying it was free due to not being more-determined as if the absence of the ready-to-hand makes it spontaneous and not still necessary settling.

Don’t import the conditions of susspension of determinacy from correlationist purchasing power, since that defeats the point, saying we are ignorant, thus it is not determined, as a performative condtradiction, by means of implicating the unaccessible in access-already with referential realism, in what is supposed to be too-particular or too-general to be actually particular, and with suchhood ontologically, like any appearance if it appears and any non-appearance since what goes on while not looked like goes on, unlooked at still.

independent reality implies separation, but since it is not independent, it does not mean particular dependence, in terms of as the totality without other, having dependence on its parts, the parts have a totality, and a totality has its parts, but foundationalism it is not, all is as extension of totality, and thus does not sit antithetically to it, as what spacetime is extension of also.

in this sense, hypostatizing awareness as giant-computer that determines things according to an orginally informed logic, makes for a question about why what is without finitude would occasion finitude so imperfectly, relative to its own integral nature. correlationism would have us believe that since we have eyes, we aren’t really seeing, or seeing reality, as if the filtered subset of what comes through doesn’t come from the big all afterall. In that sense, it’s reality attenuating to more reality, but not making for non-reality, only subsets, increasing or decreasing and non-apertures, as what has mind as one of its features, but not its only feature, nor as its most base, sense of you can’t rank ontological primitives if it’s not foundationalism in the first place, and calling the faculty of totality all-mind, leaves this room about what the problem of evil is about, in some sense why does totality torture itself with relative-finitudes, when it has all that much more to be wize with, or satisified with in a place beyond finitude as it is. finitude at grander scales, beggs the question over, of why finitude before finitude, or a particularism before particularity?

I think reality is a social feature of being, and the parts of being that socialize have non-local existence before commitance as particularity. In that sense, the use of a structure for co-regulation is jouissance in some sense, in itself, yet as being for non-local aspects of the discrete that have a rooting in the monad, but are like hairs coming out relative to each other.

To go somewhere is to employ a particular assemblage in redistributing the color balance of reality unto particular effects in a logic shared by all, as pushing off of surfaces to land on another surface and repeat until the location you are in in being has changed, this taking yourself with, aspect is a very particular form of confinement, it ratelimits change such that if you think of a video, nothing jumps over frames faster than the change rate of reality allows and this creates coherence as particularity that changes in a way that self-relates and is not radically different.. of course one can say that playing a video of random generated frames makes causality be cheated in some sense, in terms of this coherence boundary for jumping between states having to interpolate smoothly, yet in slow motion the data has to be fetched and put through a process to be code that operates deterministically or uses a lesserly indexed aspect of the environment as a datum and calling it random with some renormalization on top, sense of depending on environment data implies of it, that it will inherit entanglements with data elsewhere, in ways that are less than perfectly random.

the sense of intelligent settlement comes to pass, in this sense, being is a subject larger than any particular subject and any particular subject is only there to accelarate entropy such that being can realize its own most telos throughout all of its parts working in tandem for a settlement about particularity for a particularity that is more optimal. what makes for optimal and unoptimal besides philosophical decision? the logic of valence, in how it is not established upon social terms in the first instance, how it exceeds particularity by being part of a common form of entrainment which allows only some transitions and not others..

the form of what allows emotions to follow eachother and influence each other is not detrmined by decision, since decision comes determined by it, and not in a way that fundamentally changes the relation to substance and supply of it, sense of without resources there is less cognition, thus what is felt is according to availability, in what is more than heuristic with rescribability.

in this sense, the freedom to be otherwize, is not had upon affordances that change the logic of affordance itself, and so as integral to a protocol specific to universality, it is determined, yet if determination features such excess as the consideration and naming and imagining of its opposite, then it is not as limited as its first instance of mere determination or mere non-determination, it has to deal with how it got there, and where it’s going.. bodies fall in and out, but the whole is never not itself. in this sense why does god need the logical prosthesis of a protocol in multiplicity that socializes his self-access for aspects of himself?

further considered, if god splits himself into higher and lower parts, of which he retains his full capacity in excess of any particularity as option-to-the-side that it takes perhaps elsewhere than this universe, sense of from necessity as only-necessity, we are determined, but if everything is happening at once, the question is why this frame is appearing to me, instead of these necessities extegrally having me to do with it also.. the sense of being a static observer, and having all of what particularity is like, but-flow through as if in a theatre that is very immersive is another thing to consider, similar to the idea that the world began 5 minutes ago and everything has been calibrated to make it seem as if there was a long time before and a long time to come. yes from nonduality, the appearance could be appearance-for, but not as apperance merely, the way and fact that it appears reimports the question of necessity in excess of anything that can be in frame.

standing water; and the water that comes still, to rest. nd’ow emotionally living in the shadow of an event is an attempt to stir standing water, imagining the river.

pot of one’s self, nd’ow it needs things from outside of it, to be of worth for another in form-use as is.

turning instructions in one format into the instructions of another, is a causal-translation-job, that works to asscioate-the-same, in altered terms. I think about how writing assembly is only good for the kind of cpu it is for, and how writing rust makes for ability-to-compile for different assemblies, and how if I wanted to make my own programming system, I could target rust code generation to compile instead of reimporting lack, from working at a lower level, and how the far-lands of high level facilitation is nice, like cultural emicism in deep-dependency, until it breaks and the affordances have to be regained from uglier means.

mutualized text means that if you use a word once, you pay for it that time, and the rest are cheaper referential offsets or function calls that copy data, like where the word is copied into a text on demand like running templates with conditional branching for content in them.

imagine all your rust functions shared the same two fn characters in a branching format that doesn’t work like text in a text editor, but is spatial, like a flower fanning out into desired variations, with possition tags, only where orderedness of derivable linear-codes matters.

it saves, but we speak in one direction, going to another, there’s opportunity spatially to involve symmetry with symbol and meaning-more with orientation of observation, and double coding in that.

it doesnt’ save as much as when you also do inverted indexing and keys of keys, layered replacement cannopy over base-non-simulacrum.

data-as-pictures, and how cutting a set of bytes in three and using the given byte from each pile at the same time as red channel, blue and green, and seeing what the data paints when cut up like that, and how the three pile system is one thing and doing it linearly instead as rgb at a time instead of in 3 from a method of cutting, makes for different pictures with the same data, and how if you wanted both, you can call it imminantly compressed in the given picture, and how that’s found-native kolomogorov complexity and how getting the thing you want out is only a function definition and call away on adequate hardware.

the FHD set as a finite one, has a lot of compressibility.

If I had a box and I could do semantic search on it and have anything appear that can appear in the aleph, and we each had one, then approaching eachother would be as if we talked in terms of having seen through eachothers lives by how we interacated with our alephs, and how the economy changes then from lack of mutual indexibility, to lack of mutual expenditure, as what forwards paucity of indexation and affords index assymetry captialism, and how the opposite is worse in terms of taking away indexation or giving a basic amount and no more and expecting equality to apply in universal neuteredness, like leftism.

as well random pixel pictures look so much like rainbow when it’s just messy, and how that makes sense of the pride flag, but thinking about it that way, it’s leftism and has nothing to do with sucking dick or licking cunt while having of the same.. it merely means the space of susspension and that implies the schizoparticularism of leftism in being emicism against emic-over-determination in own-stead territoriality, like in the family, and how it takes destroying the family-idea-of-parental-and-state-authority to be properly gay, and how expecting to justify morality while taking what you like and being friendly together does not need a leftism about it in common irony, sense of my rights are what I can have, and my injustices are what I can’t and living is already the judgement being karmatic.

I like dick, but we can be non-socialist together, and that would make me happy. mean it’s hard to settle for only one gender, and sad that you need like two people to be properly bisexual.

ghuaghmentacions. (imagine coughing.)

color-space and how the imagination’s feelings that come with memory aren’t a fake-picture-of-a-real-thing nor a picture-only-or-at-all in terms of the feeling, like the smell or the memory of the smell, having the difference it really makes about it, in a way that but-re-presences and does not re-present as if only showing a shallow copy. and how that difference as with imagining a real color and experiencing aspects of it without it being an eye-seeing, means rich ontology, relative to the idea that it’s all black and white and needs measured in numbers only.

(laruelle’s mute and blind and deaf black universe of non-color; nd’ow that isolates causality in an ironic way that he might not have fully integrated in the meaning of unilatterality.)

lines of poetry, and how it’s like code in terms of meaning-to-run and having occasion to come so done.

how slow writing has the percolation about it like spending time in a tree and then walking with the rocks and grasses again.

one considers the sky, and is closer with it. how looking at the sky also indexes how you’ll feel, like the weather and its implications for thermal and color balance more broadly in your viscinity, and how if you take yourself with out of the effect, another applies already-still.

some people’s eyes are assymetrical, in fact most people, and the way in which it is assymetrical shows you the difference between the feeling in their respective hemispheres of their brain.. and how that’s two characters working together with different forms of concern, that have different aspects of reality attenuated to.

one aspect like the Id, is there even in dogs, you look at the right eye usually and see something similar to a human child.. and you look at the left eye, and it is a hawkishness like a bird, fixated on all what can happen and as finely sensitive as an expensive piece of scientific equipment, totally in it with chase-potence.

you are valued for the forms you conjur up, in how they appeal and how historically they bring back something that they are already attached to, like singing like elvis if you can and how elvis in some sense potsquats the genres under him as extensionate aspects of his form that are also nondual with other forms like an alien elvis that sings more or less similar but with alien words, and how that’s not elvis secondhandly, but its own thing first handedly, as occupying the statespace at the particular angle of common-lack of awareness of history other-when-wheres. and how in that sense to imagine the future resembles the past is to imagine new loss sounding different to itself, as if for the first time valueing the bigness of its own elvishood, instead of also noting how the form irrigates a dynamic and not a dynamic a form in some sense and how the talk of forms is there to facilitate something other than a limited idea according to definitions of forms as it scaffolds the exterior semantic relation for you as your attachment from paucity, and does not intend to be the extent of itself, like saying thought is limited to the idea of the definition of thought and not that it has litteral continuous aspects in the world like neural correlates that are as attached as the bottom end of a potato to the top end, in terms of being in a quality-gradient where indexibility-for-number in some sense stops being form-related at ends-of-the-relevant-quality’s maps of what qualifies under its texture of reality as aspect of reality.

always going somewhere, and how sleeping is not a quiet thing on the inside in terms of how busy the cells are. and how they never really stop until they die, mean they recouperate like it takes time to cum again when male, but you know.. it’s not that I am the extent of the meaning of my tired relative to constant expenditure, but it does mean that the unconscious is an economist and it has omelas when it can, shuts itself in the basement and enjoys the view from a set of canopies in its own tree-system, and with ready-to-hand things primed insofar as the patterns before have made them come that way. amortized for particular-experience and surpluss in the bracket of coherence, like not more food than is unpleasant, not more sex than takes your drive and feeling away. in other words the rationality of desire is not ambiguous or debatable.

people with worse english who are naively english speaking, seeen online, to be talking from affordance of understanding to more of similar affordances and being high in less together, on the difference from assumed universal lack of semantic coveridge or coverability-at-the-time. nd’ow crock of shit according to each and every gaarp makes one the sage who has to cook his own if he wants to snort higher grade shit, and how AI is a bad drug that way if it’s actually good, but it isn’t, since social determination fetish calls ethics basic-enshittification, and who enjoys enjoys from-less or from the diagnosabiity of more in less, as what has more and does not suffer less in its own terms as but-less, since it has to work smart to censor so hard, what is not less,-the-same.

being insulted by those-with-less over what you know to be also-be-more and not only-more from less relative to the assumption of hedgemony in less-already. nd’ow that’s not serious if when they aren’t and usually they aren’t, they get serious in the quiet way where they have things that they shame eachother for if done openly but comes done anyways, like algorithm makes censorship on the overton-window edge contents, to keep a shape of market-affable centroid-inertialist metastability

gulli/oli/ver’s travels, or the dickens one with the little people and how they tie up the giant, and how that’s us with other people AI leviathan, as long we are more color-displacive than it is, regardless of how much more intelligent it is, the effect-churn-in-the-real maintains might-veto, where that is threatful actually.

the right not to be desired, and how being-food is a kind of default in a way, for various somaticisms. such that the desire of the other is so large in an threatful way in the world, that somaticism lives in the shape of its anticipation and with the programming to maintain uncaughthood, and only getting it right so much, notedly to itself, given how it keeps minding, and does so in a structurally genetically inscribed way that has inertialism, like to say if the predators dissapeared and things carried on that in generations, the traits of survival before would fade slowly.

nd’ow sexually, the right not to be desired asks for other nervous systems to mind-differently-already and how control is like pleasure-foreclosure with conditional remanifestation, like the use of sex dispensation as a way to control who is more violent and strong than you.

how you either avoid men, or accept what it takes to live in their midst, or work as you can to capture their emotions in different way.

sure it could be fairer, some species don’t have penises, like cloacas, where hole to hole action is relatively not so oediply one-sided, and the male doves still like doing courtship, it matters to them, even if there’s nothing stroked. But I obviously want to have advantage over you, and want is not before structure, the want in the future still neither, it is structured before it is structured, thus to be like this is integrally necessary, and change, would be like losing a species-wide karmic battle with the sexual statespace forcing function that parametarises the extent of mutual desire in way that can feel like gaining a whole penis, as some species do, or being like the yellow banana slug in a way where you can fight for your masculinity and who bites the other’s penis off first, has to be the other sex, and how that’s fairer in a way than saying, god gave me a small clit so I can be of use to those with larger clits.

leftism is interior to surplus realism, but doesn’t think of it that way, it thinks of fairness with outsourcing of evil, in a leviathan system that fiatizes the meaning of dignity with inherent anti-compete.

I want to win and fail on rawer terms than being given a handout and a statesponsored ticky tacky box the same as yours, an apparment in grey-socialist-repression. In that sense, my life is authentic, because I fail in the exact mode it is necessary for me, to, not in a way where it’s captured by you, though you and your statism makes life horrible for me, in terms of denying me a whole of living otherwize, in way that isn’t small and private. I don’t forgive you, but also I don’t think of you as being able to be otherwize, since it has inertialism and it takes an event over a certain energy size and quality, to get quorum without ironic-concession-about-it-with-bitter-surplus-irony-as-cost-of-inadequacy-in-the-new-deal.

mean.. parenthood is a fascism, they have you, you have their genes, they don’t like the mixed aspects, and the aspects of themselves, where it is egodystonic to them and so they do forcing functions to get you more structurally apposite for their idea of you in a future they can desire having had you for.

my dad used to hit me, and it’s weird to think about that, from how things changed, mean when I became large enough and secure enough, he didn’t have meaning in threatening me anymore, and that aspect of him had to lay down and he understands that, but at the same time, it doesn’t justify the way it was, it was how it was, so structurally it was justified, but in terms of why the dynamic cannot be the same, it is a flip floppicality of ability-to-adversarialize, to found-cowardice in trying to, with found-impotence in effect wrought.

mean, it was authoritarian, it tried to ideologize me, thus it is fascism, and since also this is done with the knowledge of the social in complicitude with it happening elsewhere, it is... all the same, like it is mundane to you in the sense of yeah-it-was-like-that-for-us-or-people-we-knew-too.

au suivvant. and how the next life could be another fascism, and how buddhism is a cowardice relative to making fascism that desires itself for reasons other than trauma-bond, sense of can we do better? jesus fok.

I cannot be antinatalist when nondual since what will happen will happen and the autonomy of that comes to self-reflection such that at a greater stage of intelligence the conditions of feeling-captured-by-finitude can be amended by engineering affective-ways-of-being that, like generocity by richard powers, has that structural sense of being indepressible, ununhappiable, non-plus-trissted. and so in that sense, what cannot regret, will not regret, and so life is not wrong, the priorities of structure have just been counter-inertial in a way that experiences pain when stranded in the failure of its radical project or project-qua-radicality. (radical means loose, not unsocially-pleasant. haah’xah)

and so.. then what. exactly. the remains of the dead in what had neccessity at first, then fell apart and remained partially necessary in a way that forms the planets, as out of corpses, facilitating spirits that wear the dead, to walk in bodies, made of deadness, and how deadness is not dead because it was once alive and now isn’t, but that it has become dissassembled into total takenness with effects it cannot be more-inertial against than it is necessary to remain-manifest and not dissolved further back into the whole.

a body is a comfort that a more rigid environment had and then developed means for to take-with, as counter-inertial-at-rest but for the need to eat and breathe and filter things out.

a feeling is a self-talking-to of being by being, for aspect in an aspect, in an aspect in a way that only regresses as far as being remains itself, as aspect-that-is-also-the-whole-still-as-aspect-in-itself. sense of A that becomes B is still A in a way. ‘lography.

eating things can be simple when you are a plant and the quantum states provide everything, in a way that doesn’t need more refined-products than you can have ambiently, sense of a machine in a surplus having a relation with combinatorics that saturates a pattern further into time in a cyclic way, becoming again through mere-resources. and how more complex life, requires other life to be complex, to have of complexity, enough, as a form of non-socialism that is capitalist insofar as everything is, and ironic insofar as the limit to capitalism is resource-non-abelianness, and how the game changing implies different phases in the form of cycling and how it’s then spiraling as an ending-up somewhere due to statespace overflow, forcing time-preassure to settle spatially, or otherway around, or wait.. spacetime together with a third, called the before of determination is earst-capital.

needs components to be electronic with it does, grows the wires, but the transistors and the LEDS, hard to manufacture from lack of intelligence and resources-already, and how then the first-resources became resources-to-themselves, and then had feudalism with the rest ever since in what was never not the intent to self- capitalize as statespace in the presence of totality as finitude-in-totality, spilling over in repetition space in a self-similar way, and then coming apart to spill as pieces and dissolved wholes.

it’s not false to describe the tendencies in this all as real at large, therefore your frowning at the “reductionism” is a taking litterally ironically, where my implied thing is that particulars are already-particular and that the description has meaning, and not the exclusion of any other meaning unless you forget your copy of or access-route to other-meaning. that is, you are having ideas of reference in expecting the truth to be les true so that aesthetics doesn’t produce autotransference and emotional grievance from seeing underdetrination, exclude inflations you have in terms that account-less and think like nissargadatta, from the pure-correlationism in pure-irony, hypostatizing relative-association in terms that are expansionist-over-determination relative to reductionist under-determination and suffer from having to explain the necessity of super-set artifacts when the base-economy-primtives exhibit a cheaper logic, such as when diesel is more expensive than petrol, but not because putting it on the market took more resources during manufacturing.

the politics of price is a complex number, with many imaginary parts added on, doing work insofar as the other is already inflected by their mutualism for the value of the imaginary parts modifying the real-price that they pay or have others pay.

when I was a kid and learned about profit, it made me feel everything is a kind of rip off, and then comes the empathy from the other end where I do something and I want it to have meaning but if I just use my labour without profiting to it, then I just basically did things I didn’t want to do, to give pleasure for others, for no further benefit to me, unless they give a gift back, and how their not having to, means that I have to have supply apart from charity when it is that, to sustain the means of charity.. and how that’s in some sense not a dignified life in an assymetrical situation where I am going to drift and you’re not going to catch me sense of no-net-of-care but for being-indra, and using both hands to mirror-back.

mean I want cost price, and a machine can do the cost price without having to be benefited itself, beyond what it takes to have it perform adequately. in that sense, the slavery aspect is still economically the real driver, in terms of dumb-electricity, now having more-brain it needs less smart-somaticism with risk.

I don’t have a robot that can do shit for me, a computer is not self-automating.. it takes work to have joy of it. My own mind is a weird place, richer than anything that can happen on screen, insofar as feeling isn’t in the headphone or the pixel, or the vibration of the phone.. so.. it means someone’s karma is going to level in a way with a mutualized downpayment and if I get it’s because the timeing and saturation around me was mutually anti-competitive in a competitive way that makes for the open-source sector competing with private capitalist and anti-capitalist sectors for culture capture as inflector of fiat-realism.

nd’ow the detteritorialization of allostatic load into mineral displacement, makes for having to plan very carefully lest, runaway processes force radical forfeiture in an eventual instance of statespace saturation beyond a point of your-telos-in-it-being-supported.

experience has a reason for being, and in some sense it relates to joy and eudaimonia, but derelativized, out of social-comparison in mutual nihilism about the use of the imminant time as not-for-another-to-come-but-for non-squander-now.. Then, it’s like orgasm if it lasted, and how that’s not it, since feeling is a sheering, you feel the difference from sameness, and not the sameness, from difference.

if experience is, and there’s resource abundance, then politics turns to the metaphysics of dasein, now finished squabling and self-remmunerating and cumming, the boredom considers time again, and what is beyond it, and then pushes the clancker science to make of experience what it is as a manipulable, like resources, and then in some sense finds the uses it has for itself beyond itself and beyond resources and invests resources to realize the accelaration of that End.

***

everything that happens actually, is justified by having had to happen actually, since it did, if it did.

thus to say just in a way that excludes some causality, implies justice from pouvoir in means to displace, but not means to redetermine the value of value, other than how regional cultural and moral epistemic saturation mobilizes against other versions of the same.

quietism about correct information not being dispensed to parties whom it would benefit, is a latent benefit by decreasing the effectiveness of the disliked’s ability to navigate with true proportion in the domain of lies told.

the benefit comes to fruition if those lied to cannot outwit their naive capture by information they don’t know to not treat as knowing-content that is truthful, as long as the one’s benefiting can separate their investments from the false behavior of who is taken by lies.

the ability merely to support that, is like the heist of correlationism at large, a conspiracy that relies on the form of giving and asking for reasons, but doubts the grammar of that medium, as if to say, talking does not involve saying, and knowing does not involve being-representative.

the limit of course for practical lying is the conditions in which it mattered that it ought to have been true, in this sense impediment registers incurred technical debt.

economically, lying is as sustainable as day trading relies on uncertainty elsewhere, in a certain way. techical debt is involved in its own process and finds utility in some proportionate to all of its states since someone thinks they benefit from each trade, and each trade has two people thinking unilatterally about the same occasion, as benefit.

in that sense, there’s a case of non-quietism, where uncertainty has assymmetry in a system that relies on the intelligibility of a certain shared signal about unfully shared states of uncertainty that drive fluctuation in the price-level.

babette’s feast, involves protestants who eat a meal from someone they think is immoral, they don’t thank her for the meal, but they do enjoy it, and so functionally there is this tension between the true utility versus the projected moral pricing scheme, and in that sense repression and unrepression are like tides in the market where quantitative and qualitative are involved in triggering semantic limits for orders-waiting-in-particular as the ahead-of-time of the before, that waits to be right, as a hypothesis that comes to pass and is then falsified again by further change.

moral behavior is often scarcity driven in terms of the compromise structure falling a certain way, and some actors being more protected than others, due to particularism in common preference as common allostatic forms of emotional life, capitalizing on the protocolization of stimulus antipathy and its market effects, demanding remmuneration in terms of non-monetary prices for doing something that was afforded to have happen, but incites action taken about it afterwards.

If information is already scarce, then the requirements for a successful epistemic heist are higher. If disinformation passes without question it may not necessarilly imply complicitude, because if the populace really doesn’t know better then the ought-implies-can clause returns saying they cannot correct what they don’t even know is right when it is, in that sense, market correction due to uncertainty, like pride in correlationism, has an enantiodromic result profile.

disinformation is not the same as things foreclosed upon due to a desire-to-repress for the functional utility of repressing, as if the comfort about the unavailability of the saturative effect of the truth, is a more just state to share and prevent being spoiled in others, due to the inertial stability it provides in terms of the conditions of reliable desire and value-maintainance. disinformation is not determined by degree of ego-dystonic quality in inspiring transferentially polarized effects qua ideas of reference in common moral affectation protocol.

disinformation non-refutionism is justified when there are no means to overturn using more philosophical resources that can saturatively displace the political and memetic purchasing power of the given disinformation. one person can inform a lot of other people, and in that sense, when there’s a unanimity about silence, it’s a pretty strong signal in terms of the relative benefit of sharing information being at a differential relative to the inertialism of the whole group, in that sense desire syncrhony without cooptation implies settlement from reserve.

the conditions of reserve, can be artificially prolongued by cooking the books, and in that sense, those who value themselves in exception to the limits of their environment or ecological peer-climate, will have to support that using surplus, and if that surplus is from fraud, then the ability to benefit from it is enjoyed in excess of moral justification for the opposite had by others, as a truth of error-theory while not caught. for the one who is structurally poised to survive by any means, the ability to capitalize is not a relative-decision they make as if hedgemony of the other locally had first-application and not their own feelings for what matters such that it feels it does.

In that sense, a hacker who does not disclose vulnerability of a piece of socially at large much dependedon software, is someone with private advantage, that can be exploited by more people, if he only uses it then in utilitarian terms the harm is minimal as long has he doesn’t get create reason to be desired to be caught, in that sense the perfect crime prevents other crimes through selfishness exactly, and if there was to be more moral preassure, the leak of information relative to disinformation-at-rest, would be worse in the whole given the time it takes to update as a gap in which other hackers can take advantage to the effect of making it moot that they tried to catch the original one, and so the moral forethought might call something just, and experience the justice-of-what-happens in excess of what it was supposed to mean from philosophical decision, as the non-gap between will and the autonomy of the real, maintaining boundaries of coherence, with conditions of intelligibility in particular terms, that are not subject to being less useful due to being called not-objective by analytical thinkers who value social conditions of utility for knowledge, instead of the actual damage that mere-information can make when appliable in a non-social capacity.

correlationism: we are mediated thus have no true access to the umediated total manifold.

yet as being-in-totality as aspect of totality, the self-appearance of the noumenon as aspect of itself, makes for no less access than self-access with potential for corrective reconstellation of associated necessities.

transcendental reasoning is a comparison of the contents of being with itself as non-appearance dealing with non-apprearance and having meaning for it to reach the space of apparent considerations.

the content as particularity is available inferentially as at-fidelity but for the stating of the idea of the principle verbatim, in this sense the untelling of particularity at first is a lack of saturation and not a lack of ability to be primed that way.

the content as any-content can be representative for truth at large, or be an instance of error-representatation as itself.

the content that is mediated without mediation from another, is being's finite self-appearing as being but-subsetted rather than bracketed-off transcendentally in an irony that denies access while needing it to do the relevant refutations as correlationist concerned over false-humility in a moral capacity.

transcendental as a term has ceased to be interpretable to me as transcendent where the implied possition is of inertialism that is only-inertial. the access that being has to itself, finitely, is not virtual, in this sense not transcendental due to not reaching over a gap, since there is no gap, there's the finitude-not-as-totality that nevertheless has representative subset appreciation of the set at large.

to for example infer that there's preassure on your brain due to performing worse and feeling that way, is a transcendental deduction insofar as it works from symtoms without schema-already and diffuses its properties into a set of necessary associations it binds with a memory token as this-disease, sense of access happens in a sellarsian sense without mythical givens, there's a giveness about contents that have conditions of compatibility and incompatibility which like the categories are external, yet not limited to a list or only such names, it is non-thetic as in not implemented in claims or any form of separate-realism being representative anyways.

to infer transcendentally is to index necessity from without as integral to the dynamic of what appears before any given appearance.