technically decoders don’t exist, there’s just chiral and non-chiral encoders, abelian rings, & dentritic branchings that either cycle back or branch-merely
unwanted intimacy is what someone socialized calls information they encounter that was supposed to be socially censored and not known about by others in this way of being-offending, for moral, sentimental reasons, local to the someone-socialized
non-extimacy is what I call the free speech I enjoy with everything hanging out and being as it is, without being missattributed from norms others have, since as its own thing, it is not a form to be suppressed from without, since ontological, as integral to being and to the saturated occasion as well the ability to be that-form again elsewhere in ressemblance with the same meaning as that-meaning, like the insult commited to page is still a mere-description with abilities-to-mean however pointedly-still. that is, I won't have my text and sayership and meaningability revoked nominally by who but-delogisticizes its ability-to-be-read on ground I cannot reterritorialize again, like when it's a content-form-level ban that filters things out by means of comparing embedding similarities for a certain profile of what they want to reject since it matches what they rejected aleady.
non-extimacy, means non-false-inclusion, in hedgemony-elsewhere, where the spatial boundary, as the text itself being proof of error theory insofar as morality elsewhere has nothing to do with its not-being-there while there.
removing all copies of a text, does not uncommit it to being in a library of babel again, if a finite and complete one is done, such as for example the set of all possible A4 pages with things on it besides blank-page, as a finite set, which contains all pages I wrote, and that others wrote as the same page in a different lifetime, like we use the same sentences without it being co-related. that is the ontology of being able to be right or wrong when so, is structurally afforded in the not-meaning-more-to-itself as symbol-qua-overdetermined aspect by another, who uses the associated overdetermination contents, associations and semantics to recover, from step for step analysis, a whole of meaning between the parts, besides their token definitions in a list separatelty.
the definition of more-than-one-tokening is not the same as a list of separate definitions for each tokening, in that sense the combinatorics of meaning is a non-number aspect that works like number does, but with a non-heirarchical aspect in how association is ungaurded from not-implying-more or not-constellating factors like an algebra problem.
speaking with fidelity about matters, is particular. further attachments are socialized interaction with the mereness of the semantics commited to form, in mutually ledgible terms. but that it wants censored is not, the determination-of-the-whole in all of its parts insofar as some parts in particular have want of foreclosure on the offending content in the world. it requires effectuation of censorship to remove the ability to have read for those who haven't read it, where as those who have read, can manifest a subset, the original verbatim, or more than the original of the ability to re-understand the text that was censored, in this sense censorship without the removal of memory, is not fully the difference of eliding the effect of semantic saturation, they have to monitor everyone's communications and its meaningful-implications latently, to ensure that no understanding of the text-censored can transmit further, this can also be aided with the removal of those who read the original text with attentiveness enough to retell what it was about unto the reproduction of the textual effects as if another had also read it, as the Same, through different words. Implying that the tendency is to be stamped out, rather than but its representations that can be rehydrated unto its effects.
all texts can have meaning attached, insofar as there's a decoder for that, but as decoder-code-written qua text, the means to decode text can also be a text, if you already have a computer that can run the text-code qua decoder-ontology implemented as the noumenal difference the code implies to make, for the right encoder. in this sense, both the encoder and the decoder, and the encoded and the decoded aspects of ontology, are at large with potential to be transmuted into similarity-preserving morphisms of difference to eachother, as the relation between non-relations with an entropic profile in common.
let's say you have a set of texts, written in different alphabets, and vocabularies of morphemes. all of the texts are translations of eachother, and each is an original insofar as no other text in the set looks like it or means how it means, tho it means like it means, exactly. in this set, there's a common entropic-underlier, as the identity of the meaning of the set as an implicit common element, this common-element is to do with the distribution of particular-signification over a morpheme-chain surface area. identifying how the structure of distribution works, implies being able to trace the functions of different morphemes in different texts, through the latent-similarities between them. in this sense, there's litteral non-hidden information since there's only texts there, which would be there in the library of babel if generated by a machine, so it's not inherently linked to production.. but as-there, without producedness, the occasion of saying-still is to be had, for what the meta-sortal of effect-implied means.. what's the idea? that there's a universal meta-grammar, that is enabled by combinatoric-pidgeon holing of aspects in-frame as excluding various other things, such as how there's a pauli conservation principle in tokenings which do not overdetermine eachother in the same text, it implies the repetitions of words don't change the function of the N-word-using repetition-cluster.
N means quantized for the amount that N means to quantize.
I don't need to convince you, I hate your shutting down from limitation exactly, as hypostatizing underdetermination prematurely. A bone then: vec2vec embedding transfer, as recovering entropy over a differently-mapped gap between two encodings, as a renormalization that preserves the latent-similarity between different encodings, thus providing for a functional platonism in which the isomorphy-of-elements-between-whole-disaparate-sets can be isolated into a representative form of entropy-encoding. The-entropy for entropy.
what am I getting at? that no-talk is a decision-away from not meaning, since stated limitation is already over-determination for-another who-can. your can-not, does not imply ought-not for who-can. therefore, saying somethings are real and others are not, while there is something dealt with, is an immature appeal to repress the for-you-unschematizable in realist-terms (deepr).
semantic purchasing power is not limited by aesthetics for the purchaser who values the ability-to-mean over the quality of coming to mean as meaning-for-another also.
intimacy as being-close to you and enjoying your effects in a way that is but-close is not all that is associated with intimacy, seeing as we call sexuality-between-two instances of being-intimate. as the limit at which the social becomes the for-two-between/in-eachother-in/as-One.
mere-forms implying many sortals about itself, through grammatical surpluss determinacy, as the use of mutualization-implicitly saying more than once in the same saying, (saying-)differently-the-same.
as-many, not again-at-the-same-time, but at-once-at-once instead, where once first time means temporal and second time spatial, as the distribution in time and space the same, at once.
found-Intimacy for the moralist-offended-by-it, is the invasion-by-another of what was nominally thought to be private, since it (actually) wasn't (actually) [the grammatical either or that settles for the semantic-correction as occluding half, and which is two meanings and not at once, as non-error at once, and non errors considered separately]. In that sense, offense by boundary-crossing, is the (moral) reference-ideas the socialized use against the nondual non-relatively radical error-theorist merely-existing without fealty to the behavioral profile better prefered by moralist-particularists.
people may accuse you of sounding smart as if you weren’t actually
they mean to keep you in check because they feel offput by not having power over being semantically determined by another’s voice’s meaningful content
do not fall for being misattributed, since their idea of reference is hedgemony, and you can simply inform them that you are not governed by their morality
non-virtually from text to the substance of plate-memory: imagine this picture generated for this occasion: faces smooshed together in a jar as emotions to give others like cards
virtualizing the conditions of non-virtuality non-virtually is not a performative condtradiction
expecting something from something is either a stance informed by what is going to happen or not, as in the case where violence does not inspire compliance
moral compliance on the whole is unreasonable for reasons to do with the non-binding-terms of moral foreclosure.
if you have joy of something, and it is only so much, and you expected more, then it is a case of being hurt by having had unreasonable expecatations
in this sense when life does not provide joy, the expectation of not being a pessimist-for-the-particular is unreasonable, such as when it is the case that a disease is too far gone for anything but hospice style care.
the self-naturalism of the real is an intimate ontology-with-experience-also to succumb to as Your Own
when non-grammar is used grammatically, the effect is naturally of increasing the dynamism of what-means with forms that already-imply in a way that metarationality of another can attach to
the intimacy of the to-be-understood is the formic-self-availability of meaning as a non-numerical algebra, filling the cracks in itself
* How it works *
A: “Because why?”
C: “It’s Just.”
A: “Why?”
C: “No, it’s just.”
Just either means given without ritual, or given besides ritual, the difference is a saturative one, where process individuates availability to other-process.
Able-to-employ semanticism is a dark-pragmatism relative to knowing-what’s-going-on-type-codings where abstraction is only a thin wrapper. found-Prolixeity.
intimacy to another as if from self is a form of non-extimacy where the ability to be as if to self, is akin to someone with a memory problem rediscovering their own writing, and learning from themselves what all they are about, in this sense, the self-disclosure of being, in any description that is descriptive, is a semantic-selfie, and what you say to another in the same style as their diary and with their meanings for things, can just as well be taken up as one of their own thoughts.. imagine slipping notes into some one's diary without them noticing and calling it a benefit because it adds to them in a positive way they already identify with in the form-compatibility of things, like reason is a glue for forms-compatible to work together in particular ways already, as a use in convincing someone of the medium further through the medium
what does non- mean? it's an inclusion of the content of a determination without being its culmination of effect, as saying X without Xness, or Xness without X, a unilatteral duality.. so saying non-Extimacy, means something like the intimacy without intimacy as the way you are available to others and for others, deliberately or not, without it being a closeness that is the desired one, it's the inimacy had untimately, so to say
fondling the balls of your oppressor, as gate-keeper to meaning more, and how if you squeeze, he does bad things to you, like make you even less vissible to those who use socialized philosophical decision qua moral foreclosure to avoid having to encounter causes of dissonance
and how each time you do encounter, I fondle your integrity, like you mean to make me less-ontological by voiding my effects of their intended causal reach
then again language that did not communicate for someone could not communicate the meaning for them. in that sense, the fact that another can, is the skill-encryption without ecryptedness of content, as requiring the grammar to be able to mean-with, as something acquired in reading less-worse examples that showcase how the grammar relates to things that are understandable as a demonstration for metarational capture, as well the intuited-non-proportionate use of the same-differently elsewhere, as giving away a class-of-grammatical-particularisms through one-particularism as being an example of the slot it is in, providing means to imagine rotating in the same criteria with different terms
the intimacy of the non-present is an affordance that dasein with metarationality has, in intuiting the encoder instead of merely the decoded content