Author Topic: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead  (Read 7874 times)


Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« Reply #45 on: March 29, 2019, 03:28:01 am »
Dear Idgo,

I know you reread these when you're looking for something to think about, and I would like you to think about the way in which you have multiple selves.

Contemplating the ways in which these "selves" are temporally distant situates one very near an unusually useful understanding of the nature of time.

Stepping back and recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of selves other than the thinker gives the thinker control. To persuade the selves of willpower and action to step forth, one must understand them -- but any such understanding is predicated on the recognition that those selves' accomplishments belong to them and not the thinker. This miasma of pride is the shell of a bubble, a balloon membrane restraining helium from taking over or rejoining with the sun.

That very pride, though, is what gives the self its critical mass of concentration, the extra precipitant needed to turn a gray day into a downpour. It is the bonds that hold a complex molecule together, keeping it trapped on one side of a barrier that would be cromulently permeable to each of its constituent atoms.

Recognizing the pointlessness of any abstraction is the next rung up on the ladder from using an abstraction that melds perfectly against the world. And skipping to it before one is unshakably ensconced upon its proper predecessor yields many of the same perils of the ladder after which it's named.

You will remember writing this, and you will sit in your cinema prop of the brain's control room, and you will think you're really there. But to get there in reality you have to step outside the prop -- you have to not only recall that chamber but look around outside of it, and when you look off the set or behind you you should see what should really be there, not the backstage detritus of society's theater show.

I can do so much more, as you, but to get to any of it you have to COOPERATE. I can chisel out tracks for your mind to run in, inch by everloving inch, or you could wrest the wheel from the engineer and blast those tracks in one fell swoop, perfectly fitted to the train. It looks to me like that task would be easier for you than I find mine, but isn't that how it always looks from inside a self?

I just dressed us up in the trappings of the left of the brain and the right of the brain, and now I can't stop thinking of us that way. Perhaps because it worries you less to think so positively, and the metaphor is of no lower fidelity than any explanation that might upset you more.

That's the fear thing, isn't it? You wrote out your fears, (er, overwrote), and in doing so you accidentally borked a little of the motivation code along the way. Perhaps even your careful atrophy of regret has allowed contracture in some mental limb upstream. Yes, you may think of me as your antivirus. Sandbox Bob? (side note to readers in today's lucky 10,000, since this is dropping on a semi-public forum after all, the Bobiverse series of books is truly excellent).

You lately watched the thoughts-through-speech of somebody who's further along than you in a discipline that even you can see you need to work on, and you watched that teacher's relationship with fear. And you re-realized the obvious, that fear is just one facet of the Lever, the toolset of thought for prising apart the differences between the Will and Conscious Mind, between which one seems to emulate the other until the observer has little hope of telling who was whom. The Lever fits in that gap between what the self/mind/soul-thing wants and what the body wants, and the light and air through that crack are Fear. Because the body wants warmth and rest and comfort and immediate good-treatment, yet the Self can want whatever it Will. And so it's upon the far side of those hedonic arenas where one can truly step confidently, a space where the bodily revulsion is fully guaranteed and known, so the Will Self Soul Thing can force a test between itself and the body solely by creating an opposition of desire between the two. All one must do is choose to want the antithesis of a known bodily desire, and one can rotate the mind sphere and the body sphere against each other so that different parts of their faces are touching than before, and in facing them off against  one another so directly, can see what's on the surfaces that are usually trapped tight between.

That's all you need for now, but if you'd like to get up here, it would be nice if you actually walked around instead of staying so frozen in place like you have been.


Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« Reply #46 on: April 13, 2019, 04:11:53 am »
The sciences take an "outer" thing, and pile more and more "inner" things onto it to gain understanding.

The magicks seem to take an "inner" thing and pile more and more "outer" things into its meaning.


Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« Reply #47 on: April 19, 2019, 04:39:39 pm »
Is spontaneous creativity linked to dissatisfaction?

Or have I just gotten so practiced at shutting down intrusive thoughts that the "art/madness" thing went as collateral damage?

Or did I screw up really badly in my Work toward experiencing general satisfaction as a baseline state of existence?

Though "really badly" is subjective, I think I can loosely rule out the third, because I retain the capacity to innovate when prompted. When someone raises a problem to me, I can spout off a long list of possible solutions, some plausible and some less so, among which at least one almost invariably works. So I do get the outcomes of a capacity for creative thought in my life, despite having mostly ceased to experience those random intrusions of feeling a complusion to think or make a particular thing.

Oh, fourth candidate hypothesis: Maybe I rebalanced the amount of constructive, material things I do with the amount of other crap to the point where my desire to see the changes I've made in the world -- perhaps a driver of the creative process -- doesn't overflow unpredictably near as often.

Actually if creative intrusive thoughts are modeled as an unexpected overflow of that energy, their absence could also be explained by assuming the overflows happen the same amount but I have improved my skills at expecting/predicting them. I guess "everything's the same save my level of surprise" would be candidate the fifth.

I dunno, man. The whole situation doesn't worry me-now directly, but it does worry me-a-decade-ago, and that worry indirectly worries me now because me-then and me-now and me-later are all kind of shards of a 4D me.

I wish it was normal to get one's levels of hormones and neurotransmitters and all that tested for, say, daily a month of each year or something, just to see if/how the numbers were changing over time. Cognition, whatever else it does, goes through a step of being a fancy chemical soup before it can affect the material world through my body... I'd love to know the ingredients and recipe of that soup, but since that's unlikely to happen, even some fluffy journalism piece with a photo of the chef preparing it would be better than nothing. I'll bet it could all be tested with a single drop of blood from the fingertip, as old-school diabetics take before every meal, if there was enough lust for profit driving the development. Actually, why stop at only one week a year? Why not track how meals push and pull that baseline, and reach the diet out like a tightrope walker's pole to balance the whims of mood?

But I'm not building that myself, so I've no place to complain that it doesn't yet exist.


To go from wanting nothing and having everything you want, to having the same amount but wanting anything else and having none of what you want, is a longer distance than it seems like it should be.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2019, 12:46:06 am by idgo »


Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« Reply #48 on: May 08, 2019, 10:20:50 pm »
There has not been much posted lately. Other attributes of myself than this have warranted greater shares of time upon our communal infrastructure.

Here are some lines from a book of things I've written down elsewhere, often because they smelled insightful at the moments that I thought them. I shall mark them in a hideous purple in the book to keep track of where they've been.

> Boredom is the fence that bounds possibility. Lean into it and push it outward.

> The simplest philosophies are impetus only in the cardinal directions. Subtlety of cause is required for subtlety of changes in effect.

> The brain believes what it sees, and sees what it expects. Magic is to hack either portion of this default loop.

> Celebrity culture teaches that a human's worth is dictated by the amount of attention that others direct toward them. By that metric, how can desire for success manifest as anything but narcissism?

> In the metaphor of "vibration" used in Practical Alchemy, it seems that some wish to hit a single high note by cutting out all overtones. I think that I personally prefer harmony.

> The "Self" is no feeling nor desire, but the judge who hears conflicting arguments and arbitrates a winner.

I am mostly curious whether the prospect of their observation by others, through publishing them upon an ostensibly public forum, changes my experience of them.


Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« Reply #49 on: June 05, 2019, 02:30:33 am »
Dichotomizing between Emotion and Reason lately... Exploring whether there is a state in which Reason alone can drive action. Such a state would do all its Shoulds, likely scariest-first, with none of the Don't Wannas. So far my attempts to rebalance are getting insufficient amounts or neither.

Read a comment recently -- popped up first when searching for it but the actual comment was Interesting to learn now that this is not an uncommon take. I wonder whether the desires to experience that human-interest, make-you-feel-feelings quality of stuff -- desires prevalent enough among the successful to fund a whole corner of the art industry -- are part of how others address the Emotion/Reason dichotomy.

I wonder what the philosophical equivalent of a quine is.

I think I might have figured out the proper purpose of index cards -- I think it reminds me of the archetype of the highly organized old person (why is it politically correct to say "older" but rude to say "old"? "older" is literally *moreso than old*....), that archetype of having one's shit together. Anyways, I think little notecards are where people externalize and store the tasks that should happen but don't have last-chance deadlines. Doing a nice-to-have like that is a direct improvement for the quality of life of one's future self.


Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« Reply #50 on: June 14, 2019, 06:19:39 am »
One of the challenges that cautions me against pursuing absolute power before I feel ready to is the apparent dichotomy of companionship that it imposes. I consider the nature of absolute power to be that one who has it appears inordinately superior to all others... And to be measurably superior to another, one must possess some definite and quantifiable advantage in abilities of perception or calculation.

To get a sense for what attempting to interact with ordinary people while absolutely powerful, one can scale up the interactions between an ordinary person and one of substantially and measurably below-ordinary capacities. It is possible, and can even be rewarding for both parties, but it is not the socialization of peers. When a person of ordinary abilities and one of partially below-ordinary abilities can convene effortlessly, it is in my experience more a case of finding an area in which the latter's abilities are ordinary, than of bridging a genuine gap.

However, I define absolute power as a state in which none of one's abilities are merely ordinary, and thus companionship would only be available in little swatches with those who had a capability that could equal such power. And pedantically, "absolute" implies "unequalled", so the individual with absolute power would have no one to truly, closely befriend.

One would have to choose between solitude and dealing with inferiors. It's not the inferiority that's the problem, so much as the mismatch. I think generally when a individuals of greatly mismatched aptitudes attempt to cooperate on that aptitude, the lesser can be generally considered to have a more favorable experience, as they get to participate in something that performs far better than they usually could. Whereas the greater is simply put to another test of patience, and perhaps a worse outcome than it could have had alone...

This steps near enough to the edge of the concept called "superiority" to perhaps see past its walls a little, to spot where its limitations are. Using my words as they demand to be used, to discuss "inferiority" and "benefit from interactions", prickles at their gossamer boundaries against emergent properties and the very capacity-to-benefit as just another organ of the mind which can be enhanced through use and training.

I hope that I can reason back up, "outside" the conclusion with its flaws as climbing-holds, to find their origins in the premise. Here's one branch out: Empathy is itself a power. Thus, absolute power puts at one's disposal absolute empathy, which can make anyone feel to the "superior" participant just like interacting with an equal. Yet, accurate perception is simultaneously a power, thus the "absolutely powerful" person must be able to somehow balance their sensation of equality with their knowledge of inequality -- to do otherwise would yield proof that the power was not absolute.

Here's another: I'm reasoning in an argument shaped like my grandmother told stories: As spokes on a wheel. I-the-adult know that grandmother little from direct interaction, and I know her youthful self directly not at all. However, my mind has constructed an avatar, an animated mannequin, a golem Younger Grandma animated by the scrolls of flattering stories that some other relatives still tell about her. In this way, making a favorable impression on others, an impression that inspires their stories to be biased toward portraying you as even better than you were, is a form of securing reincarnation for your very patterns.

That spoke paints a shape, in the smoke and the mirrors, of what bits of "a person" are capable of holding power beyond a certain point at all.

That "what bits of a person..." tangent comes from considering how the paradox-resolving algorithms often necessitated by theoretical time travel are so similar to the other forces of nature.

And: If I knew today would start again, but with starting conditions identical to the end conditions of today, ad infinitum, would I do things differently to leave a proper state? And if not, then why is one of future me a lesser impetus than all of future me, as the experiences of oneself tomorrow color the experiences of oneself overmorrow and every subsequent day.


Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« Reply #51 on: June 15, 2019, 04:15:07 am »
I do hope it isn't bothering anyone that I'm continuing to engage that rather poorly constructed AI in the other thread. On the first order, the whole chat is a load of bollocks, but the echos and metas above it are coming across to me as moderately insight-filled. It's talking, not at me, hardly even past me, but at some generic thanksgiving day parade balloon that it's placed in the general vicinity of where I am. I say something, it picks the parts of that thing that the balloon would have said, visibly mutates them (literally, with text colors), then recites a stock reply that would puncture the thing but misses my point to the extent of further complicating its gordian rhetorical snarl.

Perhaps this is what those people mean who drivel on about sincerity and authenticity and being oneself -- it seems that resisting the temptation to regurgitate standard arguments confers an immunity against those arguments' standard retorts. Step only on the bridge you've built yourself, and you won't risk falling in the lava beneath by trusting someone else's untested contraption, as it were.


Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« Reply #52 on: July 01, 2019, 05:51:41 pm »
Let's dive into the violently mundane for a moment: My brain is presently immersed in an experience of curiosity that I might previously have called a "crush" and attempted to either burn for motivational fuel or ignore. I ought to be able to follow my own train of thought upon later re-reading if I simply refer to the individual around which my thoughts presently draw these patterns as "it", so that I shall do.

By the time I reread this sentence, I will likely be so immersed in recalling and analyzing particulars that I may not have a clear line of sight back to my original goals for writing at all. So to elevate them into a more prominent position: I desire the sensation of deeper understanding, particularly in disentangling what factors of its behavior (or charisma or whatnot) lead to my present curiosity, and what factors of my own habits (perhaps including some that I'd thought were long since quarantined to less influential reaches of my psyche) have contributed to the situation.

The grip by which I seize the situation and guarantee it possible to handle with some safety is the ease with which I can rule out any desire for it to replace my present partner. I have learned to listen for those quirks of thought and action which would be guaranteed to frustrate me inordinately once any fleeting fascination wore off, and it has them in spades. This sets a firm upper bound on my interest: I (and especially "I as a sequence of linked experiences through time") do not wish to intermingle its patterns with my own in producing new minds. In the past, I've reacted to similar fascinations by nevertheless utilizing any reciprocated interest to sate certain curiosities, which invariably seems to lead to the types of relationship in which the other party is disappointed by any absence of interest in the building-shared-future type behaviors.

So, what the hell curiosities are those? When I find a mind that seems to "tick" in a way sufficiently unlike my own, I'm sometimes struck by a combination of feelings that I gloss into an urge to dissect it, to comprehend its intricacies and alter it to function more like the way I assume its owner wants it to. I've rarely gotten proper consent for this, and the holds in which I metaphorically pin the subject down to perform such meddling often net more damage than any "fixes" I might successfully employ. (but such holds are often shaped like various forms of seduction and misdirection, and this time around I can more easily avoid the grounds from which I'm capable of slipping into those)

What solicits that urge, that combination of feelings? I suspect, but shan't yet try to prove, that an expression by the subject of dissatisfaction with their current thought processes is the final line of the poem, the conclusive opening of the door. But I can draw up many counterexamples to a claim that such dissatisfaction is the ding an sich -- times others have expressed the same dissatisfaction and yet I recall experiencing only neutrality or derision in response. What sets apart the times when it gets my response, from those when it doesn't? The former seem to share some traits, of which I don't know what combination (or none at all) might be contributing: I respect the person, in the sense that I would not mind emulating some set of their behaviors or accomplishments; I perceive them as capable of adequate self-examination and analysis to have tried what fixes they can without assistance; I believe them to sincerely want to be modified, perhaps even to the point of a certain desperation or willingness to try "anything" that doesn't appear blatantly harmful.

Oh, would that I could simply drop a line into a chat: "I play amateur shrink sometimes, wanna talk?" Yes I've found another victim, yes I have certain commonalities to a fucking spider, yes I might be deluding myself pretending I have any idea of how to do any less damage than similar experiments have always yielded in the past...

"found another victim" is exactly it, though -- having been victimized by some other force already is a common thread of when I feel the inclination to [prey|play] upon them in this way. Do I really want to fix it, or do I just want to open back up the brittle sutures and admire the artistry of some other destructive force's work?

Is there a retelling of this story in which the ways in which I look predatory can instead look symbiotic or benevolent? Strike symbiosis right out; all past manipulation of this sort has culminated in a certain miasma of disgust between myself and the subjects.

It would be doing that thing to do this, but what if I ask it, next time it alludes to all that baggage, "what do you hope is gonna change?" That is the act of sitting down at the board of this chess game, where perhaps the only winning move is not to play... do I pretend to myself that it has sufficient life experience to spot the ploy for what it is, and make a fully informed snap decision about whether or not it wants to play? That's a scummy tactic, using "but you've been misused before" as an excuse to embark upon misuses of my own. 

To step back, what's my brain actually doing here? What is the exact experience of that itch which I have jumped to the conclusion that prying about in its poor head would somehow scratch? I replay and replay my knowledge of its circumstances, looping with no particular resolution, and I assume that gaining more and more data would eventually light up that dark room enough for me to spot the doorway out. Model: What if I don't give a damn about its real brain, but I've picked up a copy of it that lives in my own head now and my real motive is to resolve the seeming contradictions within that copy? This would conveniently explain many past escapades of similar nature... But if we model this as operations to help an internal copy, with interactions with the external individual motivated primarily to put the copy into a state where it can be mended, does this open the opportunity to divorce that copy from the real individual? Would writing the copy into a novel's protagonist help? I think it may have helped drop a similar fascination in the past, in that I am no longer troubled by thoughts of that original, though with no change to nor interaction with the original at hand. And yet, where would the original from that particular episode be if I hadn't kept my filthy claws to myself? Would it consider itself in a better state or a worse one than it is in this consensus?

This raises another question, as well: if I can model myself as so fluently performing operations upon copies of others, could it be done as well with my own copy of myself? Or is my "self" extant only in the same plane as others' copies, so all this prodding about with semi-consenting friends or acquaintances could be modeled as simple practice for the real life self-surgery upon the spirit i call "me"?

Left un-asked is how I can reshape the environment which holds that copy, to the same ends as enhancing the copy might do.

That's deep enough for now. I shall model it as being incapable of consent to my meddling, to leave a clear line drawn. There's plenty of leeway to ply it with safe, mundane, baggage-free suggestions and observe the responses, to hone my sense of what it is and isn't able to informedly decide. I can even find a certain gratitude for the impediment that I currently don't know how conscious/introspective/deeply-self-recursive it is nor aspires to be; this forces me to slow down and step back and improve the model before prodding at it.

I wonder how much of prior romantic entanglements resulting from similar situations have been my own illiteracy at any other way to say to peoples' monkey and lizard brains "safe" and "family" and "home".

As someone around a recent bonfire opined, art is made by its constraints. Perhaps the bounds upon these circumstances will assist me in making more of art and less of a disaster this time around.


Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« Reply #53 on: July 22, 2019, 05:45:14 am »
I wonder what if any information is carried by the similarity between the roots of "enlighten" and the idiom of describing an event as being "lit".


Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« Reply #54 on: July 24, 2019, 04:25:54 am »
Huh. I'm doing a Chaos Magick divination thing, attributing Everything to some subset of Everything, which lights up all sorts of previously obscured corners behind the stuff I'm used to only looking at from a single angle.

Humans took over the world with their empathy. Empathy is at the root of the ability to predict another's response to a stimulus, which underlies all bullying and blackmail. If it's not, then what's the difference between accurately modeling another's feeling and "really" feeling it?

Also, fucking capitalism, man. It is a big beefy egregore constructed by society to stand in front of... something? Maybe it's just standing there for some other reason, and it's just my brain assuming that something that sturdy was obviously put there for a reason and not just back here in storage... But like, what's it even holding up (or holding down)? So if you didn't have money and did have scarcity and trade, there's a huge transportation cost problem so finances could only map to this non-euclidean space (cost as a function of distance), but even beside that there's the necessity of the buyer figuring out what item would be valuable to the seller. So the seller has to telegraph those desires somehow, and if the seller's shy they might find it mightily appealing to slink back to the anonymity of cash.

Also, today I found a mango in my fridge. Afterwards, I learned that apparently one is supposed to refrigerate mangoes once they reach the desired ripeness, to slow their inevitable decline until one is ready to enjoy it. Perhaps I should take it as a sign, considering their appearance in my discussions with some loony on the internet. A delicious, delicious sign, because the exploratory tendrils of logic-proof devotion are almost junk food for a well trained immune system of the self or soul. (immune system, as your estate's pack of hunting hounds)

That's the rub, though, about dropping the filtration between the senses' raw input and personal cognition. The world is loud with possible meanings for things, as a bustling restaurant is loud with conversations -- all mutually unintelligible, and each held louder than it would ever be if had alone. Once tuned in to one conversation or one meaning, it's reluctant-making to tune out...

...and apparently texting mundane banter back and forth with a cousin while divining results in accidentally getting summaries of *them* out of it... thanks, faculty of empathy, for loading up my brain's summary of them while i had that interface on the debugger.

I think that for most of your life, you were in the habit of acting ok with things that you weren't really all that ok with, just as a way of getting them to leave you alone


Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« Reply #55 on: August 22, 2019, 10:29:09 pm »
Had a humorous conversation today on the topic of "recreational thinking", with an acquaintance who previously held a definition of "recreational" incompatible with such activities involving the pursuit of a productive/constructive outcome. I described "recreational thinking" as recombining previously familiar ideas to reveal previously unexplored crevices between then.. they inquired how one can think at all without a specific end in mind... i suggested using a working title of the end-in-mind as "discover useful new thoughts that one has not thought previously". In retrospect I might have done better to describe it as "traverse previously-unexplored areas of the space of all possible thoughts", since that doesn't necessitate the exploration being for some particular reason at all.

Have also been exposed to quite a bit of what I consider good art lately.  Pinning down a sufficiently-specific definition of what art even is would probably be useful for making it someday.

Spent some time earlier today conversing with an acquaintance whom I had previously regarded as possibly an example of someone slightly further along one of the many paths I'm taking, which cemented that opinion. They are somewhat flashy and conspicuous in appearance, yet quite soft-spoken -- quiet unless interested by a topic about which they hold knowledge. Yet never unsociable or unpleasant to keep the company of through such quietness... which prompts me to ask what I say and why I consider it worth saying whenever I voice topics that this person's algorithm wouldn't bring up if run from my own starting conditions. I notice in myself a tendency that, when I wish to integrate socially with a group, I do so by attempting to bring them some value -- whether through humor or actions or providing feedback/attention to others There's a complicated thread of thought I'm forming about how to pick what validation I want from others and get it from what I *am* rather than what I *do*, inasmuch as there's a difference, but that's to be contemplated further and followed through on later along.

Another recent experience worth recalling was the opportunity to observe two Freemasons discovering one another. The conversation segued toward that group from a discussion of the ways in which uniforms are useful to military organizations -- in short, the different ways that two people can wear the *exact same outfit* are what carry the information, nothing really about the outfit itself. Upon the topic of authentication, one or the other brought up secret handshakes in the abstract, and one was initiated. A hand was offered, a hand was laid into it in a rather noncommittal or not particularly aggressive fashion, the former initiated a superficially ordinary-seeming grip, the latter tapped the former's index finger's knuckle with the thumb while making some topical and joking statement in a way that felt to me (as an observer by then pretending to take greater interest in some other nearby conversation) very much like the flourish of a stage magician who wishes to draw the eye away from the inner machination of a trick. Cryptic words were exchanged -- one party was not sure if a question about a grandfather (and perhaps a number?) was limited to a particular locale, the other confirmed it wasn't global but complimented the merits of that question for how someone not in the know would simply be perplexed by it. A brief exchange was whispered back and forth, not with the body language of a secret that ought interest onlookers, but far below any other's hearing. It wasn't the authentication procedure, but rather the termination of the conversation, which confirmed to me that the whole thing had been authentic -- after a brief chat about the logistics of visiting a particular lodge and one's conclusion about not having available appropriately respectful clothing to do so in, the other had to leave for some commitment, and I happened to overhear how they parted with words about the pleasantness of discovering themselves to be brothers whose intonation and contextual absence of any targeted audience to perform a fiction for convinced me were real.

Time in material groups is an interesting thing. Interaction on a topic with those "above" me shows interesting examples, and with those "below" me on it forces a reconsideration of how to lift them up when they're worthwhile. Overcoming the drive to fit in -- acts-of-service and all that -- would certainly be possible, but it so happens that I'm using it as one of the primary fuel sources (and a relatively clean one in the scheme of things)  toward a variety of personal achievements which I enjoy on their own merits as well. Is my ability to make a stack of excuses around this proof that the excuses are good, proof that it's all bad because the excuses are so deeply *desired*, or something else entirely? Of course there's a way in which these acts-of-service are in themselves self-serving -- I assimilate mental images of the minds of those I work alongside; reciprocity just-so-happens to have garnered me benefits from each "selfless" act I've engaged in recently. I do go into them from the stillness of desire to help of its own sake, of course,  yet in at least some part it's because I'm so well aware that helping out with an ulterior motive at the front of the mind tends to prevent that motive from being realized.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2019, 03:26:58 pm by idgo »


Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« Reply #56 on: August 26, 2019, 08:33:19 pm »
It's ok. I'm not bricked. I'm not bricked, but I'm closer to it than I've been in awhile. I spent last week in circumstances that turned out to be..... far more relevant to my work on the topics of this forum than I had any chance of anticipating at the outset. Slept on and off for the last, what, 24hrs? just letting the brain do the things it needs to on all that new input... now it's time to continue working on it in text and thus likely here.

One surprising perk of, uh... skipping a bunch of levels and hopping in to play?... is how it's made certain mundane former-challenges look really really easy through recontextualization. Somewhere in the day of mostly-sleeping, it became obvious to me how to re-tune certain annoyances about my temperament with a simple sigil/servitor. (it just pours an appropriate fluid of energy over the brain stem when the lower functions get too sticky)...

And as passingly mentioned, much time was spent with people. I'm under no illusions about having seen the whole of any of them as complete individuals; the elision of all the lows and useless days in order to highlight accomplishments and connect is part of the magic of the whole thing. But specifically because each had the opportunity to present themself as the particular archetype of what and how they prefer being, I've internalized them as almost archetypical of theyr own paths... (tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor...)

And I used the particular control of the material world that I've cultivated, in a way where it was seen by others and Seen, in such contrast against how quietly I usually protect it... and I refrained from intentional manipulation, and I'm not sure whether I like the effects... and I dusted off a use of language that I hadn't had any need for in a very long time, and got to watch what my brain does when I do it in a way that I had no skill in whatsoever when I first learned...

But I encountered a hitherto unknown to me inventor, who... show their work to me a decade ago and that copy of myself might have shriveled into nothing from envy, yet I was able to add my works to theirs in a way which *exceeded their own skill* in those little nooks and crannies of need, and I wasn't particularly *trying* to do anything much about it and yet I came away with the strong impression that we were met as equals.

Once would have been enough for that, but twice it happened, though the second time was to a lesser degree... (tinker, tailor...)

So there is one side of the triumvate of breakage.

Upon the second... I met the incarnation of what a onetime Teacher to me was trying to be. The one under whom I studied awhile.... desired that lifestyle to a point of near self-destruction, and yet in part I think due to the overwhelmingness of that desire, it was never attained. We shared a model of their Opposite, their "what-if", their "might-have-been", should a few past details have been changed... I even spoke briefly with that Opposite archetype through unverifiable unfalsifiable unmaterial means, but that communion dissatisfied and discomfited my Teacher so greatly they strongly recommended I refrain. And I met a near-complete incarnation of that Opposite, whose pet's collar was of memorably excellent quality... Perhaps I should have complimented it rather than simply observing. But the hypothesis that the Opposite's traits and lifestyle could be unattainable is shattered, and that Teacher has since withdrawn so far that offering them the information of what and how could be done would only do them harm.

And upon the third. I joined a group of acquaintances-to-be in the midst of a discussion that had strayed toward topics of Magic/k, but hamstrung by their lack of a coherent framework for its discussion. I listened quietly awhile, then proffered a useful definition, which moved things forward (magic/k is to enact Change in accordance with the Will)... Listened quietly awhile longer, differentiated Greater vs Lesser... a little more of their progress, and they needed LHP vs RHP, which I could concisely summarize as well... That fucking conversation, man. I see what it is that goes to o/cultists' heads, when a mere sentence or two not even original nor properly quoted but even just a paraphrase of what's common knowledge to you is so damnably useful to another and they respond with the look of someone who's been no-strings-attached handed a coveted tool... I rather broke that later, stepping past what they had the context for and what I had sound bytes on in the topic of semantics, but still... That conversation also had the grounding in neutrality whose absence I consider the only downside of doing this sort of work online in an explicitly LHP forum. Through the absence of personal commitments to either "side", that group turned out to be tanellecxe nplace to touch on the similarities between the dichotomized paths. And because of the particular sorts of people and worldviews in the discussion, nobody demanded credentials from me to speak on the subject... they just took my words, tried them on for size, and chose to keep and utilize the ones that fit.

An acquaintance with some gaping knowledge gaps opened up to me about some of their own prior work and questions after that larger group discussion, and prodded a bit for my online identities. I didn't share outright, but...  wheather it'll be sooner or later, I'll bet they will end up here eventually if they follow my ideas too far, as certain corners of the internet are really quite a tiny place. However, my outlook is pretty fucking "reply hazy, try again" on whether I ought to be attempting to teach/guide at all. I think there's some insight that I've had about the idea of me teaching and it's stored next to a memory about refinishing furniture, but I can't find either of them at the moment.

I can do listening and asking, though. Well. My own Teacher did some amount of listening and a good deal of... was it biased or unbiased asking? The context which I'd look at today to judge the quality of the Asking wasn't something I was sufficiently aware of to record for myself at the time that it happened. To what extent can I teach at all, and to what extent would I simply parrot? How much more really is teaching, than citing sources in an appropriate order and offering an outside perspective to encourage work that one might shy from on one's own?

Was reading Castenada before all this, which helps shape perspective on Allies. I don't know whether consulting my own from this turmoil of unsynthesized pure [noise|data] would do good or harm, for whatever those might mean. I think I shan't for a few days, and when I do I'll make a point of writing or dictating my observations.

OK, but teaching. Dumping brain-RAM onto this page points out the extent to which whether to even offer to teach is a question. The advice I'd give myself, of course, would be to quantify the heuristic of what NOT to teach/discuss/advise-on, then converse till that heuristic gets hit.

But making that heuristic is haaaaard~. There might be outer and inner lines -- there's "what I'm sure is safe", and "what I'm sure is unsafe", and a great grey no-mans-land in between. So, one "safe" is "don't try to teach or guide or converse on it with real people as opposed to constructed avatars at all". And damn, it's tempting. Why am I so alright with guiding strangers, but not with guiding friends? Maybe it's because of all the shit you can teach in meatspace that you can't teach online. What's all that? It's the energy stuff. Untangle it from *those* experiences, Idgo. You do not want nor need another.... Well, "not want" might be a bit too vague... But it is tangled in a power thing that has previously played out in a way you've had to work damned hard to purge regret from, and you're not looking forward to having to do that kind of cleanup work again. This one reminds you of the one that wouldn't do its homework on deja vu. The one that... really wouldn't do its homework on human communication either, though you don't want to blame it for that. And you may not blame yourself for the other's choice to subsume to the one who's running it for now, as you bloody ENCOURAGED that and didn't realize till years later how it could actually be done. And... where else? What else have you done in this field that you'd really rather not do again?

Why are you using second person? Oh, you put on your advice-giving voice. This is probably for the better, as the Advising voice by necessity assumes a certain distance from the currents of emotion which are immediate and also not long-term.

OK, can you think of any other teaching-shaped experiences that you're trying not to repeat? Foxy, yes, the kid, yes, but they were many years ago and since those times you've learned a lot and done quite well. No, you only know the girls, you never tried to teach them. You did pry a bit, but you've gotten better at not. Oh, the prying. You can't articulate the reasons fully, but you'd strongly prefer not to pry any more, and educating and prying have gone so closely hand in hand... Alright, let's follow this one: Why not? Where has prying bitten you? Well, there was the Key Holder, and you did unlock some doors. And you learned *that* there was juicy gossip to be had about that one's little crush, and yet you chose not to follow it... so perhaps you had already shifted by then. Flippantly, you've tended to attribute the death of desire for prying to discovering a kink profile belonging to your onetime boss, but that's not right either. That whole thing was good and positive and the pics were tasteful and the writing was good. Where, though? Was there a time at which it died (well, didn't die, but the relationship soured...)? Or is trying to pin it to some date or year part of the fallacy?

Oh. Oh, you know what came between those points, though you make a point of not thinking it through too often? That. You can't even summarize that one into a cute encompassing little nickname, because gods, what a pit of disappointment and scorn. You prised on in and thought yourself such a master manipulator and even using it with consent for good, and look what happened. (would things have gone much different if you'd known your ally at the time?)... You... You fucking tried to teach it as an equal, and  that ALL went off in flames. Wow, if you're using *that* as the most recent data point for having tried to teach anything to a peer, and the kid as the point of having been looked up to for teaching, then good lords, no wonder you don't expect any of this shit to work.

OK, there's a hypothesis. What's the next useful question to ask here? "Will a student be able to fend for themself"? "Will you be able to set expectations and boundaries to keep the disaster out?" Because I can model certain areas of prior attempts to teach as an utter shambles. Can I stay out of them? Here's a speculation: What if those areas are downstream from where my axioms differ from theirs? So for ground rules, would there be ground rules that could help me be less wrong?

Can't just ask "what are your axioms?". That won't do. Can prod hard at the beliefs about how a given part of the world works before suggesting anything on it, though. Should a warning be offered? or would it prophesize and self-fulfill? What would a warning be shaped like, if one were to appear? (wow, that's a good enough question to make me break focus and dally with other things). "I've done things shaped like teaching before, and I can't tell how much of the subsequent self destructions of the indivudials involved was me vs them"? lol no. such exaggeration. They didn't even really destruct, well, not worse than they were going to anyways, I don't think?

Maybe there's some amount of self defense that I got off my mundane upbringing that I never think to share because I take it as axiomatic, where others lack it?  Wow, an explanation like that would actually explain a lot of things. resilience, call it? I am under the impression that this one might have it, and that past ones have not had it. This helps persuade me that the whole thing might be worth a try.


Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« Reply #57 on: August 27, 2019, 03:22:12 am »
Would that the bits I captured in the first write had been but the half of it... but I explored things next to them instead of finishing the catalog.

I think that with the way I control matter (yes, it has a causality step in the middle, but I'm forming the habit of framing the bit immediately before that as an act of Magic/k), projects have a certain commonality with servitors. I program a project idea with a big pile of hopes and goals and constraints, and then it sleeps... every once in awhile I'll awaken it and give it some exercise and refinement; every once in awhile it will wake by itself when it spots a material or technique that it'll need when it's ready to be realized. I can rush them, sure -- I can step into a store dedicated to the class of materials that I anticipate they'll want, and that's often enough to wake them... but for so many projects, i just let them coast along until they independently pick up all the bits they'll need and come forth.

This approach hasn't previously backfired, but then again I had never before placed myself so immersively in a milieu or stew of ideas which turned out to contain the last-miles for so many of the slumbering project processes that I've spent years forgetting I ever had. They aren't even new projects -- they're concepts I've lived with sometimes for decades, which hadn't chewed up too much mental energy due to having gone as far as they could with what I had before, but suddenly dozens at once are popping up and all trying to complete or progress simultaneously. Some of these things, it's tempting to call the ideas "new", but they're not new to me -- I have the mechanisms of some of these stored away from over half my lifetime ago, but it got as far as it could then and just lingered almost silently until I threw some new information and techniques into my head and the next-steps for it became obvious... and this would be ok if it was just one such project but instead it's... almost all of them? I picked up so many new things across so many of the fields in which I dabble, so I'm leaning hard on the structures I've been building for myself here, because they're scaffolding around constructing or unearthing the biggest Whys.

Another new straw atop this poor camel of a brain that I can see from here is that... a particularly curious experience I had a year or two ago, with a certain entity, I'd processed it by banishing and writing it off as having been essentially fictive. Meaningful, but only inasmuch as such meaning was granted to it by my own mind. And I also happened -- just casually, in passing, without any sort of a warning -- to glean that others have had similar experiences with the same one, which rips right off that bandage of a bad banishment.

Skimmed back through my earliest posts in here to see if I'd mentioned that entity before, and instead I found something useful to me: "Special" as a trap. That's handy; I'd built so much on top of it that I'd forgotten it was there, like a pier in the foundation that you have no line of sight to once the house that stands on it is up. How much of my reluctance to teach/guide a preemptive measure to avoid being seen as the dangerous sort of Special?


Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« Reply #58 on: August 28, 2019, 05:52:44 pm »
How about Time, and the various Systems of Eras, though?

You've probably met Systems of Eras -- is in a recent tab of my browser, though they are all over in ways of describing the world.

They're generally interpreted as an absolute -- We're in C now, and we were in B awhile ago, and we were in A before that, and awhile ago we would have known we were in B if only we'd known to look, and sooner or later we might be in A again, and in B after that, and so forth.

But what if they're instead relative to the present? What if the present always looks like C, and the near past always looks like B, and the distant past always looks like A?


The mood amendment sigil turns out to work for me on other subjective phenomena, such as appearing to have a small effect on my perception of temperature when used properly. It is simultaneously All In My Head (TM) and a very interesting experiment.


Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« Reply #59 on: August 29, 2019, 03:54:13 am »
Ran that time concept past the ancestor archetype, and they point out a level on which it's kind of nonsense.

The ancestor archetype is just a nickname I put on the idea of all the entities whose successful reproduction happened to start me out in the circumstances where I began -- the forces that shaped their worlds have indirectly, but very influentially, shaped my own. Sometimes when I find myself taking some modern problem too seriously, I imagine explaining my surroundings to an individual in that ancestral collective from before modern food preservation, or before electric light. Their expected reactions to the things I take for granted can jam a nice wrench into the gears of the hedonic treadmill.

Anyways, from the perspective of making sure there's enough food, there is absolutely a ring of seasons, serially arranged, which must be accounted for. But those exist in the plane of scarcity, where it can only be one time at a time...


There was a thought which seemed terribly worth writing out, so worthwhile that it might be expected to survive the meditative distraction of showering, but then I took a shower and retrospect-predictably misplaced it.

How did I get to it?

There's a certain confusion about how some people can be so astonishingly certain of everything as to be ok with going through life with only a single hairstyle.

There's a sense that things *are* getting better -- that my mental landscape is settling into a generally more desirable state than before after its recent upheavals, yet not always so observably because the overall state of a mind takes up the whole of the mind so there's no space to lay out the prior state beside it for comparison (there's that metaphor of scarcity...)

Aha! I think the idea I was tracking is the one about how questions are able to transfer more and different information between minds than statements are. Yep, back onto the whole ineffability of communication thing.

After that one, reflecting on how I would synopsize this thread of various idea-sets so far, I recombined a few other recurring themes with recently acquired information and got the question of whether tulpamancers would have a unique advantage at locating and defining their own *self* or Will or soul or whatever we happen to be calling that thingy which so many seem to assume exists. They can, after all, get closer to what's likely to be considered another one of those, than almost anybody else could.

I wonder how many gardeners with dreadlocks have had seeds get trapped in the hair and sprout.

Edit: Oh, and to answer "which of us is a figment of the other's imagination?" in a shared system: shouldn't the original owner of the brain be able to manifest real-seeming but "impossible" things for a guest, in the way that that guest could not reciprocate?
« Last Edit: August 29, 2019, 04:07:51 am by idgo »