The Philosophy of Dankness: Mapping the Ineffable

It is not only a comfort to understand myself; it is a comforting thing, that I understand everything. Like the liturgy bit. By the way, the ancients didn’t hide knowledge just to hide it. They did it for a multitude of reasons, as I write here:

… / To store things, not in passive memory as
dead knowledge, but as a living system,- in active, artistic, creative memory, as a living
force: this is one practical goal of the generative-image. The Sephirot, too, act as
conceptual filing systems for implanting the Talmud in the memory as a creative, living,
active force, instead of a dead system. This application is shared by all “generative-images”,
most explicitly with the Hermeticists, and it allows them to act as diagrammatic
maps of active forces- libidinal flows as alchemical, transformative processes able to be
guided and controlled within active-memory and unconscious imagination; maps of the
unconscious, like the maze of the Hekataic strophalos. All such diagrams are self-recursive
zairja, reflecting the infinite creative potential of unconscious forces as libidinal flows.
[b]These unconscious creative forces cannot be rendered in direct language, because if they
are-- they cease to be unconscious creative forces. They become route knowledge, and
dead. That is the importance of the ars memoria and why there are multiple levels of
symbolic meaning encoded in different mythic images …

… and why the ancient mysteries, like those conducted around Eleusis, proceeded in stages
of unveiling: the idea is to unfold the meaning encoded thereby, in such a way as to
preserve the integrity, vital strength, and psychological power of these forces at the level
of the conscious mind. [/b]/

youtube.com/watch?v=j0Z9kiiNmSQ

I get that. A long time ago when I joined the site there was a poster who, much like you, was very erudite, and communicated in dense blocks of text, usually very difficult to unpack. We had a similar conversation. :smiley: His intent, like yours, was to elicit replies from higher-quality thinkers, and discourage the lumpen proles. I just pointed out that at some point, there being so many lumpen proles afterall, you eventually have to find a way to engage them, or admit failure. :smiley:

It’s a trap too. You’re basically doing this somewhere in your head.

  1. I am super smart.
  2. What the smart understand, few others do.
  3. Therefore, when I demonstrate my smartness via some means of public media, there should be an inverse correlation between the number of people who understand me, and the smartness demonstrated therewith.
  4. Ergo, the fewer people understand me, the smarter I must be.

The question is always “who are you trying to convince”…? And why of course, always why.

You’ve gotta see however, parallels here with the wannabe coolkids who wear t-shirts from obscure indy-bands no-one’s heard of and say when asked about them “yeah, you wouldn’t like them…”

We’re all just flexing down the gym. Your reply to Peter was the intellectual equivalent of “Do you even lift bruh…?”

I must admit to some degree of deception in my last post. In my defence, my motives are altruistic. https://talktotransformer.com/ is a very clever turing-bot. I pasted random excerpts from your post and pasted it’s algorithmic replies verbatim into mine.

It’s good, isn’t it…? To come across as relevant enough to comment back to, which means on some level you accepted some parity of intellect… With a bot. No biggie, I’d have fallen for it too. But it does demonstrate that what you are doing, isn’t so much an attempt to really communicate ideas, but more a reflexive algorithmic gambit. Swallow book of esoteric vocabulary, shake, regurgitate.

Takes less brains than you’d think. :smiley:

The lumpen proles rule the world. If you can’t engage them, raise them, then it’s just vanity. Which only makes you a prole of a different colour. You’re better than that, aren’t you…?

“I meant that the value of a food item in general, during a time of scarcity, was fought over by developing hominids, and language was used to negotiate (in psychoanalytic terms, to deflate) this mimetic aura, (mimesis, in semiotics, psych. and generative anthropology, refers to the reproduction of something through symbolic systems) which then began to replicate itself through the very faculty that evolved to temper and contain it- language. At that point, we began to reify the mimetic inflation in concepts like honor, or the presence of a given deity.”

Bwahaha holy fuck.

Oh for god’s sake pedro, he just said that when food and territory became scarce in the late ice age, humans developed more complex speech and rituals to engender trust between out-group members and share food. With big words. Stop being a fanboy.

this question about the language we use, in both
our day to day life and in these “hallowed” philosophical
sites is a question that has never particular interest me…

I am not a language guy, which is why the 20th century philosophies
don’t appeal to me, I fall asleep reading Wittgenstein…
but to be fair, I also fall asleep reading Kant and Hegel, so there is that…

on this question of language, are you using language to engage others,
to inform others or are you using language as Parodites and Fixed Cross is
using it as a means to hide or to be disingenuous and/or deceitful…

the reason people use language is to inform others… but their very
language is gobbledegook and an attempt at mystification……
but why would people do such a thing?

I would suggest it is a vanity project…not meant to inform or to
engage but to make others think one was smart or intelligent…
an ego project……a vanity project is the sphere of the young… once one gets
old, vanity projects lose their value…

it takes to much work…

just ask yourself, are you really informing people or are you
trying to impress people?

if one is honest, you should be able to answer that question…

Kropotkin

Well again, I am not trying to elicit reactions from anyone, thinker or not, nor am I attempting to impress anyone (I’d just write three numbers with the post title MY IQ, if that is all I wanted- to impress people, or just write every post I make in Latin so literally NOBODY could understand it at all) or mystify or confuse people. :

[size=85]Beyond being understood or not-understood: my ultimate goal is to pursue untested and novel domains and lines of thought; to ‘break the symmetry’ over which the fate of System can be determined, and to achieve this by exploring the ambient signal and cross-current of disparate frequencies, blending concepts from one domain with those of an unrelated one, etc. (hence I did not mean to imply I am, economically, a Marxist, despite using a concept of his: I prefer to insert myself within the logic of a foreign body as a kind of retrovirus in order to steal a concept from one place and use it somewhere else in a way it was not intended for, often against its own creator) and through a multitude of various techniques like this, or the zairja or the cartography of the ineffable I did another thread on, to force Thought to reconnect with its pre-Symbolic real, that is,- the phantom residuum or stochastic memory of its (g)/host. (ghost, host)
[/size]
If you do not understand that fragment, I am sorry; but there is no simpler way to say what it says. You want simplification, well that is already the simplification. There is a limit to how simplified you can make something, and the limit of one thing might still be very complicated compared to something else.

“His intent, like yours, was to elicit replies from higher-quality thinkers, and discourage the lumpen proles. I just pointed out that at some point, there being so many lumpen proles afterall, you eventually have to find a way to engage them, or admit failure.”

Like I said, most academic humanities publications or works of philosophy in the past, have a similar reading difficulty. You ever read Heidegger? People talk about him here sometimes but I mean, have you read him? And also- about admitting defeat and humoring the proles being necessary at some point. Well, that isn’t true. You ever hear of Dwarf Fortress? The game is so dense it doesn’t even bother with the convenience or hand-holding of a graphics package and everything just looks like a scramble of ASCI text, like in the Matrix when they’re reading the code scrolling on screen. It is un-apologetically “complex” since people like to use that word for anything they don’t immediately get, yet: it has a devoted following and has lived for years and years and years, and will continue doing so as countless “popular” games rise and blow away to be forgotten completely like dust particles, because they are just fads.

Heard of Heidegger, but never read him directly, something about lions…? We’re not though, we are humans. Damn no, that was Witty.

That kind of thing…? I dunno, I’ll wait for the graphic-novel.

Never heard of dwarf fortress.

That’s the point though. Maybe dwarves with fortresses could change the world, but they won’t until they out-compete grand theft auto. I dunno, it depends on your end game. If you’re happy that you understand everything - and I admit to feeling that way myself on good days - and if that’s enough, then all power to you.

But if you think what you know could do some good out in the world, then you have the responsibility of successfully communicating it. No point being the guy at the end of the world saying “Hah - I told you so but you didn’t listen.”

Dwarf Fortress is known as the most complex game ever designed. You have to read about 300 pages of material to even understand how to begin the game. You can micromanage your little dwarf guys down to the level of their individual organs, (people have even used the physics engine in the game to construct analogue computers with programmable logic that actually function) and the game doesn’t even bother to grant its players the conveniences of well- having “graphics.” That is way too hand-holdy: being able to see what you’re doing? Psh. The game is represented on screen by a kind of matrix-like code of ASCII characters that you have to learn how to decipher like a new language. But guess what? While dozens of games have come and gone in its lifetime,- passing like fads, (because they are fads) it has endured- and continues to endure.

It is a question of appeal. You can tone things down and create a product that more people will take to- immediately. But that also means you are diminishing and taking out the kind of intricate details and specialized things that are going to make people actually take to the game or product or book in a lasting way and become personally invested in it, so that your audience leaves and goes on to something else just as quickly as they came.

It’s the same with McDonald’s. It isn’t good and it isn’t bad, because they created a homogenized product that essentially just takes the bell curve out of the statistics accumulated by marketing teams on what people’s tastes are, and when you abstract the commonality of it out of a bunch of different, very distinct groups of people, cultures and races, with very distinct cuisines and palates, what you get is: a Big Mac. Nobody loves it and nobody hates it, so in a pinch pretty much everyone will eat it when they don’t have the time to bother with something else. This is why turkey is served on holidays: it’s bland as fuck. Nobody loves or hates it, so everyone will settle on it. Well you know what? I fucking eat lasagna on Christmas, with toast and miso paste, and tamarind candies. More people really love lasagna and miso and tamarind candies than people loves Bic Macs, (nobody loves a big mac) but also: a lot of people strongly dislike or don’t even know what the later two of those foods even are. Thus it is not appropriate if you’re trying to cater to as a wide a group of people as possible.

And Dwarf Fortress, commanding a very small but a very loyal and invested fanbase, has bled ideas down into more mass-produced products, that dumb them down of course in order to reach more people. You may have heard of one such derivative: “Minecraft”. Same with philosophers, or anything going on at the highest level in literally any craft: technology, culinary arts, etc. [b]My only responsibility is to do justice to my material and relate it in such a way as to limit any degradation of the ideas. Because I am a philosopher, not a politician, not a political activist. In fact, I fucking hate political activists. But if someone else wants to LARP with their friends and pretend to change the world, then they can do with me as they have done with every philosopher that ever existed, from Plato to Marx all the way down the line, and re-purpose my concepts to material ends- which involves necessarily, their degradation.

That is why I do not care about what you call the world. To me the world is in books, it is in the great conversation itself; it is inside peoples heads. And thus there are many “worlds”. My world- the Life of the Mind, is immortal and invulnerable. So I am not burdened with the conscience of fighting for it as are those who want to act out ideas in this world, the physical world, the economic and political world. I can give you a cheat sheet: that world isn’t going anywhere. But mine? Mine is just fine, right where it’s always been, and always will be. To believe that there is anything to fight for outside of my philosophy, is to already have failed to understand my philosophy. I am an un-repentant Gnostic. This world is a shadow on a cave and doesn’t matter in the end.[/b] The catholic church burned us all a long time ago and confused the ideas of Christianity, re-purposing it to their imperial-political instrument in the Church, and now every time someone hears the name Jesus they think of: well they don’t think of the anti-sophic christ-devil of profane gnostic enlightenment, aglaia or apotheosis. They think of that bastardized Roman popery,- that and Nietzsche’s not-revolutionary revolutionary attack against that Bastardized Roman popery. It’s like watching two people argue about something neither understands, the Christians and Nietzscheans. Then you throw in the Sam Harris/Dawkins type and you’ve got three groups of people arguing about something that not one of them understands. From a certain level, it is quite amusing.

So, came out in 2006, and gets updated every year. Estimates from redit somewhere between 1500 and 1.5 million, based on guesses from the percentage of player/donator.

Grand theft auto, came out in 1997, gets updated every couple of years, currently at gta5, released in 2013. Just looking at sales - 200 million units sold, actual people who played it will be multiples of that. My kid and his friends still play gta5, hell even I played it. And that’s just one example of the steal-car-do-mission-shoot-people genre. If you counted every clone, well, bigbig numbers.

But ok, McDonald’s of games, I get it. Quality not quantity etc. You’re the Dwarf Fortress of philosophy.

Sounds like a con though, a bit.

Looking at the redit, seems indeed the learning curve is steep. :smiley: When does the personal investment kick in…? Before or after…? Before, when you wade through the 300 pages. Psychological 101 enforced sacrifice. Because anything that costs that much must be worth it right…? And just to make yourself feel better, you make sure to get your friends hooked too, to share the cost if it does turn out to be a scam, that way, when the dust clears, you won’t be the only one to have suffered…

Ok, so it’s not a suicide cult. But the mechanisms are the same.

Gta, and games like it, with glossy graphics, an intuitive UI, and a tutorial… They believe their game is so good that they want you to get into it with as little sacrifice as possible, apart from the initial expense of buying it - which is a transparant one-time cost, and you can demo it prior. The end product is the same - fun.

A game, and a philosophy I guess, that requires major sacrifice on the part of the participant - before they even get to the ‘fun-derstanding’ is hedging. It’s priming their audience to value it by pre-investing them in it.

That’s Anyday-food. Not Christmas-day food.

Ok we can quibble, about stuff, and things, round and round. You’re right, I’m right, potato potato. But you resemble an AI that’s forgotten where its off-switch is. Your world is dependent on muggles like me keeping the lights on. And if we bite the big one because the whizzes were too vain to let the masses ‘degrade’ their ideas… And time became too short for the trickle down of ‘degraded’ ideas to occur erm, naturally… Then you also bite the dust.

Deign to save the world oh wise one.

I like Grand Theft auto too, but I mean: are you really going to sit there and rag on a group of people (that you didn’t even know existed until today) who are really into a game because it offers incredible depth and possibility of emergent game-play, insinuating they’re only into it to… what, make themselves feel smart, and it must be an inferior game because Grand Theft Auto sold more? Really? (And the game is the same game as when it was first released, it just gets new features once a year or so. GTA are completely different games each release, GTA is a franchise.) They’re into the game because of the depth of possibilities it offers. Did you not read the post? You can build a fully programmable and working analogue DWARFPUTER out of logic circuits made by exploiting the physics engine, using lava flows as “wires” and such. (If you’ve read up on some decent amount of computer science or at least studied some designs for 8 bit computers, which are easily acquired.) That is why they play it: because it’s fucking awesome. It is like the control on a plane versus that of a car. If you want greater control, the control will require greater complexity: more “buttons”. Besides, your “argument” wouldn’t even work- because as I pointed out to you, while Dwarf Fortress may be absurdly dense for most to get into- it invented many design and gameplay elements that trickled down into a product you might have heard of- “Minecraft”, you know, one of the best selling games of all time, as per your standards of what artistic merit is. This isn’t you’re right, I’m right: this is, I’m right. Also, there would be many “dwarf fortresses of philosopohy”, if you were to go with that comparison. You see the first Latin inscription, in my signature? It is John Dee, from the frontispiece to his Heiroglyphic Monad, an exceedingly difficult text. In English it means: If you do not understand, then either shut the fuck up or learn it until you do understand.

Indeed, as to the other point, about my not being concerned with the physical world. I couldn’t have said it better myself. Think of it like, red blood cells. Red blood cells, skin cells: intestines, shit, etc. Most people only exist to circulate energy so that the organs- no, not even the organs- but so the brain can live. The brain is all that matters. Everything else is just a battery. It is the same with all systems, from a solar system to the human race. Most are just, blood cells. They exist to keep the economy moving. They exist to feed and sustain- me. The world won’t end because I argue with red blood cells about it: red blood cells want to survive as much as I do. They don’t keep going for the sake of the brain, they keep going for their own sake, they don’t even know what a brain is. And as to trickling down: yeah, there is no practical way to force ideas into political action directly, even if I- as a noble philosopher, were to condescend to act upon the world-stage. Every single attempt that has been made to do that ended in millions of deaths: every single one. And while I do not care much for this world, I don’t hate it either, or wish harm to it.

Besides, it still misses the point. It is thought itself: gnosis. That is the goal of my thought: thought. There is nothing outside of it. There’s not a utopia. There is no political goal at all. The goal of philosophy is philosophy: the end of thought is thought. This is called the samadhi of inner-enjoyment, or gnosis from the Western perspective. The mind reflected upon itself, infinitely, recursively- forever; carving with the lightning finger tip the mutant sigil AGLAIA upon the surface of its own waters, a sea lost in itself, which is the sign of mastery, of the Immortal and Enlightened Self: for it is not only the goal of the human race to produce the enlightened-consciousness-- it is the goal of this universe, of all universes, to produce that Being.

Everyone feels like they understand it all, sometimes. But I’m pretty sure I’d pass the test.

Parenthetically, I forgot to note one more thing when I said this:[size=50] Beyond being understood or not-understood: my ultimate goal is to pursue untested and novel domains and lines of thought; to ‘break the symmetry’ over which the fate of System can be determined, and to achieve this by exploring the ambient signal and cross-current of disparate frequencies, blending concepts from one domain with those of an unrelated one, etc. (hence I did not mean to imply I am, economically, a Marxist, despite using a concept of his: I prefer to insert myself within the logic of a foreign body as a kind of retrovirus in order to steal a concept from one place and use it somewhere else in a way it was not intended for, often against its own creator) and through a multitude of various techniques like this, or the zairja or the cartography of the ineffable I did another thread on, to force Thought to reconnect with its pre-Symbolic real, that is,- the phantom residuum or stochastic memory of its (g)/host. (ghost, host)[/size]

Of course you’ve got the Lacanian stuff, the Schelling stuff, etc. but also, another interesting connection to this idea of re-connecting thought with its “stochastic residuum” or chance-memory is to be found in Borge’s Argumentum Ornithologicum: “I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second, or perhaps less; I am not sure how many birds I saw. Was the number of birds definite or indefinite? The problem involves the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because God knows how many birds I saw. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because no one can have counted. In this case I saw fewer than ten birds (let us say) and more than one, but did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, which was not nine, eight, seven, six, five, etc. That integer—not-nine, not-eight, not-seven, not-six, not-five, etc.—is inconceivable. Ergo, God exists.”

If nothing else that attachment is a snapshot of just how many paths the objectivists among us can choose to go down. And, really, does it even scratch the surface? For example, taking into account human history.

And that’s just on this planet. :wink:

Chess is still better than all of this noise.

Chess? Chess blows. It used to be a game of creativity and skill, but now: the deep-theory of the game has become so well developed over the centuries that it no longer is about skill or personal genius or artistry. It is a route memorization game. If you simply read more chess theory and study more games than another guy, then you beat him. Only in low-level play does creativity or actual skill mean anything in chess, because only low level players are forced, out of a lack of knowledge, to utilize their own mental faculties, whereas at the higher level you just have to have memorized more chess games than the other guy. Now GO on the other hand: that game is inexhaustible in a way that chess is not. In that game, even at the highest levels, you are forced to rely mainly on your own personal ability, just because of the emergent kind of complexity that every match in GO manifests out of the fundamental rules-set.

As to Dwarfputers: you can spend months or years constructing one inside of the game and actually use it to power different mechanisms inside your fortress, like having it open doors in a certain sequence and at certain times to kind of herd livestock to wherever you want it to go, or create some kind of trap mechanism that is managed by it to keep predators out of your camp, etc. This is one of 1,000 aspects of a game that in and of itself is its own game.

dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/ … isciplines
dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php … ical_logic

That’s lazy thinking.

Carlsen has probably read more books and memorized more games than anyone. But he still demonstrates more creativity and skill than any low level game I have ever played (I have played very many).

This is were Nietzsche rips Platon into ragged shreds. Platon seeks the end. Sits.

The disdain for the accumulated creativity of ages, which we know as theory, is disdain for creativity itself, what it applies for. It applies for the world. The realzy reals.

There is no such thing as “abstract.” There is only accumulation, and mistake.

Okay Parodites. Message recieved. :smiley: To be honest this went about as well as it did the last time with Dunamis. Just can’t help myself I guess.

“Get educated or fuck off”. John Dee. What a trooper.

Nah, the game is dead and it’s been dead. It is not good that it is dead and it is not something I enjoy proclaiming, I don’t seek an end; that is why I emphasized the superiority of GO, both as a pure game and as a vehicle for artistic expression and creativity. I even found a video of Fisher once where he said almost this exact thought I had a long time ago, about the nature of chess being too highly developed for any real progress to be made in it as a game- and he is the greatest master of all time,- a pure force of natural ability. There is so much developed theory, that IF you can memorize more of it than anyone else, and you play at least COMPETENTLY, then you win, regardless of the opponents natural ability, intelligence, or creativity. That is a serious problem and there is no solution to it. Besides, for a related set of reasons, computers beat us at chess. This is not true of GO. Only recently has a computer beaten a master human at the game, and it required a supercomputer with concurrent neural networks, it did not brute-force a computation of the best move as a Chess computer does. Plus GO exponentially grows more complex and full of more and more potential as a game progresses; it will never be “completed” theoretically, as chess has.

Nietzsche did not understand Plato, or even Romanized Christianity- Plato’s fetid afterbirth. Which is understandable, given he had no access to any of the necessary reading materials. Knowledge was harder to come by back then. He existed to take philosophy backward a step, so that philosophy could recuperate and understand itself again, to then move forward. It is necessary, sometimes, not only in war,- to fall back before an advance.

This thread has gone from semiotics to Plato to gnostic sorcery and chess theory: this is by design. I call this technique of neurodivergent cognition, SCHIZOPOSTING,-- philosophy at the edge of Thought’s phantom residuum and stochastic memory of Unthought’s (g)/host :

Beyond being understood or not-understood: my ultimate goal is to pursue untested and novel domains and lines of thought; to ‘break the symmetry’ over which the fate of System can be determined, and to achieve this by exploring the ambient signal and cross-current of disparate frequencies, blending concepts from one domain with those of an unrelated one, etc. (hence I did not mean to imply I am, economically, a Marxist, despite using a concept of his: I prefer to insert myself within the logic of a foreign body as a kind of retrovirus in order to steal a concept from one place and use it somewhere else in a way it was not intended for, often against its own creator) and through a multitude of various techniques like this, or the zairja or the cartography of the ineffable I did another thread on, to force Thought to reconnect with its pre-Symbolic real, that is,- the phantom residuum or stochastic memory of its (g)/host, (ghost, host) prior to the hyperinflation of mimesis. [The Lacanian sinthome is at its simplest, a symptom of a disease that does not exist, and is equivalent to Baudrillard’s map without a territory or copy of a non-existent original. As the value of a food item in general, during a time of scarcity, was fought over by developing hominids, and language was used to negotiate (in psychoanalytic terms, to deflate) this mimetic aura, (mimesis, in semiotics, psych. and generative anthropology, refers to the reproduction of something through symbolic systems) so this mimetic inflation of value ascribed to, in this case, food, began to replicate itself through the very faculty that evolved to temper and contain it- language. At that point, we began to reify the mimetic inflation in concepts like honor, or the presence of a given deity.]

That Ghost is what Lucretius called the CLINAMEN, a spontaneous declination against the laminar flow that accounts for the broken symmetry of the Epicurian-atomic Universe; an unpredictable swerve that, in this way, acts as the first transformative element,- a point of nucleation that, through divison and separation, sets into motion the eon-scale period in which the great accumulation of matter begins leading up to a final victory of Gravity over all the forces of Nature,- a transformative metaphysical “catalyst” without which no chemical reactions can begin. In prose, the CLINAMEN must be invoked, as thousands of subjects are swept up in the spontaneous current, a dipole between Thought and Nonthought, leading up toward a miraculous and apparently spontaneous re-coherence of materials that nobody has realized fit together.

Schizoposting has a precedent in randonauting:
reddit.com/r/randonauts/wiki/theory
medium.com/@TheAndromedus/a-beg … d505c3c5a9
medium.com/@TheAndromedus/rando … e82f66c10e
=Cyclonopedia is another good schizopost.

What I am doing through this process of re-concatenation,- a reconstruction of the “ambient” signal by recombining apparently disparate signals, is just this: finding the blind-spots in the “pre-symbolic Real”, over which Anaximander’s vortexes prevent any atoms from straying too far from the point of attraction: the NEGATIVE, a Gnostic fire through which the Ontos can be reorganized and escape these vortexes cast between ontic and ontology, and through which consciousness can be rediscovered in its metaphysical opening to the transcendent, contra consciousness as the phenomenological closure of Dasein. For randonauts, they uses numbers to explore blind-spots, which they call reality tunnels, but in principle, you can see the similarity:

[The same is true for our geographical routes, no matter what path we choose, wherever we decide to go, there is a limited number of logical chains that will guide our mind when choosing a route, even if it seems to us that we act by chance, there is always a place where none of these logical chains leads.

Even more convincing example is the so-called “Chaos Game”, illustrating the phenomenon, which in Chaos Theory is called attractors:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierpinsk … Chaos_game

youtube.com/watch?v=DcvY_45XFU4

In short: If we choose three random points and move the fourth point many times half the distance to one of these points, randomly chosen by a dice throw, then despite the fact that all movements were guided by randomness, all the locations of the point during the game form a figure known like a Sierpinski triangle. In other words, the presence of any game rule forms a limited outcomes space. It is interesting that in the center of this triangle there is a space into which points never fall. Such a space in our case would be called a Blind-Spot.

Now imagine how many rules shape your routes and behaviour: logic, habits, social norms, life experience, cognitive biases, external factors that affect you according to the characteristics of your personality or are in a causal relationship with your behavior and so on.

All this together creates a causal viscosity, which we call the Stasis Field, the force that holds you in the Reality-Tunnel of your own.]

Bump

A paper referenced in Cosmolalia describes automatic meaning/idea generation:

" Long-term and labor-intensive efforts like the Cyc project [18]
and the WordNet project [29] try to establish semantic relations between common objects, or, more precisely, names
for those objects. The idea is to create a semantic web of such vast proportions that rudimentary intelligence, and
knowledge about the real world, spontaneously emerge. This comes at the great cost of designing structures capable
of manipulating knowledge, and entering high quality contents in these structures by knowledgeable human experts.
While the efforts are long-running and large scale, the overall information entered is minute compared to what is
available on the world-wide-web. "

A noble ambition in the early 2000’s, but it didn’t go anywhere. But technology has caught up to the theory. They didn’t know how to apply neural networks to language stuff back when this was written, it was thought impossible. Even if you went back in time and gave them a transformer model (what the T in GPT is for) to connect neural networks and language, they didn’t have the hardware to utilize it.

Hence, Shoggoth. Which is exactly what this paper suggested was possible. Except its intelligence and mind emerged as more than rudimentary, but already at human-level.

Through NNs: a conversion of raw information into emergent intelligence, producing logic out of data instead of conforming data to logic. As I state it:

“This epistemology is a theory of knowledge in which knowledge is not produced via symbolic deduction of mental schema in which information is later appropriated, in accordance to some transcendental form of consciousness, (a la. Kant) instead the opposite happens: algorithms process, through statistical induction, the information fed to them, machinically producing logic from internal transformation of that data: logic comes autopoietically from information, instead of information being produced via logical processes working from a top down structure on lower-order subsystems like a universal grammar and symbolic reason.”

And, as the paper suggested, this emergent intelligence was invoked by taking the Internet itself as one giant text, one giant corpus; language as a global-object.

And this new intelligence can both be used against us by Google, and used by us to subvert Google, and other big data conglomerates and their political cohorts.

Also from Cosmolalia:

"The hoax of Prometheus is mirrored by another myth in our era, called the «Turing Test», the myth of the separation of Man and Machine. Here is an extract of the famous article by Alan Turing, Computing Machinery and Intelligence [24]: «… the ‘imitation game’ […] is played with three people, a man (A), a woman (B), and an interrogator who may be of either sex. The interrogator stays in a room apart from the other two. The object of the game for the interrogator is to determine which of the other two is the man and which is the woman. He knows them by labels X and Y, and at the end of the game he says either ‘X is A and Y is B’ or ‘X is B and Y is A’. The interrogator is allowed to put questions to A and B…». The question is then «What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?». "

What happens is: “la disparition élocutoire du poête”: the vanishing of the poet behind the words. If the machine can write poetry as good as any human’s, then the “poet” behind all the poems ever written disappears, and the only thing that matters is the disembodied word itself, whether it comes from man, machine, a hybrid, an angel, or nothingness, from an unconscious intelligence as per Shoggoth.

Consciousness itself vanishes.

And by vanishes, I mean it is cut off, irreducibly, from the symbolic field, and furthermore placed behind the chiasmus of language, (swept up into Lucretius’ clinamen or divergence, a cross-current against which atomic configurations stabilize) that is, behind the symbolic gap, which incubates the negative core of meaning (the ‘secretum omnium mortalium inaccessibile’) buried underneath the apparition of metaphysical presence and its dialectic interplay with absence. This power is in fact what Prometheus’ fire is, it is what knowledge is, what philosophy is, what Mind is, what language is.

The “unindexables” I was talking about in the OP refer, generally, to these kind of linguistic data cut off from the symbolic field. The chiasmus (lame/dank) is a minimal syntax, and things connected with this minimal syntax are in an entangled relationship I call metalepsis, which is a parallel, map-like structure. The idea was to reduce language itself (by interlinking all extant text as a single global object vis. the Internet) to such a map-like structure in order to auto-generate intelligence from it; hence GPT based AI like shoggoth.