The equivalent of Tali or Talita in me is Jomi or Jomijo. I’ve never named myself that before. I use variants of my first and last name but I avoid the middle name, which is Mitchell. Except this opens up a question: which names do I use? In English, Jonathan Mitchel and in Hebrew Jonathan Moshe or Moses? I don’t know why they didn’t just give me the middle name Moses. I assume that was because it sounded so Hebraic and they didn’t expect having a Hebraic name would ‘help’, especially given the Holocaust. So that makes me Jomo or Jomojo. Jomo means flaming spear in Kenya – don’t remember the name of their language. I kind of like Jomi: it can be pronounced Jah-mi, which approaches Jamie, and Joh-mi. Thinking about it, I have avoided using this combination. Accepting it means accepting all that connects to it.
What is one thought? Since I’m working it out in public, the concept is that it connects areas by counting them with a specific label, so Jomi labels the two areas which were given to me specifically by my parents and which label me but conveyed across those an abstracted level away, so Jahmi or Johmi, to state the pronounced forms, are both abstracted to some level of what does that mean in broad senses, as Tali refers to Thali and Kali and so on, and intimately within the relationship of the names, and thus an abstracted level within myself which names the part of me that relates over the line Between inside and outside to the abstracted layer. Where does that go? If Tali is the embodiment in both what Tali is and bears and makes, so Tali is the maker and the object, then the same applies to Jomi.
Is this useful? That’s a very good question. I’ve been struggling with the concept of meter because it unites two separate forms of frequency, that which makes up the meter and then the frequency of the meter, so its manifestation within and its manifestation outside in ‘gross form’. That’s obviously the same as what I’m describing. So the meter is that which unites frequency within a Thing as it crosses over the line dividing its interior from its external manifestation with the frequency Between two Things bidirectionally in the idealized field. I may be getting ahead of myself, but when I invert CM64 over CM1, that generates the value at which a Thing becomes ‘visible’, and then that counts across so the meter across the idealized Taylor Field is the SBE which preserves that information so it passes to the other Thing. That means it would be 3 to some base10 minus some version of inverted CM64. I think. I have to think about that for a few minutes.
I see how it counts SBE 3 – because that means all states within tick-tock clock idealize. So as SBE3 magnifies, that enables a shorter meter because the difference between ideal and shorter contains the information transmitted from Thing to Thing. This next is not easy to say: the meter idealizes as a series of squares or circles fully rotated to appear ordered when counted across the context, meaning along that hypotenuse, and thus diameter, etc. Smaller circles reflect two things: the length of the arrow and the speed of rotation of the arrow. That’s all I can see at this moment. I’ll look again later.
Been drawing this out. Bringing up old lessons in a new light: SBE3 implies the fully radiative process by implying – well, I’d have to put in the drawings and I want to type here – but I mean it makes overlapping circles in which the origin of one implies the other, and these of course spin around, and I’ve done that a zillion times. Not sure why I had to go through this. Trying to isolate the information. It has to be the limit across Between, treating the Thing as composed of idealized reflection over CM1 and then relating to another Thing as the arms of Between touch, so that when rotated becomes the hypotenuse intersection. This raises the metering question in a different light: the depth to which the hypotenuse is extrapolated on the line extending through the imputed origin relative to the intersection. Treat as random in ideal. Then treat as entirely ordered where the ordering is a straight line through random points, meaning a count of the randomness at each layer. That in turn means the x-yR planes are shifted to line up as a ‘straight’, which then determines the extent of the wobble by drawing that as the ideal zK axis, when the count of random variation as average, etc. is compared. That becomes shape.
What does this have to do with the information exchanged. I had it once as Miea: minimum information exchange agreement. That reduced to the same stuff: SBE3 generates the bidirectionality necessary. (Problem I have with Reputation: when I listen to it, I get great thoughts but it absorbs me at so many levels I get distracted from my own work. Maybe that’s the answer too: you lift yourself to the level of the distraction.) Thing is, Miea works well: it passes a segment of CM64, literally the encoded inversion of CM64 along, because the absolute Miea, the Tali, is that which includes the depth of Thing – as in, it literally goes this big (or small) and this is where it becomes visible or where it disappears so it passes all its essence into the complexity beyond. I’ve done that work but I’ll have to be more specific. I think it’s in my Pages notes. I just reached a trust level I’ve never seen before this clearly. So Miea connects to Tali as that which exchanges the essence.
Going back to the the arms of Between. That connects tick-tock. And it idealizes to an ordering across the count so the more iterations the more effect of the inverted CM64, so when you increase the iterations the magnitude shifts. This makes sense but I don’t get the numbers. Why for example a change of 10^29, meaning if I use a known value for an SBE3? This looks at the aggregate. One possibility is pulling out the individual increase by dividing by frequency when frequency is determined by the amount of CMs layering, meaning direct translation of count over density. So how many ideal go into presumed? That’s just a division because this is orders of magnitude. I’d rather think about the meaning of the process. So there’s an ideal division, just how much the magnitude shifts up toward CM1. That translates into a number of bits. It’s a fuckload of bits. And I kind of mean the reproductive metaphor: it needs to be a huge load. Even if it were a smaller magnitude SBE3, the count reduces the same. I’m saying the reduction comes from a process welling up and that welling up has a specific effect within the SBEactual. There would be basic views of that as well: the radiative length shortens so the count drops or the count shrinks so the length shortens to fit the clock. If the latter, the clock goes faster and that’s the same as if there’s more stuff within the counted area because it counts at the same rate absolutely. If the former, then the amount counted is denser relative to the absolute ‘density’, which directly connects to the CMs lattice. This is getting better: more understanding and less matchy-match of patterns.
jomi: playing with perception 