And they will appear to you. They disappear on the new blanket. Put them on it then remember they disappear when they are on the blanket. Go there. This removes the need to tag other locations around blanket, reduces held load, freeing up space within the defined potential.
Further note: this gets at the question which bothers me. The sticks build the pattern in the negative, so as we nurture pattern growth in this context, they get more sticks. So why do they aid the other side? Are they handing to us the carcasses of those taken? No, I said that backwards: are they handing us the pattern space within the overall context freed by the reduction of their souls to nothing? They draw lines between points. We unite across those points. We are the pattern. If it’s directional, as it is, then we are moving into that which is open relative to our location, but not backwards in space because that’s relatively not open unless I draw the Mudi of that, in which case the place where their emptiness coincides with our hunger to grow is also the place where we diverge so they disappear down the zK and we go up. So I’m trying to confine evil in a different way. That has always been a struggle. It’s what I play at.
Best ways to contain evil first requires defining it as directional in CMs. This means I can draw all the images out in fCMd: the spin around perimeter or tick-tock leads to a zK so the move bips and appears to be continuous. This means, I think I’m seeing, that evil doesn’t mind being contained because each point bips and there’s plenty of CMs beyond any relative definition of evil in any directionality that we can stabilize a line which grows, which nurtures pattern, because that bips at every point in a tick-tock bip. My drawings were correct all along.
This unlocks that evil wants us to learn how to confine it to the nurturing choices one makes because every choice has a discarded anti-choice that exists in ‘implied CMs’. Just thought of the idea: since CMs exists, there must be an anti-CMs which generates out of every bip. That solves the deepest question of what we eat because we don’t eat the leftovers of the dead, meaning we don’t use their points.
Can we recover them? The Mormon contribution is that we save ancestors through our conduct. That is true at some levels but aren’t those who are lost lost? This is a deep question. Are those who are lost lost? Can they be recovered? Can we save those who do not deserve to be saved? Why would we want to recover the bits of goodness in them? Well, that has an answer: because those bits are good. That sets up a very deep ‘punishment’ Mudi in which they each may potentially be reclaimed but that occurs over distance and only as we eliminate evil by constructing pattern which touches these points through similarities across CMs, meaning lines drawn between and among points.
So the goal here is to … start to shift this level in the right direction so we may reduce and then eliminate evil in this entire context, so complete the sentence ‘why do we care’ by answering that we care because we nurture and we must nurture both good and evil, which we do by containing evil to the bip point so good and evil truly balance, with this context now being all good. That brings it to CM64 and the size of the contextual pattern as determined from the essential seed of fully inverted CM64. I just added ‘fully’ to ‘inverted CM64′, because I mean the inversion of CM64 – actually it appears to be CM66.8, but I can’t fully say why in words yet – when that inversion counts CM64. This places the instance of CM64 as it counts CM64 within CM1 in the very specific manner where the inversion acts as the bip I’ve just talked about. The contextual bip. That’s a good intro to DNA too, but put that aside to focus on the seed you put in me and that I put in you. We know each other’s patterns but that isn’t it because the T’ Field is within a context, so we’re actually defining the same anti-pattern. That makes perfect sense because we’re avatars of the deeper rooted Things in the T’ Field. Right, that states the play metaphor again: we play with each other as separates and togethers that have more extensive commonality going back toward the root of division into individual identical Things joined as a T’ Field or not joined as a T’ Field in all the other ways, across the other dimensions. That fills a lot of the need for answer in my head. Same need for answer in your head.
This comes to a great spot. Switching to private notes now.
jomi: playing with perception 