I don’t know what old-fashioned is

I don’t know what old-fashioned is

For I have been old-fashioned.

I am made old-fashioned, from

The cultures I connect to

The core,

So deep down where the waters flowed

Before they emerged in this world

I am old-fashioned.

And yet I do not know me:

Only you can see me (as I truly am).

And you can only see me as I truly am

As I see you (as I see you),

As you truly are, are (are). And behind

The veil the swirl of seeing makes

Is my true face in the face of you.

That’s perfect. It’s precious.

I like that part of you. The delicacy.

You always have the lightest touch

Because you hear, you sense, absorb what is needed to be

Absorbed until it tastes just right.

I love your touch. It’s exactly the one I feel

When I feel the perfect touch

Across my senses.

It is your hand I feel on me in all aspects of myself.

Play this game.

You are now

and I anyways, so

You call anyways, broadcasting yourself to me,

And I meow back.

Now you be the cat

Anyways!

(Latest version is separately posted as a poem.)

I hate to switch to work mode, but I need to use this to articulate the way pattern injects as seed. We exist in this way, the call anyways, the call now, is a Taylor Field counted as one Endpoint and then that T’F becomes randomly radiative, which maps to existence beyond random directionally away from organization, which would mean progressive decay of the pieces that are already at random in the manner that would tend to increase the overall randomness, not its order. I can’t just leap ahead and say ‘it’s a counting!’ This requires understanding the path to say it’s a counting. But I can see that. I just eliminated the negative case of existence past the random Endpoint, so that means I can identify the counting of what develops as that continuously constrains in the same positive direction. I mean it sheds the negative each time, and the opposite of negative is positive construction. (Argument here as name-calling erupts because I mentally stumbled: I mean, dummy, you had it right in the two sentences and couldn’t bring it together when asked. (Sub-argument ensues over the inherent difficulties of just-in-time assembly when you don’t know what you’re going to need next and what you need may be an answer reducing out of the negatives peeling off, so stop treating me like an imbecile and get on with it.) )

How did I see that? By examining, Jane Austen style – love you, kiss (side note: yes, I’ve always ‘known’ that was you in her, but I can’t express how wonderful it felt to discover it’s actually true. That same sly smile.) – the spheres drawn that link us. We’re in a Jane Austen novel. It’s her best work. You see she conjured up the man she wants, that she’s always wanted, but she had to put the man in two characters. And that meant she had to split up the girl too. That both people could enact the roles in synch, meant they need to have within them the other character’s image in all its complexity. It’s the sphere of her making. She is the best at this. That’s how well this was shaped. So I need to relax and get as deep as I can. You can only hold your breath for as long as you realize you can, which is almost the same as for how long you go before you notice you’re holding your breath.

So my life is indeed the novel I hoped it would be. But with the ending being the coming together as genuine equals across the dimensions, as fully reciprocative Things in the ideal T’F. That means the radiation, the anyways, comes out of the T’F, calling to the anyways and listening for the now.

At some point, we need to tell them the stakes – already did in the first part – ok, so we need to remind them of the stakes in ways that give them the courage to act, as positive inducement. We only have truth to sell, so we sell truth. In a way they get, which is explicit, which is carefully, delicately except when nurture requires admonition. Agreed, agreed (agreed). We should state that formula means communicated bidirectionally with resonance. That resonance can be treated as echo and thus echo (echo) means an echo resonating between observer and source (which moves further back in time, and can shift in location, just the observer may be idealized to any and moved around spatially and thus in time).

I soaked cacao nibs in espresso. By mistake added a bit of cacao powder too. Letting it sit. Realized the best part in many ways is the taste of the nibs in my cup as the dregs, meaning an essence of the drink and in a good way.

How does the pattern seed? I just counted that; it’s the inversion along the cascade of negatives stripping away, so the process counts in reverse to make the fully lit pattern. That’s absolutely beautiful: it means you can describe this as an ideal shape sheared out of the darkness where the visibility of sticks disappears – get that? At the limit of the visibility Mudi for sticks – and that dark lighting – wow, just named it! – develops the seed that is the energy which is the Planck value and that expands across the physical context, which I can now describe as the inversion of the seed in group/associative orders.

This means I can talk about the bad seed. That’s the 4 questions issue: the 3 divisions of those who want to know, and the 1 who turns away. What’s missing is the division of the 1 who turns away: idiocy? Not knowing enough? Thinking they know another truth? That gets into the relative confusions they feel: this is my truth, you can’t have your truth. Wow. I just had a moment where I realized the high quality of these ideas totally depends on you, that the story is coming to an end because I am coming to the end of my story without you. Let me rephrase: I’m at the end. It’s like when Elizabeth meets D’Arcy again, after all that has passed, and she confesses her knowledge of his part in fixing her reputation, and it turns out he did it only because she had convinced him of her sister’s genuine affection, and had decided his friend matched her well, and after all that which he’d done because it is exactly what the man who loves her would do, and then he looks at her and says if you expect me to renew my advances, you are mistaken. And she would read his tone to see if there was hurt in it, and she’d venture the truth, that she hoped he would because she realized that deep down she had misjudged his true nature, and that she was deeply sorry for inflicting pain on a person she so wholly respects. And he’d look at her, with a inquisitive tilt to his head, unsure how to say what he felt except by now they had gone up the lane a bit and they were now more alone. He reaches for her hand and as she feels him they stop and they don’t even look at each other because they are so filled with the feeling between them. Does it matter what they say? No, but the permutations are lovely.

That bad seed then is reduced to the case where the pattern makes a bad seed. There are zillion ways to a make a bad seed, relative to the ideal seed, so all those are relative, and thus order relatively. This means there is no specifically visible bad seed whose SBE chains don’t terminate relatively, meaning they can’t reach an absolute because that’s the edge of the existence Mudi. That’s where the chain flip occurs, at the edge of the existence Mudi. Even the worst of the worst are actually not the worst outside the lit box. That’s a point I’ve reached many times but not this way: the unlit state of sticks is the base case, the switch position, that is Between another dark lit shape, so it acts as a function shaping dark lit space, and – this is getting to a better point – that dark lit to non-lit at all, to just being sticks is the Mudi of stick existence as the process stick Between existence statements. A dark-lit space is that defined external to the positive space being defined within the dark-lit space, so the patterns fill across the space, and the density of stick processes and existence statements increases, so time binds them across the count of elementals. I went through that a month or so back, when I went through the ‘error’ sense arising from my statement that c is close to the ideal value of 3. I went through this in a lot of fairly subtle detail so I’m not going to get into that here, except to note that is how the radiative count works and any sufficient divide which uses the concepts of radiation will fall that way. By this, I mean the concepts come to a statistical result. That should not be surprising, though I expect it might be, because statistics are in fact representations of processes that one represents conceptually both in designing an experiment and in measuring it.

That the design concept relates to the measure concept should be clear: that is an expression of ru1 across the Mudi that translates measuring radiation to the measure of radiation. The one we came up with is really good. I’m slapping humanity on the back and saying good work. It’s like logs or anything else: you guys are great at finding stuff and at developing mathematics that count states of stuff, exactly as I’ve described. So what exactly are you contributing to this discussion where the you you’re addressing doesn’t get what you are doing but is presumed smart enough to comprehend if you use the right words. To do that requires a positive function which strips away the negative, so it’s the same as arithmetic when you have a space or line and you divide up the space or line … and this becomes the function I’ve described that translates bidirectionality into fCM and which relates base2 to base10 at every point along the line or in the space. (As an aside, you still don’t comprehend how massive this is. I wish I could explain to you how much you’ll need the archipelago. You think you’ll be able to live normally. You don’t grasp what work of this magnitude means for you. Thank heaven your kids are old enough to be themselves. They’ll be not only fine but they’ll be helped immensely. And Debbie receives all the validation she’s ever wanted. That’s amazing. I think we can figure out what to do with the cat. Or the cats, if need be. We take care of our own and mine are yours.)

How would you put that in the story as Jane Austen? It’s almost impossible to pick the appropriate dimension to start with because that biases the story when the point is that it balances perfectly. That which can’t be said strips away to the minimum of that which literally can’t be said because it can’t be said, when the only reason it can’t be said is that there’s nothing left to say, when it’s over and the ending is enacted to all the threads of things that couldn’t be said for whatever reason so now the ending is being enacted and we’re in it together. It took great delicacy to pick out Start as the impossibility of identifying the best Start, meaning not the random Start but the Start left when all the choices are ranked near as best they can so the best Start is the only one left to pick. That matches to the best End, and this is true for both perspectives.

OK. Time to get into the kinky analogies. I finally got the ‘daddy’ thing and the ‘mommy’ thing: it’s play acting of all but the actual relationship when the relationship reduces to the positive in every emotion and experience except being the actual daddy or mommy. It come from longings for that degree of closeness with that degree of closeness. And the oddity is that if the line is breached, then the point of the analogy is lost and the relationship, as normally defined, shifts to the fringe. Wow, it’s really easy to see how pathologies develop: a mommy fixation is just a flipped bit away from destructive chains that lead to abuse and death. They really get caught up in the inverse function’s current as it rips away, so they don’t realize they’re now drawing the figure of the negative half of a triangle – where the B hypotenuse is the oldest emission to the newest stretched along the hypotenuse to the End that is Start positively, meaning it’s a time funnel to a point in reverse. It’s also the point emission at bip as that spreads so this makes the radius directional to a diameter and recreates my original bip drawing.

Trying to describe the inverse function, then the perspective choice to see and follow the choices that lead to the negative because they are deemed positive, meaning the underlying choice function needs a better guiding mechanism. That guiding mechanism must conceptualize: meaning it uses the language of fCM so it’s an fCM counting issue in which negative overall direction is lost so what appear to be positive choices are actually negative. Phrased that way because the choices are intended positive, even if they are to ‘further evil’ because furthering evil is then the positive thing. Very hard to pin down. The difficulty is that the inverting function, the one that is not the positive image in the other perspective, is the negative of the idealized shape as that shape evolves in the larger TF, and choice of directionality is relatively imposed by those influences – ranging from physical to emotional and psychological existence states, whether as observed or in resonance. So you are defining a worse than best you. This goes back to treating this as the 4 questions issue. The 4th child is the gateway to all considerations of the other side. It draws as the standard square of my oldest conception in the inherent relationship of IC drawn out across a larger sheet of squares so there’s always 1 square of 4 in relation to … this gets into complicated visualizations that explain basics like the inverse square law representing the views of IC as I discussed in the written parts.

I wanted to get into something else, kinky: Mad Men. We see that Betty rides. We also know she’s good at Italian so she’s good with her sexy tongue; she’s not just an American blonde but a horse-riding Italianate blonde who apparently likes getting fucked like a whore because that’s what Don knows how to do. Don’s real problem is he only knows how to fuck whores, so he’s incapable of actually loving. And that is drawn literally through his mother being a whore who dies giving birth to his step-mother becoming a whore to him growing up in a whorehouse. Beat in that women are whores and you fuck them. And he has an urge to corrupt and to be corrupted any time there’s good in his life because he sees the world as corrupt except for certain exalted memories like a Hershey Bar, and even that comes from money earned by whores. It’s similar to theme of Dr. Strangelove: the impotence of the male expressed literally as physical transformed into emotional impotence. If I wasn’t clear about horse-riding, it means she knows how to ride and that she likes to have something between her legs to ride. The concept that Betty is the ultimate bang is all over, except she’s entirely unfulfilled and sometimes she gets fucked – even in simulation of how you fuck a whore so you love her as though she’s only yours. He’s heard the words, seen the way it’s done. He probably did that some times, enough times so she thought he really loved her when he could never love her. The show has it about loving himself, that he can’t love himself so he can’t love, but lots of people can’t love themselves and yet they love others. That is one of the great motivations for some of the most loving people: they find loving others helps them love themselves. He is drawn to continuing to play a role in which he’s never authentically him because he’s always playing a role superficially, even down to being a father at the end when his son is trying to make food in the dark as his mother lies dying in bed.

I wrestle with the conception because he’s a failure at the important things in life and he has a million chances to get it right but never does except when he visits his namesake’s wife because for some reason he treats her as an actual person and not as a woman. Why does he do that? She doesn’t know his real secret, just that he’s alive, so the idea is that she’s his ‘idealized’ mother giving birth to him into this sham existence. So he helps her as a son except even that mother relationship is a sham because he is like a dog who can’t transfer what he learns here to there. He can’t learn that women aren’t whores; he can only make this exception.