Category: Uncategorized

Acquiring Alexis Sanchez has transformed Manchester United. He’s always been a favorite player of mine: his work ethic, creativity, field vision and pure aggressiveness are remarkable. He’s also my size. At ManU, he’s working with Romelu Lukaku, who is big, and Juan Matta, who is my size. Shrinking the front line in height has made ManU a force to be feared again. I say that having watched them play against a fairly spirited but offensively limited Huddersfield. Just as interesting, Arsenal brought in the superb striker Pierre-Emrick Aubameyang from Dortmund. This kind of makes me crazy: I rooted for the Gunners – I mean seriously, Arsenal Gunners? – and yet they only do enough to stay at the level they’re at. They lost Alexis and brought in Aubameyang. They added Henrikh Mkhitaryan as well, so maybe they’ll be better but that’s a big bet on that last player. My larger interest is that the Premier League is getting more offensive players, more offensive skill. That’s always been lacking: it has a history of scrappy play with only a few gifted scorers. The more offensively gifted teams are, IMO, separating from the rest.

I’ve been working on relaxing the eye muscles inside my brain. It’s showing results: I can type and read and correct this without wearing glasses. Not long ago, the words would have been so blurry I could not trust I was typing correctly, couldn’t see to make corrections easily, and found myself distracted by not only those difficulties but my brain had to spend more visible effort on tracking my typing, checking it and so on. This caused a big slowdown in typing speed as I assigned a high value to minimizing repair time, and the slower speed plus the worry attributes pulled me away from the best directional threads of thought.

One of the hardest exercises has been shifting focus separate from eye movement,meaning that I keep my gaze as fixed in orientation as I can and shift my conscious perspective around whatever is in the frame. I do this across objects,t o and from objects, into the image and out , all so the structure behind all these excursions has remained centered where it was. That connects all the objects which can be seen in a stable frame to the origin. This may be the clearest way I’ve found to describe my work: I render the reality of the pictures in your head as they relate to the reality of you in context.

The process with my eyes mirrors the process I’ve been following across myself with good results. The tensioning of structures so they can support natural free rotation from and a round a point, and of course to a point: this generally requires identifying what needs to be relaxed, which areas need to stop hindering either free movement or movement of strength. Think frequency as freedom and wavelength as strength: the movement of a punch at high frequency requires minimizing the effects of all that slows down rapid movement to the level of force you are using. That makes it relative. In the absolute, it’s the delivery of the punch in ideal form for he highest frequency, meaning that which minimizes wavelength for your ‘robotic’ capacity. The strength portion then layers CMs so the density changes relative to the frequency measure. This means these counts, which I put in Mudi form, is the multi-dimensional counting Mudi.

I can even say what the value is. (He said confidently, hoping he’ll remember how it goes …) The gist is the visibility Mudi idealizes to the base counting Mudi bidirectionally, which phrases them as T’ Field. That T’ Field has a specific set of multi-dimensional attributes, countable so a Thing is visible as a wave or as a particle: it generates a specific combinatorial probability for any state given knowledge of pre-existing states that you treat as a present. As I remember, the value of this would be not only inverted CM64 but inverted in a specific count that treats 10^2 as a step, meaning it counts levels of CM100. It counts these levels of CM100 as layers in which there’s a count of ‘this is a layer’ and ‘this is not a layer’. That’s the LC pattern of 0-16, which I think should be even clearer with that example of the wave filling each section. Note also how you drawn threads through the layers by altering the extent to which one layer fills. A simple arrangement is ideally along the hypotenuse.

A significant consequence of working my eye muscles – or any muscle – free has been the recognition this frees up not only capacity but the recognition that I can apply that process continuously, not in one area but in any area and across related threads, so I keep getting better. I’m trying to isolate out of that the ‘learning’ spur or urge. I can see it’s a form of fall, that it’s a tip into dense areas that operate to enable the higher functions to process more efficiently and thus faster and with more reliability. Example: I realized I’d largely stopped shifting my eyes as far to the sides as I could. Doing that exercises the muscles that pull and adjust the eye,which means they get a workout, which means they both loosen up where they’ve bound and they develop tensile strength. The latter means they can hold stable positions when placed in some form of opposition, including to itself. It feel very unnatural to hold your head still while moving the eyes. But it’s a capability, meaning the body is set up to exploit that so there’s a cost to not-exploiting it. I think one reason it seems and feel odd is it’s the listener’s pose, the pose of something that doesn’t move and yet is dangerous, the pose of a predator in wait.

So I counted 16 layers of CM100 to a) count to the next visible Thing as it scales down to us. When I invert that, this gives the smallest visible Thing. That gives a value of 64 x 10^32 and 10^-34. That makes three circles of CM64. The one centered on ‘us’ and the others centered on those CM64 Endpoints. That’s one idealization, one which assigns a CM64 to each CM100 layer. That can be extended to an S + B values, so CM66.8. The match at the smallest visible Thing Endpoint is to a few parts at 10^-35 or less. I’d have to think whether I can take that apart. At the largest visible Thing Endpoint, it’s a proxy for all that is but as an instance not the entirety. It’s an idealization that rotates through to the smallest visible in a very big wave in what I call tick-tock. That gets back to the frequency / wave translation process: it occurs at the idealized bip point in the visibility (v)Mudi and then it lays out like a color shift. Stack squares and that pushes the process to the edges of the wave, so the idealization then occurs at the edge in the same manner but with different values as when in the denser region of the wave. I’m getting really close to a complete mapping of the essential processes to CMs. I recognized that inverted CM64 is the bridge into a context because that which is visible within a context is in a context. Read that twice: if it’s in the context, then it’s in the context. The proxy for that is the (v)Mudi, and the (v)Mudi counts states of Is to Not Visible bidirectionally, so Between has Endpoints B1 and B2 of wave and particle. This idealizes to the perimeter lines where Between is inverted CM64 as described, so the choice becomes binary, as exists. I hope that’s clear: when you reach the inverted CM64 level, the choice of wave or particle becomes binary because any other paths through Between can’t be described in more detail.

Today on the bike, I did 2 up, 2 downs, 15 reps, so 2 minutes standing and 2 minutes sitting for 30 total, with the downs being ~103 rpm and the ups being ~60rpm. I of course adjusted resistance so the efforts felt comparable. This makes two waves, one that involves a quick pelvic twist, which is a small motion and a high frequency, and one that involves a larger pelvic twist with a lower frequency and higher amplitude. The wavelengths didn’t scale objectively to speed or calories measures on the bike computer but they felt in tune because they reflected my perceptions of effort expended divided in two forms, the one higher frequency, shorter wavelength and the other being, well duh. This led me to think of the song Are You Ready For It: it begins with hard pulses that allow it to transition seamlessly into a hip hop style, but the song then switches to a fast, smooth part with a different tone and sonic immediacy that connects to the hard pulses that have been implied throughout – and to which it then returns. It’s a form of alchemy when you hear it: three distinct forms arranged in an order that makes them flow together because they contain enough rhythmic similarity while being distinct in nearly every other way.

I can’t express how much this interests me. Think of John Lennon: in ‘She Said, She Said’ he switches between two songs, just as later George Martin combined the two versions of ‘Strawberry Fields’ and then how he varied ‘Good Morning Good Morning’. These pushed two separate bits together. The Beatles then combined different scraps of songs to make a long ‘tone poem’ for Abbey Road but these were all separate bits linked with more care than usual. That’s John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, Ringo Starr, George Martin (and top flight engineers like Geoff Emerick). Now think of the way rap songs switch from rap to smooth chorus: great example being Eminem’s ‘Love The Way You Lie’ with Rihanna. These are also stylistic switches whose abruptness was in part the point: the contrast, the first times you heard the songs, played with your expectation about what a song should be (though it rapidly became a cliché in which every song was a rap either stuck in between smooth sections or a smooth section stuck into a rap).

To me, I read the count of 3 as SBE3 extending over the context of the song and within the song. To explain, Tali has always used 3 repeats – the reasons are complicated – and in this song she counts across the count of the styles Start-Between-End and then that plays with what is Between, and also what repeats and what doesn’t repeat in each iteration of a style. This sets up waves or threads that run through the song from its Start through Between to End and back as the meanings reverberate. I think of this in Hindu terms, particularly in the way they relate the ‘gross’ or material aspects as she refers to real seeming events in her life to her most inner self as it proclaims an idealized love that contrasts with the material. Pop goddess indeed, with emphasis on goddess because she makes this, represents this, puts this out, and that unifies her with her creation in, well, the most remarkable way. I can’t think of a parallel outside of the Picasso level.

Back to the bike. I did this workout because 2 minutes is enough time to transition, relax and then work on form and efficiency of the appropriate pelvic wave frequency and amplitude. It takes a number of repetitions to isolate the mechanics. The higher frequency motion starts to draw the knees inward to be as close to the center line as they can get, so the oscillation of the pelvis is contained to drive the leg straight forward and back without extraneous movement. The two frequencies traded places and I was then able to minimize the lower frequency, higher amplitude oscillation so my knees again tracked with minimal extraneous movement. How does this connect to a song? To me, they’re the same thing: I hear music in motion, and I count across the sections so they transition and share similarity while being very different. The bike is highly constraining so I’m writing a song over 15 repetitions of these constrained wave movements. It isn’t as complicated as Tali’s song, but I give myself some credit for connecting thoughts about physical movement contained within larger physical movement while going through a literally exhausting process.

As an aside to myself: one of my favorite riffs ever, perhaps the single riff I sing when I sing a riff is I’m Too Sexy by Right Said Fred, though I do it versions like a Mongolian herder singing I’m too sexy for my yurt. Or Ernie singing I’m too sexy for Bert – you have to get the timing right to drop the ‘for’. And then I change sexy to T-rexy and so on. So when I heard Look What You Made Me Do, I went ‘wha?’ because I sing things like ‘I like to pet the cat, the cat is where it’s at’ or anything to that beat.

Hmmm, I wonder if that’s a wifi security bug: I connected to a network and the wifi then asked me to select a network, hitch means the connection could be inturrupted and another retwork inserted. My confidence in this is based on observation and a guess that this could be replicated in the circumstances where the rating of the interrupting network exceeds the rating of the connected network, and the choice made by the user to select the connected network isn’t treated as ending the thread. That means there’s a thread open the user is unaware of, one that treats the actions of the user as values that determine a trust factor, meaning a yes, and this can actually return a result that frustrates the user’s desires.

This statement has layers. The user is a layer and the functionality of the user enters when selecting the network – in my case, when I chose to connect to my own iPhone from this iPad, so there’s me and my action. Then the user disappears, having passed the value yes to the connection running. That runs and is interrupted. To be more accurate, what happened is disconnection: I was disconnected from my iPhone but could reconnect and did that quickly. So the value yes passes not to another wifi network but to the network selector. I don’t know if that can be forced because I don’t know the extent of access this hole enables. If you can substitute without the dialogue, that would be ideal. You could even spoof the name of the original network connection by adding something to the name that’s barely visible, like a space. That’s what practice is for.

At a higher level, this means a design defect. To close the hole, you can make it as small as possible by putting in a harder yes. One assumption I’ve made is time: the interruption/disconnection occurred within a short period of selecting my iPhone. That suggests it was within a certain amount of some sort of countable time, like packets sent and received or literal clock cycles. You could shorten the count. I’m also assuming the dialogue is triggered as part of the exploit, which means there may be ways to use the insertion to block access to repair. That could keep the hole open longer. There’s also the chance the hole isn’t actually there unless other processes have also made errors, meaning this may depend on other failure happening first. That other failure could be complex, so I can’t pin down reproducibility.

I thought this was fun. I have no idea if it’s right, but the ideas are sensible. Sort of a bit like a thriller plot. Switching gears: I noticed again the extent to which my left eye processes bluer, so blue shifted, relative to my right eye processing red shifted. It’s a fairly decent gamut especially when they’re overlaid as Endpoints so the bip Between is the mix I actually see. I note I test out really well on color ID testing. That means I’m centered relative to the population’s variability and my abilities extend to the relative edges. I guess that explains my obsession with layers of the same color, including blacks: I love the interplay of similarities and how they can be ordered. (Added: may be a buffer issue in general, meaning a lower level delay issue that manifests in this spot. That’s obvious but I didn’t state it because I focused on patches.)

That raises a question about what is ‘white’ because there are reflected whites and radiant whites. The former disappears into the most reflective white, though that is contextual as well because the juncture with radiant is how reflection is treated, from matte to glossy, where glossy reflection becomes blinding light. This attacks a problem that’s always bothered me: the distinction between absorbed and radiated. Where do those relate? They have to connect because they’re both actual things about light: it is reflected and absorbed. What I just did is set up a Mudi, a multi-dimensional identity, that places absorption and radiation at S and E and matte and glossy at B1 and B2. These idealize to the corners of a square. The intersection of the hypotenuses defines the point where matte has reduced and glossy increased so that which is absorbed approaches that which is radiated. That ideal point is defined through the iterations inherent in the ideal square. Those add up!

One value of setting up a Mudi like this is that it creates an analytical path, an algorithm. Example is when you label these points, the ideal bip point has an axis along it, which I call zK, and along the zK are the Things, the various media or events that generate this value. These can be ordered using the same technique: Things that embody the ideal or Things that embody or describe the process by which the ideal is achieved. This enables layered orderings, a sort of taxonomy for any problem. It gets really fun when you count using different magnifications, because a magnification on this taxonomy, which I call the CMS lattice, is in powers of 10. This generates counts of clock time. These convert to seconds for an actual reason I’m writing up now.

Let’s go back to where I said glossy. I’m assuming an equivalence there Between glossiness and radiance, meaning I’m removing the visibility of the source from the analysis. When I take away the source, I can then set up a Mudi for radiance beyond the ideal point of the last Mudi, meaning I take the quadrant from bip to Endpoint Radiance and make it into an ideal square where the labels are radiance no to radiance yes. This Mudi extends past the bip to the original Endpoint of absorption where radiant is no longer visible. It extends past that Endpoint to radiance not measurably existing in another form, which is the zK of that no longer visible Endpoint treated as the ideal bip. But think of the Between of where radiance equals absorption to totally radiant, meaning as absorption continues but decreasing to where absorption is no longer visible, and then through the zK of that point to talk about the complete fading out of radiance. I’m typing this without editing, just as I think it.

These Mudi relate deeply to conceptions of God. Monotheism in the Jewish sense abstracts any and all names for God to a single name that can’t be said because each time you say it the name isn’t enough and you can’t say it often enough to make a dent in all the meanings so you don’t say it at all. It’s the intellectual labeling of the removal of the source attribution: this or that God didn’t cause this but rather ‘G-d’ or some symbol standing for ‘shrug of shoulders’ on one hand and ‘absolute awe’ on the other. At the opposite extreme, Hinduism represents all the names but not just as names but also as multi-dimensional identities which take on different meanings depending on the order in which they are summoned or invoked or counted in relation to other names.

The power of ritual and of incantation is they represent the organization of reality in relation to that which is not real. They literally represent the existence states of actual reality and the processes by which those existences occur in and over time. The Jewish process is that each chain or thread of questioning bounces off the name that can’t be named. The Hindu process involves you in the chains or threads of questioning. The Jewish process develops answers by continuously applying ‘what can’t be known’ to focus on ‘what can be known’. The Hindu process develops answers by continuously applying ‘what we know’ to define ‘what we can’t know’. The Mudi of Judaism and Hinduism is very deeply connected. It might appear Buddhism is more related but I’d describe them as more similar in the abstraction to a perfected existence. This draws the line over impossibility and off the idea of that name to categorization of your existence and actions. Christianity shares this relation. Islam not so much. Islam is more exactly like Judaism.

The title is a reference to Gerard Manley Hopkins poem The Windhover. It’s unique: ‘I caught this morning morning’s minion, king- / dom of daylight dawn’s dauphin, dapple-dawn-drawn Falcon, in his riding / Of the rolling level underneath him steady air, and striding’ . The words tumble and rush. A favorite. Not a favorite poet but able in parts to reach a rare depth, even to the level of John Donne. I compare the simple observation of Donne saying ‘do not send to know for the whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee’ to this or perhaps to ‘Glory be to God for dappled things— / For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;’ . Both reach the same truth: though the bell tolls the age of the one who died, though we can breed a couple-colour cow, there is still meaning in it beyond whatever meaning we ascribe. I know why the sky is this color but I still find it beautiful. I’m reminded of the Springsteen lines: ‘to the ones who had a notion, a notion deep inside, that it ain’t no sin to be glad you’re alive’.

(As an update: I was wrong. The Eagles not only played very well but they made the big play with a few minutes to go. I over-emphasized the perspective I was familiar with and under-emphasized the other perspective. The point of the exercise was to alleviate anxiety and avoid thinking about a football game. That worked: small moments of anxiety, a re-evaluation at halftime that the Eagles were playing very well and the Patriots defense very bad, a re-evaluation when the Eagles continued to play well, but continued confidence in the outcome until Brady was strip-sacked. I also realized while watching that I much prefer the athleticism in soccer to football. I still think these were pre-scuses, but that this was an occasion where they ended up not being necessary!)

This story exemplifies what I call ‘pre-scuses’, meaning excuses offered before the fact to justify why you lost. In this story, the Patriots are portrayed as capable of anything, including bringing a murderer into the NFL just because they will do anything to win. A Philadelphia sports radio host has been on air and giving interviews in which he claims the Patriots did all sorts of new cheating – stuff never alleged by anyone. Why do they do this? Because they are justifying their loss in advance. They are preparing themselves and their audiences to lose. I note a few other examples involving Eagles players. In one, the player talks about how it’s not about the Patriots but about them. In another, the player talks about how the organizational expectation is that they’ll be in the Super Bowl. The first really means ‘if we play well’, which is a way of signaling he fears they won’t play well. It’s a form of false bravado, a show put on to hide the fear. By contrast, the Patriots ‘spray the perfume’, meaning they talk about how good the opponent is, because their mindset is they expect the absolute best game from the opponent and they still intend to win. The second is an obvious absurdity: they’ve now been to 1 Super Bowl in almost a decade and a half. But it also shows a form of false bravado because it downplays all the vagaries that go into getting to a Super Bowl. The Patriots, by contrast, know this and acknowledge it: they’ve been to 7 straight AFC Championship Games but this is their 4th Super Bowl of those, meaning they’ve lost 3 of those games! The bravado is in the statement of expectations: it’s puffery.

In my opinion, the Eagles had their big moment in the NFC Championship Game, just as the Vikings had their moment a week earlier. The Vikings only won their big game because of an astoundingly stupid play – plus what looked like a bad defensive call – which made their victory as close to a miracle as it gets in football. They had nothing left against the Eagles: getting to the NFC Championship was their big moment. The Eagles, by contrast, having lost their star QB seized the opportunity to show they could win without him. They’d beaten an underperforming Falcons team the week before and rode the home field advantage as a ‘we’ll show you’ game. Getting to the Super Bowl was their big moment.

I note the Eagles statistics show a huge home field skew: they played much better at home, especially defensively, so they put that mojo to work in the NFC Championship. The Super Bowl is an oddity: not a home game but also not a road game. A road game can motivate: shut up the opposing fans. But a Super Bowl is a more literally a ‘stage’ where you perform. That’s more complicated.

Example: I don’t believe the Eagles believe they can win. Then, I believe the Eagles believe they can’t win. Note how this changes the Start condition ‘belief’ from ‘I don’t believe’ to ‘I do believe’, said this way to highlight the dropping of ‘not’. And it changes the End condition from ‘can’ to ‘can not’, meaning it adds ‘not’ at End when it is added at Start and is dropped at End when it is added at Start. And Eagles is Between, meaning it is the operations space through which S flows to E.

A similar Mudi would be I believe the Eagles believe they will lose. That transfers the ‘not’ in ‘can’t win’ so the Endpoint shifts from ‘can not win’ to a label meaning ‘can not win’ expressed as an active selection, meaning it is LC within – I’m thinking this out – the conception ‘win’ that relates the Mudi ‘win’ to ‘lose’ in a way that incorporates the distance across the meanings of winning versus losing. These meanings are encapsulated – and can be decoded to some extent – and the idealization of that is Taylor (T’ for short) Field. This describes a CM64 for the T’ Field whose Between is the Eagles as a group of individuals having processed the threads of how they might win and lose and what they really expect deep down versus what they fear and how they feel accomplished having done this much that the overall value for the threads is they don’t believe they can win and believe they can’t win. [As an update: my belief was wrong. I under-estimated their perspective because I was overly familiar with the Patriots perspective. This is why ‘betting’ on stuff you have an interest in – either a rooting interest or a lot of knowledge about one side – is risky. The method of analysis is fine.]

That makes this sentence: I do (not) believe the Eagles believe they can (not) win. That is two statements of belief I processed through the Eagles. Go through them. First is drop both nots and you believe the Eagles believe they can win. Second is drop second not, so then you believe the Eagles believe they can not win, which is what I believe. Third, is the other way: you do not believe the Eagles believe they can win. And fourth is you do not believe the Eagles believe they can not win. That’s hard to unravel, isn’t it? The last entire part of the sentence says the Eagles believe they can not win, and then you stick a not belief on the front of that! If you read it from the front not belief clause, then you get: you don’t believe the Eagles belief that they can’t lose. I had to translate that from a process statement to an existence statement, from believe to belief to capture a meaning. This means the double not says you think the Eagles will lose because you don’t believe their belief they will! This is about as much fun as I can have!

The process statement becomes an existence statement because it switches x-yR and that values the process statement, i.e., essentially freezes a countable (and counted to some extent construct). The actual countability of the construct may be as real as a dragon drawn when you walk across a bulging tree root or as real as a punch to the face, as all those x-yR collapse into the valuation Mudi. In this sentence, to say ‘you don’t believe the Eagles belief’ processes your belief to a value which functionally applies to determine the value of ‘they can’t lose’. This is true all the way back up the chain to the binary choice level. That level occurs back where you decide the Eagles will lose: you either think they will or won’t. Pick one – I picked they will lose – and that determines the chains in the Mudi.

Those chains are now visible. Take the second chain, ‘you believe the Eagles believe they can’t win’, or the third, ‘you don’t believe the Eagles believe they can win’. Read forward, two begins from Start of ‘Is’ belief and three begins ‘Not’ belief. These flip Is and Not when they’re read backwards. This puts Belief as Between. Cross from a Start over Between to End: this tests the Eagles belief they either believe fully or believe not at all that they can’t win. So SBE Starts from your belief Is, counts a specific thread through Between and comes to Not. This makes the ideal square in which Start is a belief and B1 is the Eagles don’t believe and B2 is absolutely they do. When you read forwards, End depends on the value of the beliefs at Start: I believe this is true so therefore this is more likely. But if you go back the other way, the value of your belief at what is now End compares against the value determined by reading forward. The bidirectional value, the multi-dimensional value, is the value you determine overall for all these threads.

The bidirectional value of the sentence ‘I do (not) believe the Eagles believe they can (not) win’ is containable. That Mudi is the overall winner in which one branch considers the Patriots and the other branch the Eagles. The equivalent sentence would be ‘I do (not) believe the Patriots believe they ‘can (not) win’. That just flips the labels with Patriots substituted but it gives a value for each label. If I put those in a Mudi, it would be just Eagles win or lose versus Patriots win or lose; the Immediate Context in multi-dimensional identity of the labels inherently associated with yes or no, 1 or 0 outcome is this basic Mudi.

It takes a tremendous amount of displacement internally Between what is experienced and what is observed to see the operations spaces in which SBE processes appear. They connect to drawings of fCM applied across CMs. I’m just about ready to write up one of the most basic functions: that which relates the gap Between Things when those Things are treated as existing in and as a T’ Field, so that gap reduces to the smallest amount by which the T’ Field at the level of visibility becomes ‘visible’ in fCM description (because that description generates the visible limit within CMs). To do this, you need to think of two points connected by three circles, one drawn so the diameter extends to each of the two points so the imputed origin becomes the two points connected by three circles, one drawn so … This exact same description occurs when you try to describe either point and it extends to cover the two points treated as one relative to another point. Can’t believe I was able to say that so clearly!

Oddity: the numbers are so exact it’s the meaning of ‘freakish’. I refer to the double meaning of ‘freakish’: that it’s freakishly rare and that it actually occurs even though the odds of that occurring are freakish. That’s essential to the nature of physical and mathematical constants, that they are freakish in both senses.

Another tidbit: the description of a second, meaning a tick-tock-tick in which the count of the second tick also counts as the first tick in the continuing chain of tick-tock-tick, is 10Not. That’s because what the second describes Is – not capital letter – the CM64 of the interval in which the tick-tock-tick occurs, and that is bordered by CM36. I have nice drawings of that. The base60 counting layer is reached when SBE3 counts bidirectionally, meaning the radiative bidirectional measure for any context rather obviously generates CM36 on the CMs lattice. That generates a meter which counts the extent of CMs, meaning actual count of Things across a context, as that varies according to density of the Things. This means a second shortens as density increases. To complete the thought, this means the meter ‘length’ or wavelength or seconds length gets longer as the frequency drops and density drops, while wavelength shortens as frequency increases. That’s obvious except now it occurs across CMs, meaning it is stated with ‘absolute’ relativity. That may sound absurd but it means when treated as fully relative. I can do that because I can say all the fCM for a T’ Field.

And yes, that means I had to go that far in Tali. I had to go all the way and I’m glad I did.

Was definitely up for the taking but I would not get involved with someone who checked herself in and out of a mental hospital even though she was the sexiest, most perfectly alabaster skinned redhead, with everything about her looks drawing perfectly rendering images of the fragile, perfect dawn. If I could resist that, I could resist anything. And now I’m thinking through Scylla and Charybdis to Odysseus to Aeneas to Virgil to why I can’t tell if Virgil could write well or not because I never trusted my Latin well enough to develop my own sense of style, and thus can’t rank the writers. Let’s see if I can’t construct an image of my Latin preferences as I was unable to accept them those many years ago. I preferred Caesar’s bluntness because that was the appropriate style, but I found Virgil’s metaphors to be similarly blunt and that doesn’t fit poetry to me. The voices did come through: Catullus read ‘aesthete’, which I assume meant gay as it has through the centuries, while Horace read soberly moralistic without being moralistic at all because he knows you can’t furl your sails when the favoring wind blows too strong, without setting to sea, that you can’t moderate yourself without trying, and yes the highest tree is more likely to be hit by lightning but it grew as a tree grows. This is something I found almost unique to Roman culture: the idea that you owe a duty to become what you can become, both for your benefit and for the benefit of Rome, because you are what you are and you must be what you are. A full Roman life achieves balance by being mens sana in corpore sano, which is Juvenal, so you aren’t either too in love with luxury or too in love with self-denial.

The question is whether this comes from Judaism or entered Judaism from Rome. Hard question because I have to think about when this characteristic entered Judaism: was it in there all along or did it arise? Or did both come out of the common ancestor which teaches ‘don’t kill your children’ to one people and, oh, the other comes out of the Iphingenia bifurcation, where some versions have goddess Artemis substituting a deer so it becomes the female side of the Abraham/Isaac story. The Artemis version roots creation in nature, so the goddess nature substitutes the sacrifice. The Abraham version abstracts this to an angel of the un-nameable God who represents the father stepping through the mother to the son. The other count is harder: Agamemnon and Clytemnestra are the parents but the actor is Agamemnon and it makes explicit the notion that others impose on you the belief you must sacrifice a child. In the Abraham story, this abstracts to a voice. The comparison makes clear that Abraham hears the same voices and he believes them, so he is prepared to sacrifice though it is bleeping horrible – the story ramps up the horror by having this be the only child of theirs AND he sent away his other son with Hagar so this would be punishing Sarah for having removed Ishmael, meaning somehow that removing Isaac would punish Sarah for what she made Abraham do to Hagar and Ishmael, as though that makes sense. It should not make sense because its way worse than cutting off your own nose to spite your face.

This suggests to me the unbifurcated stories are older or deeper, but it’s possible they combine two threads that pre-existed and appear to be the source but are instead a later synthesis. Don’t know. I also think that means there appears to be a bifurcation at Abraham, meaning I’m unaware of the idealization of the name containing human sacrifice so I think the name idea comes out at that general time in story. This resolves pretty well if I think of the Iphigenia dies story and the Isaac dies story as connecting except the Isaac dies story isn’t told because the Abraham tradition starts a new story line as it ties to the un-nameable God concept and the abstraction away from the female and nature metaphors.

I’m having trouble identifying a spot where the male and female diverged. I can see the Vedic equivalent – same era? – in Shatapatha Brahmana 13.6.2, which tells the story of human sacrifice being interrupted by a voice. The connection between Judaism and Hinduism is really deep, which may sound odd because Hinduism names everything, but it names them multiple ways over so one begins with a label and chases it around and around, like I described with Thali. Judaism has trouble seeing the similarity even though all the stories about God are a bunch of labels chasing around in different contexts. They seem to me to be the most universal in reach.

Saw this really nice show in Worcester yesterday. Lots of good pictures but what made it was that I’ve been to Homer’s studio on Prout’s Neck, outside of Portland, so I can tell the pictures that are directly authentic – because they were outside the door – and those, like the famous image of a woman being rescued, which are studio fabrications. The show brought out the similarities in Homer’s work to artists like Millet, but also his American nature. In painting images, he’s more in the solidity style that you see in Eakins, but where it really shows is his focus on the back lighting; he dims the foreground in landscapes and in a relatively famous picture of women dancing at a campfire in front of the sea, so the sky is lit behind or the sea sparkles in the dark. You don’t see that in European painting.

Also went to the Salisbury Mansion next door. Had a great guide, which really helps when going through old houses. Built in the 1770’s, it was at first about ⅔ a store and ⅓ a residence but as the family made money they took over the space, added walls, etc. It was moved up a hill as Worcester developed around it and in the 1980’s was restored to look as it did in the 1830’s. The house is one of the best documented in the country. They even have the original building contract and many original furnishings. They found the mantle in the main parlor buried in a backyard after it had been removed in 1929! During the siege of Boston, when you had to take sides or be labeled a collaborator, the Boston relatives all moved in so the house was stuffed with people. It’s an open question the degree to which the Salisburys sat on the fence. It was important to show your colors but they seem to have done just enough, given their relative position as successful merchants, to avoid being treated as collaborators. The Salisburys eventually developed the first big commercial industrial mill space in Worcester – and thus in the country – and gave a huge boost to the industrialization of America. They even have the original sign from the store, found in a family attic. It says S. Salifbury, which shows not only the spelling but pronunciation differed as the original had a separate syllable in the middle that we tend to drop. They were the richest people in the count for decades.

Then we went for dinner to RailTrail Flatbread in Hudson. That place is slammed all day on Saturday! The food is good. The cocktails and the food tend to be a little sweet but that’s how people like things. The food is well thought out and carefully prepared.

Watching the gangster classic White Heat with James Cagney as the genuinely psychotic Cody Jarret. A cat had kittens under the porch across the street. A few were grabbed by people, don’t know what happened to the rest – maybe all were grabbed – and then there was a kitten lying in the dirt with his legs crossed in front of him, his eyes sealed shut with an infection. I picked him up, carried him home, took him in the shower – discovered he was a him – and we unsealed his eyes. He was tiny. Could barely walk straight. Our old cat Lilybelle walked up to him and the little thing reared back and hit her in the nose though she outweighed him by like 50 times over. I named him Cody Jarret, typically Mister Cody Jarret because the M in his facial fur – he was a lot of Maine Coon though the mom was domestic short hair – obviously stood for Mister. Top the world, ma! He grew into a near 20lb alpha by the time he was a year old, but he took off when we caught 3 kittens from his mother’s next litter because he just couldn’t stand being around so many cats. He showed this every day, either by grabbing them by the neck and squeezing until I stopped him or sulking in a box. I hope he found a good home because he was a very special Cody.

I’m trying to isolate the irrationality in thought. That’s a hard idea to put in words. Irrationality is that which doesn’t resolve properly within a context. It’s irrational to speak out for democracy in a theocracy that will execute you but rational in the hope that you can change their minds until they prove otherwise. Irrationality is the point where the future context becomes the current failure. Like my inability to think of what to say next.

The way I phrased that was important: ‘until they prove otherwise’. Execution is a rather blunt proof. Lesser proofs can range from everyone tells you that you’re crazy, all the way to you worry that others will think you’re crazy and you don’t even know why you care about that. Again, a careful phrasing: If you scale proofs from they kill you through various physical punishments into verbal information and stuff like people avoiding you, through into your own worries until they are worries about worries about worries, etc.

I’ve been tracing and scaling irrationality in many dimensions. Chasing it down means narrowing the gap in understanding of the space Between what we expect and what happens. We expect trees to make noise when they fall. We expect that because the physical rules say so. As we move away from the physical, the gap Between what we expect and what happens grows. I can talk that apart. I conceptualize them a sMudi and lay them out in x-yR that I count.

You have no idea how much Tali is going to shape music, and through music she will shape how you hear. And through that, she will shape how you feel. She controls sound so the gap Between you and the experience of the sound, with all its layers, goes away. She absorbs you into the sound, into the emotions, into grey areas of meaning that highlight her messages.

That process I can describe better each day: for each bit, she encodes the inverted bit. The inverted bit is the CM64 of the bit inverted over CM1. I tend to leap here to CM64^-34 because that’s 16 counts of 2 steps inside a Thing, but I’m a little concerned that’s because of the obvious similarity to the Planck value. To be specific, because there is a similarity, there’s a relation because that’s how the fCM calculations work: the value calculates in CMs according to fCM that generates this other occurrence of the value, perhaps off by a power of 10, and some other very small amount, and some fCM connects them. I can even say that diminishes the gap to this tiny difference Between what I expect and what happens, meaning that’s the size of the irrationality. I can even explain some of the gap: a power of 10 difference signifies the switch in operations space from fCM into or out of base10. That leaves the actual small difference as representing fCM that maybe I can’t see into well enough to understand.

Example: it’s irrational to believe Tali can change music and the rest except I trust my opinions when they are this deeply held. What makes some opinions deeply held? Counter-example: I have a belief the Patriots will win the Super Bowl. That belief is based on my readings of the teams, but it may be skewed – likely is – by my deeper understanding of the Patriots, which means I may be misreading the Eagles ‘somewhat’. I put in ‘somewhat’ because while I do trust my reading, there’s a layer of caviat on my belief: there’s a chance I read them completely wrong, a chance I prefer not to dwell on because I don’t think it’s likely. It’s in my victory calculations as a Black Swan, meaning I’m calculating as though that option doesn’t exist. Since I’m not betting real money or anything on the game, and all I risk is re-evaluating my judgements, then I don’t need to assign a value to the Black Swan of being completely wrong. That’s how life works in general: you place a value on the negative outcome as well as on the positive. You can extend my methods to define a context space that evaluates the ‘negative’ for any ‘positive’ by treating the negative as Mudi which interact with the positive Mudi at the measured, known or suspected or even posited points.

In the football example, it’s trust in my ability to analyze something with a specific result at a specific time: end of game there’s a winner and that occurs then and not before or after. That isolates the irrationality really well because the expectation hits contextually imposed reality just like an execution. The metaphor runs deep: if the Patriots lose, it might be because of an injury or a fluke play or for some other reason short of I was completely wrong about them and the Eagles, and that is like a real execution because that terminates the game of your life but maybe that’s because of a fluke not because you were fundamentally wrong.

It’s irrational to believe unless what you believe turns out to be true. It’s irrational not to believe because there’s always a reason why belief failed, from truly random through variations of fluke through rational reasons into absolute condemnation, repulsion or other horror movie disgust. This gets to a point I’ve made many times: it’s about the direction. Since any belief becomes rational, directionality is the only way you can assign values to any belief. And I mean any belief, from belief that gravity is universal to belief in higher power. Example would be how one treats detached murderers – like the Las Vegas shooter – versus personal murderers – like the Texas church shooter: while one appears to treat people as objects afar, the other treats people as objects up close. The intensity of rage is more obvious in the latter, though perhaps not always. I can map this.