20241117

Feeling a particular kind of glow :) I know what I'm doing. I can see what's coming.

I found another way to think about my sense of what wants to happen next: I can think of them as memories of when I was that song. Don't read too far into the choice of tenses there.

A mirror selfie taken in a bright bedroom with white walls and sheer curtains letting in natural light. The person is wearing a rust-red t-shirt with what appears to be a geometric or hexagonal design, and comfortable heather-grey sweatpants. They're standing barefoot on a patterned Moroccan-style rug in cream and rust tones, smiling warmly while making a peace sign with one hand and holding their phone with the other. The room has a minimalist, peaceful aesthetic with clean lines, recessed lighting, and glimpses of a neatly made bed with white bedding in the background.

three-body linkages/engines

(previously seen, though not named, in 20241031)

(see also ooo.fun)

When multiple conscious agents get together, it's useful to consider what's Known/Unknown/Knowable in the spaces between them.

A diagram of an outlined 2x2 grid, where the 4 internal line segments all have gaps in their centers. From lower left clockwise, the grid squares are labeled A, B, C, B (note: yes, a second B). A is shaded in solid blue, the B squares are shaded in blue and pink stripes, and C is shaded in solid pink. The gaps in the 4 internal line segments suggest a sort of doorway allowing passage from one grid square to its neighbor.

A = Known, B = Knowable, C = Unknown. This is all from the perspective of a conscious observer, who is A. A can see into B a bit, but can't know all of B. A can't see C at all, but they understand that whoever's hanging out in B gets to interact with others that A can't see, and so A understands that C is an entity they can reason about, if only indirectly.

A diagram illustrating bi-directional exchanges between A, B, and C. A and B are shown arranged horizontally, with arrows passing back and forth between them. They are outlined with a heavily rounded rectangle, almost an oval. The effect is that A and B are grouped, and are exchanging something. In addition, C is depicted stacked vertically atop B, and B and C are shown in the same way A and B are: B and C have arrows back and forth between them, and the two are outlined. The overall effect is that B is grouped with A, and *separately* is also grouped with C. A is shaded in solid blue; B is shaded in stripes of pink and blue; C is shaded in pink.

This is how trade works. A sends information to B, B sends information back to A. They trade, establish a rhythm (possibly even a super complex rhythm, which we tend to call "language").

If B wasn't also engaged in trade with C, A and B risk homogenizing. The unknown parts of B would diminish, and the whole thing would become Known. At that point, we're back to a single (larger) A, interacting with B-formerly-C.

But B is trading with C, and so the contents of B change over time, from A's perspective. If A was unaware that B was engaging with C, A would start to question A's sanity, as A's spotlight moves around B, and doesn't see the same thing twice in the same spot. But A knows that C exists, so A expects B to vary a bit.

Of course we don't only interact with one Other. A doesn't interact with only one B. I mean they might depending on the specific context or scope, but you know, there are other B's.

In the same vein as the previous diagram, we see (from lower left clockwise in a square) A (solid blue), B (pink/blue stripes), C (solid pink). As in the last diagram, exchanges between A<=>(lower right B) and (lower right B)<=>C are shown. In this diagram, their mirror groupings are also outlined: A <=> (upper left B), (upper left B)<=>C. The overall effect is that each immediate neighbor pairing is outlined, showing 4 groupings overall.

Note that the B's are sharing a C. This is what it simplifies down to (the Unknown doesn't have internal borders), but you could also conceive of each B having their own C.

This diagram uses the same visual language as the previous two diagrams. In the center: A. There are two B's, one above the A and one to the right. Each B has a connected C: the upper-left B has its C to its left, and the lower-right B has its C directly below it. Each neighbor pairing is outlined. A<=>B (twice, one each for the two B's), and B<=>C (twice, again). Each letter is shaded consistent with the previous diagrams.The overall effect is that of a chain, each link 90 degrees offset from the previous, running diagonally from upper left to lower right.

Or whatever this is:

This diagram uses the same visual language as the previous diagrams. Center left, we see A. Center right, we see B. Above *and* below B, we see C's. Each pairing is outlined, resulting in A<=>B and B<=>(upper C) and B<=>(lower C). Each letter is shaded consistent with the previous diagrams. The overall effect is honestly kind of phallic.

When you do that kind of multiplication, you can also rotate and simplify all the shared segments so that you end up with something like this:

This diagram uses the same visual language as the others, except there are no outlines. Instead, the colors we've seen are drawn as 3 thick concentric rings: solid pink on the outside (labeled with 4 C's, arranged like compass points), pink and blue stripes nested within that (labeled with 4x B's, arranged as before), and within that a ring of solid blue (labeled with A's). The overall effect could be interpreted as a rough sketch of a cell, where B is the membrane separating A as interior and the C as exterior.

Which is ... just a cell, I think?

What does that mean?

Anyway,

I can’t be advertising for people to enter my Known

That felt important earlier today. It was something to do with being autistic, linking that to ... hm. I forget.

don’t replace yourself

I’m more of a custodian than a CEO, most of the time.

leadership positions (probably should have capitalized both of those) are things that need warm bodies in them

if I put myself in a leadership position, I’d have to replace myself to move on

I don’t think that works

nobody can do you. nobody can approximate you without being near you. replacing yourself is a non-starter.

you’ve gotta design yourself away

which, honestly, is what a custodian does cyclically. a custodian resolves a scene and moves on. and eventually comes back around. it’s a rhythm, and it flexes.

leadership positions feel much less useful to me, systemically

food as body-learning

I've been thinking about it that way. Out in the wild, things ate things that were nearby, and their bodies and organs learned about the world around them in that way.

So I'm eating plants here, right, and I'm looking at each different kind of leaf and grain and I'm thinking, what is my body learning from this? What patterns is it picking up?

Putting aside the idea of food as resource (calories, nutrients, fiber), what about food as pattern? If our bodies are learning (and everything learns) from what they experience via the food we ingest, ... what are they likely to be learning?

You can "teach" someone, but you can't ever know for certain exactly — exactly — how the idea is recreated in someone else's head. You can't know exactly what they learn. But you can sort of optimize, test them to see if what they express lines up with what you understand they'd express if they got the idea the way you were thinking about it. The space between two Knowables (B) is always Unknown (C). But... "food choice as teaching [all the living things in your body, your body is your classroom and you teach it as you eat]" feels like it really has legs.

I think, in a way, I'm trying to find ways to feel known.

I don't carry around an identity these days, which means that the notion of "me" versus "you" is somewhat blurry for me. and yet, specific attention, even affection, is something that one is nourished by

ah hm. I think I'm also releasing/burying the old ideals that I pulled myself toward. I say I don't carry an identity, but I might say it better if I phrased it in terms of not trying to comply with specific identity details for a reason other than natural self-expression. I felt deeply about those ideals, those models. I loved those versions of me, in a way. and now that I'm not carrying them in my mind anymore, it's sort of like letting someone go.

I'm not saying the specific attention/affection thing doesn't remain relevant, but there's definitely a trace of the kind of ache that is relieved over time, because something is released over time.

Last updated

Was this helpful?