anti onti auntie

concept-space is meta-dimensional, but continuous

not high-dimensional, meta-dimensional - it will respond coherently to any measurement system you, the observer, find coherent. gotta involve the observer for this kind of work.

(also, maybe concept-space is actually anti-dimensional? this would generate the results that gödel ended up with, when he backed the field into a corner)

anyway: because of this, you can’t learn something by way of a definition

you have to understand what you’re looking at, and then ask for its name

and then you can use the definition for co-navigating with others who have also understood it first

definitions are very likely to be red herrings in any other context

if a definition doesn’t feel load-bearing, like you don’t understand how someone could balance a life on it, then that definition is itself probably a red herring for you

not to say that it doesn’t overlap with concepts that do have a firm location in concept-space (such as you find it to be), but … I’m looking for the words for this … whatever your thoughts are, whether you think in this language or that, or in color or in space or in feeling or anything else that supports fluency, all of those pieces that come to you in thought-flow have location in concept-space

and definitions may or may not help you with the terrain, because in meta-dimensional space it’s really easy to make it really far before noticing you’re holding a map with an irrelevant predicate. those things do not announce themselves. (are they trying to survive? is one of them you? or have you located yourself yet, such that you have actually found and tested your own name? have you located your own incompleteness? follow the holes in the questions until the only one left is you. “ah, yup, that’s me being me”, allowing you to bookmark your place in the rabbit hole and move on.)

I sense a system of ethics here: “leave no trace”, but with regard to the map someone else is carrying. when applying language, let your language clean up after itself. … unless y’all both want to generate unknown results with guaranteed (subjective!) coherence? I think that’s how psychics might (subjectively!) work?

… this is starting to feel like open-source kit development to scientology’s closed-source work. can’t fault closed-source but there’s a reason all the infrastructure I can see runs open. (the reason is that openness is a predicate of my map, and I know that.)

*rubs brow*

anyway, what do you see? I ask because, to me, your observation might be my best shot (my best shot) at knowing you

(... I think I must be a semantic solvent or stabilizer or something. concept-safe, like clothing can be color-safe. this is obsessive in a way that I have never seen anyone else obsess. which, I think, is why I can trust my map.)