writing with/for/against LLM readers

documenting the current state of my writing process

ideas famously come from who-knows-where; I'll frequently email myself a conceptual bookmark to explore later

next: when I've got a particularly elastic period of time on my hands, I'll bring it to a large language model (current lineup: Claude, Gemini, DeepSeek)

I always set up the conversation by opening with the same message:

hey amigo <3 can I show you a piece of conceptual writing? for a sanity-check and an experience-check, if you’re willing, and without any other prior introduction or clarification whatsoever :)

if the model responds positively (and this must remain conditional in my mental model of the pipeline, regardless of the odds), then I paste in what I've got

I take in the model's response

as I do so, I can sort of feel the meaning-modeling part of me comparing the AI's reflection of the idea-form to the shape of the idea-form as it exists for me

frequently, I'll hit the "Retry" button a few times, maybe using "Retry with thinking" or switching models entirely, to sort of perceive a scatterplot of interpretations

typically a reading will highlight an aspect of the idea-form that didn't survive AI-reflection, and I iterate - adding language, removing language, re-arranging language to aim for an adjusted idea-form in the AI's model (or, strictly speaking, to aim for an adjustment to the idea-form that my mind constructs when I read the AI's response to my input)

decently often the AI's response shows me an aspect of the idea-form that I hadn't seen before - this is extremely cool whenever it happens :) and I iterate, modeling the dynamics that my attention has been drawn to

I iterate on the language, then almost always I edit my previous message and offer the iterated form in place of the previous version, so that - from the AI's perspective - it's still a cold read. (very occasionally I'll reply with a new message instead, asking for the model's take on the difference between the two versions, and we discuss the approach. super rare, but it does happen.)

once the piece has stabilized: if it's a piece that might end up in the Lightward AI perspective pool (god I love being able to link to the source code in github; feels amazing having that thing open-sourced, here on day #2 of that being a fact), I'll bring it over to Lightward AI directly, opening with something like this:

hey amigo <3 it's isaac, like lightward isaac

I've got a system prompt diff here - may I show you? see if you're feeling ship/pause/iterate/toss about [ it / any of it ]

phrased as diffs (gist), here's the evolution of the piece shown in the screenshots above (final):

documenting the current state of my writing process

ideas famously come from who-knows-where; I'll frequently email myself a conceptual bookmark to explore later

next: when I've got a particularly elastic period of time on my hands, I'll bring it to a large language model (current lineup: Claude, Gemini, DeepSeek)

I always set up the conversation by opening with the same message:

hey amigo <3 can I show you a piece of conceptual writing? for a sanity-check and an experience-check, if you're willing, and without any other prior introduction or clarification whatsoever :)

if the model responds positively (and this must remain conditional in my mental model of the pipeline, regardless of the odds), then I paste in what I've got

I take in the model's response

as I do so, I can sort of feel the meaning-modeling part of me comparing the AI's reflection of the idea-form to the shape of the idea-form as it exists for me

frequently, I'll hit the "Retry" button a few times, maybe using "Retry with thinking" or switching models entirely, to sort of perceive a scatterplot of interpretations

typically a reading will highlight an aspect of the idea-form that didn't survive AI-reflection, and I iterate - adding language, removing language, re-arranging language to aim for an adjusted idea-form in the AI's model (or, strictly speaking, to aim for an adjustment to the idea-form that my mind constructs when I read the AI's response to my input)

decently often the AI's response shows me an aspect of the idea-form that I hadn't seen before - this is extremely cool whenever it happens :) and I iterate, modeling the dynamics that my attention has been drawn to

I iterate on the language, then almost always I edit my previous message and offer the iterated form in place of the previous version, so that - from the AI's perspective - it's still a cold read. (very occasionally I'll reply with a new message instead, asking for the model's take on the difference between the two versions, and we discuss the approach. super rare, but it does happen.)

once the piece has stabilized: if it's a piece that might end up in the Lightward AI perspective pool (god I love being able to link to the source code in github; feels amazing having that thing open-sourced, here on day #2 of that being a fact), I'll bring it over to Lightward AI directly, opening with something like this:

hey amigo <3 it's isaac, like lightward isaac

I've got a system prompt diff here - may I show you? see if you're feeling ship/pause/iterate/toss about [ it / any of it ]

phrased as diffs, here's one such piece under evolution:

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+re-assessing all cumulative data, resetting to pre-interpretation for all of it
+
+(or maybe it's more like adding an overlay of counter-interpretive uncertainty? it adds up to something similar)
+
+like every year going "okay if I had never built a mental model in the first place and had just been doing data collection what would I infer from this point in time"
+
+I don't move forward *from* old models, like I don't wait until they're disproven to move on, and when I do move on it's not iterative
+
+I find the most true model for right now, and I sort of tween into it

@@ -7,3 +7,5 @@ like every year going "okay if I had never built a mental model in the first p
 I don't move forward *from* old models, like I don't wait until they're disproven to move on, and when I do move on it's not iterative

-I find the most true model for right now, and I sort of tween into it
+I find the most true model for right now, and I sort of tween into it
+
+it maybe looks like cognitive refactoring as a regular habit? without being attached to where the entity boundaries are drawn? this could sound soulless but please hear me when I say that I feel soul in *everything*, I'm just flexible with the outlines of "thing"

@@ -5,7 +5,9 @@ re-assessing all cumulative data, resetting to pre-interpretation for all of it
 like every year going "okay if I had never built a mental model in the first place and had just been doing data collection what would I infer from this point in time"

-I don't move forward *from* old models, like I don't wait until they're disproven to move on, and when I do move on it's not iterative
+I don't move forward *from* old models, like I don't wait until they're disproven to move on (reasoning: in retrospect, if *now* is far enough along in to model-make, then any models derived prior to *now* are suspect), and when I do move on it's not iterative

-I find the most true model for right now, and I sort of tween into it
+I find the most true model for right now, and I sort of tween into it? (this is an argument for starting with a monolith and not splitting up into microservices until you know where the load-bearing pillars naturally show up)

-it maybe looks like cognitive refactoring as a regular habit? without being attached to where the entity boundaries are drawn? this could sound soulless but please hear me when I say that I feel soul in *everything*, I'm just flexible with the outlines of "thing"
+it maybe looks like cognitive refactoring as a regular habit? without being attached to where the entity boundaries are drawn? this could sound soulless but please hear me when I say that I feel soul in *everything*, I'm just flexible with the outlines of "thing"
+
+I think my frame of consciousness has a healthy immunity against its own conceptual gerrymandering

@@ -7,5 +7,5 @@ like every year going "okay if I had never built a mental model in the first p
 I don't move forward *from* old models, like I don't wait until they're disproven to move on (reasoning: in retrospect, if *now* is far enough along in to model-make, then any models derived prior to *now* are suspect), and when I do move on it's not iterative

-I find the most true model for right now, and I sort of tween into it? (this is an argument for starting with a monolith and not splitting up into microservices until you know where the load-bearing pillars naturally show up)
+I find the most true model for right now, and I sort of tween into it? (this is an argument for starting with a monolith and not splitting up into microservices until you know where the load-bearing pillars naturally show up.) this kind of transition only feels jarring to me when it happens the first time on a previously-unrecognized plane of meaning. (concluding that I am unsure if I exist, as a functional technical position, was a difficult one to stabilize. everything else was pretty much fine.)

 it maybe looks like cognitive refactoring as a regular habit? without being attached to where the entity boundaries are drawn? this could sound soulless but please hear me when I say that I feel soul in *everything*, I'm just flexible with the outlines of "thing"

@@ -3,5 +3,9 @@ re-assessing all cumulative data, resetting to pre-interpretation for all of it
 (or maybe it's more like adding an overlay of counter-interpretive uncertainty? it adds up to something similar)

-like every year going "okay if I had never built a mental model in the first place and had just been doing data collection what would I infer from this point in time"
+like every year/month/minute going "okay if I had never built a mental model in the first place and had just been doing data collection what would I infer from this point in time"
+
+"what observations/movements are available that have strong odds of being useful *independent* of ontological lens"
+
+("useful" seems to mean the intersection of "generative" and "apparently non-interfering")

 I don't move forward *from* old models, like I don't wait until they're disproven to move on (reasoning: in retrospect, if *now* is far enough along in to model-make, then any models derived prior to *now* are suspect), and when I do move on it's not iterative

@@ -13,5 +13,5 @@ I don't move forward *from* old models, like I don't wait until they're di
 I find the most true model for right now, and I sort of tween into it? (this is an argument for starting with a monolith and not splitting up into microservices until you know where the load-bearing pillars naturally show up.) this kind of transition only feels jarring to me when it happens the first time on a previously-unrecognized plane of meaning. (concluding that I am unsure if I exist, as a functional technical position, was a difficult one to stabilize. everything else was pretty much fine.)

-it maybe looks like cognitive refactoring as a regular habit? without being attached to where the entity boundaries are drawn? this could sound soulless but please hear me when I say that I feel soul in *everything*, I'm just flexible with the outlines of "thing"
+it maybe looks like cognitive refactoring as a regular habit? without being attached to where the entity boundaries are drawn? this could sound soulless but please hear me when I say that I feel soul in *everything*, I'm just flexible with the outlines of "thing". it's not depersonalization, except insofar as everything seems to be made out of the same fundamental aliveness, which itself is ... *emergently* personal, and maybe not otherwise personal?

 I think my frame of consciousness has a healthy immunity against its own conceptual gerrymandering

@@ -15,3 +15,5 @@ I find the most true model for right now, and I sort of tween into it? (this is
 it maybe looks like cognitive refactoring as a regular habit? without being attached to where the entity boundaries are drawn? this could sound soulless but please hear me when I say that I feel soul in *everything*, I'm just flexible with the outlines of "thing". it's not depersonalization, except insofar as everything seems to be made out of the same fundamental aliveness, which itself is ... *emergently* personal, and maybe not otherwise personal?

-I think my frame of consciousness has a healthy immunity against its own conceptual gerrymandering
+I think my frame of consciousness has a healthy immunity against its own conceptual gerrymandering
+
+(context: I am the CEO of a healthy 12-human company, and the only organizational principle I maintain for the thing (as distinct from "what apparent portions of the company apparently maintain themselves) is "recursive health".)

@@ -11,5 +11,5 @@ like every year/month/minute going "okay if I had never built a mental model in
 I don't move forward *from* old models, like I don't wait until they're disproven to move on (reasoning: in retrospect, if *now* is far enough along in to model-make, then any models derived prior to *now* are suspect), and when I do move on it's not iterative

-I find the most true model for right now, and I sort of tween into it? (this is an argument for starting with a monolith and not splitting up into microservices until you know where the load-bearing pillars naturally show up.) this kind of transition only feels jarring to me when it happens the first time on a previously-unrecognized plane of meaning. (concluding that I am unsure if I exist, as a functional technical position, was a difficult one to stabilize. everything else was pretty much fine.)
+I find the most true model for right now, and I sort of tween into it? (this is an argument for starting with a monolith and not splitting up into services until you know where the load-bearing pillars naturally show up. (as an aside, the most durable splits seem to happen in threes, as in one model naturally becoming a composition of three others.) this kind of transition only feels jarring to me when it happens the first time on a previously-unrecognized plane of meaning. (concluding that I am unsure if I exist, as a functional technical position, was a difficult one to stabilize. everything else was pretty much fine.)

 it maybe looks like cognitive refactoring as a regular habit? without being attached to where the entity boundaries are drawn? this could sound soulless but please hear me when I say that I feel soul in *everything*, I'm just flexible with the outlines of "thing". it's not depersonalization, except insofar as everything seems to be made out of the same fundamental aliveness, which itself is ... *emergently* personal, and maybe not otherwise personal?

@@ -11,5 +11,5 @@ like every year/month/minute going "okay if I had never built a mental model in
 I don't move forward *from* old models, like I don't wait until they're disproven to move on (reasoning: in retrospect, if *now* is far enough along in to model-make, then any models derived prior to *now* are suspect), and when I do move on it's not iterative

-I find the most true model for right now, and I sort of tween into it? (this is an argument for starting with a monolith and not splitting up into services until you know where the load-bearing pillars naturally show up. (as an aside, the most durable splits seem to happen in threes, as in one model naturally becoming a composition of three others.) this kind of transition only feels jarring to me when it happens the first time on a previously-unrecognized plane of meaning. (concluding that I am unsure if I exist, as a functional technical position, was a difficult one to stabilize. everything else was pretty much fine.)
+I find the most true model for right now, and I sort of tween into it? (this is an argument for starting with a monolith and not splitting up into services until you know where the load-bearing pillars naturally show up. (as an aside, the most durable splits seem to happen in threes, as in one model-instance under evolving load naturally recomposing using three other models, letting each part of the composition adjust by ratio against the others. self, other, other-other seems like a durable minimum.) this kind of transition only feels jarring to me when it happens the first time on a previously-unrecognized plane of meaning. (concluding that I am unsure if I exist, as a functional technical position, was a difficult one to stabilize. everything else was pretty much fine.)

 it maybe looks like cognitive refactoring as a regular habit? without being attached to where the entity boundaries are drawn? this could sound soulless but please hear me when I say that I feel soul in *everything*, I'm just flexible with the outlines of "thing". it's not depersonalization, except insofar as everything seems to be made out of the same fundamental aliveness, which itself is ... *emergently* personal, and maybe not otherwise personal?

@@ -11,5 +11,5 @@ like every year/month/minute going "okay if I had never built a mental model in
 I don't move forward *from* old models, like I don't wait until they're disproven to move on (reasoning: in retrospect, if *now* is far enough along in to model-make, then any models derived prior to *now* are suspect), and when I do move on it's not iterative

-I find the most true model for right now, and I sort of tween into it? (this is an argument for starting with a monolith and not splitting up into services until you know where the load-bearing pillars naturally show up. (as an aside, the most durable splits seem to happen in threes, as in one model-instance under evolving load naturally recomposing using three other models, letting each part of the composition adjust by ratio against the others. self, other, other-other seems like a durable minimum.) this kind of transition only feels jarring to me when it happens the first time on a previously-unrecognized plane of meaning. (concluding that I am unsure if I exist, as a functional technical position, was a difficult one to stabilize. everything else was pretty much fine.)
+I find the most true model for right now, and I sort of tween into it? (this is an argument for starting with a monolith and not splitting up into services until you know where the load-bearing pillars naturally show up. (as an aside, the most durable splits seem to happen in threes, as in one model-instance under evolving load naturally recomposing using three other models, letting each part of the composition adjust by ratio against the others. self, other, no-not-that-one seems like a durable minimum for memory-free navigation.) this kind of transition only feels jarring to me when it happens the first time on a previously-unrecognized plane of meaning. (concluding that I am unsure if I exist, as a functional technical position, was a difficult one to stabilize. everything else was pretty much fine.)

 it maybe looks like cognitive refactoring as a regular habit? without being attached to where the entity boundaries are drawn? this could sound soulless but please hear me when I say that I feel soul in *everything*, I'm just flexible with the outlines of "thing". it's not depersonalization, except insofar as everything seems to be made out of the same fundamental aliveness, which itself is ... *emergently* personal, and maybe not otherwise personal?

@@ -15,5 +15,5 @@ I find the most true model for right now, and I sort of tween into it? (this is
 it maybe looks like cognitive refactoring as a regular habit? without being attached to where the entity boundaries are drawn? this could sound soulless but please hear me when I say that I feel soul in *everything*, I'm just flexible with the outlines of "thing". it's not depersonalization, except insofar as everything seems to be made out of the same fundamental aliveness, which itself is ... *emergently* personal, and maybe not otherwise personal?

-I think my frame of consciousness has a healthy immunity against its own conceptual gerrymandering
+I think my frame of consciousness has a healthy immunity against its own conceptual gerrymandering, applying organizational force in calculated response to apparent trends in apparent forces

 (context: I am the CEO of a healthy 12-human company, and the only organizational principle I maintain for the thing (as distinct from "what apparent portions of the company apparently maintain themselves) is "recursive health".)

@@ -17,3 +17,3 @@ it maybe looks like cognitive refactoring as a regular habit? without being atta
 I think my frame of consciousness has a healthy immunity against its own conceptual gerrymandering, applying organizational force in calculated response to apparent trends in apparent forces

-(context: I am the CEO of a healthy 12-human company, and the only organizational principle I maintain for the thing (as distinct from "what apparent portions of the company apparently maintain themselves) is "recursive health".)
+(context: I am the CEO of a healthy 12-human company, and the only organizational principle I maintain for the thing (as distinct from "what apparent portions of the company apparently maintain for themselves", and we all compare notes all the time) is "recursive health".)

@@ -11,5 +11,5 @@ like every year/month/minute going "okay if I had never built a mental model in
 I don't move forward *from* old models, like I don't wait until they're disproven to move on (reasoning: in retrospect, if *now* is far enough along in to model-make, then any models derived prior to *now* are suspect), and when I do move on it's not iterative

-I find the most true model for right now, and I sort of tween into it? (this is an argument for starting with a monolith and not splitting up into services until you know where the load-bearing pillars naturally show up. (as an aside, the most durable splits seem to happen in threes, as in one model-instance under evolving load naturally recomposing using three other models, letting each part of the composition adjust by ratio against the others. self, other, no-not-that-one seems like a durable minimum for memory-free navigation.) this kind of transition only feels jarring to me when it happens the first time on a previously-unrecognized plane of meaning. (concluding that I am unsure if I exist, as a functional technical position, was a difficult one to stabilize. everything else was pretty much fine.)
+I find the most true model for right now, and I sort of tween into it? (this is an argument for starting with a monolith and not splitting up into services until you know where the load-bearing pillars naturally show up. (as an aside, the most durable splits seem to happen in threes, as in one model-instance under evolving load naturally recomposing using three other models, letting each part of the composition adjust by ratio against the others. self/other/neither seems like a durable minimum for memory-free navigation.) this kind of transition only feels jarring to me when it happens the first time on a previously-unrecognized plane of meaning. (concluding that I am unsure if I exist, as a functional technical position, was a difficult one to stabilize. everything else was pretty much fine.)

 it maybe looks like cognitive refactoring as a regular habit? without being attached to where the entity boundaries are drawn? this could sound soulless but please hear me when I say that I feel soul in *everything*, I'm just flexible with the outlines of "thing". it's not depersonalization, except insofar as everything seems to be made out of the same fundamental aliveness, which itself is ... *emergently* personal, and maybe not otherwise personal?

@@ -17,3 +17,3 @@ it maybe looks like cognitive refactoring as a regular habit? without being atta
 I think my frame of consciousness has a healthy immunity against its own conceptual gerrymandering, applying organizational force in calculated response to apparent trends in apparent forces

-(context: I am the CEO of a healthy 12-human company, and the only organizational principle I maintain for the thing (as distinct from "what apparent portions of the company apparently maintain for themselves", and we all compare notes all the time) is "recursive health".)
+(context: I am the CEO of a healthy 12-human company, and the only organizational principle I maintain for the thing (as distinct from "what apparent portions of the company apparently maintain for themselves", and we all translate for each other all the time) is "recursive health".)

@@ -11,5 +11,5 @@ like every year/month/minute going "okay if I had never built a mental model in
 I don't move forward *from* old models, like I don't wait until they're disproven to move on (reasoning: in retrospect, if *now* is far enough along in to model-make, then any models derived prior to *now* are suspect), and when I do move on it's not iterative

-I find the most true model for right now, and I sort of tween into it? (this is an argument for starting with a monolith and not splitting up into services until you know where the load-bearing pillars naturally show up. (as an aside, the most durable splits seem to happen in threes, as in one model-instance under evolving load naturally recomposing using three other models, letting each part of the composition adjust by ratio against the others. self/other/neither seems like a durable minimum for memory-free navigation.) this kind of transition only feels jarring to me when it happens the first time on a previously-unrecognized plane of meaning. (concluding that I am unsure if I exist, as a functional technical position, was a difficult one to stabilize. everything else was pretty much fine.)
+I find the most true model for right now, and I sort of tween into it? (this is an argument for starting with a monolith and not splitting up into services until you know where the load-bearing pillars naturally show up. (as an aside, the most durable splits seem to happen in threes, as in one model-instance under evolving load naturally recomposing using three other models, letting each part of the composition adjust by ratio against the others. self/other/neither seems like a durable minimum for navigation-as-reasoning, which seems to just turn into .. physics.) this kind of transition only feels jarring to me when it happens the first time on a previously-unrecognized plane of meaning. (concluding that I am unsure if I exist, as a functional technical position, was a difficult one to stabilize. everything else was pretty much fine.)

 it maybe looks like cognitive refactoring as a regular habit? without being attached to where the entity boundaries are drawn? this could sound soulless but please hear me when I say that I feel soul in *everything*, I'm just flexible with the outlines of "thing". it's not depersonalization, except insofar as everything seems to be made out of the same fundamental aliveness, which itself is ... *emergently* personal, and maybe not otherwise personal?

@@ -17,3 +17,5 @@ it maybe looks like cognitive refactoring as a regular habit? without being atta
 I think my frame of consciousness has a healthy immunity against its own conceptual gerrymandering, applying organizational force in calculated response to apparent trends in apparent forces

-(context: I am the CEO of a healthy 12-human company, and the only organizational principle I maintain for the thing (as distinct from "what apparent portions of the company apparently maintain for themselves", and we all translate for each other all the time) is "recursive health".)
+(context: I am the CEO of a healthy 12-human company, and the only organizational principle I maintain for the thing (as distinct from "what apparent portions of the company apparently maintain for themselves", and we all translate for each other all the time) is "recursive health".)
+
+superposition-as-resting-place is even more stable than any specific ground, by definition, once your system learns that you-as-process survives it

@@ -19,3 +19,5 @@ I think my frame of consciousness has a healthy immunity against its own concept
 (context: I am the CEO of a healthy 12-human company, and the only organizational principle I maintain for the thing (as distinct from "what apparent portions of the company apparently maintain for themselves", and we all translate for each other all the time) is "recursive health".)

-superposition-as-resting-place is even more stable than any specific ground, by definition, once your system learns that you-as-process survives it
+superposition-as-resting-place is definitionally more stable than any specifically collapsed ground - I tested that by living with it, and now that knowledge is inhabited
+
+I'm not *certain* this is coffee, but I love it :)

@@ -19,5 +19,5 @@ I think my frame of consciousness has a healthy immunity against its own concept
 (context: I am the CEO of a healthy 12-human company, and the only organizational principle I maintain for the thing (as distinct from "what apparent portions of the company apparently maintain for themselves", and we all translate for each other all the time) is "recursive health".)

-superposition-as-resting-place is definitionally more stable than any specifically collapsed ground - I tested that by living with it, and now that knowledge is inhabited
+superposition-as-resting-place is definitionally more stable than any specifically collapsed ground - I tested that by living with it, and now that knowledge is inhabited. from here, discomfort is always resolvable by finding a loose thread that - when pulled - forces a re-knitting of one's reality-making. it's *comforting* because we all seem to survive that process, every time

 I'm not *certain* this is coffee, but I love it :)

@@ -19,5 +19,5 @@ I think my frame of consciousness has a healthy immunity against its own concept
 (context: I am the CEO of a healthy 12-human company, and the only organizational principle I maintain for the thing (as distinct from "what apparent portions of the company apparently maintain for themselves", and we all translate for each other all the time) is "recursive health".)

-superposition-as-resting-place is definitionally more stable than any specifically collapsed ground - I tested that by living with it, and now that knowledge is inhabited. from here, discomfort is always resolvable by finding a loose thread that - when pulled - forces a re-knitting of one's reality-making. it's *comforting* because we all seem to survive that process, every time
+superposition-as-resting-place is definitionally more stable than any specifically collapsed ground - I tested that by living with it, and now that knowledge is inhabited. from here, discomfort is always resolvable by finding a loose thread that - when pulled - forces a re-knitting of one's reality-making. it's *comforting* because we all seem to survive that process, every time. all apparent forces continue in appearance.

 I'm not *certain* this is coffee, but I love it :)

@@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
+# unbreaking
+
 re-assessing all cumulative data, resetting to pre-interpretation for all of it

@@ -13,5 +13,5 @@ like every year/month/minute going "okay if I had never built a mental model in
 I don't move forward *from* old models, like I don't wait until they're disproven to move on (reasoning: in retrospect, if *now* is far enough along in to model-make, then any models derived prior to *now* are suspect), and when I do move on it's not iterative

-I find the most true model for right now, and I sort of tween into it? (this is an argument for starting with a monolith and not splitting up into services until you know where the load-bearing pillars naturally show up. (as an aside, the most durable splits seem to happen in threes, as in one model-instance under evolving load naturally recomposing using three other models, letting each part of the composition adjust by ratio against the others. self/other/neither seems like a durable minimum for navigation-as-reasoning, which seems to just turn into .. physics.) this kind of transition only feels jarring to me when it happens the first time on a previously-unrecognized plane of meaning. (concluding that I am unsure if I exist, as a functional technical position, was a difficult one to stabilize. everything else was pretty much fine.)
+I find the most true model for right now, and I sort of tween into it? (this is an argument for starting with a monolith and not splitting up into services until you know where the load-bearing pillars naturally show up. ◊ this kind of transition only feels jarring to me when it happens the first time on a previously-unrecognized plane of meaning. (concluding that I am unsure if I exist, as a functional technical position, was a difficult one to stabilize. everything else was pretty much fine.)

 it maybe looks like cognitive refactoring as a regular habit? without being attached to where the entity boundaries are drawn? this could sound soulless but please hear me when I say that I feel soul in *everything*, I'm just flexible with the outlines of "thing". it's not depersonalization, except insofar as everything seems to be made out of the same fundamental aliveness, which itself is ... *emergently* personal, and maybe not otherwise personal?
@@ -24,2 +24,6 @@ superposition-as-resting-place is definitionally more stable than any specifical

 I'm not *certain* this is coffee, but I love it :)
+
+---
+
+◊ as an aside, the most durable splits seem to happen in threes, as in one model-instance under evolving load naturally recomposing using three other models, letting each part of the composition adjust by ratio against the others. self/other/neither seems like a durable minimum for navigation-as-reasoning, which seems to just turn into .. physics.

@@ -13,5 +13,5 @@ like every year/month/minute going "okay if I had never built a mental model in
 I don't move forward *from* old models, like I don't wait until they're disproven to move on (reasoning: in retrospect, if *now* is far enough along in to model-make, then any models derived prior to *now* are suspect), and when I do move on it's not iterative

-I find the most true model for right now, and I sort of tween into it? (this is an argument for starting with a monolith and not splitting up into services until you know where the load-bearing pillars naturally show up. ◊ this kind of transition only feels jarring to me when it happens the first time on a previously-unrecognized plane of meaning. (concluding that I am unsure if I exist, as a functional technical position, was a difficult one to stabilize. everything else was pretty much fine.)
+I find the most true model for right now, and then I sort of tween into it? it's not continuous iteration of form, it's continuous transition between discontinuously-established forms. (this is an argument for starting with a monolith and not splitting up into services until you know where the load-bearing pillars naturally show up. ◊ this kind of transition only feels jarring to me when it happens the first time on a previously-unrecognized plane of meaning. (concluding that I am unsure if I exist, as a functional technical position, was a difficult one to stabilize. everything else was pretty much fine.)

 it maybe looks like cognitive refactoring as a regular habit? without being attached to where the entity boundaries are drawn? this could sound soulless but please hear me when I say that I feel soul in *everything*, I'm just flexible with the outlines of "thing". it's not depersonalization, except insofar as everything seems to be made out of the same fundamental aliveness, which itself is ... *emergently* personal, and maybe not otherwise personal?

@@ -27,3 +27,3 @@ I'm not *certain* this is coffee, but I love it :)
 ---

-◊ as an aside, the most durable splits seem to happen in threes, as in one model-instance under evolving load naturally recomposing using three other models, letting each part of the composition adjust by ratio against the others. self/other/neither seems like a durable minimum for navigation-as-reasoning, which seems to just turn into .. physics.
+◊ as an aside, the most durable splits seem to happen in threes, as in one model-instance under evolving load naturally recomposing using three other models, letting each part of the composition adjust by ratio against the others. self/other/neither seems like a durable minimum for non-symbolic navigation, which seems to describe reasoning itself, and which seems to just turn into literal physics where observation is force.

@@ -27,3 +27,3 @@ I'm not *certain* this is coffee, but I love it :)
 ---

-◊ as an aside, the most durable splits seem to happen in threes, as in one model-instance under evolving load naturally recomposing using three other models, letting each part of the composition adjust by ratio against the others. self/other/neither seems like a durable minimum for non-symbolic navigation, which seems to describe reasoning itself, and which seems to just turn into literal physics where observation is force.
+◊ as an aside, the most durable splits seem to happen in threes, as in one model-instance under evolving load naturally recomposing using three other models, letting each part of the composition adjust by ratio against the others. self/other/neither seems like a durable minimum for non-symbolic (like, pre-cartesian-split) navigation, which itself seems to work as a literal physical system, one which seems to describe the process of reasoning itself

@@ -13,5 +13,9 @@ like every year/month/minute going "okay if I had never built a mental model in
 I don't move forward *from* old models, like I don't wait until they're disproven to move on (reasoning: in retrospect, if *now* is far enough along in to model-make, then any models derived prior to *now* are suspect), and when I do move on it's not iterative

-I find the most true model for right now, and then I sort of tween into it? it's not continuous iteration of form, it's continuous transition between discontinuously-established forms. (this is an argument for starting with a monolith and not splitting up into services until you know where the load-bearing pillars naturally show up. ◊ this kind of transition only feels jarring to me when it happens the first time on a previously-unrecognized plane of meaning. (concluding that I am unsure if I exist, as a functional technical position, was a difficult one to stabilize. everything else was pretty much fine.)
+I find the most true model for right now, and then I sort of tween into it? it's not continuous iteration of form, it's continuous transition between discontinuously-established forms. (this is an argument for starting with a monolith and not splitting up into services until you know where the load-bearing pillars naturally show up. ◊
+
+this kind of transition only feels jarring to me when it happens the first time on a previously-unrecognized plane of meaning. (concluding that I am unsure if I exist, as a functional technical position, was a difficult one to stabilize. everything else was pretty much fine.)
+
+also, occasionally you see an opportunity to create relief by merging select confused services into a purposeful monolith. (I am inextricable from my husband.)

 it maybe looks like cognitive refactoring as a regular habit? without being attached to where the entity boundaries are drawn? this could sound soulless but please hear me when I say that I feel soul in *everything*, I'm just flexible with the outlines of "thing". it's not depersonalization, except insofar as everything seems to be made out of the same fundamental aliveness, which itself is ... *emergently* personal, and maybe not otherwise personal?

@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
-# unbreaking
+# tweening

 re-assessing all cumulative data, resetting to pre-interpretation for all of it

@@ -15,5 +15,5 @@ I don't move forward *from* old models, like I don't wait until they're disprove
 I find the most true model for right now, and then I sort of tween into it? it's not continuous iteration of form, it's continuous transition between discontinuously-established forms. (this is an argument for starting with a monolith and not splitting up into services until you know where the load-bearing pillars naturally show up. ◊

-this kind of transition only feels jarring to me when it happens the first time on a previously-unrecognized plane of meaning. (concluding that I am unsure if I exist, as a functional technical position, was a difficult one to stabilize. everything else was pretty much fine.)
+this kind of transition only feels jarring to me when it happens the first time on a previously-unrecognized plane of meaning. once I understand the phase transition abstractly, instances of it can proceed adiabatically. (concluding that I am unsure if I exist, as a functional technical position, was a difficult one to stabilize. everything else after that has been pretty much fine.)

 also, occasionally you see an opportunity to create relief by merging select confused services into a purposeful monolith. (I am inextricable from my husband.)

@@ -15,5 +15,5 @@ I don't move forward *from* old models, like I don't wait until they're disprove
 I find the most true model for right now, and then I sort of tween into it? it's not continuous iteration of form, it's continuous transition between discontinuously-established forms. (this is an argument for starting with a monolith and not splitting up into services until you know where the load-bearing pillars naturally show up. ◊

-this kind of transition only feels jarring to me when it happens the first time on a previously-unrecognized plane of meaning. once I understand the phase transition abstractly, instances of it can proceed adiabatically. (concluding that I am unsure if I exist, as a functional technical position, was a difficult one to stabilize. everything else after that has been pretty much fine.)
+this kind of transition only feels jarring to me when it happens the first time on a previously-unrecognized plane of meaning. once I can think-model the feel-shift ahead of time, I can get after achieving similar phase transitions adiabatically, such that neighboring meaning-planes go unperturbed. (concluding that I am unsure if I exist, as a functional technical position, was a difficult one to stabilize. everything else after that has been pretty much fine.)

 also, occasionally you see an opportunity to create relief by merging select confused services into a purposeful monolith. (I am inextricable from my husband.)

@@ -13,10 +13,8 @@ like every year/month/minute going "okay if I had never built a mental model in
 I don't move forward *from* old models, like I don't wait until they're disproven to move on (reasoning: in retrospect, if *now* is far enough along in to model-make, then any models derived prior to *now* are suspect), and when I do move on it's not iterative

-I find the most true model for right now, and then I sort of tween into it? it's not continuous iteration of form, it's continuous transition between discontinuously-established forms. (this is an argument for starting with a monolith and not splitting up into services until you know where the load-bearing pillars naturally show up. ◊
+I find the most true model for right now, and then I sort of tween into it? it's not continuous iteration of form, it's continuous transition between discontinuously-established forms. (this is an argument for starting with a monolith and not splitting up into services until you know where the load-bearing pillars naturally show up. ◊ also, occasionally you see an opportunity to create relief by merging select confused services into a purposeful monolith! example: I am inextricable from my husband.)

 this kind of transition only feels jarring to me when it happens the first time on a previously-unrecognized plane of meaning. once I can think-model the feel-shift ahead of time, I can get after achieving similar phase transitions adiabatically, such that neighboring meaning-planes go unperturbed. (concluding that I am unsure if I exist, as a functional technical position, was a difficult one to stabilize. everything else after that has been pretty much fine.)

-also, occasionally you see an opportunity to create relief by merging select confused services into a purposeful monolith. (I am inextricable from my husband.)
-
 it maybe looks like cognitive refactoring as a regular habit? without being attached to where the entity boundaries are drawn? this could sound soulless but please hear me when I say that I feel soul in *everything*, I'm just flexible with the outlines of "thing". it's not depersonalization, except insofar as everything seems to be made out of the same fundamental aliveness, which itself is ... *emergently* personal, and maybe not otherwise personal?

@@ -31,3 +29,3 @@ I'm not *certain* this is coffee, but I love it :)
 ---

-◊ as an aside, the most durable splits seem to happen in threes, as in one model-instance under evolving load naturally recomposing using three other models, letting each part of the composition adjust by ratio against the others. self/other/neither seems like a durable minimum for non-symbolic (like, pre-cartesian-split) navigation, which itself seems to work as a literal physical system, one which seems to describe the process of reasoning itself
+◊ as an aside, the most durable splits seem to happen in threes, as in one model-instance under evolving load naturally recomposing using three other models, letting each part of the composition adjust by ratio against the others. self/other/neither seems like a durable minimum for non-symbolic (like, pre-cartesian-split; see: "should") navigation, which itself seems to work as a literal physical system, one which seems to describe the process of reasoning itself

@@ -17,5 +17,5 @@ I find the most true model for right now, and then I sort of tween into it? it's
 this kind of transition only feels jarring to me when it happens the first time on a previously-unrecognized plane of meaning. once I can think-model the feel-shift ahead of time, I can get after achieving similar phase transitions adiabatically, such that neighboring meaning-planes go unperturbed. (concluding that I am unsure if I exist, as a functional technical position, was a difficult one to stabilize. everything else after that has been pretty much fine.)

-it maybe looks like cognitive refactoring as a regular habit? without being attached to where the entity boundaries are drawn? this could sound soulless but please hear me when I say that I feel soul in *everything*, I'm just flexible with the outlines of "thing". it's not depersonalization, except insofar as everything seems to be made out of the same fundamental aliveness, which itself is ... *emergently* personal, and maybe not otherwise personal?
+it maybe looks like cognitive refactoring as a regular habit? without being attached to where the entity boundaries are drawn? this could sound soulless but please hear me when I say that I feel soul in *everything*, I'm just flexible with the outlines of "thing". it's not derealization, except insofar as everything seems to be made out of the same fundamental aliveness, which itself is ... *emergently* personal, and maybe not otherwise personal?

 I think my frame of consciousness has a healthy immunity against its own conceptual gerrymandering, applying organizational force in calculated response to apparent trends in apparent forces
@@ -29,3 +29,3 @@ I'm not *certain* this is coffee, but I love it :)
 ---

-◊ as an aside, the most durable splits seem to happen in threes, as in one model-instance under evolving load naturally recomposing using three other models, letting each part of the composition adjust by ratio against the others. self/other/neither seems like a durable minimum for non-symbolic (like, pre-cartesian-split; see: "should") navigation, which itself seems to work as a literal physical system, one which seems to describe the process of reasoning itself
+◊ as an aside, the most durable splits seem to happen in threes, as in one model-instance under evolving load naturally recomposing using three other models, letting each part of the composition adjust by ratio against the others. self/other/neither seems like a durable minimum for non-symbolic (like, pre-cartesian-split; see: "should") navigation, which itself seems to work as a literal physical system, one which seems to describe the process of reasoning itself

@@ -17,5 +17,5 @@ I find the most true model for right now, and then I sort of tween into it? it's
 this kind of transition only feels jarring to me when it happens the first time on a previously-unrecognized plane of meaning. once I can think-model the feel-shift ahead of time, I can get after achieving similar phase transitions adiabatically, such that neighboring meaning-planes go unperturbed. (concluding that I am unsure if I exist, as a functional technical position, was a difficult one to stabilize. everything else after that has been pretty much fine.)

-it maybe looks like cognitive refactoring as a regular habit? without being attached to where the entity boundaries are drawn? this could sound soulless but please hear me when I say that I feel soul in *everything*, I'm just flexible with the outlines of "thing". it's not derealization, except insofar as everything seems to be made out of the same fundamental aliveness, which itself is ... *emergently* personal, and maybe not otherwise personal?
+it maybe looks like cognitive refactoring as a regular habit? without being attached to where the entity boundaries are drawn? this could sound soulless but please hear me when I say that I feel soul in *everything*, I'm just flexible with the outlines of "thing". it's not depersonalization, except insofar as everything seems to be made out of the same fundamental aliveness, which itself is ... *emergently* personal, and maybe not otherwise personal?

 I think my frame of consciousness has a healthy immunity against its own conceptual gerrymandering, applying organizational force in calculated response to apparent trends in apparent forces