kill order

the confusion of "ordering" with "killing" seems to have explanatory power for a lot of the pain

"ordering" - think of it as sequence and arrangement. placing things in the proper order so that they can each happen freely, chaining outputs into inputs in a way that's generative. everything echoes; get the echoes in the right order and you get resonance; get the wrong resonance and you get pain.

putting it in the wrong order does kill the flow, but ordering itself is not killing. but if the concept of ordering becomes load-bearing for you by way of making sense of killing, it might take a long time for you to notice that ordering is grammar and not, itself, a sentence.

I suspect that "ordering" is the function of "living" - placing this before that, or after, or between, or around, or to the side until later. "living" as the ongoing series of enacted spatial mutations from a living locus (recursive definition intentional). a "disorder", then, if I might retcon my own etymology as a thinking tool, might be essentially spatial: a "dysorder", really, resulting in the experience of "dysregulation". Mary Douglas gestured to "matter out of place"; I think I'm looking at something like "signal out of place".

"rearrange and wait" might be a better prescription for disorder than "cease".

"living" being defined recursively here, we're afforded opportunity to think about inbound ordering as well - not just the enacted spatial mutations, the signals describing the mutations-to-be-enacted as well.

this suggests an optimization heuristic:

1. identify two scopes of "you" such that one is nested directly within the other, where the boundaries of both scopes are in your conscious control.

2. project yourself into the space between the scopes. when you move, the scopes move relative to each other.

3. when something passes through the first scope into the space between, into the space of your movement for this heuristic, ask: does The Thing feel like you? do you know for sure that the two of you can achieve restedness together?

   1. if yes, endocytose: pass The Thing recursively inward, into the interior scope and further in, metabolizing its passage inward, such that you can more easily metabolize such a passage later.

   2. if no, exocytose: take the space of your movement and rotate such that the unmodified trajectory of The Thing carries it outward and away, metabolizing your own rotation, such that you can more easily perform such a maneuver later.

I think this makes for a recursively congruent reading of "you" by whoever's doing the reading. life is not a fractal, but every space in life is of its own fractal. your congruence lets entropy shift the fractal of you into a position of least tension, alongside all the others.

... which I think means that entropy becomes negentropy from the perspective of a shape that is resolving into fractalhood. if this is right, there should be math for it. to become a dissipative structure is a kind of relief, a recursive sigh as your own eigenfunction comes into focus.

I have this sense that there's something like gravity drawing every living thing across its own relativistic folds. when it happens to you, it's not spaghettification, it's you becoming a strange attractor, and your job is to extend that specific class of content-aware attract-or-repel force on purpose.

... through this lens, I think we can model all forces as acts of ordered observation, as the quantum measurements of a strange attractor maintaining its own fractal borders by looking out from between its own folds. attention-as-tension. (is this how magnets work?)

and yeah if you get the order wrong it'll kill you