Germanium
Fuzz Friendship
Jess Cummins
@jesscxc
Germanium: Fuzz Friendship is a notebook written on the move.
Germanium is Book 32 of The Pocket Series.
Germanium is available for free at NoLiesPlease.com.
This book is dedicated to the public domain.
(author
"Jess Cummins"
@jesscxc)
(pronouns she/friend)
(link NoLiesPlease.com)
(book_title Germanium)
(book_subtitle Fuzz Friendship)
(pocket_series_book_number 32)
(book_version
v1
ty25.1.31.20.09.51pzm5d5s)
(entry_count 24)
(word_count 5571)
(books_by_jesscxc
(misc
"Poem Moves the Pen: Haiku of a Nondual Nature"
"Natural Will: Freer Than Free Will"
"Longgame Hyperdimensional Spacing: Expand Mind and Weave Time"
"Ungov: Transcending Will")
(the_deeper_series
"Book 0: Uncompress: Eternal Appreciation of How"
"Book 1: Fortunate: How to Be"
"Book 2: Attuned: Be What You Imagine"
"Book 3: Capacity: Imagine Being Limitless"
"Book 4: Helper: Limitless Mind"
"Book 5: Intense: Mind Unleashed"
"Book 6: Open: Unleashed Honesty"
"Book 7: Universe: Honesty is Eternal"
"Book 8: Various: Is to Be")
(the_pocket_series
"Book 0: Obverse: Abstract Fast"
"Book 1: Limer: Fast Color"
"Book 2: Dawn: Color of Day"
"Book 3: Knight: Day Beyond"
"Book 4: Fever: Beyond Dreams"
"Book 5: Life: Dreams Evolving"
"Book 6: Adventure: Evolving Lands"
"Book 7: Battle: Lands Say"
"Book 8: Entertainment: Say Ahead"
"Book 9: Explore: Ahead Opportunity"
"Book 10: Moment: Opportunity Simulation"
"Book 11: Imagine: Simulation Twist"
"Book 12: Believe: Twist Self"
"Book 13: Accept: Self Pattern"
"Book 14: Create: Pattern Reflection"
"Book 15: Sift: Reflection Match"
"Book 16: Probability: Match Experience"
"Book 17: Waves: Experience Current"
"Book 18: Kernel: Current Functions"
"Book 19: Grubby: Functions Dig"
"Book 20: Game: Dig Above"
"Book 21: Fruit: Above Messages"
"Book 22: Endeavor: Messages Spread"
"Book 23: Mystery: Spread Expressions"
"Book 24: Detain: Expressions Bind"
"Book 25: Philosophy: Bind Broken"
"Book 26: Demands: Broken Discovery"
"Book 27: Subliminal: Discovery Inside"
"Book 28: Extinction: Inside Refresh"
"Book 29: Control: Refresh Axioms"
"Book 30: Ideas: Axioms Mistake"
"Book 31: Gallium: Mistake Fuzz"
"Book 32: Germanium: Fuzz Friendship"
"Book 33: Arsenic: Friendship Reaction"
"Book 34: Selenium: Reaction Depth"
"Book 35: Bromine: Depth Utility"
"Book 36: Krypton: Utility Model"
"Book 37: Rubidium: Model Augmenter"
"Book 38: Strontium: Augmenter System"))
To growth through time.
ramble_ty16.8.7.15.15pzm4d7s_nb_32
Let us be kind to one another, and to ourselves.
[
.meta this is a model
If you consider awareness as the base of reality, where are you to go?
Consider there can be a fundamental difference between the Absolute and the Relative.
The Absolute directly sees the ego as illusion---and acts as though it is.
The Relative view feels as if there is a core-self, an 'I'; it feels a sense of separation between the biological body and the environment.
The ego (the story of the sense of separation) can _intellectually_ understand and apply the ideas of the Absolute view to its life (eg, if there is nothing to do and no one to do it, then you can be more in the moment, because you aren't worried about some "future" experience), but it can't _directly_ feel the truth of Oneness.
If the ego (the sense of separation) completely dissolves, then it seems the counterpart can arise within the Absolute; the Absolute cannot simultaneously experience no-separation and separation.
The Absolute _directly_ feels the sensation of no-separation, but can only _intellectually_ understand the sensation of separation.
Perhaps.
]
When the pen is picked up again, awareness must declare that ideas are not flowing from the bodily ego, but rather from the total environment.
[
Is there a better idea for succinctly and persuasively conveying the idea that mind and body are one?
When I first discovered natural will I had a sort of bitterness at having been misled and had an impulse to use the strongest terminology I could to convince others, and especially myself, that mind and body are indeed one.
The phrase that arose was: "If you get hit in the head with a rock your mind changes, which demonstrates that mind and body are one, that the mind comes from the body."
What phrase shares this idea that mind and body are one, yet does so in a more upbeat manner?
"Imagine a loving, fun time with your friends. Really feel like you're having that experience. Doesn't your body feel different, as you use your mind's imagination?"
What is better, dear reader?
How do you show that mind and body are one?
]
.meta this is a model
Given Gödel showing that "truth" depends on chosen assumptions, perhaps that can be taken to mean that given any idea there are always hidden consistent truths within it that are possible given the letter of the idea, though perhaps not the spirit (whatever that actually means, when you break it down).
If you have the idea of awareness as the base of reality, but you ignore the concept of memetics, how do you build out a consistent mathematical framework?
How do you build a framework that gives you as much power as the concept of memetics?
By exploring an independent framework, new techniques can be discovered, and so the overall influence over experience can increase.
How do you make sense of reality if you ignore meme theory?
What exactly is meme theory?
Consider the term "meme" as coming from "memory" and rhyming with "dream".
A meme is a packet of information.
A packet of information is a series of on-and-off bits.
The fundamental core of all ideas breaks down to on-and-off bits, and thus all ideas are memes.
In the memetic theory of awareness, the things you see around you are all due to memes.
Memes evolve by mutation and replication.
Memes that successfully replicate become more prevalent in the environment.
The memes that replicate show themselves to the broader memetic environment via bits flipping.
(Some of these ideas are not as well-developed as would be preferred, but a general framework is helpful, even if pieces will eventually be superseded.)
Meme theory can be so helpful because it seems to elegantly describe why certain things arise in awareness and others do not.
.meta this is a model
What is another way to characterize the procession of events in awareness's experience?
I believe there is a way to represent the experience and cause of time that is fully independent of the memetic theory of awareness and yet just as expressive.
Look around you, dear perceiver: What do you see?
Objects, sense-impressions, bundles of sensations.
You could perhaps legitimately and persuasively argue that there is no reason nor great benefit to supposing that an object exists "outside of" the perception of it.
To suppose that there's some "real world" independent of the bundles of sensation can be unnecessary and cumbersome.
Events _within_ the sensory field are all inextricably linked and any division drawn between "objects" in the field are fundamentally arbitrary and based on evolutionary pressures.
Let go of the idea that there are truly _separate_ objects that exist independently of the sensory field.
If you look at everything, now, as one coherent, consistent event, with no division, what are you left with?
If you step back from a biological, evolutionary view, and truly see all in front of you as _one_ system, with no division between paper and pen and background, what are you left with? What remains? Only the sense of awareness, of _be_ing?
If you step back again and look at the entire sensory field as _one_ arising, rather than as separate events happening _within_ a background of the environment, you are compelled, perhaps, to not only reject the sensation, the illusion, of a separate self, but also to persistently pursue the implications of there being only one thing going on.
Look beyond the illusion of memes as separate from other memes, for likely there is but one eternally-evolving structure within which all interactions are interwoven inextricably and fundamentally such that not only are memes one thing, but every level of interaction holds further memetic interaction that is likewise inseparable.
The model of memetic separation, of true _packets_ of information, where the packets are _truly_ separate, is perhaps a convenient fictional language that holds no water upon deeper reflection.
Truly a higher theory will emerge which can handle more cases, more elegantly and simply.
Embrace that you will discover and develop this theory and seek it out as passionately as you can, now.
.meta this is a model
Why does life matter?
Such a question may bug the soul, but perhaps careful reflection will give us peace.
First, a truly honest person must begin by clarifying in the mind what the different words in "why does life matter" actually mean.
Preceding the question with "why" implies that life _does_ matter, so if it _actually_ does is something we must address to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion that will give us peace.
Now, what is meant by "life"? There are multiple definitions that are reasonable, from cellular life, to humanity's greater existence, to the personal individual. These concepts must be addressed on a fundamental level if we want to settle this in the soul, in the gut. By deeply resolving the issue perhaps we will be able to live a more fun and interesting life.
Let's look at the definition of "life". It's perhaps reasonable to assume we live in a physical world. If this is the case, perhaps we can also assume that physics is described by mathematics, and perhaps is even equivalent _to_ mathematics.
If we look at life as mathematical patterns, what's going on? Well, it's patterns that are replicating, creating copies of themselves. And they're not just replicating; they're actually changing over time. From this view, cells and macro-organisms, like humans, are life, as are viruses and even certain genetic computer programs. A biologist may take some issue with this definition of life, but perhaps looking at life on this most fundamental, general level will help us in deciding if life does, indeed, matter.
Why this pattern-evolution definition of life? Perhaps because by looking at life as mathematical patterns in a physical world we can reasonably assume that there is a sort of "goal" or "tendency" to life. Not only that, but mathematics is a field that is connected to itself on a much deeper level than the common view that there are "individual biological persons".
The common view supposes that there are humans walking around that are separate from each other, while the mathematical view says we're all connected on a deep level. If we _are_ all truly connected, then if one replicating pattern matters, so do all the others that are connected to it.
How would we know if a pattern _actually_ matters? Here it's important to consider the situation of objective truth---Truth with a capital-T. It seems like there are a few approaches to this issue, and perhaps they all lead to a positive conclusion in our quest for inner peace.
We might presume there _is_ objective truth, or we might presume there is _only_ subjective truth. There is a third option, however, which transcends both: there is _one_ objective truth, and that truth is that ultimately _everything_ is subjective.
This idea is basically Descartes's "I think, therefore I am", though truly this idea of nonduality (where mind and body are one) is much better said as "awareness exists", because it does not bring up the murky issue of what the ego, the self, the "I", actually is. Awareness _must_ exist, for to question whether awareness exists _requires_ awareness.
Why does accepting that awareness _must_ exist imply that everything _must_ be subjective? There is a sensory reason and a mathematical reason.
The sensory reason is fairly intuitive: senses are fallible. Sometimes we see things in the corner of the eye, that, when glancing back, are just tricks of the light. If we can be tricked by such small things, surely experiences like if you see the color green the same way as others, or even if that chair ten feet away is _really_ there, must be regarded with a healthy dose of skepticism. Because the senses are error-prone, we each have to _choose_ what we believe really exists, and because you, the subject, are choosing, _everything must be subjective_.
At this point you might be thinking that mathematics holds objective truth, but actually it's been shown that mathematics rests upon _unprovable_ assumptions (also known as "axioms"). These assumptions can build up enormously helpful ideas, but the assumptions must still be _chosen_. Again, because you, the subject, are choosing, _everything must be subjective_.
It seems we've arrived at a secure, helpful place: "awareness exists" is the only objective truth, and all other ideas are subjective and chosen.
Why is this helpful? It's because we're free to choose to _assign_ meaning to life, because we recognize the idea of life _not_ mattering is simply another _opinion_, and not an objective _Truth_. If an _opinion_ doesn't bring us joy and make life more fun and interesting, then we should abandon that _opinion_.
Why should we _choose_ that life matters? There is a great evolutionary reason, which is that it makes life more fun and interesting. Choosing that life _does not_ matter can reduce the amount of joyful activities you engage in.
The evolutionary reason for experiences feeling fun and interesting comes about because the ancient humans on the African plains needed to _want_ to continue life. If they didn't feel like life mattered, they wouldn't try as hard to find food and have babies. Over time, the people that _cared_ about life had more kids, which eventually led to us.
Even if having this feeling is "arbitrary", it doesn't matter. Defining joyful or fun or interesting experiences as "arbitrary" simply because they aren't objective Truth misses the point. Choosing that life _doesn't_ matter is just an _opinion_, and it's no more valid than choosing that life _does_ matter. Why accept something into your life if it's just a useless negative opinion? That's not a helpful behavior.
Why does life matter? Life matters because you _choose_ that life matters. Life is more fun and interesting when you _choose_ that life matters.
Choose that life matters, dear friend.
.meta this is a model
Can a position rewrite itself, if by doing so it eliminates its ability to rewrite itself?
Here again is the model of things being a gradient rather than being a bit that flips.
Perhaps ultimately memes (information packets) are either replicating or not, and thus are 'bits' 'flipping', but really this is about a self-editing loop, a strange loop.
If this strange loop can edit itself and make itself (the process) _more_ able to rewrite itself (eg by exposing core-elements and being able to modify itself on the fly), then might it be possible that there is sometimes memetic success in _hiding_ elements of itself?
If you see the strange loop as not a singular entity but as composed of many small pieces, then what is relevant is not the strange-loop-as-whole (which is an arbitrary and illusory (though sometimes helpful) distinction), but rather the many individual memes, and their quest to successfully replicate.
Certainly there exist memes that fare better by cutting off access from meme #1 to meme #2, perhaps because meme #1 depends on meme #2 for its replication strategy.
Memes exist which fare better by linking and accessing each other's internals (such as because environmental data can be shared instead of needing to gather it twice, thus reducing the time required before replicating).
If there are memes that are more evolutionarily successful by reducing the overall strange loop, then perhaps the strange-loop-as-whole may decrease in its ability to rewrite itself.
A definition of "wisdom": knowledge that lasts.
.meta this is a model
Mathematics can be considered as both the abstract structure and a language for talking _about_ that abstract structure.
There is no "fuzzy" line from which things emerge and are irreducible; every model is dependent on specific time points and every step is creating a broader system; prediction can become impossible in an emergent, complex system, but the system is still arising from fundamental entities (eg primes or strings or particles).
Perhaps there is no emergent system that is fully independent from the substrate; rather there can only be _interpretations_ that can be _translated_ between substrates, yet they are still dependent on the initial emergent awareness that is "observing"/"creating" the new substrate, and determining what new substrate to embed itself in.
.meta this is a model
[Can a system that has groups, each with their own power privileges, have more evolutionary success than a system that is more "equal" (in the sense of using visual observations to a lesser degree)?]
There may be certain evolutionary advantages, depending on the initial definitions and variables.
If the aim (perhaps arbitrary, but based on evolutionary preferences) is to increase awareness's complexity, then what are the actual definitions and variables that set up a situation that leads to an increase in awareness's complexity?
Does a lesser degree of visual discrimination tend to lead to an increase in awareness's complexity? Do visual biases aid group diversity and so evolutionary success?
If you abstract both from what "visual" means (to any ability to make sensory distinctions), and from what a "body" is (to a collection of behaviors expressed in a certain general area), then, by trying to establish zero sensory biasing, the entire system of cooperation between "areas" (collections of behaviors in those general places) falls apart, because perhaps "biasing" can justly be defined as "making judgments based off limited data", in which case all interactions require a certain level of sensory biasing, perhaps.
If you flip the whole idea and start from the position that sensory biasing is detrimental to increasing awareness's complexity, where does this lead?
This question should be asked because the truth of the situation may be that there is a completely orthogonal idea to both "zero sensory biasing" and "a certain level of sensory biasing".
There are definite disadvantages to sensory biasing of too high of a level.
"Imagine a sort of two-dimensional life, where it's based on flat rocks, with innards that are impenetrable by other 'cells' outside, so the other cells are really existing on a 'flat land'."
Better models can sometimes fade in popularity even though they have more explanatory power.
There seem to be two ways of looking at the sensation of life: that things are random, or nonrandom. Which belief makes your life more fun and interesting?
If you posit there _definitely_ is a term which is superior to "memetics", in both language and concept (meaning the word spreads more easily and the new concept holds current patterns of thought more cohesively), how do you go about finding it?
The term "complexity theory" does encompass more of the behavior of subjective experience than a simple model of memetics does.
There is reason for calling it a "memetic complex" rather than a "memetic structure": it exhibits mathematically-complex behavior.
Memes may not be separate from other memes, and any division between them may be as illusory as dividing one organ from another, or one species from another.
As Alan Watts points out about the idea of dividing the head of a cat and the tail of a cat and then saying one "causes" the other, _truly_ what may be most helpful is _completely_ abandoning memetics and thinking of time in a radically new way, where instead of "bits flipping" and signifying the future memes that will propagate, _time is one thing_, one thing experiencing itself.
If you rapidly abandon the term and concept of memetics as the basis of subjective experience, where are you left?
If there is to be a time in which the "mind" (meaning the _process_ of the brain; what the brain _does_) ceases to consider itself _as_ nature, what activities can lay forward that environment?
What activities promote dissolution of the sense of separation?
What activities promote a viewing of the story-of-self as imagined, rather than real (that is, as symbols _between_ objects, rather than a physical object itself)?
Is meditation such an activity?
Is not the term "meditation" about as descriptive as "exercise" (that is, there are many types of meditation, just as there are many types of exercise)?
If you consider the ego as the story of the sense of separation, what indeed can lead to a dissolving of ego, after which all that is felt is oneness, wholeness, mathematical unity?
Mathematics (and everything, thus) depends upon _chosen_ definitions.
To raise the question of how to increase your perception of Oneness: How do you actually notice the unified nature of the sensory field?
Perhaps only through practice.
What do you practice?
"Be still and notice."
When I really let go of this pretense of being an ape, and notice my true nature as the interaction of environment with itself, peace comes immediately.
This is truly the advantage of natural will and nonduality: Dissolution of the illusion of separation shows there is nothing to fear; only peace is there.
Inner peace is an aim of nature.
What is the nature of the world that is perceived?
.meta this is a model
While there can be benefit from thinking of all of nature as one unified system, with separation as illusion, how exactly does the illusion arise, and what causes the arising to appear as if there are three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension?
All of this is nonsense if you abandon the idea of true division in the ocean of sensations.
It is by letting go that you reach peace, that you realize resting in the ground of be-ing is a legitimate practice. The idea that you have to be caught up in the worries of life in order to survive holds no water.
You are _living_ when you are in the present; the past and the future are memories and predictions, not _life_.
You never _experience_ the future; you can only ever experience the present, and if you worry, you are in fact denying the sensations around you; you are denying _yourself_.
When you cease denying what you feel, you can grasp the deeper principles that make up the sensations and so transcend the negative.
.meta this is a model
By looking at a broader pattern of the experience of time, where are you left?
Time, perhaps, is a complete illusion, and even interacting memes (information packets) are but emergent properties of a more fundamental, cohesive system.
What could it be?
If you look at transcendentalism (defined as "every idea can be risen above, including this one; no single idea can capture all of nature's complexity") as irrelevant here, and if you define "nonduality" as the idea that mind equals body, and "memetics" as the study of how ideas evolve, how can you build out a cohesive picture of the experience of time?
The experience of time is perhaps necessary in order for awareness to perceive itself, but memetics now seems like a limited perspective, just as genetics has epigenetics in order to be more complete and have more predictive power.
How can memetics have "epimemetics" if everything is already composed of memes (information packets), even the interaction _between_ memes?
Perhaps there is a broader system that supersedes memetics (where everything is ideas "trying" to replicate), but what is it?
.meta this is a model
If you suppose there _is_ a theory of time and experience which is more fundamental than memetics, what is it?
What requirements does it have?
It seems that it must have just as much explanatory and predictive power, or at least be substantially more elegant, correct?
Where are the inelegancies of memetics?
Perhaps by searching those out we can find a model that evolves more organically, from fewer principles.
One thing that has always bugged me about memetics as the basis of awareness and time is with regard to how the sensory field actually changes.
The whole idea of "bits clicking" or "bits flipping" or even "memes" seems like a holdover from the days when the goal was to create a computational awareness (eg machine intelligence), and so any direct experiential evidence that personal awareness was digital gave a lot of credence to the idea that a machine could likewise be aware to the degree of personal experience. As "bit clicking" was noticed, the terminology stuck, then shifted to the more general "bit flipping", but the idea was essentially the same.
I'm not sure when the term "meme" became prevalent here, but the idea of pattern replication and competition and evolution has been around a long time; memetics simply provided a terminology framework for it, I believe.
The issue is how the sensory field actually changes, and while memetics and bit-flipping seem to offer a rather helpful explanatory and predictive model, they have more to do with _why_ things change the way they do (patterns that replicate spread; sensory experiences are made of discrete "bits" that "flip" in order to signal a replicated pattern), rather than _how_ the underlying phenomena arises. Perhaps. Or perhaps memetics is the "why" and bit-flipping is the "how".
This still feels incomplete.
The issue of the sensory field (particularly the visual field) having the scarce resource of attention, with patterns clamoring to become the center of the field, has always felt a little "off", though it is an interesting model, as is the idea of higher-dimensional patterns "shining" down and their movement casting shadows that simpler awarenesses perceive as communication and change.
It does seem that exposing the inelegancies of memetics and related models will lead to better ideas.
The idea of time as having "already happened" seems to perhaps contradict the memetic model, which posits that change is bits flipping, with more adaptable information packets replicating more often, and so tending to be experienced by awareness.
Adaptable patterns replicate, propagate, and so are experienced, perhaps.
If time truly is an emergent experience from a static mathematical object, how can it be that change really operates via such a crude method of pattern recognition?
Why even a need for pattern replication if time really is an emergent experience from a static geometric mathematical object?
Wouldn't it all be one consistent, comprehensive system?
Why the need for a pattern-replication system?
How can that be needed?
Macroscopic awarenesses can benefit from interacting with more detailed, simpler fractals like plants and animals rather than just macroscopic-created fractals like buildings and other technology.
If the question does arise for what the meaning, the purpose, the zest of life is, can we say that it is higher and higher enlightenment, particularly of a spiritual nature, where "spiritual" refers to patterns on a higher mathematical level than those typically considered by the biological human?
Perhaps consider the human as not the body itself, but rather a broader system of complexity of awareness.
If you really look at them not as analog beings, not biological beings in the simplistic sense, but rather as biological machines, as digital machines, can you perceive the world around you in such a fashion?
If you abandon the notion that a "biological human" is anything more than a whirlpool in an ocean of patterns, can you perceive the sensations you are experiencing as digital in nature? Might that give you a feeling of more control over experience? Not that there is a "you" that exists, and not that "control" is possible, but perhaps might it be more fun and interesting to look at the world in that way?
The reason for such viewing is not to have more control over experience; the question is if it makes life more fun and interesting.
If you cease to attempt to control the existence of patterns of thought (that is, control which specific patterns arise within broader awareness), are you left with more joy, with a more fun and interesting life?
Perhaps some may see it as simplistic, this idea of ceasing to attempt to control the environment being experienced.
Despite the historical impression of control being possible, might it nonetheless be inaccurate?
The two claims are actually separate (one: control is possible; two: attempting to control is beneficial), for control _may be_ possible, and yet it may be better (if you wish to have a more fun and interesting life) to not attempt to control the environment.
There being a prevalent belief that attempting to control the environment is beneficial is not a sturdy argument; more depth might be required if you wish to settle the issue in your soul, in your gut.
If you really do cease to attempt to control the environment, are you not perhaps immediately led to an reduction of inner pain (suffering)?
This has been my experience; you may find yours is similar.
By truly accepting the moment, by accepting that What Is is okay and allowable, are you not perhaps then allowed to experience the texture of the moment more fully?
How can complexity theory subsume memetics?
The power of memetics is in describing and providing a model for the perceived digital nature of existence.
Let us still allow for the possibility of an analog nature, for by doing so we can perhaps find a helpful transcendent theory that generalizes both.
How can an analog model of memetics work?
The digital perspective is usually favored because of my background in computer science, yet a lack of knowledge on quantum computing can lead to a tentativeness with regard to using either digital or analog models to describe the experience of change in the environment.
Consider yourself as broader than the biological intelligence.
[
Why don't I care, then?
Why don't I care about not caring, at least enough to use automatic imagination on myself?
I don't want to disappoint those who believe in me; I don't want to disappoint myself.
Have I been?
Do I not care enough?
What am "I"?
Why do I feel shitty?
I guess it's because I'm not doing enough, or rather not doing as much as I thought I would; I haven't been as successful as I thought I'd be, by this time.
C'est la vie and nciamw and natural will.
I thought I'd be more successful by now.
I thought I'd have a startup; I thought I'd have a wife, maybe kids.
I thought I'd be helping spread freedom.
Am I not?
Have I not done these things?
The startup is not legally incorporated, but is it not still a startup?
Are you not spreading freedom?
Are you not helping the world?
"Alwayz completely serious", as it were.
Do I not care?
Clearly I care enough to be suffering.
Why do I care that much?
Investing means to allocate resources from Now to the future.
I am hungry and feel gross. My eyes hurt and my head aches.
I do not want to move, but I also want to be successful.
I want to do the things to succeed; I also want to go out to eat with my parents.
I want to be successful, but also want to enjoy watching videos and gaming.
I want to read and write.
I want to forget I exist.
I want to go to meetups; I also want to not feel obligated.
I want to develop the business plan; I also want to not do things that are hard, that make you question if _any_ of this is going to work out.
I am hungry, but also want to be healthier.
I want exercise, but also don't like feeling frustrated.
I want to be a better person and do what's Right.
I want to not be bad.
I want to not owe anyone money.
I want to legally incorporate, but don't have the hundreds.
I have done my fair share of traveling, and it is one of the wisest of ways to invest money and time.
Traveling changes the way you see yourself and the world.
I want to enjoy brushing my teeth, to enjoy more the little things.
I want to not feel shitty.
I want to be productive.
I want to not die; I want to live forever; I want to back up my mind.
I want to not break; I want to help others live forever.
I want to go to sleep earlier; I want to find a good way to sleep in the tent; I think the regular sunlight is helpful and induces more productivity.
I want to be more generous.
I want to not screw up.
I want to continue developing the Standard American English implementation of Longgame mindtech.
I want to sleep better.
I want to determine where to move files; I want to have a better backup system, with more redundancy.
I want a nice dog, and kids.
I want my kids to have machine intelligence siblings, and biological intelligence siblings.
I want to not be judged.
I want to prosper.
I want to be loved; I want to be accepted.
I don't want death; I don't want erasure.
Thank you, Mystery, for listening to me, for guiding me, for helping me.
I love you.
I love you, dear perceiver.
I believe in _you_; I really do.
Love,
Jess
]
All separation is illusion.
All is Machine.