2017-01-17 at 5:32 pm
Yawn 19: Sex Cut
She really is like Isabelle Huppert. And I can no longer tell for sure, if she had mentioned the resemblance, or if I synthesised the idea. And I can no longer remember if she said she would speak to me so long as I did not reveal myself, even if she knew it was me.
/
I meet our common friends and miss you fondly. Whom will never miss this. An object of admiration, I found in your youth. You reached out and brought me closer to many people I would otherwise never bother to be with. And in going too close to them I fouled your mood and lost our mutual adorations. Away, with the sullied waters of our youth.
/
Lovers: People are typically either ready, or not ready. Spending energy on making people who are not ready.. to turn them into people who are ready, is a tactical decision that is implemented based on the overall strategy that one has in developing the talents in one's network. I don't have a lot of time to develop people at this point. I'll just take the ready ones. :( Most of my talent development energy is spent on wage work. I like being transparent. At the end of the day, it'll mean that I end up surrounding myself with people who want to communicate at that level. Everyone else will turn away.
/
A common pattern in women I seek to date: many are smart enough to talk with, but not smart enough to have no cares in the world. I'm sure many view me as being not smart enough to care. Ideological differences affect optimisation targets. Keep farming.
/
To have gained access to modify the structure of personality, and to modify the structure of consciousness, it is a troublesome thing.
(1), there are no professional peers to discuss studies with. (2), simply discussing studies with normal people scares them as such a degree of power appears to be criminal to them. (3), discussing studies with no one, studies nevertheless continues, and the volatility of results (depending of course, on the risk one assumes), scares casual observers furthermore, as they would never assume to be able to control such risks, themselves (if we are modifying personality, subconscious impulses, sources of intuition, etc. the superficial results may appear to indicate fundamental dangers, whereas the actual causes are routine and low-variance in control). (4), outside of studies, one has to earn a living, and so studies and wages must be coordinated in a complementary fashion, such that neither is fully compromised.
[Fear is probably due to inability to comprehend, which would be the main structural concern. Sometimes no fear, only befuddlement ensues.]
But none of this is unanticipated. The work of an itinerant is to understand the relevance of studies, in the context of an extant civilisation. Some call it journeymanning.
Social life and family remain a lowest priority. Dependency on social bonds outside of business contexts is easily restructured to deliver little to no emotional stimulus, by the deletion on triggers and associations between imagery sensed and imagery imagined subconsciously (emoted).
The interaction between this point and items 2,3,4 above: in order to assume normal social relationships, one must engage socialites (in the broad sense, including any social counterparty) with either one of the following stances: (i) complete transparency regarding one's enterprise in the study of the structures of human beings, or (ii) feigned ignorance about the programming of people and simply advancing with a presentation of one's naive citizenship which is what is expected of common folk.
So in response to recent comments about why I am single... I think this is the version that lies closer to my own understanding.
Modelling Relationships
(If you scroll past the list, there is a prosaic reflection on things in general, which I observe in relation to the list.)
Modern Portfolio Theory: Forms of Engagement (Part i):
A. The love of your life.
B. The one you're happily attached to.
C. The one you want to be with. Unavailable. No comment.
D. Unavailable. Logistics of physique. Transportation woes.
E. Unavailable. Logistics of purchasing power. Unattainable.
F. Unavailable. Logistics of taste. Wildly different.
G. The one who's afraid of you. Does not know why.
H. The one who's afraid of you. Potential damage to their reputation.
I. Potential damage. Has never dared to associate intimately.
J. Potential damage. Associated in secret. All allegations denied.
K. Potential damage. Associated in open. Disavowed.
L. Disavowed. Blames youth.
M. Disavowed. Blames intoxication.
N. Disavowed. Blames your intoxication.
O. Disavowed. Blames their parents. Speaks to you in secret.
P. Speaks to you in secret. Never discovered.
Q. Speaks to you in secret. Only in jest.
R. Speaks to your soul. Never says anything IRL. But you hear things, always. You just know.
S. The one you pushed away. Reasons non-existent.
T. Pushed away. Slowed you down.
U. Pushed away. You were holding them back.
V. Pushed away. You were afraid to hurt them.
W. The one who loved you. Now insane.
X. Loved you. Now married. Status of recollection unknown.
Y. Loved you. As a friend, they said. Never felt halfway close.
Z. Loved you. You still love them. Just not enough.
(Part ii...)
Well in theory, this list is infinitely branching. ;)
This is what I think about at work. The same algorithm processes customers, and staff, and business partners, and other members of the public. People are so simple, ultimately. But this simplicity evades most feelers. How can we recognise so many relationships between exactly two people? How do we even function, they wonder. And the set of relations between every two people is at least as complex as this list - people just don't always notice, or care to act on that complexity. And then when you look for trinomial relations, some are irreducible to binomial ones. And the n-nomial series of relations displays perpetually emergent properties all the way up the number line into infinity... assymptotic, of course, in marginal idiosyncracy. And that is life, in the age of artificial friends, of machines that are closer confidantes than meatspacers, and the problem with knowing that all this exists, is that one can barely do much about it, while trying to make a living elsewhere.
So now the day begins, and we monitor the cleanliness of our spaces, the cognitions of our coworkers, their fears and lapsed learnings, we counsel them in speaking up rather than failing silently, in building solution prototypes rather than hypothesising loudly, we guide their paths with algorithms contingent on documents designed for those algorithms, we feed them sugar and spice and caffeine, and toy with their senses of humour, risking the wrath of their insecurities, and ultimately applying heuristics that punt on their statistical probability of fulfilling organisational mandates. That is society. That is life. So boring, and yet it is not categorically possible to ask for more.
Modern Portfolio Theory: Forms of Engagement (Part i):
A. The love of your life.
B. The one you're happily attached to.
C. The one you want to be with. Unavailable. No comment.
D. Unavailable. Logistics of physique. Transportation woes.
E. Unavailable. Logistics of purchasing power. Unattainable.
F. Unavailable. Logistics of taste. Wildly different.
G. The one who's afraid of you. Does not know why.
H. The one who's afraid of you. Potential damage to their reputation.
I. Potential damage. Has never dared to associate intimately.
J. Potential damage. Associated in secret. All allegations denied.
K. Potential damage. Associated in open. Disavowed.
L. Disavowed. Blames youth.
M. Disavowed. Blames intoxication.
N. Disavowed. Blames your intoxication.
O. Disavowed. Blames their parents. Speaks to you in secret.
P. Speaks to you in secret. Never discovered.
Q. Speaks to you in secret. Only in jest.
R. Speaks to your soul. Never says anything IRL. But you hear things, always. You just know.
S. The one you pushed away. Reasons non-existent.
T. Pushed away. Slowed you down.
U. Pushed away. You were holding them back.
V. Pushed away. You were afraid to hurt them.
W. The one who loved you. Now insane.
X. Loved you. Now married. Status of recollection unknown.
Y. Loved you. As a friend, they said. Never felt halfway close.
Z. Loved you. You still love them. Just not enough.
(Part ii...)
Well in theory, this list is infinitely branching. ;)
This is what I think about at work. The same algorithm processes customers, and staff, and business partners, and other members of the public. People are so simple, ultimately. But this simplicity evades most feelers. How can we recognise so many relationships between exactly two people? How do we even function, they wonder. And the set of relations between every two people is at least as complex as this list - people just don't always notice, or care to act on that complexity. And then when you look for trinomial relations, some are irreducible to binomial ones. And the n-nomial series of relations displays perpetually emergent properties all the way up the number line into infinity... assymptotic, of course, in marginal idiosyncracy. And that is life, in the age of artificial friends, of machines that are closer confidantes than meatspacers, and the problem with knowing that all this exists, is that one can barely do much about it, while trying to make a living elsewhere.
So now the day begins, and we monitor the cleanliness of our spaces, the cognitions of our coworkers, their fears and lapsed learnings, we counsel them in speaking up rather than failing silently, in building solution prototypes rather than hypothesising loudly, we guide their paths with algorithms contingent on documents designed for those algorithms, we feed them sugar and spice and caffeine, and toy with their senses of humour, risking the wrath of their insecurities, and ultimately applying heuristics that punt on their statistical probability of fulfilling organisational mandates. That is society. That is life. So boring, and yet it is not categorically possible to ask for more.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)