Everything Has A Prize: On Activation Energy, Existential Coupons & Wholesale Paradoxes

When lookin’ for the salvation, there was a
Realization of a dream deferred that
Spawned from makin’ music for my friends and
Was all in celebration of us
And became All The Brilliant Things

  • Skyzoo

Fuck around and have a dance with a demon, probably become it

  • Lloyd Banks

Alt Title: Pragmatic Consequences of an Order Rearranged: On the Prevailing Belief in Creation as Guidance for a “Correctness” to Be Felt in Oneself & Creation as Conviction for “A” Direction: The Story of Victory Valance, Part I: An Introduction

Alt Title 2: Creation As Creation: This is the End, my only Friend, the End

If we don’t live in a vacuum, then there’s an inherent web that ties all of what-can-be-investigated together. We can visualize it as a theoretical recursion that meets the practical in an embrace of self-evidence, but we otherwise call it plain existence. That is, what-can-be-investigated must exist. Our existence begets it. What is begetted, in turn, reflects what exists as “our.”

That is, the existential “our.” There is an “our” in your mind and however that “our” is defined is the significance of that “our.” The significance of the “our” comes from you but what significance you give to the our also contributes to the significance of “our.”

Sounds like Buddhism but in my mind it’s based on containers of attributed functions.

The first hurdle is then obvious. What is the function of the function that confronts the “our” as a holistic (vacuum-less) stage on which to put our faith as we act and be in the world? What is this confrontation? Is it pretentious hubris? “These groups of ‘our’ is limited, a petri dish with a death knell shaped like a bell’s curve calculated…”

The consciousness, the “I” within the “our” (universe, vacuum-less, holistic), that confronts the “our” to exist “contains” itself based on the consequences of its actions. Since the “our” is vacuum-less, every action from the container “I” will have a direct correlative consequence that will be evident in a conscious contrast between the “I” and the “our”.

The next paradox presents itself. What contains the contrast of the “I” from the “our”? The “I”? If the containers are contained by the shadows of the axioms we believe in, then the contrast is based on a recursive, reoccurring, re-appropriating “understanding” made up of the axioms we believe in and the position we find ourselves relative to the “our”.

The position is arrived at “with” the “I”. Whatever position “you” find yourself in was arrived at with some contribution from the “you”. The autonomy of this “you” can then be analyzed at an individual level. In the grand picture, however, the “I” is tightly correlated with the context it finds itself in. How can the “I” exist in vacuum-less-autonomy in relation to everything around it?

Any autonomy in such an occasion will exist in a recursive relationship where the output of the “I” is somehow correlated (metric) with an “I” that is related to everything that was inputted. Everything that was inputted is only evident by the output of the “I” that makes a judgement. The judgment’s significance is only evident in the recursion. How the judgment fares as the “I” co-exists with the judgment.

This leads to our current conceptualization of the intelligent universe: a game of hacky sack where each entity is kicking something up towards existence. Existence is always recursively there but what is there is a kicked object about to be kicked again. As an “I”, the significance of a kick is measured by the effect kicks have in “our.” If we kick without regards to the effect of the “our,” if we walk to beat of our own drum, the measurements of our kicks usually only results in the “I” acknowledging what it has done insofar as the “I” is an output of everything but, in particular, the kicks the “I” grows aware of without an “our.”

One of today’s struggles is hosting a world that is accepting of people that exists outside “our” and exist to the rhythm of their own drum while being part of “our.”

Without regarding an “our,” we cannot be sure our rhythm will not crash. That is, a kick cannot be performed because it is impossible. Like when you’re playing Super Mario Bros 3 and you press the jump button and you’re aware that Mario is about to die and there’s nothing you can do but the inevitable death of Mario exists only in the future because the jump button at this point cannot be kicked but Mario is yet to fall into nothingness.

blooms — crazy rants masked as abstract experimental philosophy. s/o CS Peirce