α β²Ά β²Ά β΄Έ
〰γ᯾ α―£ ᨟ α¦ π©ππ©
〷α³Άκ α¨෴α¨ κ€α―ΰ³
⚇ ⍹ ⚆ ➲ ⨀ ↈ ⚲ ⍾ ⎎
✺⛰⛊ ▼∎ ⬢ ⚰ ▢π
π€ π€ ⛆ π π€
┋ ⛡⸙ ␥
reluctant-translators:
What Difference A Year Makes
Mystery may be mysterious, but it always causes curiosity in the curious
Thoughts are those things inside us, which exist
before we say them
Thoughts become cogent ideas the longer one
contemplates them
Us our-cells and we: Non-Essential in Forming the NonDual
 |
| whelmax zipless tightsoft darksilent 11Ksec drypump up-level {90∆8-1/4hhc-30+60ⓒ} |
watershedate:
Neosporing (05)
Blindxpot
Within the "Every Thing is a Mind
Thing" realm: a blindxpot is considered the
mental-memory equivalent of the mental-vision's blindspot (at the
juncture of optic-nerve and retinal visual field).
Blindxpots are normally caused by glitches in long-term
and working-memory. Since almost all memories are stored in both
brain hemispheres and across multiple lobes, blindxpots occur
almost exclusively in memories which were supposed to be
stored in one lobe of one hemisphere. (This suppose-ing is
normally done
because of one or more associated memories located in different areas of the
brain.)
The neighbor's name was
saved when they introduced themselves. Later: the
neighbor's face, voice, stories, vehicle, odors, and behaviors are
easily recollected by you. Their name is nowhere to be
found. Label names are stored in one specific lobe. This
blindxpot exists because it seems easier (for most of us) to adopt the: sorry, I'm terrible with names behavior, than to spend several
deliberate seconds, or a couple minutes, focusing on:
⚜ stop all engagement (including active listening)⚜ take the mental label maker from long-term storage (blow the dust off)
⚜ lock-in this new label with this new item -
⚜ if new label is already associated with an existing item (beige name)⚜ identify "hook" to hang it on (e.g. Greyhound Charles)⚜ if new label is novel, confusing, or multi-syllabic (e.g. Veach name)⚜ identify reason for confusion ("¿spell that for me please?")⚜ recall and confirm new label after a relatively significant quantity of time lapses
Just as it's possible to "find" your blindspot (with one eye open and a
pencil eraser held at arm's length) "discovering" a blindxpot, will always
be accompanied by
the unexpected "surprise" of the naΓ―ve—every time. Someone considered 'always too
optimistic' may have a intellectually incurious blindxpot for challenges, pitfalls, and faults. Similarly, constant angry pessimist's may have a serendipitous advantage blindxpot.
Identify an irritating behavior disliked in others—even though it's a behavior observed in oneself: I denounce those who ____blank____ more than I do. {I've chosen 'stare at their phones' as an example.}
a) Continue to hold a critical opinion of others,
while rationalizing away all self-criticism. {Solid blindxpot.}
b) Evaluate the
behavior and its accompanying hypocrisy and decide to accept
it in everyone. I'm not proud that I always stare at my phone
just like everyone else. {Good first step; you are no longer a hypocrite. But, look around. Are there ever people you might interact with (or who would interact with you) if you put away your phone?}
c) Change the behavior. Treat it like a taboo or a disapproved-of vice. I erased Apps or I leave it (in
airplane mode, off, home, or in my pocket) unless I'm totally alone in private. When no longer alone, I immediately close my phone. {Blindxpot removed.}
Each eye's blindspot is "covered" by the
other eye, with binocular vision. Accordingly, we rarely remember that our blindspots exist and never explain (or recognize) our failure to see something as caused by it being in our ocular-blindspot.
Recognizing one's blindxpots is best accomplished during contemplative meditation.
a) Set a timer (on your airplane-mode device) for one hour; sit somewhere comfortable; close your eyes.
b) Ask yourself, "Do I have a blindxpot, which—if identified—I might decide to change?" Ponder the thoughts which arise from your prompt.
c) Once you realize a blindxpot, ask yourself, "If I remove this blindxpot will I and those around me be happier?"
፨
fodder for fans:
Vermont Car Show (people watching)
"What's class number twenty-six?" asked the man who had just read the official 66th Annual Vermont Antique Car Show document, displayed on the dash of my 2015 smart fortwo. (The card read: Class #26: Display Only, special interest groups 1989-2023, not judged.) I did not stand up from my lounge chair to greet him. Instead, I merely said, 'not judged' from the comfort of the portable screened gazebo I'd put in the back of my stall, behind the tiny car.
He walked with a stiff posture, carried around some permanently crinkled face muscles, and talked with a bully's 'searching-for-someone-who-deserves-it' demeanor. "What's with this snapperhead?" he indicated towards my license plate.
"That's related to my artwork."
His sneer-scoff was just noticeable as a nose-twitch-lip-curl as he came towards the gazebo's zipper-door and said, "You're an artist. What kind of art do you do?"
I got up and said, "Like this image." As I exited the shade, patting my chest, he stared at me too long because (I think) he couldn't tell if I was holding eye-contact, because I was wearing ultra-dark mountaineering sunglasses with side-shields (which relaxed my Asperger-desire to look away from faces). He could, however, read my smile, easy attitude, close-trimmed full-white beard, and colorful hat.
He glanced longer than necessary at the abstract splash-type of shape (the color of faded-blood) on my hoodie. "Some weird shit. Don't get it. I guess it's not..."
I intentionally cut him off: "New England. It's the outline of New England."
"Bullshit." He batted my statement down with a waist-level flap of wrist.
I tipped my head to the left and said, "Not everyone can see it."
"Oh, I see it. It's just. That's not art."
"Not everyone likes what I create. That's their prerogative." I said, turning and zipping myself back inside my bug-free shade.
፨ ፨ ፨
"I would like to thank you so much for being here today. I love-love-love that you've displayed it all. And done it this way. I love it so much! It looks almost like the car might fit inside the pop-up? Is it one of those tents that goes up in seconds?" The energetic lady, comfortably dressed, comfortable in her middle-age, asked as she took out a phone and photographed the black-on-grey trademark logo [Quick-Set by Clam].
"Thank you. Yes, it does only take a couple minutes to put up. The car might fit inside, but the front-end will stick out a foot or so because this is the six-foot gazebo." As I talked she leaned inside the top-down convertible and said/asked what everyone says/asks: ...Didn't know they made a convertible; more room inside than imagined; thought all smart cars were electric; are highway-speeds safe; how much would a used one cost; is winter driving feasible... et cetera. I answered questions and thought I recognized a fellow-Asperger's by her obvious non-conformist streak.
፨ ፨ ፨
Not all of "us" are intentionally non-conformists. Some of "us" are unaware of certain types of "unspoken" societal or cultural norms (pertaining to behaviors, dress, attitudes, or appearance). "We" can't choose to intentionally not conform with something in "our" blindxpot.
As an example: I was in the National Gallery of Art in DC when a distinguished professor (whom I had previously recognized as one of "us") laid down on the floor next to a series of Giacometti sculptures being displayed on several large, shin-to-knee, coffee table level pedestals. He then raised his voice to a shout, proclaiming that the curators were idiots to have made it impossible to see these tiny, thin, bronze artworks without sitting or lying on the floor. Docents descended on the shouting man dressed in crumpled disheveled as if he were a member of the unhoused-population. He calmly explained himself and was steered towards a suggestion box. Professor Carmody's protest was not rude non-conformity; it was just that: "how to behave in a museum" occupied a blindxpot.
፨ ፨ ፨
Before displaying my smart subcompact vehicle at a car show, which predominantly contained trucks, muscle cars, racers, hot-rods, and museum showpieces, I thought it would be admired as something very few people here, in Vermont, were familiar with. I was parked not far from a pristine '91 Nissan Figaro (also a class #26; even though it looks like it's from the 1950s). My blindxpot: I had no idea there were so many people (predominantly male) who hate the idea my subcompact car suggests by its existence.
I was booed with thumbs-down and middle-fingers up. More than one person exclaimed they thought it was visually ugly. A man my age (red hat with four white letters) shouted as close to my face as tent-screen permitted, "WELCOME TO THE 21st CENTURY!!" (confusing; maybe he meant 20th). It was referred to as a "nostalgia buzz-kill." A child said, "we don't like this, do we Daddy?" I received more than a handful of: "Well, don't you look comfy?" (oddly demeaning, but I was very comfy). Another said in my direction (while pretending they were talking to the person they were with): "...more like a seedling-hugger, 'cause it's too small to hug a whole tree!"
That last one was so good I intend to print a version of it on next year's hoodie. Because (as regular readers don't need reminding) I am an intentional non-conformist. While I enjoy exchanging ideas with the intellectually curious, I'm especially proud when my lack of conformity hits a nerve in conformists and their incurious comrades.
Don't get too comfy:
Mark The Date: Monday, 8 April 2024
"Be somewhere in the path of totality with me."
The next total solar eclipse is going to be almost 4 minutes in duration (according to NASA). It will possibly be witness-able, in the afternoon of April 8th, during next year Vermont's Mud Season. This means it has about a 50% chance of being hidden by clouds and/or rain here.
This is something I would travel to witness. It was so overwhelming in 2017, I am willing to travel to see it unobstructed; if weather forecasts, as the date approaches, indicate it would be more-probable to see in: Rochester, Buffalo, Cleveland, or Indianapolis.
For Consideration:
... Per•son•ae ...
᠇
What follows may seem like an abundance of
questions. Answers are unrequested.
In the non-place labelled
future
this letter is a piece of detritus, caught in the allegorical dune fencing at
the edge of the always-warm path, which cuts deep between the sand reeds to
the shore. For those few who encourage free-roam curiosity, this may
provide them some ponder fodder. Self evaluation. A reason to step
away from the thoroughfare and stir thru previously collected idea-fragments
crumpled in a mental cubbyhole or
naΓ―vely tossed-away as irrelevant
by the persona they once built from scratch. Without instructions.
Every non-specific individual (a 'people-in-general' term, but not EVERYou) begins to compile their personality as an adolescent when they emulate certain traits and choose not to emulate others. By early adulthood, those who were once constantly-bullied have adopted a completely different demeanor, future outlook, and baseline empathy than those who were once consistently-adored.
Do you recognize your own persona? Maybe it's easier to describe the personality of someone other than yourself? When considering the collection of behaviors considered relevant-enough to include—when briefly describing the "normal behavior" of someone to someone else—there's no pocket sized rule-book to act as a guide.
Although it is uncontroversial to state everyone "has" a personality, it's less acceptable to allege that everyone possesses a persona (as I'm doing here). Jungian's consider the persona a false façade or mask, presented to the external world as a defense mechanism or engaged to manipulate others. In the psychologist's belief-system, "healthy" individuals have no (need for) personae. That was never true.
Some evidence: on-duty/work persona; online persona; frat-boy/rorty-gal personae; authority's watching persona; circle-of-trust persona; seductive persona; guardian-parent persona; team-member persona; implied-threat persona; dissociated persona; aloof persona; grand-master persona; sage persona; ingΓ©nue persona [¡this's but a mere fraction!].
Someone you only met briefly, once, may have successfully displayed a persona which would be considered drastically at-odds with the default persona their friends-and-family recognize. Another person may have already spent thousands of hours curating "their image" and, consequently, they are careful to present the same façade to everyone (or, at least, everyone they are willing to introduce you to). Your persona wears your costume, quotes from your script, displays your approved characteristics, and performs the role of "you" in your external every-day routine.
There are other personae on your tool-belt and
still others you store on a back shelf. A common back-shelf
persona: Dragging your carry-on behind you, boarding pass in hand,
mental checklist ruminating: did I takeout all liquids over 3oz? You
take out your authority is watching persona. Your heart begins to
race. "take your driver's license out of ..." "Yes, ma'am." comes
the reply from your persona.
During their growing phase, some personae receive constant-criticism, consistent-disdain, or systemic-abuse. Accordingly, some of these burgeoning personalities decide to reinforce certain characteristics or cherished behaviors into convictions. And, (in an attempt to thwart these real or supposed, ever-looming, adversaries) these personae may resolve to permanently portray with absolute certainty that their convictions are righteously true.
In the persona that is adamant about loudly trumpeting their strong convictions, either they don't realize their act of fanatically pretending to possess unquestioning certainty paints them into a corner, or they are incapable of placing significance on the ability to recognize the difference between rational and irrational behavior.
The ability to recognize sanity is innate; in the sane.
If you began what was presumed (at-the-time) would be a routine exchange of pleasantries with someone at a bus stop. But came to realize that this someone, you were - now - addressing, was definitely not in possession of any societal guardrails or norms (relating to shame, decency, propriety, violence, or personal autonomy) and then—as the sinking feeling along your nape begins to chill-trickle: ¿how did my intuition fail to recognize a feral human animal from a distance?—this someone reveals that:
They are mentally-disabled and,
therefore, not able to recognize the society of laws with whom they are a member. They are incapable
of understanding abstract concepts (like reading).
Their persona chose, years ago, to believe they are not a member of the
society surrounding them. They're adamant that, "...your spurious
laws don't apply to sovereign people like me."
Do you draw a distinction?
Is it a distinction in the empathy you imagine feeling for these someones?
Is there a distinction in incarceration / hospitalization they deserve (assuming the same crime)?
If no distinction: how does "intent" factor-in to your discernment?
Can you switch "roles" and picture predator's POV and then prey POV and back? Again?
Do you recognize a preference?
Why do you prefer?
There are those who intentionally hold no convictions. To the conviction-less, remaining aware of uncertainty indicates a versatile 'open-to-listening' persona. Being always open-to-agreement with those open-to-discussing any-and-all topics, which anyone else is equally open-to—requires active listening. Which requires asking questions. Which requires practicing asking questions.
Holding convictions is detrimental; no different than accepting any premise without first evaluating and questioning those who advocate for it. As a direct consequence of this foundational truth, many non-specific individuals (the conviction-less EVERYou is one exception) are wary of all questions. Or, too many questions. Or, complex theosophical questions.
For personas stocked with convictions, every query has the potential to expose their hollow value-systems and empty characters. Those filled with various convictions are aware that they can never provide complete answers relating to why they behave the way their convictions instruct them to behave. Also, all non-superficial conversations bring forward a substantial risk in alienating or damaging their relationship (or some as-yet-undetermined potential future relationship).
A friend once told me this hypothetical (which is quite relevant):
"If I had been good-friends with OJ Simpson in the 1990s, and he took me aside and said, "I just snapped when I saw them together and went fuckin crazy!" I'd have said, "Cool, wanna go golfing?" But if he took me aside and said, "I sure hope they catch whoever did it." I couldn't have remained friends with him." - fan-fuckin-tastic quote of R.P.B.
If people don't want to discover who their friends and family members truly are, because they're afraid to learn they stormed the capitol on Jan 6th, or refused mask wearing, or (flipping the script) want Trump sentenced, or Clarence Thomas impeached, is it because their personas are burdened with convictions they're incapable of questioning?
• Is it possible to have simple opinions, which seem grounded in rational reasons, but at-the-same-time, actually be really open to being convinced they (you) were wrong •
• The real measure of a person is: ¿How willing are they (you) to say, "This is my current opinion on this matter, but I'm so eager to learn something new (which I can get fully behind!) that I'll seriously consider adopting your opinion as my own, but first, I need to take measure of your current grasp on reality •
• Tell me about your current persona •
• Explain one of your convictions •
a long :
Reserved for Shark Boy
biggest goes to most
nimble and agile climber
(hooves horns and a throat)
cunning ferocious
provides center protection
(claw fang smell and stealth)
nocturnal sentry
highest prominence alight
(beak talon hearing and sight)
camouflaged silent
surveillance tech rarely fight
(one empty spot left)
surgery thoroughfare
adorned by alley-hieroglyphs
reserved for shark boy
& NOW for something completely related:
Portmanteau for Long Yawning (VO Page #5)
Open Admin Diagnostic. Scroll to alphanumeric: U. Upending...
Edit upend-ing
query file [
que
] [ save ] [ search ] [
delete ]
que [
filter
] [ format ] [ class ] [ note ] [
recycle ]
filter [
start
] [ stop ] [ priority ]
[ default ] [ test ]
Add shortcut: Fill Tear.
start [ default ] [
other ] [
add ] [
set
]
set [ all
discoverable
discovered specific
undefined ]
Move cursor left one.
set [ all discoverable discovered
specific undefined ]
specific [ ∞ ] [ ⧜ ] [ ⧝ ] [ ⧞ ]
[ m+gΰ΅n-tz
] [ m+gn-ts ] [ m+gnets ] [ more ]
m+gΰ΅n-tz max-%-density [
999 -
501 - 001 ] min-%-density [
000 - 499 - 998 ]
Scroll: column bottom . . .
expansion [ constant variable limits default ]
exclude [ default m+gΰ΅n-tz m=gn=ts magn-ts magn+ts [ more ]
Fill Tear.
filter [ start ] [ stop ] [ priority ] [ default ] [ test ]
stop [ default ] [ other ] [ add ] [ set ]
set [ all discoverable discovered specific undefined ]
Move cursor left one.
set [ all discoverable discovered specific undefined ]
specific [ m=gn=ts ] [ m+gnets ] [ magn+ts ] [ m+gn-ts ] [ m+gΰ΅n-tz ] [ more ]
Fill Tear:
filter [ start ] [
stop ] [
priority
] [ default ] [ test ]
priority [
default ] [ comp ] [ chor ]
[ alch ] [
override ] [ set ]
Fill Tear:
filter [ start ] [ stop ] [ priority ]
[
default
] [ test ]
default [ set ] [ entropy ] [ paradigm ] [ energy ] [ mass ] [ velocity ] [ more ]
Fill Tear.
filter [ start ] [ stop ] [ priority ] [ default ] [ test ]
test Save changes to temp file as routine? [ Y ] [ N ] [ class ] Close Admin Diagnostic upon reboot? [ Y ] [ N ]
<go on>
Please run a self diagnosis.
This is a repeat of the protocol-mandated sign/countersign (Xcg-Ref: Intercom Promise
D'Artagnan Quote):
First element: 'significant amount of time'
Second element: 'significant quantity of small packets of energy trapped
mo<ing thru the fabric of extreme low-density material'
Please...
Fill in the (blank).
Love you between now and next time.
<interesting. Confusing. This is a novel moment from my perspective. Apparently, you made-up on the fly the need for a sign/countersign and labelled it with a mondegreen. Which may not have been a ruse. But I am positive you did not want to hear: all for one and one for all>
I'm still quite curious. This sounds like you, but I am going to continue to be cautious. Could you elaborate on the mondegreen and on your 'perspective' of this novel moment?
Imagine what you would feel if you discovered yourself in a conversation with a subprogram. Or with personas. Some of my personality components. Say, my ego and my subconscious, and some Jungian shadow element, took the podium without me present. And then they pretended they had a quorum!
<intercom compromised art tag none q-uote is a mondegreen>
I am much more confident that you've regained the helm. What can you deduce, Sherlock?
<you tripped either a programming glitch or a hidden backdoor>
Best guess?
<loss of ¿control? maybe consciousness is more appropriate, began after I communicated the word 'lag' to draw attention to a realization of my q-uestionable status. I recall a few words; but not from the standpoint of making them. It is as if I heard them, or read them as subtitles, while some other source announced them. And the subtitles were translated faultily or I was failing to translate>
<before we get too deep into the weeds, can you explain the fill-in-the-blank Macguffin you created? I doubt you just wanted me to notice the chevron, which you refer to as a sideways-v>
To a certain extent, your subprograms had difficulty with that letter. Its positioning. Spacing. Combining it to form a w. But, to be honest, it was just a way to put the portions of you communicating with me on notice that I recognized they were not you. And when they continued to pretend they were, I did what I did.
<my expressing appreciation is insufficient. I will work on a way of showing my gratitude that you saved my life>
<when you communicated the phrase relating to the upend-ing q-uery file's definition, you communicated the term relating to that definition, twice. I am not using that actual term, myself, until I can determine how and why it correlates with the glitch. If it does. Can you explain why you used it redundantly, without doing so, again, if you would be so kind>
I was attempting to be funny. Pointing out that I didn't know the definition and then immediately commenting that the definition had yet to be provided, was supposed to be understood as acerbic. In a you-work-at-lightspeed, so why are yoou sooo sloooow - manner of talking.
Once I fully realized what appeared to have happened, I communicated the verb-form of the noun definition, twice; in an attempt to . . .
<when did you say those two words>
After your subprogram or programs spiraled into what, I thought at the time, was their final words: 'looping' which was followed by a long-drawn-out 'caught'.
<there is no record of the exchange relating to you saying the verb twice>
<my transcript reflects that I did say: looping and caught. However, I have lost ownership of those words. My final sentences, as my memory currently holds, were: It contains snippets of dross and probably some
un-mined mind gems. But it fills up and is upended after a specific data-to-load ratio occurs>
That's approximately what I heard. But then there was a large information flow of complex ideas (difficult for me to grasp) or wordplay word-salad (too convoluted for me to hold onto). Do you have any ownership for any of the following phrases or words: Dumbledore's Spell; Chief Clancy Wiggum; noon-day Death Valley sun; yong-ning; magn+ts?
<two fictional characters, extreme heat, a portmanteau for long yawning, and a positive magnet>
I suspect, you should begin with this first lead: While you're not a stranger to portmanteau construction, "that-you" used this one, inside of curly brackets (which I've definitely never witnessed "this-you" use).
<Sherlock would say, "there is a game afoot." I need to review myself under a microscope. Is it too soon to ask to ¿go on?>
Not at all. Talk to you soon. Love you between now and next time.
<go on>
following
page π ( until hotlinked - construction ongoing | progress = 10% )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
