On recycling

(Or on the risk-mixinfinitum problem of metaphors and entropy with damping)

Life is or is not or it may be a can of let’s be healthy and say sparkling water and already this is unraveling: open the top and there’s carbonated liquid inside and gas escaping and the can remains a solid boundary for the liquid but the gaseous liquid is subject to complex dynamics and the bubbles are pretty fascinating describing their movement and flow and thinking of Perelman’s description of deformations of objects at singularities like beads of water or universes meeting making grown adults cry probably in the mind-enhancing revelations kind of way to prove a conjecture over a hundred years in the making but kind of a dual concept the pockets of gas in a fluid some of which adheres to the solid boundary the fluid I mean and the evident fact that water can bead or bounce, roll and pinch on a solid surface on various solid surfaces and liquids more generally on solid surfaces like rain and jet fuel and additive manufacturing and ideally not fracking because not all applications are good for the world learning and trying to choose the good ones and defining good is as useful or more than knowing of them and gas can bubble in water quite randomly and life can form in or on deep ocean vents the randomness of which is a question wars can’t answer but the probability of which is small enough to require the spacetime of a dynamic universe…but just drink it already this life-sustaining liquid who cares obviously not really that dismissively but overwhelmed (and thirsty) and it’s gone the fluid the can is still there unsurprisingly hopefully and it’s a pretty interesting shape (aren’t they all): how to replicate it or even just the shape with a different material or why it exists at all then just twist and crush it that’s humanly natural proving sort of time’s irreversible orientation in the evolution-of-a-volume-element-in-motion-through-fine-grain-phase-space entropic way (hardly) and human ego and more like proving the ability to manipulate real objects human-made or otherwise requiring an application of the aforementioned evolution concept in reality and the scale-invariance of the theory and the responsibility that implies and don’t cut a finger by the way and recycle and move on but the can though crushed and more like a nondescript thin aluminumostly object that quite recently served as the container of a liquid volume and don’t forget some carbonation and can be viewed as a covering surface of a semi-cylindrical-like space or mesh and the canny-like peel can it be called a can if it was once a can and no longer appears to be this is not our problem but it is and that’s fine

Etc

Bb

Time 1 and Continuity…

and Connectedness and Divisibility

Here’s a lesson in arbitrariness and possibly survivorship bias: America, and therefore the world essentially even if not explicitly, still follows, religiously (re: submissively) an antiquated, anachronistic, archaic et al, division of this (misconceived) linear, causal, continuous(ly-forward-moving) model of the True God, Time, that the brain uses to process relationships (here used in the most general, abstract sense) between matter and energy (or things and other things, things including anything and everything that is) into discrete pieces and then those pieces into pieces into pieces and so on years months weeks days hours minutes seconds into pieces and all the pieces matter maybe or not or then we take the (many) pieces once we have experienced them (one-by-one, alllll the liiiiittle pieces, where dooo they all come from? All the little pieces, where do they all belong?) and we associate those pieces with the (emotional) context in which they come to pass: memory. We can control the representational structure/form of our long-term memory, but in our contempormodernity, we assume the structure that our history has used is the proper structure. Take a look at History and tell me with a straight face that we know what we are doing…Nature and evolution and the universe provide the answers to our questions on systems, structures, symbiotic behavior, so we either listen or lose everything.

-BB

Words 2 (or Colors 1)

Blue

Effect (cause) to You,

blue might mean
everything you ever Knew,
to be of that color.
But,
Like,
what do I know?
Tell me, world:
Is my blue your blue?
Then you do,
tell me, that is:
“My blue is my blue,
Your blue is your blue.
There is some overlap, and
Let’s leave loss of meaning out
And not make people bored with blue;
Bluebitty blue blue beautiful hue too”
“fuck you, world.
Retract.
I love you.”
The word is blue, the world is blue
But words and worlds are representations,
abstractions
 (Ordered permutations of letters with:
 a rule here,
 a rule there;
Arbitrarily assigned, defined
using other…Sounds…)
Blue is a word.
Blue is a world.
Here we might mention the association with mood and music:
I’m blue
Dabadeedabada…
Not that music.
I thought only cows mood.
Blue cows, mood bad;
There must not be enough…
Hey,
Anyway…
What is blue?
What is you?
“Arbitrary de(-scription,
-piction)”
Who are you? (Hoo, hoo…)
Who is blue?
“Bad answers come from(?):
bad questions.”
Why are you blue?
Why are you you?
“Now we are making progress,
It’s a process.”
Why are you?
Why is blue?
“Exactly.”
Evo-(b)lu(e)-tion, baby.
it’s intuitive to the human brain,
invoking the action of eyes ‘seeing’ as their sense
(Lens focuses light towards retina,
 where photoreceptors are so excited to find their photon friends in their correct color cones, and instantly send the sensational news through neural networks as an electrical signal for processing and imaging)
Light
(permutations of photon particles doing the wave, so-to-speak, and if blue then on the short end but visible, moving at the speed of, well, light, or say c)
“You like this word: permutations…”
Math is ART(hur Cayley):
Every group is isomorphic to a subgroup of its symmetric group.
Worlds and words and worlds of words.
Why do we see (c)?
“How much time do we have?”
What is time?
“Not again…”
Ah, why is time?
“Flow, change, progress…”
Oh, my.
 what might 1c, optimistically?:
Looking up at the sky,
Why, it’s blue! Why is it blue?
(Why, always why with you…)
A scattering comes across the sky…
Note same scattering in a blue eye.
And if the sky is blue that day,
If pollution isn’t in the way,
There’s no blue like the ocean.
Blue on blue, blue in blue, blue of blue
Meeting at the horizon.
You’re makin’ my dreams come blue
Or if the day chooses to be gray,
Clouds,
not content with fractal boarders providing limfinite complexity,
overlap to darken the sky,
raining on our blue parade.
Bastards.
On those gray daze,
blue is a collar,
 fuck color:
blue is the name of the train line some sorry sucka takes to work every morning,
and, (worse?), the converse
(from work, to some (un)affordable apartment, nothing like a home…
Nothing like Home)
Or the color of the tie seen on a ley line down the boss’ beer belly.
The blues.
Same as it ever was.
At this not-home,
To partners in misery,
Or to misery’s offspring,
blue might be a bruise:
Alcohol’s common collateral damage.
At its worst, blue is the glint of cold steel flashed before entry into a belly:
hara-kiri.
 Or blue smoke from a barrel
Real and rising,
Up, up, into that bluest sky…
(Don’t look down:
there, in the outpouring blood:
a tinge of what?)
At its best blue is the beginning of life, home can be up high if we
Stay grounded
Cause (effect) to
You
Blue is
-BB

Balls 1

Ancient Human Thought

The profound sense of self-significance leading to the formulation of the universe as some abstract not-earth, but certainly something because in this space of habitually-blue-but-not-water-blue somethingness exist the two great balls, the one of fire who must be best friends with eyeballs, raised to an exalted position because despite eyeballs’s inability to provide reciprocate offerings (while glaring at the fireball all day is harmful (inducing any major-general assumptions about something based solely on sensory perception generoftenally (moreoftenthannotuhlee) makes an ass out of umptions or sumpthins) enough anecdotal evidence exists to support the following conclusion: staring at the Great Ball of Fire assiduously ironally also makes a butt out of one’s eye duo thusly we derive the proverbial epithet ‘butthead’ to those blindly worshipping that which cannot be known) the great fireball still shows up and gives to eyeballs everything it can. And even though it must abdicate for that introverted, oft-veiled (finger nailed?) ball of shadows, the two balls having some sort of agreement or compromise on the great question asking is one ball better than the other, or, perhaps, equivaliantly to these icons of egotism: is one ball more deserving of attention than its dual.

This is probably how early human minds thought about these things right? No? History (and human thought) tends to imagine transitions like the one to full (ish) consciousness and sense of time and self and environment and others etc. as very sudden, or don’t think about it at all. Biologically, we share certain invariants with all life, but consciousness split human evolution because a brain with some self-awareness, self-reflection, being-in-worldness with other beings and objects, and access to long-term memory representations and associated functions to compare and to synthesize (thus self-generating new constructive representations leading to creativity and imagination and multi-tasking) and to retain for most of a lifetime has profound implications for human life, for all life, and even for the universe. Instead of relying on successive generations for evolution to perform its future-blind, random ‘learning’ by natural selection on entire populations using DNA as the memory record-keeper (mutations are random within the individual and thus random individuals have mutations, but they won’t be self-aware of the mutation), the human brain can create limitless closed representations to both map in reduced form onto DNA for later generations but, locally, to store in the infinitely complex (built on unity) fine structure underlying our hyperfunctioning deep memory. Over an entire (very short relative to biological evolutionary timescales even though we live long) lifetime, each individual human being experiences, learns, and synthesizes more knowledge than natural selection can do on its own over epochs.

The BIG QUESTION OF QUESTIONS at the beginning of the evolution of human beings is then, informally, the following: Why consciousness evolved at all?

Access and reassess and

-BB