entpm

“It is unlikely to do anything interesting just now,” Hackworth said. “It won’t really activate itself until it bonds.”

“Bonds?”

“As we discussed, it sees and hears everything in its vicinity,” Hackworth said. “At the moment, it’s looking for a small female. As soon as a little girl picks it up and opens the front cover for the first time, it will imprint that child’s face and voice into its memory-”

“Bonding with her. Yes, I see.”

“And thenceforth it will see all events and persons in relation to that girl, using her as a datum from which to chart a psychological terrain, as it were. Maintenance of that terrain is one of the book’s primary processes. Whenever the child uses the book, then, it will perform a sort of dynamic
mapping from the database onto her particular terrain.”

“You mean the database of folklore.”

Hackworth hesitated. “Pardon me, but not precisely, sir. Folklore consists of certain universal ideas that have been mapped onto local cultures. For example, many cultures have a Trickster figure, so the Trickster may be deemed a universal; but he appears in different guises, each appropriate to a
particular culture’s environment. The Indians of the American Southwest called him Coyote, those of the Pacific Coast called him Raven. Europeans called him Reynard the Fox. African-Americans called him Br'er Rabbit. In twentieth-century literature he appears first as Bugs Bunny and then as the Hacker.”

Finkle-McGraw chuckled. “When I was a lad, that word had a double meaning. It could mean a trickster who broke into things- but it could also mean an especially skilled coder.”

“The ambiguity is common in post-Neolithic cultures,” Hackworth said. “As technology became more important, the Trickster underwent a shift in character and became the god of crafts- of technology, if you will- while retaining the underlying roguish qualities. So we have the Sumerian Enki, the Greek
Prometheus and Hermes, Norse Loki, and so on.

"In any case,” Hackworth continued, “Trickster/Technologist is just one of the universals. The database is full of them. It’s a catalogue of the collective unconscious. In the old days, writers of children’s books had to map these universals onto concrete symbols familiar to their audience- like
Beatrix Potter mapping the Trickster onto Peter Rabbit. This is a reasonably effective way to do it, especially if the society is homogeneous and static, so that all children share similar experiences.

"What my team and I have done here is to abstract that process and develop systems for mapping the universals onto the unique psychological terrain of one child- even as that terrain changes over time. Hence it is important that you not allow this book to fall into the hands of any other little girl until Elizabeth has the opportunity to open it up.”

—  Niel Stephenson from The Diamond Age, or a Young Girl’s Illustrated Primer

I know I’ve been neglecting this blog and I’m sorry. There’s a lot of things I’ve been neglecting and I’m trying to get back on track with everything. But that’s not the point of this post.

The point? To tell you to go follow entpme-mbtiguide, whose blog is awsome, funny and insightful. It’s got floating porcupines and running skeletons and an awesome newsletter!

Also, they’re trying to get certified in MBTI, so if possible, please donate! We need more talented MBTI experts!

entpme-mbtiguide:

Just to prove I know my stuff, I’m going to come up with an MBTI test on the spot for my homies to take. Feel free to reblog this, but if you want your results, you’ll need to message me. I may update this as I get feedback.

I’ll try to get to everyone, but you know how these things can go.

Complete the sentence:

I am constantly: looking for a better way

I think constantly about: whatever my obsession of the week is, often creating stories

My greatest goal in life is: to make a difference

My favourite subject is: (long time since I’ve been in school…but going with what I loved) Futures (trends analysis, kind of like History only backwards) and Physics. Also advanced mathematics, because logic and imaginary numbers are fun.

I feel like I am: a thinker drowning in feels

I don’t understand why people: don’t think about the global good - like would it really be THAT HARD to turn your wheel a little harder and move your car so you’re not blocking the lane that three people are waiting to go down?!

People don’t understand why I: indulge in negative emotion

True/False

1. I like helping people. TRUE!

2. What is moral is determined by society, not from within. BOTH - global and individual well-being in balance determines morality. Someone who has trouble judging this should go with what society says. I would always at least consider society input before making a judgement. (So I guess FALSE if I had to choose.)

3. I am considered “irrational” to many of my friends. FALSE

4. I am idealistic. TRUE

5. I value hard facts, not what they could mean.  FALSE

6. I speak very quickly. TRUE

7. I have no filter. TRUE (ish - I *try* to filter because I hate upsetting people)

8. I am practical. TRUE

9. I like being able to tell other people what to do. TRUE

10. I like to read. TRUE

11. I have so many dreams, I couldn’t pick just one to follow. TRUE

12. I have more than 3 strong interests. TRUE

13. I turn in homework or work on time. FALSE

14. People can rarely tell what I’m feeling. FALSE

15. I strive to be different. FALSE

16. Conflict does not bother me. FALSE (but strenuous non-personal debate doesn’t bother me - I don’t view that as conflict)

17. I am not easily bothered by issues like discrimination and sexism, even if I have an opinion on them. FALSE

18. I am articulate. TRUE

19. I enjoy empirical science. CLARIFY (If you mean I enjoy *doing* it, then no. If you mean I enjoy *reading* scientific research reports and have a strong preference for information derived from the scientific method rather than opinion and individual experience then yes.)

20. I mostly read non-fiction. FALSE

21. I am constantly doing things. FALSE (Unless “feeding information into my brain” counts as doing - I’m not one to sit on the verandah and gaze at nature, but I like sitting on my butt a lot.)

life doesn’t want to be fragile, it wants to be strong and
regenerative, soft, fluid and encompassing. it seeks to
hold itself as an individual, embracing another of itself with
emotional attraction affinities, which it knows is best to
merge with, just for the while as it experiences the
connections.

the in-between of having, wanting and dreaming builds
realities from rhythms it experiences. connected to an
overlapping membrane of consciousness, the surrounds
of nature tell stories of all possibilities.
capturing a thread of preference begins to bring the mind
on a journey. as they depart from the center, the mind and
vectors communicate differently with each other, forming
new means of embodiment.

which vector is going to live longer? can they return? are
they able to depart further from the stance of this
realisation and trail back to the memory of longing before?
can there be a continuation to that predefined destination
which was envisioned from both trajectories, which now
there is? wait! … there is more now! which shall be looked
from? all? which is the one to see the best future from?
as they begin to seed themselves from a point of
experience, they are building their topology to create an
existence there. perfection is never found. experience
creates the story while communication is continuing the
growth/build of the environment.

if you are at one end and another at the other, and both
travel towards the decay point, possibilities deduce to
what is right and good.

the shape of what is felt is sensed as an exaptive form,
expanding between the non-form of the invisible which
becomes visible.

all that’s required is trust & delivery into acceptance as
things move on.

— 

- desire mechanics (love. growth and experience of breathing into meaning)

from Entanglement Personas/Metaconstructs

entpme-mbtiguide replied to your post “So, I’ve made the decision to leave school again. I’m going to finish…”

Good. You do you. Don’t let anyone give you shit for leaving school, if that’s a thing.

I mean, I’m really the only one giving myself a hard time about it. With Mom in and out of the hospital, I just don’t have the discipline or the energy to continue school, but this will be the second time I’ve dropped out of college. I mean, disregarding the loans for a minute, I just feel like a failure. But I know I’m not going to be successful if I continue.

Subject X was a poet—at least that’s what he wrote on his application form—and he claimed fluency in a number of languages.

Rajiv and I were delighted with this; we thought it would be fascinating to see the brain correlations of someone so intimate with language—with the immense complexity of word manipulation. There was no doubt that he would be our first subject. I wonder, now, if he might have known that; if he was making certain that we’d choose no one else but him.

You’ve probably heard me sharing my pet theory—a speculation really—that minds which operate a number of languages simultaneously (a rare phenomenon indeed) are a mutation of the lateral thinking paradigm. Somehow these minds sustain a continuous diversification of parallel dimensions because they must retain their focus on the word they are looking for. It is as if the word they are looking for keeps morphing one into the other, across languages, and so they never lack the appropriate term. Because of this simple fact, the coherence of their thought stream is an unremitting flux that never sleeps—it merely fluctuates in intensity and density—at least, that’s my conjecture…

What led us astray at the beginning was the fact that we took language to mean verbal languages only. But language is much more than that. So often, we forget that a visual representation of a chair is not the same as the word “chair” or the vocal verbalization of that same word. The language of chemicals and molecules, the language of magnetic fields, of shapes and coordinates of spaces and times and the language of energy, all these and many, many others—as we now are beginning to understand—exist continuously and in a superimposed manner, only part of which surfaces and parallels the others. What is normally perceived is only superficially and apparently translated into another language. The difference therefore was not only of kind, and thus of quantity, but also of quality.

Now do you see how we were caught off guard? When we did our first experiments we did not understand how we got those strange results: the de-coherence effect of immediate reality.

—  the world belongs to words part I, a sci-fi ultrashort by @wildcat2030