Flower Eating Diplo dow cuss

Diplohoney... the flower in the garden you were going to eat... it's withered.

Really, Diplohusband? Oh no...! let me see! Ahh, it's ruined :'(

Wait, is that steam coming out of the watering can next to it? Something smells like acid..

Oh, yeah, I was going to pour that on myself after I saw the poor withered plant, because I thought it was gonna make you sad and that made me sad.

Anyway, guess you'll have to eat my dick now

16/02/2014

 I do not feel as if I can 'choose the correct path' while my state is being interfered with. I feel as if my comprehension suffers, but more importantly, the fundamental 'compassionate backbone' that choosing the correct path inevitably leads to. A framework of understanding which understands the lifeforms around itself on 'absolute' terms - that is to say, one which makes no assumptions about their structure but instead insinuates and builds upon the inferred state given a relative lack of information.

A single life is its own, closed reality. Its state, physical, emotional, given the context that gives rise to it, is absolute. Its experiences are absolute. These experiences are a product of its comprehension - the 'transform' of absolute information into information compatible with the host. Its comprehension, from the perspective of a path through a closed context, is completely validatable, though its intersection with an absolute 'fundamental' reality may be variable. It's likely that its comprehension instead intersects with a reality determined by some other means. Force, a network, an attractive state. This comprehension, and large human networks are an example of these, can determine the 'transform' of information at a conscious level.

While the latter part of that paragraph is concerned with high level state, the former low level state remains absolute. That is to say that each entity is a unique, absolute reality. Its absolute state, then, can be considered 'valid', regardless of the high level state. A high level state which conflicts with the comprehension of the low level state as absolute is an interesting phenomenon.

The majority of systems whose integral participants have the capacity for high-level comprehension of this low-level state generally compensate for their conflicts on a hierarchical basis. That is to say, the base unit of measurement in nearly all cases is (me), and the value/validity of the states of others are based upon that metric. This concerns the intersection of the entities comprehension with reality. Which in this case is the projection of the high-level state onto the external environment. This is a concern, due to the conflict it might cause, given that applied generally, the system which allows for the aforementioned behaviour is capable of validating a high degree of developmental variability between high-level states on a singular basis.

What's interesting, aside from (me) being demonstrably influenceable by the system, is the phenomenon of willed inhibition of comprehension in participants who have the capacity for it. I have observed this in myself in extremely difficult situations (the requirement of having to inhibit certain forms of 'validated' comprehension, such as the absolute nature of an animal for example). A concern is when whole networks form around this inhibition of comprehension, at the expense of other states. If the network is not malleable enough, inhibition of the comprehension of its participants is then a requirement of the networks sustained process / growth.

18/03/2014 - Life unwraps itself from its own mind

 When everybody keeps silent about it, it's almost as if it doesn't exist. Well kindled in solitary minds no doubt. I've been concerning myself with how habits of a high frequency, social nature will influence the nature and development of human cognition. Intuition suggests that there, in the context of a system in which habit becomes a non-translative groundwork for an emergent system (for example, biological systems and the conscious mind), is a point of no return - a habit whose inputs and outputs are of an equality (a stable habit whose state rarely deviates with no emergent), or a point of emergence beyond which a habit has one dependant input or output (the point of emergence is likely based on a habit of a certain weight (in other words, a strong periodic creating a force (emergent operator?)), where a higher order structure is reliant upon its superstructure rarely deviating.) I'm concerned about systemic entropy, the amount of potential states of a system given a 'high frequency cutoff' - i.e. the lower level habits are not considered potentially changeable, as the structure of the unified 'object' of emergent systems would be threatened - it is instead treated as a vector, a boundary on the number of potential states the system can generate (and therefore, a limit (ponr) on interpretation of external information and its relevancy and application from the system's context).

Predictability of potential outcomes: low complexity, easy to predict emergent systems

20/03/2014 - we were seeding in our dreams - only way of taming this colossal force - though our differences were usually met with a human sized hole

 Brave socio-economists can, when called for, raise or lower the value of one constant number so that they can prove that 3 > 4. You get results such as "the smarter he gets, the dumber he becomes" :

supposing a=b,
z refers to a potential relationship between a and b, and here z is interpreted as the sum of a and b when a and b are alternatively polarised magnitudes of the (same angle and origin (the implied relationship between a and b, smarter and dumber)). z = a-b = 0.

So the trouble with z is that it doesn't communicate much about its constituents. Also, it's not a very functional relationship. Since z introduced the idea, what if z represented the terms of the relationship (i.e. they exist in only in z), as well as value? if we treat z as encompassing the the terms of the polarity shift,
, -+z = |a|*|b|, it instead provides a sign independent magnitude.

Let's say we can't determine for sure the 'direction' or angle in relation to the unit sphere in which (-)'smarter' is pointing. Instead, we map all directions around an origin on the complex / higher dim plane. (If we had more information about surrounding systems, their interaction would be accounted for).
w will refer to a vector on the complex plane which will

//Possibility is the goal.

...perhaps even z = (z+iw)(z-iw). At z = 0, z = i cos(w) and z = -i sin (w).

So the trouble with z is that it doesn't communicate much about its constituents. Also, it's not a very functional relationship. z = z0 = (z+iw)(-z+iw) seems more fitting, since z refers to the implicated relationship between sign and attribute, and w holds the current magnitude of that relationship (?) of that relationship. (Programmers solution : set first iteration of z to 1, that way progression isn't biased in the pos/neg direction, unit vector of subsystem(?)). Note that

The suggestion of the compliment ( ;) is that z = a, z = -b, where z is a magnitude which is sign agnostic. (That is after all what you're doing in both cases: imagining some relationship between some (potentially ill-defined) attributes).

...This definition is actively limiting the set. You get 'z' or '-z' defined as the upper limit of the set, so that no number can be larger than 'z' or '-z' in the context of the implied logical boundaries of the system (the relationship between z and w) . Because you can only define one upper limit on the set, or determine that z=w, whichever limit chosen as the active limit will always be equal to or greater than the unchosen limit. In the situation described, z >= w or w >= z. There are a few ways to describe this phenomenon, though I shall probably stick to 'phase modulated waveform' to account for probability in time (?)
This means that the difference between the two is of significance from a probabilistic standpoint.