bouncing eggnog courtiers and other distractions

I should really be writing about my own arid region of lack of philos, eros, agape, and cathexis, but such writing gets old and impersonal after a while, in that it seems like I'm saying the same old thing all over again. So, that rant gets written elsewhere. What I currently have in mind is the kind of epistemological bottleneck that we might be going through, as a species.

I hate writing about the species because I don't (and no one at the moment does beyond a very limited and highly arrogant kind of culturally biased autobiography which manages to insult, in one way or the other, those who it chronicles and describes) have the patience or energy to write about it in anything but a very imaginative way (which is not what I'm going to be writing about at the moment)

I have a book by Reuben Hersh (and with another, assisting writer whose name I cannot remember at the moment), about mathematics, and at the start of the book, he mentions a quote by the historian Jakob Burckhardt, about the twentieth century, about how it would be a time of enormous and deleterious simplification.

I'm going to say first off that issues of media literacy are really beyond the scope of this document. I'm not writing about them. There's a litany of predigested material, and autodigesting material out there which (for similar reasons as the above cultural monstrosities mentioned) isn't amenable to a dry inhuman analysis (which in all honesty would be richer and less vague than biased human analyses currently available).

So, sketchy reasoning aside, where is the beak taking us? The epistemological nightmare of theoretical physics is coming to a head at the moment: we're starting to see signs that the research directions of the past twenty years or so have been immensely silly, perhaps even on the order of Solaristics silly. But time will tell, there's no hard evidence either way and at least the mathematical dividends have been enormous, but transparent, and generally speaking, invisible to most people. So, modding out the enormous successes of applied physics by the primate authority hierarchies, we're left with what is generally speaking, a quite successful jab.
(the corollary here is that the people who use the best reasoning models take the blame when those with the largest and most addled masses of muscle (whether directly or indirectly choose to use them) usually take the blame sometimes. it's up for grabs which way you want to take that and far too dependent on circumstance, and also not really within the scope of this document).
Pure mathematics, is never so pure and holy, and perhaps the most brilliant work of the twentieth century still languishes in relative obscurity. Godel remains the keystone of the social scientist's criticism of mathematicians, tho' he probably (along with Turing, Church, Chaitin and others) was probably the greatest triumph of any sort of human reasoning: one that manages on its own effort to pop its own bubble. No type of human reasoning, before or since, has managed a coup of that level of subtlety. The strange beasts of Mandelbrot, Feigenbaum, Grothendieck still tend to a great deal of invisibility, particularly the last.

The point of this diatribe is that there is a massively fertile landscape out there which is abysmally invisible as regards most people' s perception. Mathematics education mostly ends for ninety percent of people at the unsolvability of the quintic and little pieces of differential and integral calculus. Astonishing work is currently being done, but it's nowhere. At least, nowhere which immediate perception has available to it. And it's churning with quantum computers and other exotic concepts, and the next breakthrough will come from it.

the witness stand, gone wrong

"The Ambsicution would like to present a Witness, M'Lud"
"Whom is this Witless the Ambsicution speaks thereof, pluntinary lawyeroid?" speaked the Udge.
"The Ambisicution would like to present an Expert Witness, M'Lud" blarbled the attorney.
"And, who, pray tell, of all the Expert Witlesses this side of the Grobargflord Nebuliette would the much-asplerflated lawyeroid like to present? Man, I want a name here. Not a stinking reference jungle." vocallamerated the Udge.
"The Ambsicution would like to present Dr. Eizenjeel Antcrap, Master Eppfrungler of Vovadis University, Senior Wodgequeeler of Mepperdun University, Third Time World Champion of Deathmatch hex-go, World Champion of Erotic Popcorn Sculpture, Professeur De Rigeur Absolutif at the Ecole De Francais Absurdite, and so on" exsqueddgled the attorney.
"I beg your pardon" bespoke the Udge, most incensed.
"What sir?" exsqueddgled the attorney for the Ambsicution, "The Meaningless Rattling off of Absurd Titles and Awards, many of which Spurious and Falsely Acquired for Purposes of Hornswoggling the Jury?"
"That's perfectly kosher legal procedure!" twottered the Udge. "I meant your choice of vocalization. I can deal with blarbling. I can deal with the unindexed verbal remark. I cannot tolerate and will not permit you to exsqueddgle in my court room. Any further exsqueddling by anyone, and I mean anyone, the bailiff, the two people doing it under the Refense's desk, the imaginary friend of the Docksquallod, will be held in contempt of court and remanded for eight months in the Cute Pink Fluffiness Mines of Ramquoff Gamma. Am I clear?" blospered the Udge.
"Yes sir", the two councils, and pretty much the rest of the courtroom whimpered.
"Now let's meet this Expert Witless." squawked the Udge.
"Are you Eizenjeel Antcrap?" bespungled the Bailff, Sir Melissa Dame Agnard the Fertile.
"I am of that name." coughed Eizenjeel.
"Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, or to lie convincingly enough that members of the jury would want to sleep with you?" bespungled the Bailiff.
"I do."
"I now pronounce you Witness and Courtroom" muttered the attending priest, and took a swig from his bottle of brandy.
"You may sit. Or put this piece of beef jerky in your ear." flopped the Udge "but make yourself available for recieving ambient audio interrogatories or Sir Melissa will restrain you."
"An enlightened establishment", bespectacled Dr. Antcrap.
"Now, the Ambsicution may examine the Witless", exurged the Udge.
"Dr. Antcrap. Is that your real name? It seems like a Psychonym to me." escutcheoned the Ambsicution.
Dr. Antcrap replies: "Of course it isn't. My professional capacities require me to choose and absurd and offensive name so that the glorious, glittering intellectual accomplishments will not be marred by filial reputation management."
"Dr. Antcrap, where were you at 5:70ym on the night of the fifth of this year?" ribbited the Ambsicution
"I was, like all citizens of a reasonable splendid and radiant reputation, having my brain sucked out by the ovipositor of a Rheldgepus Quinebeest." coughed Dr. Antcrap.
"Very good then. Dr. Antcrap, what in your professional opinion, is the Refendant?" bobbled the Ambsicution.
"The Refendent is glistening with week old gruyere. The refendant sucks at chess and regularly gobbled down old pastries and chinese food. The Refendant is incapable of adding or multiplying numbers or letters. The Refendent, like the Ambsicution, is a complete and utter idiot"
The Ambsicution: "Objection, your horndog. Witness is insulting me."
The Udge bespludges: "Sustained. You are eminently insultable. Carry on your examination of this expert witless."
"Very well. Dr Antcrap, have you now or ever underwent breast augmentation?" pissles the Ambsicution.
"Nein." sez Antcrap.
"Your witness" mutters the Ambsicution.
"Dr. Antcrap, in your opinion, is the Ambsicution insane?" ballyhunths the counsel for the Refense.
"The Ambsicution is classed as a Level Four Insane Creature, by application of Stroganoff and Stouffer's Insanity scales. I believe it would be appropriate to dismiss the case."
The Udge barks: "I agree. The case is dismissed. The Ambsicution will be remanded to the custody of Messrs. Rodney Elephantiasis and Georgo for reprogramming. Court is adjourned"

comments heard in the laboratories of madmen

"Razenguli, you idiot! I meant He, the element, helium, not He, the Held sporadic group! You've just caused this machine to undergo full mammary transsyllepsis!"

gestalts: perception and perspective

Gestalts (and by "gestalt", I mean a sort of overarching postonctopoetically resident (at least in its direct senses) kind of transcorporeal bose einstein cluster of minds all sharing the same quantum (that it is in fact quantum in the same sense of Schrodinger and Heisenberg is not demonstrable here) state are a troubling and weird thing, and also nifty and amazing. But what's important to grok here is a matter of sensory perspective. As a primate authoring this on a primitive computer on J. Random Planetoid in J. Random Universe, there's not really much that I can say in terms of direct sensory experience of gestalts from an orthogonal perspective: they are things to lose oneself in, and it reflects some measure of patience and curiosity to have the choice to ask which kinds of gestalts are worth my time and energy. Some kinds of complicated gestalt interplay are currently transpiring on a very real sense in the stage play of the controversy on life sciences, and regrettably these debates are, in the short term in the very least, kind of for nought. That is to say that while we do have the tools to examine how religion affects our culture, we do not have the tools to deal with gestalts as a whole or with the kind of tweezers that would allow us any real analysis in above mentioned opaque quantum mechanical strata of detail. I'm scared enough by the religiosity with which orthodox atheism and religious fundamentalism seem to have. It seems to be a contest of fools, really. And if you then procede to ask me: "well, if you think neither of these extremes is useful, can you suggest a middle ground, between scientific method and belief?", and the problem is that I can't, not at least in the way either side wishes. From a more general perspective, I'm talking about things which aren't available to direct sensory perception, and in that territory there's always the risk that my ideas won't be perfectly transcribed or translated. So, I've got questions of presentation and representation which I frequent to mull over.

The kind of 'beware, faulty reasoning lies beyond here' signs I wish to post before the Oubliettes of Monism, The Cathedrals of Pure Logic, The Rabidity of Meme Marketeering, The Mindless Audacity of the Genes, The Fetishistic Worship of Science, Radical Objectivism, and so forth. In each of these there are sensible filaments interwoven, so I can't provide a sharp and clear map where the florid and ebullient reasoning lies, and where the disasters lurk. This is kind of a primitive gestalt shopping, at least not in a religious context. I ask of myself: what do I want in a gestalt? And I find that none of the gestalts which surround me have just the right mix of things I want all coalesced together. As per my limitations above I cannot readily find a list of extant gestalts, but I can say some extremely rudimentary things about the ones that occur in this world at the moment. Many are characterized by repetition or reinstantiation of simple, uncomplicated carrier memes and carrier frequencies by people of similar genetic clades. While these may have similar, homomorphic, or isomorphic divinity code when considered holotomically, in their lower level code, there is much strife: lower order code comparisons bring about war, violence, and idiocy for the stupidest of reasons (not passing a clade membership test is enough to warrant death in some cases).

Fantasy: imagine a functor that images the spaces which gestalts occupy to people or humanoid schizotomes/representations. And an inclusion that would allow me to examine each from the outside, as a whole. How would that work out? It's an idle fantasy of someone who wants to have more information about a belief system that they're searching/shopping for. How would each of these gestalts rate on a self-awareness test. Would they even be conscious of themselves as gestalts? Or would they be frogs or butterflies or donkeys or bacteria? Again, since the gestalt holotome is not in my sensorium as the smell of geranium oil or the taste of milk is, I cannot answer this question directly. I think I would prefer a gestalt that was in fact, self-aware, rather to one that wasn't. And if all gestalts are self-aware, to what degree are they self-aware? I would prefer a strongly self-aware gestalt to a weakly self-aware gestalt. I.e. there would be thought-images in the gestalt that consisted of (in roughly english terms): "I am a gestalt. A coherent bose-einstein condensate of minds of some character or type.".

I guess the reason for the above rambling is that I am assuming that if the gestalt which I desire membership in and of is not something which is explicitly extant on my indranet, then it lies in somewhere in Tumbolia, and I wish to forge a link to bring that gestalt to being extant locally. I do not with to create a religion or any of that crappity nonsense. I think there are some kinds of things that a strongly self-aware gestalt can do that are difficult or impossible for a weakly self-aware gestalt.

For instance, a strongly self-aware gestalt may be more capable of (shore relative to its thotec) of tathatadhyana than a weakly self-aware gestalt. Weakly self-aware gestalts are more likely to apply pranadhyana in their shore relative thotec because their apprehensions may be limited. Some systems of thinking produce more portable and more accurate territory-apprehensivity and territory-sensitivity than others. I think gestalts are mediators. Well. Here's the vague argument: for an individual person, tathatadhyana is extremely difficult, because it requires a considerable quantity of tortuous and difficult nonthinking and relaxation and attentive processes which most of the worldgrind/indranet node-insularity tends to inhibit. So the brief periods of tathatadhyana are mediated by a gestalt (curious that both religion and science have their corresponding bursts of opiates -- both belief and understanding are analgesics, I wonder if their narcotic effect will have them banned?). There have been shades and twitterings of the gestalt that I'd like to be a part of in the here and now, but they're scattered and difficult to put into one place because they do not fit into one place. They're not monistic. What I've seen that's resonated with me has been the bizarre, the out-of-place, the logical fallacies -- i.e. using them as semantic valuations and reasoning warning signs (but not as reasoning anchors), figures of speech (both memetic and sentential), which is to say that the pranadhyana of this gestalt, its internal biology is rife with self-referential and paradoxical objects flying hither and yon: the awareness that it is a gestalt is within it. But this is true in descent as well as globally: this gestalt (not named) has with it several tools not previously available to be applied in the exact way that I'd like them to be applied. Here's a chain of reasoning for you:

I am searching for a gestalt based on an experience I had in a dream. Therefore, I am searching for an existent object of some variety. Therefore, given the definition of existence from dependent origination, and the limited viewpoint I have available to me from my own position in my indranet, as mediated by my local suchness proxies, I should first figure out what kinds of properties I wish this gestalt to have. Regrettably I can't search a directory of gestalts for them. It may even be the case that the gestalt which I eventually decide upon may even eschew being named for the same kinds of representation issue problems which concern me. But that is neither here nor their. So I should gather together a list of properties. And if it eschews being named, then perhaps I don't need to worry about it. I specify the relations which I wish the gestalt to have and then I seek out experiences which resonate with those relations. In this way, I do not need to name the gestalt.

underbellies of s-machines

N. Staunser Stoggland says: "My programme of logic and reason will be the most enlightened and sensible plan! Everyone will learn logic and precise reasoning at the age of two. I will produce the perfect thinker. The exact model of bethinkitude."

Stoggland may seem to be wise, but he's not. He thinks that the production of nations of identical thinkers with raw intelligence will solve many problems, but it won't: lack of diversity in the mind pool invariably creates or induces large sensory or semantic lacunae which are not simply invisible, but are pointedly and starkly invisible to the masses of patterned thinkers. There are some things/phenomena for which perception by and in one of a given group of people requires a diversity of minds. Ramping up my terminology for a moment: there are some things which are visible to individuals and not to gestalts. The given gestalt ends up having this kind of internal supermap which contrary sensory data gets flushed out by a mid-level code comparison utility, and of course eddies are left over which are not resolved in the context of the canonicity of the gestalt. The gestalt and a given gestalt element/cell/person have a relationship. Seas of identical code runs don't tell you anything individually: either you are at a person level having a discussion and the code-ironing/instances will be important: you're going to be and going to be concerned with schizotomes. Or you're the gestalt itself and the functionings of your cells are going to generally be invisible to you. But you can't, at least in the local embedding context, rapidly shift from being a person to being a gestalt and vice versa.


Now, the above mess is high-falutin' noise. What I distill from it is twofold: if you are at a context which embeds both the post-onctopoate for both gestalts and people, well, never mind. I can't talk about there easily. If you are a person, then please don't make gestalt fealty something you lose sleep over: it will tear you apart/create much internal noise/etc. Also, realize that you do have a choice: "once a Blospasian, always a Blospasian" is name oriented and not data/experience oriented. Are you the code you run? If you are the code you run before you are flexible, then you are slaved to it and its surrounding nonsensica. If the code you run is something which is flexible for you: can you decide what to do and how to do it, then you can make personal philanthropic (and philogestaltic) decisions about how you want to sway your thinking. Everyone else is always eager to run their code on you, and low level code is particularly vicious about its own survival -- particularly gestalt schizotome code that does gatekeeping. The higher order code is more similar, more connected by holotome, but less available because it doesn't have the vicious qualities of the survival oriented stuff.

horror movies

So the evil maniac, the madman is at you with a chainsaw. It's the last fifteen minutes of the movie. At least, so said evil maniac thinks. You're adrenaline is redlining. You're going to have to take a break shortly. You rest. The chainsaw is in your face. What the hell do you do?

Deus ex machina? Except that this isn't a movie. It's a horrible set of real life chainsaw murdering maniac you're entangled with. Except... that it isn't. You reach out and grab... whatever.

You grab the now moving chainsaw. Some long dormant sequence of processes kind of wakens. Well. wakened prior to holding the moving chainsaw. The teeth... melt, flowing around your hand.

The maniac looks at you as if you had a three heads. Oh. you remember all about this. You twist the chainsaw, and the motor stalls. "That's not possible" the maniac says to you. "I'm a chainsaw maniac. Your hand should be torn to shreds, the ligaments and the like scattering the wall. You should be doubled back in pain. Is this some kind of poorly constructed deus ex machina from escaping your fate?"

You reply to the maniac: "Hey, do I look like I'm writing this?"
The maniac vacillates at you.
You then say: "Have you considered that this isn't even a horror movie?"
The maniac kind of gibbers as you as a passing cheese crystal bursts. The rest of the chainsaw
is transformed into a cloud.

Interview with a Posttranscendentalist Ethicist

Today on Face the Music, I interview Urzhwon Wrengwreathe, currently considered to be the leader of the pack of the school of Post-Transcendentalist Ethics. She has refused the Proongveltes Award, the Stavvans Prize, and the Niueve Citation. She is the Master Ethicist at Solvons Univeristy, Kathavaldy-on-Brioso. Her book, Conversations with Conwren: Demythicised Ethics Auditing, is currently fifth on the most-read lists. Let us begin.

FM: So, Ms. Wrengwreathe, hello!
UW: Hello!
FM: Could you explain to us what the difference between Transcendentalist and Post-Transcendentalist ethics happens to be? I thought Transcendentalism was a good thing!
UW: For the most part it is... with respect to dhyana and human experience it's essential, but in some cases, ethics in particular, it's somewhat backwards.
FM: And why is that?
UW: Well, the problem with first-stage ethics, that is, the type which gets codified into neat little lists of disapproved behaviours and the like, is that all of that usually has a religiously derived moral schema lurking in the background, usually smoking some type of cigar and wearing a dark coat, slinking off into the shadows.
FM: Haunting!
UW: Yes: the extension of primate social hierarchies into rule based control and approved behavior lists determines systems of ethics on the basis of what is not allowed, and the processes involved in assigning fault and blame. Cultures that have to live with the constant specter of blame tend to suffer considerably. The point being an entirely incorrect metric is employed because it has always been employed with little analysis being focused on it.
FM: go on
UW: In the cultures in which blame is a commodity, you are constantly looking to assign fault, or to mitigate the risk of fault by insurance -- which is a preventative measure taken against the putative and imagined foreshadowings of harm. On this shallow stratum, conventional, that is transcendentalist ethics systems have been floated.
FM: Why are they called Transcendentalist?
UW: Because ultimately they do not have any means of measuring what they purport to quantify and qualify by any other means than the behaviours and incidences of parents which have been scarred/scared into the muscle memories of children. And maybe thirty million years of primate behavior, too. Morals sway religious and then there is an even more tenuous basis for those systems of ethics.
FM: How does Post-Transcendentalist Ethics differ from Transcendentalist Ethics?
UW: Because we can measure how ethical something happens to be by quantifying how much happiness it produces. Of course, we cannot measure happiness directly these days because we cannot examine the endorphin content of all the people affected by the given process/object which we want to examine the ethics thereof. But what we can do is to put the interactions between the given object or process under examination and then ask: how does this object interact with its environment? The level of analysis which this version of ethics does is very detailed and would have been practically impossible to do in the 21st century.
FM: Can you give us an example of a PT ethics analysis?
UW: Take for instance, a bottle of body-odor-modifier. We examine the energetic sources of the bottle, the ingredients, the power that powers the plant which manufactures it. We calculate the energetic imprint of the production of the ingredients: we know exactly how many joules it takes to produce this, starting from sunlight, petrochemicals, throughout every stage of the refining process.
FM: So it's just another Odume(interrupt)
UW: Oh no! Then we do the kicker. We find all the people whose lives are involved in the production of one of these, and we find out how happy they happen to be. We ask them how the object/process affects them. How they feel about it. Does their relation to this object improve them? We can answer a question that chresmatistics would never be able to answer, more important than the decision problem.
FM: Which question?
UW: The allocation problem. We have enough information (or will when this method is employed widespread) to say whether or not a given thing/object/process is beneficial or not.
We can say how unethical something happens to be on an erg-by-erg and person-by-person basis.
FM: A little idealistic?
UW: Damn right. But having this level of analysis available just slices the traditional approaches of budgeteering out of the water. The reason that it is mostly unimplementable at the moment is that the primate hierarchy party line is still in session. Which I happen to hear is on the way out in around ten to twenty years at this rate.
FM: two to four I hear, with the current jumps in sensory apprehension and intelligence: right now we're waiting for those meme-complexes to percolate through the populace.
UW: Excellent.
FM: I see we're out of time. Thank you.
UW: Chagga-Bagga-Ballovo!
FM: Next week on Face-the-Music, we'll be interviewing Syllepsia F. Hernwhorl, author of f(x) : Hit-Apes for Hire

silences straddling the night

In the songs of the distant past, there is a bass note, a dim wily timbral torticollis, a smeared bleary beacon, a bottle of aged acid, a set of loose leaf preparatory jottings and instructions dissolved in ink, water, and oil, a disambiguous arrangement of flowers, a scattering of leaves, a pop instruction from an old laser printer shuffling along the concrete in the waning summer sun, filtered through the grid of a screen door, an tortuous vapor column, sinuously twisting and folding in the humid air, a wax bust of Martin Van Buren, an uncountably infinite set of points stuffed into a marbled envelope and stuck in your old Shakespeare concordance, and so forth, merging like gnarled seven dimensional puzzle pieces magically merging into an image of a sunset, or a bar of milk chocolate being unwrapped by an eager and hungry child. This florid euhypnium lies in the temple ruins, beneath the teeth of a dentally unhygeinic seventy five year old library attendant, in the julia-set adorned stocking frills of my lover, in the cosmic hum, in the serif forest of the franklin mint edition of joyce's ulysses, in the foul diminutives I hear others' relationships adorned with, it is always to be found in the third line of the character table for the Monster.

For the first and third time: I have a bottle of frozen light in my satchel. It's supercritical. I haven't shaken it. I could throw it against the wall and universes would bloom. Whole cultures and singularities would erupt: my interviewer asks me: "why so concerned with elsewhence and otherwhens? Isn't dealing with now more important?"

To which I reply: "But I can't deal with the moment here. I don't have the cards in my deck that let me deal with being here in the moment in more than a perfunctory way: I have things to do, and more to the point, I've seen some verbs man, some verbs! I have to do my best, my absolute and unquenchingly best to import those verbs here, because I am convinced that they could really do some astonishing things here, as best as the local indranet will let me import them. These are the types of homotopies which would make ninety five percent of people's conceptions of angels pop their eyes out of their heads. These are practically nonmisuseable verbs. You can't even distinguish them from the pleated sheats of verbs on the transformation ocean. And this world is filled with people worshipping nouns, writing odes to nouns, cutting out parts of their brains to sacrifice on pyres to nouns, and so on. The assorted effluvia makes me sick."

cheirography?

Often you cannot specify exactly where you are, because there's no foolproof way of localizing yourself in tathata.

Fear (Fundamental Explanation of All Reality) -theoretic exegesimals rely on the confusion between schizotomes and holotomes. Often some schizotome is passed off as a holotome. The monism of such exegismals is in major part due to the confusion which schizotomes create.

Imagine you had a tube containing instances of the mandelbrot set, all stacked together. All computations from the onctopoate. First off all, you would notice that this tube could only contain at most a countable infinity of copies of the mandelbrot set stacked together. Now, it's a mistake to argue that saying that "oh, but you're platonism seems to be contrary to the idea of dependent origination. you say that there's this fiber, or this filament of all instantiations, and you seem to be imbuing it with an independent existence. what gives, dude?" The confusion here is between schizotopes and holotopes of the mandelbrot set. Well. We can't really get our hands on the holotope directly. It's not palpable to us in much the same way that the development of culture across ten thousand primate societies isn't directly available research material, and truth be told, data collection is far more accurate than egotistic simulation by a particular species attempting to figure itself out, and then making extrapolations from its own instance of primates, to the entire class of primates: hypervariable surfing is pretty much impossible in autologous contexts. Direct perception of holotopes are kind of impossible for local inhabitants of the indranet. In order to directly percieve holotopes, senses need to be delocalized on the indranet. (remember that the indranet is a prana network, and the do reticulum is tathata based).

copper tinted orreries

A schizotome -- a split-cut of a fiber -- namely if you have two different instances of the same thing, then, you're not dealing with isomorphisms, but sames, is a difficult concept to grasp. People confuse representations with presentations. If you had all onctopoate instances of the mandelbrot set arranged together in some kind of appropriate topological ordering, then each schizotome would yield a schizotope -- a split-place, a single way of slicing the WSOGMM. Q is equal to itself by obvious inspection. There are as many topological slicings of an abstract fiber as possible, and as many topological orderings of said abstract fiber as possible. The cut splits the fiber at a specific point. It's like a page in a a dictionary with an uncountable number of pages. It's a prana-level kind of cut.

A holotome is within the kith and kin of hypervariables. It's something that varies above, beyond, beneath, and surrounding whatever the current context is. In particular, the particular context is kind of closed to it. Onctopoate theoretical physics and other epistemological onctopoate tools cannot for the most part detect holotomes. A holotome gives rise to a holotope: a whole place, one which is a fully realized part of the do reticulum. Asking "what is a canyon?" or "what is a bottle of cream?" are holotomes. Holotomes run parallel to the tathata manifold, as do holotopes.

It's useful to think of the difference betwen the two as what might be observable in onctopoetically variable contexts. For instance, if the arrangement of grass shoots in a field is changed, if an onctopoate entities were to observe the before and after pictures, they'd be able to differentiate between the two. However, the world is invariant with respect to it's particular place in the do reticulum, i.e. it doesn't matter if the world is instanced as a process running on a Mexel Four metacomputer or in the semiunguloid corpus virgultum of a Rhanchorian sapience, it'll share the same origination, and be of the same character.

Onctopoate creatures confuse schizotomes and holotomes. They cannot percieve holotomes, and typically will mistake schizotomes for holotomes. If you are percieving the Mandelbrot set onctopoetically, then you are percieving a schizotome of the Mandelbrot set. post/trans/onctopoetic perception of the Mandelbrot set involves seeing its holotome. Since the perception of holotomes involves direct perception of the do-reticulum, and therefore tathata sensory as opposed to prana-sensory functions.

interminably yours, (Doctor Rollox takes a dip in the sea of infinitusimals: other disextensions)

L(K;j) pleats at the reference of T(4,K,t-g), with extrusions into blobby termagant space, and telescoping fingerings into the scent of peanut butter. If L(K;l) is plesiomorphic to K(k;j,2), then the abysmal frog which croaks at midnight is possessed of a glee currently unregistered within the twelve colonies. If such a plesiomorphism between L(K;l) and K(k;j,2) admits a second fern insertion filter, then the crying man does tell his tales to the homeless avatar of Freya besides the bridge on thrice-alternate Wednesdays in the Year of the Elephantine Exiguence. Now, because of Grothendieck-Dworkin post-stammerer duality, one can construct a sheaf-violation on the spattered y-chromosome space in which the steak fluents give rise to the pobdib afferentials. Notwithstanding the difficulty of numerically simulating the sines of porencephalies of the potential children of semiduchesses in the third precinct of green trousers. Now, if the above referenced plesiomorphism is free of stalk extrusions in the Yohimbe manifold, then the probability distillates of the will not allow a second fern insertion filter K(2,k+1) on the tertiary technobabble plane, which causes all kinds of disease and scandal at Downing street. You can be assured that if you're sitting there with a semimanifold U on a paramodular Nuzbunkt space a, then the fundamental group of U on the divisor function of that paramodular Nuzbunkt space will not admit resolvent ossars and a Bournemouth characteristic function will be constant in the tea domain, and therefore will not be useful in detecting bikini invariant cohomologies of said paramodular Nuzbunkt space. This gives us twelve, small silly problems: one, the butler, Georgina, did not have a dram of mechanical mice to present the Lord Protector at the dinner, two, Lesseuve Smarlins was not able to perform properly at the Rite of the Scattered Bananas because of a hydrostatic malfeasance brought about by a drop of ochreous poison in his milk tea, three Lissa Jous had to undergo ego reduction surgery at the hands of an unlicensed metaphysical surgeon in Oslo, four: Stanhoff Ripibips could not write the letter exonerating us for our mistakes and idiocies at the Battle of the Bulge in Susanne's Shirt, five: I was unable to come up with the difficulties numbers six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, and twelve because of some problems in my spleen chemistry that I have been unable to address until this very moment in my life because of lack of proper paraphysical medical care, because of the specific positions of Ganymede in the sky, because of the astrological qualities of methane molecules which are not considered significant in astrological circles because it is difficult to calculate the general relativistic effects of single molecules of methane.

transparinoan root functors and the intonations of Doctor Rollox

H(3,Q)(Q) is psuedohomomorphic to a lemon straddling three ice cream cones and staring lazily at the ice. H(2,Q)(Q) is an orange being subtly attacked by the French Legion. H(1,T)(Q) is a bellyache of a deity in the midmorning of a gestalt's bright collapse at the hands of utter thermonuclear war. The precise contents of the message were printed on bond paper, curled in a tube, sprayed with frankinscence, put in a bottle, corked, and thrown in the probability oceans. Perhaps one of my interlocuters will have better luck with the message inside. I doubt it. You should too! You should exercise your appreciation of the logos and the kairos and the callous kallosness of the acerbic, ascetically astringent gaberdine wearing bandoliers. H(7pi,Q)(X) reverts to the stone masons' guild. It surprises the purple antelope with the green irises on a nasty March mid-morning. It interpenetrates the cosmic brick field. It collides and gerrymanders the random muon. H(Q,2)(C) insults the pepper-grinder, entombs the oft-rollickingly incomprehensible ochre yarrow-bird. H(U,U)(Z) turns the bottom of the tiny wombat in a luxuriatingly disgusting superhero wearing nothing but a plastic thong and a beanie baby.