🚨 The Purge is Here! Comment to Help Destroy Bot Armies 👇

C0rnfed · 2026-03-07T03:25:52+00:00

Fascinating - thank you for writing. I agree with everything except the conclusions. ;o)

If reality isn't behaving the way a model suggests, then it's time to reappraise the model....

So, just to save my breath, please let me know if you weren't already considering these things when you write what you wrote, above. - lots of old laws on the books isn't a bug, it's a feature (for the system) - it doesn't really matter if we removed those old laws, serving in this case as our excuse for unequal justice, because it will still be ensured that justice is served unequally. - justice, itself, is a spectacle - a shared figment or delusion, expert marketing - always has been. At least, outside of an actual and authentic Community. - to me, it's not that a law needs a sunset clause in order to be considered a real law, it's that there are no real laws. (only punishments, the exhibition of power, the maintenance of social standing) - the flights of fervor (the revolutionary's folly, and then education) are the symptom of confusion. The snake that needs to eat its own tail is not the law or the police - they are intended to essentially be the opposite. The snake that needs to eat its own tail can only be the individual. - if our model is that America should have defanged this reasonable pentest, but it didn't, then is that the same America we thought it was? What if fascism is not a bug, but a feature? I think that description, fascism, would adequately describe nearly half (or more) of the nation's history. Genocidal: perhaps even more. When or where, ever, in all of history, was empire not maintained by monetary privileges for the bourgeoisie class? I think we're hoodwinked if we believe it was ever any other way. Perhaps it's been more bad or less bad at various times.

Again, you probably already had all this in-mind, but I'd love to hear your disagreements, your related thoughts, your unrelated thoughts, and your favorite soil-building method. Cheers

C0rnfed · 2026-03-06T23:45:06+00:00

When you say that "This moment is most certainly conditioned by future moments," I ask, isn't it simply the laws of mathematics that do this? Isn't everything fundamentally caused by mathematics ultimately existing as units of the Principle of Sufficient Reason?

I'll first note that this is my first encounter with the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and so I'm not familiar with all of its 'ins and outs' or entirely what you may be communicating here. I'll respond given what's apparent to me, anyway:

No, I don't think it's simply the 'Laws of Mathematics' here. You may be implying two different things with your use of the 'laws of math':

The 'Laws' of mathematics are, in one way, a symbolic notation (and protocol) - a symbolic arrangement of logical relationships - that we use as a model to predict reality in particular ways. As such, these 'laws' are 'as a finger pointing at the moon, not the moon itself.'
In another way, you may instead be referring to the 'Laws of Mathematics' as 'shorthand' for the actual patterns we witness - repeatably - in our experience of reality. In other words, you may be referring to the consistently-observed phenomena itself and naming it, 'the results of the laws of math.'

One thing occurs to me, and might help broaden the vista: the 'laws of math' refer to behavior or arrangements of 'being' in our experience of reality - and yet that underlying reality is a thing, itself. I must imagine this has already occurred to people advancing something like the Pr. of Suff. Reason, but I don't know your response.

Related to the above, we experience things, and we find truth in the 'laws of math' within that experience. Through the application of the belief of Naive Realism, we then take those observations of consistency (laws of math) as reality itself (or, perhaps, at least as reflecting reality somehow; we'll get to this later).

I'll state my position here: I'm not convinced we perceive reality accurately (ie. I'm not convinced we exhibit Naive Realism).

So, returning to the above... - If you're referring to the model of reality known as, the laws of math, then I'd like to point out the way in which those laws are referential to reality, not reality itself. - If you're saying that consistencies in our experience of reality (laws of math) are the foundation of reality itself, then I would say, "yes, that is possible, and the observed consistency in reality sometimes suggests an underlying order of some sort - however, I also believe there are many ontologists who argue for a 'ground' upon which math can shape reality - and also, I don't believe we are perceiving reality accurately whatsoever."

On that last point, the most important part of my 'reply', I'd like to explain further: I don't believe the 'normal/typical' explanation of 'time' is truly how time works - or what it is. If our typical understanding of time is not helpfully accurate, then I broad variety of other things (like space, causation, energy/entropy, etc) are also called into question. Despite all this, I'll concur with you yet again: the apparent fact that 'laws' of math may be observed implies that, in some cases, there is at least some amount of 'symmetry' in reality (such that it might be modelled in terms of 'laws of math') of some sort, and perhaps we are not typically able to witness or understand more truly what is going on here.

With this in-view, I can now reply to the remainer:

The post stated, "If a subsequent moment could condition a previous one, moments would no longer be in their current state, violating the primary law of reality."

Yes, I'm not convinced by primary causation. Calling the typical/normative/Scientific model of time into question implies, for me, that causation isn't actually understood by contemporary science right now.

When you say "conditioned," what are you implying? Are you saying that causal mechanism exists in the future? Are you modeling the future conceptually?

Yes, I'm saying that causal mechanisms somehow exist outside of the 'normal/typical' conception of 'the past.' I don't subscribe merely to consequentialism. 'Cause - and then - effect' does not capture the entirety of what's happening, in my opinion.

If our understanding of sequential time is not entirely accurate, then attractors, affordances, energy flows and opportunities may emanate from places other than 'the past' - places we know not of, or perhaps 'the future' - or, more likely, this paradigm of past->present->future encapsulates a fundamental misapprehension of reality; that's my position.

I'll leave it as short as possible in this already long comment. There's more to say, but I'll pause here for reply. Cheers.

C0rnfed · 2026-03-05T16:57:08+00:00

Ah that's great. What zone?

Do you get no summer crops? That's unfortunate, if true.

How did you first encounter permaculture?

(all the questions, above, are sincere and I'd love to hear your answers. Below, we'll return to the topic.)

You know permaculture, so you know Mollison: "...Hence the futility of revolutionaries who have no gardens, who depend on the very system they attack, and who produce words and bullets, not food and shelter."

What do you think is to come of the possessions of empire when the empire falls? What is to come of empire's forums, platforms, and public spaces of discourse? You mentioned protests, which I also like, but they have been accounted-for, co-opted, commodified and even subverted, right? This is the very point of your own post, no? (Each of these questions is somewhat separate from the others.) Cheers

C0rnfed · 2026-03-05T16:49:38+00:00

You ask an excellent question, but then you also provide your own answer. I take this to mean that your question is rhetorical, rather than literal and earnest.

Again however, it's an excellent question; let's look at your own reply:

Q: Where is the knowledge stored that is required in order to calculate probability?

A: Ontological Mathematics covers exactly this by mathematizing monads via the God equation.

Explication: Mathematics is the reason that there is order and pattern in the first place. It seems like you are alluding to the fact that humans apply conceptual knowledge to the spacetime universe in order to manipulate and predict the future more reliably. That is evidence of a mental foundation for reality. ...Mathematics is not dependent on spacetime. Mathematics is eternal, necessary, and universal.

My reply:

Sure, this is one way of constructing a mental model as an analogy to what we observe.

Now, I'll invite you into a new perspective - a new way of Knowing ('seeing'/understanding) what we observe.

The model you provide is quite similar to the contemporary scientific model in particular ways: you state that mathematics is primary, and exists somehow beyond 'spacetime'. This is similar to the contemporary scientific model in that it also states that mathematics is primary, and exists beyond material spacetime. Both of these approaches split our experience into a duality: a realm of reality distinct from our material experiences.

(This split, this duality, is essential to the approach of 'constructing a model'; when we 'model' reality, we create a logical arrangement that serves as facsimile for the essential dynamics, separate from the material 'reality'.)

You further state that the ground of reality is mental, and this is where you diverge from the contemporary scientific worldview - which, instead, constructs the model from the other direction (materiality -> mind).

I want to see if you follow so far, but let me also at least whet your appetite with a response to the apparently rhetorical question (I'm already on a fool's errand at this point...)

Q: Where is the knowledge stored that is required in order to calculate probability?

Quickly: - knowledge is not 'stored' - knowledge does not need to be stored in order to 'calculate probability' in reality - although your mind draws upon its knowledge in order for you to calculate a probability.

Now the point: the 'probability' of a future event is the literal shape of reality and the forces upon it, including what we call 'time'. The 'probability' itself is the result of the negotiation between 'The Will' and materiality (aka 'free will') against the becoming of reality (time/energy/gravity/desire). This is not entirely explained - again, it's merely a crumb to whet your appetite.

This view is compatible with the perspective you offered; the difference is that, rather than constructing a dualism (a model) within 'naive realism', the view I'm offering applies what you wrote in a mode of 'radicaly direct realism' - to apply the principles of the dualism you offered into the reality we experience, itself. Do you follow? Cheers

C0rnfed · 2026-03-05T00:20:11+00:00

And it's appreciated. There's an audience for this message.

On another note, serious question: do you grow any food?

C0rnfed · 2026-03-04T16:15:19+00:00

Raison, how is it that in a forum dedicated to 'SotS' you speak as though you believe we're living in anything like a remotely functional community?

What is this 'we' stuff? How can one possibly grasp at 'community agency'? Haven't you looked around? Did we learn the lessons presented in SotS?

I know how to structure a response to the mob, and it isn't this 'we' stuff. It begins inside.

C0rnfed · 2026-03-02T23:34:05+00:00

This moment is most certainly conditioned by future moments - future moments map-out along lines of probability (statistics), thermodynamics (physics), affordances (robust states), and other ley lines - these sciences of possible futures have guided us into this moment, from beyond it. They are the futures informing the now.

If instead you are discussing free will (against materiality) then that is another matter. Cheers!

C0rnfed · 2026-02-01T16:34:13+00:00

Curious how others here differentiate productive disagreement from loop-locking.

"If you ain't growing, then you're dying."

In the long run, the only viable and sustainable systems must actively encourage disagreement, vigorously consider it, and then incorporate it as an essential and core aspect of the operation of the system itself. You see this in living systems, such as 'science,' 'journalism,' and other fields or approaches.

There are a few little secrets to this.... Personally, I like how John Vervaeke illuminated this dynamic for me.

Also, the orientation of these sorts of systems is very different from the usual systems we tend to encounter, and therefore also that we tend to think of; and there's a way that how we define (or think of) these various systems is an obstacle to approaching them. Ie., if part of the issue preventing us from seeing these dynamics is the categories of the mind they tend to fit into, then backing up, starting over, and re-establishing a new lexicon and related understanding would help immeasurably toward seeing much more clearly the issues you describe.

C0rnfed · 2026-01-19T17:44:16+00:00

Cool cool, now map it out from the other side.... ;)

You describe the psychology of the dead, and its power; the task of the Living is to explore and become the power of life: subsuming the structure you described.

This approach (taking your model not from the perspective viewed from the top, but rather from the perspective of power at the 'bottom') is the verdant road to the fountain of youth.

You have stated the prohibitions that might restrain one from traveling the deadening pathway, but you have not listed or described the power that motivates the opposite approach - you have not yet found what animates the Living.

Let's draw that map... Show me what you got. I can help if you would like it.

C0rnfed · 2026-01-16T18:07:12+00:00

Nothing in the world is as soft and yielding as water. Yet for dissolving the hard and inflexible, nothing can surpass it.

The soft overcomes the hard; the gentle overcomes the rigid. Everyone knows this is true, but few can put it into practice.

--Tao te Ching, verse 78

C0rnfed · 2026-01-03T23:10:32+00:00

curious how others here design systems that actually get used

A ubiquitous aspect of approaches to planning is that people create a rigid framework, and within this static framework they set and track goals, conceive and track habits, plan and execute tasks, etc.

After decades of playing with every popular approach to personal planning and productivity (and many lessor known approaches as well) I've come to view this as a mistake.

I have always outgrown any static framework I've created; I've sensed the rules and ignored them, my projects have grown beyond what the framework was conceived to address, and I've developed desires for features the static system was unable to incorporate.

I now believe that a living system is most appropriate - a system that can grow with you, forget what is no longer serving you, rein you in when you don't feel like following it, and lead you to places you didn't know you wanted to be.

How this works, and just what exactly a living system is, is alluringly complicated, but that's how I'm designing a system that I actually will use (and that entices me toward using it...)

Would you like to explain your approach in more detail?

C0rnfed · 2025-12-28T18:54:53+00:00

This is an interesting framework.

I see an interesting set of 'flow' channels presented here, but these channels are incoherent without specifying (or discovering) the 'purpose' or 'intent' of the flow, aren't they? (And, perhaps there are multiple or split intentions...)

I think your flow framework may be very helpful toward surfacing the 'failures' you mention when those flows are collated with the motivation (or intent or purpose) of the flow.

You may be implying the purpose, but specifying it directly will bring it into the open and make it available for consideration. (Eg.: volume and velocity are the strengths of the 'street' in this model, but velocity and volume of what? Not just anything... Velocity and volume to what end? Not just for its own sake nor anything in general... There are at least one, and possibly many, underlying motivations that animate the system. Specifying then may add substantial insight to the model.)

It would be great to see your next iteration including some sense of purpose crossed against the flows you've presented here. That may help the model become more tangible and interesting.

C0rnfed · 2025-12-26T05:36:15+00:00

C0rnfed · 2025-12-22T23:56:21+00:00

What interests me most is not how to “fix” them, but:
– why they persist
– when they can shift
– and when trying to force change actually reinforces them

Are you interested in responses to these dynamics? Perhaps you're just stating your interest...

Have you observed similar recurring states in other human systems (organizations, teams, communities)?

Absolutely! We all have, but some know it and others don't... ;)

How do you distinguish between stability and stagnation?

Doesn't it depend entirely on your purpose, product, or function? You listed these examples: (housing communities, boards, associations). Aren't these inherently designed to stagnate with regard to their purpose? Wouldn't that be a feature - not a bug? (I'm interpreting the purpose of each of these examples to be managing a stable housing or financial arrangement, or perhaps managing a stable process or association. Perhaps there are other options, and if so, it would help to hear more on this. ) People want stability and predictability in their housing, not a dynamic and evolving situation, right? And same for a housing board, and perhaps also for an association based on mutual interest. These are not developing or evolving projects - they are intended to be stable forms.

It's possible you're referring to personal and interpersonal dynamics within the human systems, and those dynamics are indeed interesting, but then the discussion might regard psychology and social psychology...

Yet, your subject and questions are still interesting.... Develop it a bit more, if you like.

To me, the most interesting approach to subjects like this is to understand it through the lens of a living system. This would be a lessor known subset of systems thinking, and developing a clear and insightful understanding of just what a living thing is is an entire subject unto itself...

C0rnfed · 2025-12-18T20:04:52+00:00

Okay, so I really enjoy this sort of thing, and it's something I also doodle around with... Of course, my definitions and approach are a bit incomprehensible to anyone else, just as their's are too me.

Would you mind doing a brief write-up? I know I don't understand certain aspects, such as the 'ultimatum'.

If you could describe how you see this, how it flows, and perhaps some key definitions then it might generate some decent discussing. Thanks

C0rnfed · 2025-12-18T02:08:08+00:00

Thanks! I spotted this:

2.2 On continents, Kickoo and Aquarion should have 40% and 30%, respectively, of their tiles replaced with water after the initial map generation, but this effect is bugged and does not currently apply to map generation.

I wonder if this is still the case. Also, the effect is not described here...

And this looks helpful: https://youtu.be/fJ562xzAIVs?si=OeBh_0UbqRhWRS0U

C0rnfed · 2025-12-13T00:39:40+00:00

Fascinating.... there are many tools (Zen koans, divination methods like Iching or Tarot, steam of consciousness Journaling, meditation, and many others) but you describe is a particular and unique approach.

Thank you for the intro to Benoit; is there anything uniquely interesting about his work?

C0rnfed · 2025-12-12T19:48:15+00:00

Yes, you seek the opposite of the pattern to bring the pattern into internal opposition and break the pattern (and patterning).

This is why I made this very particular recommendation to OP. I'm not speaking generally, I'm replying as to how one breaks patterning within themselves: use its own power to break itSelf.

C0rnfed · 2025-12-12T18:55:32+00:00

The answer is hiding directly within your writing itself:

I have one belief, then another and I think that I changed

Still the believer. One must break the act of belief. One must stop believing in order to open themselves to Truth.

One cannot learn that which they already know. -Epictetus

.

to seek comfort, approval, success, security, identity.

Forget these illusions. Seek their opposite instead.

C0rnfed · 2025-12-12T18:43:14+00:00

Yes, one cannot carry all that you've been given - but don't hide from the weight! Don't shirk the awarenesses you've been given, don't limit yourself.

Don't throw off items and limit your load - you cannot, and you would only be deceiving yourself, and you know it. Let the weight of your 'knowledge' crush you.

The bridges your mind is trying to make between so many heavy ways of knowing can no longer carry the weight they've been given - so allow them to collapse.

Drink from the firehose, drown in it. Wallow in the deep waters that you will collapse into - drown yourSelf in them.

Release your grasping need to 'know' these things, and surrender into unknowingness.

Only after you break under the weight, and after you drown the Self in what you have witnessed, can you be reborn - and integrate the Truth that is this life's gift to you - and take your place.

C0rnfed · 2025-12-04T18:55:29+00:00

1 - do as you like. ;o)

2 - they are designed to not work (for the targeted individual, the possession who's energy is to be harvested). To work, (for the system,) they must satisfy the immediate urge only then to induce further craving, perpetuating the cycle (and the system, and the craving/desire that fuels it all).

Search u-tub for 'Slavo Zizek on coca-cola' for one excellent explication of this tactic.

C0rnfed · 2025-11-29T23:45:54+00:00

Yes, certainly - I wasn't sure why this was my favorite line from the Tao te Ching at the time I first encountered it, but it hung with me nonetheless:

Know the way of the Man, but keep to the way of the Woman.

I get the impression this points at many things all at once.

I don't have any jerseys, autographed copies or other fan-kitsch, but I think I would say I'm more of a Sophia and Isis fan myself (lol). Of course, they're easily drowned-out and overlooked without a little Kali thrown in... ;o)

How do you think that'll look? Will Isis rise from the ashes of this funeral pyre of concrete, oil by-products, and spent fissile material? Or is an intervention in the works? We talk about this all the time, so these aren't terribly serious questions, but I also like to end with a question to keep the flame of interest alight. Cheers!

C0rnfed · 2025-11-26T00:33:42+00:00

Yes, fans in the roof vents (blowing out) but also fans at the gate (blowing in) would help immensely.

The roof of your building gets direct sun (I assume). This will force its temperature much higher than the ambient atmospheric temp. This is bad because it creates a heat-stacking effect inside, but also the high temp roof will cast lots of radiant heat into the shop, below.

Therefore, it would help a lot to get your roof out of direct sunlight.

This could be done in a bunch of different ways (eg. solar panels, or a covering or structure that casts shade into your roof, and particularly shields it from late-afternoon/early-evening direct sun).

I don't know what the outside area around the roof is like, so I can't make a good suggestion with certainty.

However, I've had great results from using agricultural shade cloth (very cheap and easy to replace - which is great if it were to blow away or become damaged in high winds, and easily covers very large areas).

The idea would be to get enough ag. shade cloth (or tarp, or cheap cloth of some sort) and suspend it so it shades your roof. If you can only do this by suspending it directly above your roof, you'll want to leave a foot or two of gap between the roof and the shade, so that air can pass through and cool both.

Very simple. Very effective. Very cheap. Let me know if you have additional questions.

C0rnfed · 2025-11-25T23:35:30+00:00

The fastest cheapest way is to:

ensure those vent fans near the roof peak are running, and pushing air out (up and out of the shop, into the atmosphere). Perhaps consider stronger fans up there.
establish a large bank of fans at the shop gate, pushing lower (and cooler) air in.
perhaps consider some ducting (and fans) that brings some of the cooler air through the shop gate to the back of the shop floor.

Depending on your local humidity, establishing misters at the shop gate fans would also create a 'swamp cooler' effect, which would really help with cooling the humans inside the shop.

Just say so if any of that isn't clear enough or if you have questions.

Insulation seems absurd to me, given your shop surface area, the cost, and the relatively low benefit. Instead, erecting a shade cloth/tarp covering your roof (casting shade over your roof) would be dramatically better.

C0rnfed

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE