Editorial notes:
Early in August 2013, Shai joins a site called “750 Words” which encourages members to submit a daily post consisting of roughly 750 words, approximately three pages. The site explains its purpose as: “The idea is that if you can get in the habit of writing three pages a day, that it will help clear your mind and get the ideas flowing for the rest of the day.”
If you are in a rush and can’t read the whole post, at the very least, scroll to the bottom, read the last couple of lines and the associated footnote.
It is 35 minutes to midnight; can this undercut sprint to arbitrary value meet its mark? If the answer is (becomes?) Yes then these words become part of a self-proved proof. And possibly also if not. (To the side and far away, I am imagining an infinite array of propositions – true or false I’m uncertain – whose existence and validity away expression. And then I wonder about a being or world that are exactly such an existential proof.]
Yesterday I am made an effort at an elaborative thought, whose Cinderella-style ending was not completely inconclusive – I did delineate information, at the very least – but it was not necessary. So I could have continued that writing and thus thought process, which is effectively to be the explorer of my own mindscape.
I had a quick glance at where I was up to, without presuming that I had any idea where it was going and thus it was legitimate to use the most recent doorway as my immediate destination, and trust that I will make the next decision only when I reach it. In fact, to do so otherwise would involve focusing on the future when everything that is relevant is present. And the same arguments opposed to that mindless-provoking philosophy, becoming distracted from exploration in a world that is fundamentally different from the world from which it (in an ontological sense) derives, that is the world qua immediateness.
[While it would be (legitimately!) interesting to pursue the possibility of “immediateness” as a word that implies an idea that is not actually properly comprehended despite whatever the utility of dictionaries might be. (The utility of dictionaries is itself a sign of weakness in our reality – possibly one of the proofs Borges’ idealist might advise – but here again, I am getting distracted, when the whole point was to escape a Loop program that includes some sort of curiosity clause..? But what is curiosity!]
So! Back to where I thought I was going. I was in fact about to reiterate yesterday’s default conclusion, which was that, to understand our experiences we need to understand them as modifications of self. That wasn’t a conclusion meant to answer the problem of, What is the best way to understand experience, because this is not the best way. Although it is not in contradiction to it. The best way of describing the situation is by acknowledging first what we had found yesterday, and then linking those ideas to the quest of searching for self.
Yesterday’s phenomenon, was some sort of integration of two great other phenomenon: sensations and being, but they both became a third thing, experience. Experience is the self-awareness of the being. That phrase dissects things that are unified. Experience is one thing, not two. That was the whole purpose of the synthesis. Thus we can see that the idea of experience is an overwhelmingly
Omg, time escaped from me… Or was I captured? Nonetheless, I stand here now, undefeated but unstopped. Time is a strange sort of prison, one spends the entirety of one’s time in the escape tunnel, walking towards a terminal that led to where one had started the whole thing.
Now it’s ticking down the seconds, each one an arbitrary decision about the legitimacy of choice, and the possi[I]
[I] In the example above it can be deduced that Shai simply stopped writing at midnight, even though it was in the middle of the word, so as to stay within the daily writing conditions.
