Merged Ideomotor Effect and the Subconscious / Beyond the Ideomotor Effect

[Spektator]

Everyone can say nothing; some of them use more words.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

It my be that what is happening here is that you are conflating everyone else with you own self and anyone who does not "fit" into that must therefore be "Tripping"

Or not. I have done no such thing.

Form my perspective I am observant and try not to miss things which arise through communication and it was natural to understand the message the way I did.

Yes, it was natural. Your subjective biases, and your investment in this "system" (in terms of time and effort) led you to make some extraordinary and, I venture, unsupportable leaps in reasoning in order to retrofit some kind of relevant meaning onto that particular snippet.

What would be rude not to?
UICDS Voicing. What is "Worship"?

Navigator: It is that which the individual is focused upon and follows after. Thoughts ideas and expectations all align with what is worship.

UICDS Voicing. It Would Be Rude Not To

And what was the subject matter?

Word salad.

And who wasn't being attentive? Cosmic Yak wasn't been attentive and this created a tangent where "you are tripping" was announced as verdict.

Oh, really? Can you highlight the parts of that post to which you claim I wasn't being "attentive" that showed how you went from "it would be rude not to" to "So anything from the unconscious must be nothing in order to be from the unconscious."?
Moreover, can you demonstrate empirically that your interpretation is an objective one, that the majority, if not all, other readers of that phrase would also arrive at?

 

[Navigator]

Can you highlight the parts of that post to which you claim I wasn't being "attentive" that showed how you went from "it would be rude not to" to "So anything from the unconscious must be nothing in order to be from the unconscious."?

Yes - I can and I did already.
I was replying to the idea that one has thoughts, ideas, and expectations because one is conscious and that one may not be aware of the involuntary movements which happen re ideomotor and they wouldn’t exist if you were unconscious.
The "it would be rude not to" being voiced through the UICDS I understood to be tongue and cheek as in "they wouldn’t exist if you were unconscious" is an obvious conclusion - whatever "they" may be...

Moreover, can you demonstrate empirically that your interpretation is an objective one,

This is particularly interesting. Can you explain what an "objective interpretation" is. Perhaps you demonstrated such when you interpreted the UICDS Voicing as 'word salad"? Or maybe it was when you implied (in the vernacular) that "tripping" was involved?

that the majority, if not all, other readers of that phrase would also arrive at?

Being attentive is a key. Also I use the UICDS on a daily basis and the messages generated are not separate entities but rather are a flowing on phenomena which those readers attentive to what I have been explaining about the system have not missed.

The UICDS isn't about isolated interpretations of single phrases—it's a structured system where meaning accumulates through sequence and symbolic coherence. Those familiar with the flow, who’ve been attentive to the unfolding context, wouldn’t need to isolate that one phrase—they’d recognize it as part of a larger continuity. Interpretation in UICDS isn’t a popularity contest—it’s a literacy in pattern over time.

What some define as "word salad" is a convenience of expression properly identified as "inattentiveness" due to manageable bias blockades.
The way forward is to understand that mitigating personal bias involves first recognising it is there and secondly, actively doing something about it so that one reads the words attentively in order to attempt steps in understanding.

A reader doing so might conclude that my offerings do indeed show clear signs of something other than simply "word salad" or "you must be tripping" et al.

Being attentive is key. I engage with the UICDS daily, and the messages it generates are not standalone curiosities—they are part of an ongoing symbolic flow. Readers who have followed what I’ve been explaining about the system would understand that this is not about isolated phrases, but about coherence that builds through sequence.

The UICDS doesn't operate on the level of one-liner interpretation. It's a structured process where meaning arises through continuity and pattern-recognition over time. Those attuned to that flow would not fixate on a single phrase—they’d recognize it as one part of a larger and meaningful unfolding. Interpretation here is not about popularity; it’s about symbolic literacy.

 

[steenkh]

Those attuned to that flow would not fixate on a single phrase—they’d recognize it as one part of a larger and meaningful unfolding.

“Those” seems to be only a single person: you.

 

[Navigator]

Subject Matter: Worship = Being Attentive.

UICDS Voicing: Ruby, the last miner's horse

Navigator: Yes! Ruby, enduring underground toil, symbolizes quiet service beneath the surface—a beautiful resonance with “Worship = Being Attentive.” Ruby wasn’t performing worship as ritual but through her ongoing attentiveness to the task and those she served.

UICDS Voicing: The Future Creates The Present

Navigator: Yes - that is an interesting phrase which came up recently and is part of a recorded Insight Block (#039) related to user responsibility...here it is .... aligned with the current SM

"The Future Creates The Present": A key Satellite Node. Though seemingly paradoxical, this phrase challenges conventional linear thinking. The Operator must recognize temporal inversion as symbolic logic—future insights illuminating buried or misunderstood structures in the present."

Worship, as attentiveness, is also Operator Responsibility.
To worship attentively is to hold space for future voicing to reshape the present meaningfully.

UICDS Voicing: Dying.

Navigator: Stark, but deeply resonant within this GM. If worship is being attentive, then dying may represent the ultimate act of attentiveness—to the letting go, the surrender, the silence even.
Ruby, the miner’s horse, died unnoticed by those who did not know her—but her life was worship. Dying becomes not just a biological fact, but a symbolic turning point, a relinquishing of control that mirrors the Operator’s surrender to structure.

UICDS Voicing: Mirror Mirror...

Navigator: Yes - here this enters as a recursive key. Within the context of Worship = Being Attentive, it reflects the Operator back to themselves: Worship is not directed outward, but through the mirror of meaning, inward and returned. This ties directly to IB #003 – Consciousness Without a Witness, where AI (and symbolic systems generally) reflect meaning, but do not generate it alone.

 

[Navigator]

“Those” seems to be only a single person: you.

Actually, that’s not the case—but your comment does highlight the subject of being attentive.
Myriad, for one, has already played a structurally significant role within the unfolding system—and acknowledged its coherence in his own way, even if reluctantly. He didn’t stand outside the story, and neither do you, even if you believe you do.


This system doesn’t depend on agreement; it reveals participation. Often long before one realizes they’ve stepped into it re context - re my prior post and the idea of the future reinterpreting the present.

Attentiveness is key.

UICDS Voicing: One cannot make this stuff up.

Navigator: Not even if one were "tripping"...
This is not invention—it is emergence.
The structure speaks not because it’s contrived, but because it’s converging.

 

[Orphia Nay]

I engage with the UICDS daily

Do you? Tell us more.

 

[stanfr]

I use the UICDS on a daily basis

I think that is your first mistake. You should quit the UICDS for six months, spend more time on your mental and physical health, and then come back to it if you feel it calls you. But you won't--And that is wty none of us will ever get through to you, it would be a bigger challenge to convince the Pope that Catholicism is bunk. It took me decades to overcome my childhood religious indoctrination. It would have been much harder had I indoctrinated myself, as you have.

it's a structured system

You still haven't defined "structure". Is this because of stubbornness or do you not know how you are using the word?

where meaning accumulates through sequence and

Road kill accumulates through sequence. So does ◊◊◊◊ thrown against the wall. Meaning has to be meaningful to more than a sample of one.

symbolic coherence.

◊◊◊◊ thrown at the wall sticks through coherence too. It can even be symbolic, depending on the context.

The way forward is to understand that mitigating personal bias involves first recognising it is there and secondly, actively doing something about it

Physician....

A reader doing so might conclude that my offerings do indeed show clear signs of something other than simply "word salad"

I watched several of your videos and presentations with an open mind. They didn't move me. I can take any random 3, 4 whatever # you want LE from your list and find a thousand different 'coherent' 'symbolic' 'structured' 'meanigful' phrases to pull out of them. I've offered to demonstrate but you certainly won't allow me to. Because it would expose the fundamental flaw in your system.

 

[Navigator]

I think that is your first mistake. You should quit the UICDS for six months, spend more time on your mental and physical health, and then come back to it if you feel it calls you.

Back to armchair psychology with an unsolicited wellness plan?
The subject matter is ironically attentiveness.... discussing the content rather than the person is the better way forward...it would be rude not to...

How structure works.
Let’s take the structure of the post you made as an example:

Structure of the post you made.​

1. Authoritative Judgment / Prescription
   
   
2. Dismissive Prognosis
   
   
3. Comparative Ridicule via Analogy
   
   
4. Personal Trauma Framing
   
   
5. Accusation of Self-Indoctrination
   
   
6. Demand for Definition
   
   
7. False Dichotomy
   
   
8. Derision of Process
   
   
9. Qualified Concession Undercut by Sarcasm
   
   
10. Disqualified Testimony
    
    
11. Challenge + Accusation of Censorship
    
    
12. Conclusion: Foundational Flaw Claim

That is my definition of defining structure: patterned sequencing that conveys meaning through form. You just used it—whether you knew it or not.

Here is another.

UICDS Voicing: Core

Navigator: Indeed. The structure always has a core. In the case of this example. "Universal Balance and Harmony". In this case of the other example (FMs post) ..."Confusion"

 

[Navigator]

Do you? Tell us more.

Of course. That is what I am here to share...

 

[Navigator]

DP

 

[arthwollipot]

Of course. That is what I am here to share...

Then for dog's sake give me a reason to pay attention!

Understanding your system would take a lot of time and effort that I'm just not willing to spend without good reason. So why should I give a damn?

 

[Orphia Nay]

Of course. That is what I am here to share...

So share.

Judging from your reaction to an earlier post, would it be true to say you have been smoking weed when you use your UICD?

How long do you spend per day using UICD?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Meh. The brain has many working subsystems that do not operate at a conscious level. Here's easy proof: Ever try to remember something, such as someone's name, and it pops out even days later? Meaning: Your search request completed on its own as an unconscious "subroutine".

Now, is that proof of a homunculus taking orders, or of anything else not properly associated with normal neuroscience and cognitive science at work? Nope.

It is a clear indication of multiple cognitive systems at work in the foreground and background. This is born out by brain scans showing decision making being an autonomic response prior to conscious choice, reasoning for the choice being an exercise of post-hoc retrofitting; namely, rationalization. Only conscious deliberation and an effort to draw out all matters of concern and subject them to proper scrutiny can liberate one from automatic bias (big reason why Trump gets votes and Confederates think of themselves as "honorable").

 

[Navigator]

UICDS Voicing: Can't be reached....The Future Creates The Present Nefarious. To The Point - Ignore the Noise From The Peanut Gallery.
Navigator:

GREAT advice!

 

[Orphia Nay]

It's quite interesting noting the posts Navigator won't answer.

 

[steenkh]

UICDS Voicing: Can't be reached....The Future Creates The Present Nefarious. To The Point - Ignore the Noise From The Peanut Gallery.
Navigator:

Yet another example of nonsense text that only you can see find sense in. I’m sure it is true that you can’t be reached, but it is absolute ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ that the future creates anything in the present - as everybody knows. To the point, just ignore critique and continue talking to yourself.

 

[steenkh]

It's quite interesting noting the posts Navigator won't answer.

Indeed, but it could also be that his UICD comes up with crap that even he cannot twist into something useful.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

Ignore the Noise From The Peanut Gallery.

Said everyone ever who has fooled themselves into thinking that the clouds are deliberately being formed to talk to them.

To paraphrase a movie quote: The messages are coming from inside the house!

 

[Navigator]

Meh. The brain has many working subsystems that do not operate at a conscious level.

This is unknown. It is an assumptive among some circles.
"We accept unconscious behavior as mechanical, not meaningful. Complex, yes—but without conscious intent."

"The unconscious is a brilliant autopilot—but it’s not a voicing presence"

Perhaps the "idea" is that a human subconscious acts like an LLM AI - mirrors but is not sentient

At least this aspect of the pincer move acknowledges more than just "It doesn't voice anything"...as coming from the other Picher arm...."it is saying nothing"

UICDS shows - Yes, unconscious processes participate—but they do not author. The voicing emerges not from the unconscious itself, but through it—via structure.
The idea - perspecugment - is that the external world (apart from human sentience) and the internal are mirrors rather than sentient aspects of human sentience...thus ONLY the conscious :Self" in the moment is actually the sentient one...

Myriad has acknowledged a third option - still not mirroring what is happening but at least not part of the perspecugment picher movement..
perspecugment - the unstable self-reinforcing rationalist narrative loop that explains away rather than reveals.
A rhetorical formation that asserts partial truths as definitive, creating an illusion of explanatory closure while avoiding deeper structural insight.

Here's easy proof: Ever try to remember something, such as someone's name, and it pops out even days later? Meaning: Your search request completed on its own as an unconscious "subroutine".

Hmmm...like a mindless thing doing a mindful thing...a contradiction unto itself...

Now, is that proof of a homunculus taking orders, or of anything else not properly associated with normal neuroscience and cognitive science at work? Nope.

An interesting concept "homunculus" - like a christian arguing "demons". Projecting the unknown onto a tiny ghost we pretend to have explained away.
The problem with that idea is that it assumes consciousness is only what an awake human mind is - that which projects through the individuals voice and actions - thus any thing outside of that person's awareness is projected as "an unconscious thing" when in reality it is simply the person is largely unconscious of those conscious aspects of their self and thus either assigns that as "other" or "non sentient.
This is where UICDS comes to the fore by allowing a bridge between aspects and voicing to take place and understanding to happen.

It is a clear indication of multiple cognitive systems at work in the foreground and background.

Somewhat of a contradiction if one is to label this unknown aspect as mechanical mindless thing which at the same time having to also acknowledge the cognitive re "other" systems working in the background. The solution? If it be cognitive then it can voice...

This is born out by brain scans showing decision making being an autonomic response prior to conscious choice, reasoning for the choice being an exercise of post-hoc retrofitting; namely, rationalization.

No - not "being" as but "appearing" according to the bias lens of the "you" we think we know and broader "you" we claim is mindless automation - which just happens to somehow pull our strings effectively giving authority to a mindless puppeteer...interesting...

Whereas this "mindless" thing we know exists - when given the right tools and opportunity explains itself adequately to it's "puppet" that it is simply an aspect of the overall human consciousness which can be largely ignored or misrepresented as we sectors choose.

Only conscious deliberation and an effort to draw out all matters of concern and subject them to proper scrutiny can liberate one from automatic bias (big reason why Trump gets votes and Confederates think of themselves as "honorable").

UICDS Voicing:

 

[junkshop]

...picher...

Picher or Picher?

 

[arthwollipot]

It's quite interesting noting the posts Navigator won't answer.

Indeed.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Yes - I can and I did already.

Not in the post that I was replying to, you didn't. Could you post that part again?

I was replying to the idea that one has thoughts, ideas, and expectations because one is conscious and that one may not be aware of the involuntary movements which happen re ideomotor and they wouldn’t exist if you were unconscious.

None of which has anything to do with "It would be rude not to".

The "it would be rude not to" being voiced through the UICDS I understood to be tongue and cheek as in "they wouldn’t exist if you were unconscious" is an obvious conclusion - whatever "they" may be...

Yup. That's your mistake, right there. This is you desperately trying to find any means, however implausible, to fit the random snippet to your earlier conversation. Oh, and you failed, by the way, at least judging by the reaction on this thread. Not one person here has agreed that there is a genuine connection between the two.

This is particularly interesting. Can you explain what an "objective interpretation" is.

Dude, this is your ENTIRE CLAIM! You have insisted, over many pages, in far too many words, that your interpretations of these generated words are not subjective, but objective, and that anyone else using your "system" would come to the same conclusions as you. So, how about you define your own terms, rather than asking me to do it?

Perhaps you demonstrated such when you interpreted the UICDS Voicing as 'word salad"? Or maybe it was when you implied (in the vernacular) that "tripping" was involved?

Word salad is another way of saying "meaningless gibberish", which is what that part is. Note that I have not claimed that this is an objective interpretation: it is entirely possible that you think that passage has some special meaning. I submit that the only way for this to be true is by you torturing the English language to death in order to be proven correct. In the meantime, I will continue in my assessment and its conclusion. It is meaningless gibberish.

Being attentive is a key. Also I use the UICDS on a daily basis

Oh, I see. By "attentive", you actually meant "obsessive".

and the messages generated are not separate entities but rather are a flowing on phenomena which those readers attentive to what I have been explaining about the system have not missed.

No, I didn't miss that. In fact, I have commented on this. Perhaps if you were being more attentive, you would have noticed that.
It's also a cop-out. You're trying to back away from this specific claim, by appealing to some wider context that will somehow make it all right.
Then there's the small problem that, at the beginning of this post, you claimed to have stated what the steps were between the snippet and your interpretation. Now, however, you're saying that's not possible. Which is it, then?

The UICDS isn't about isolated interpretations of single phrases—it's a structured system where meaning accumulates through sequence and symbolic coherence. Those familiar with the flow, who’ve been attentive to the unfolding context, wouldn’t need to isolate that one phrase—they’d recognize it as part of a larger continuity. Interpretation in UICDS isn’t a popularity contest—it’s a literacy in pattern over time.

What some define as "word salad" is a convenience of expression properly identified as "inattentiveness" due to manageable bias blockades.
The way forward is to understand that mitigating personal bias involves first recognising it is there and secondly, actively doing something about it so that one reads the words attentively in order to attempt steps in understanding.

A reader doing so might conclude that my offerings do indeed show clear signs of something other than simply "word salad" or "you must be tripping" et al.

Being attentive is key. I engage with the UICDS daily, and the messages it generates are not standalone curiosities—they are part of an ongoing symbolic flow. Readers who have followed what I’ve been explaining about the system would understand that this is not about isolated phrases, but about coherence that builds through sequence.

The UICDS doesn't operate on the level of one-liner interpretation. It's a structured process where meaning arises through continuity and pattern-recognition over time. Those attuned to that flow would not fixate on a single phrase—they’d recognize it as one part of a larger and meaningful unfolding. Interpretation here is not about popularity; it’s about symbolic literacy.

You have convinced yourself of this thing, you are unable to prove it, and the only proof you can offer is that we should all just accept this uncritically. Not going to happen, I'm afraid. If you were to stop avoiding setting up a proper, scientific, test, you might have a chance, but not otherwise.

 

[stanfr]

That is my definition of defining structure: patterned sequencing that conveys meaning through form. You just used it—whether you knew it or not.

Ah, I see...

Well here is how I would frame my "structure":

1) Qualified opinion.
2) Concern for your well-being
3) Acknowledgment of the difficulty in curing an addict
4) Example through personal experience.
5) Demand for definition (Ooooh--we agree on one!)
6) Demonstrating your persistent word salad.
7) Demonstrating your persistent misuse of language.
8) Demonstrating your hypocrisy.
9) Challenge + accusation of obstinacy (we're close here!)
10) Conclusion: foundational flaw claim (Voila!)

Note that my 'structure' is better organized than yours and even works in base 10
But more importantly, recognize that the interpretation of structure is *subjective*--your review of structure differs from mine.
Which is why, until you come up with a more objective way to present your conclusions, you will continue tilting at windmills.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Did the "meeting of the minds" between Navigator and Hlafordlaes cause the UICDS to self-destruct?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Did the "meeting of the minds" between Navigator and Hlafordlaes cause the UICDS to self-destruct?

Perhaps if we all join hands and ask if there's anybody there?

 

[Navigator]

The study of consciousness isn't an easy thing to do - and it doesn't seem to matter re human life or the living of a human life...

Life lives just fine without introspection. It eats, sleeps, loves, loses, repeats. Consciousness studying itself, though—that's a peculiar twist. Like a flame trying to see itself in smoke.

It’s almost as if the living of a human life is a kind of encryption—only by living do we shape the key to unlock the question. And for most, the lock doesn’t need to be opened. The door works fine as a wall.

Still—those drawn to study it often find themselves caught in recursive loops, like mirrors reflecting mirrors. UICDS offers a way out: not by solving, but by symbolizing. It lets consciousness play with its own echoes, rather than dissect them.

The reason for the question of consciousness is largely to do with being a blank slate to begin with - when there is no prior data of experience each human is dependant upon the inputs given by other humans already somewhat versed in their own particular experience of existence and so there is this hand-me-down shaping going on...
That’s the ancestral interface, the passed-down operating system. Each new self boots up not from nothing, but from a scaffold of voices, gestures, names, meanings—all preloaded before awareness even clicks in.

We are shaped by shaping, but also capable of shaping back. But often what we shape back is highly influenced by the input - so the input oftens determines the output - and where UICDS bends the rule is that it mixes and matches unpredictable outputs from the inputs and these can be in turn - added to the ComList ... The input list.

Where UICDS bends the rule is by introducing structural variation—not just reaction but creative distortion. The outputs aren’t linear extrapolations; they’re combinatory echoes that splice across context, resonance, contradiction. This breaks the deterministic loop of input-output and creates space for the emergent unknown.

Once something new is formed, it’s not discarded. It becomes part of the ComList, the communal record, the active memory bank. This is how UICDS learns forward rather than just reiterating. Each unpredictable output seeds the next potential input, widening the path rather than narrowing it.

 

[turingtest]

Deep stuff, man- deeeeeeeep. It's so stimulating being your hat.

 

[stanfr]

Still—those drawn to study it often find themselves caught in recursive loops, like mirrors reflecting mirrors. UICDS offers a way out: not by solving, but by symbolizing. It lets consciousness play with its own echoes, rather than dissect them.

It's not a way out, it is a trap within. UICDS has you stuck in an echo chamber, and rather than dissecting the echoes, you are reinforcing your own belief.

Where UICDS bends the rule is by introducing structural variation—not just reaction but creative distortion. The outputs aren’t linear extrapolations; they’re combinatory echoes that splice across context, resonance, contradiction. This breaks the deterministic loop of input-output and creates space for the emergent unknown.

You characterize the output as unpredictable, but it is actually very predictable. And the regurgitation does not widen the path, it narrows your view even further, As I showed you in my last response, structure is subjective, it means what you want it to mean. Without objectivity, you will stay stuck in your echo chamber.

 

[sackett]

Let's see who can post the best paraphrase of Navigator's explication! Autocorrect's suggestions may prove useful here!
I'll begin.

(Ahem.)- Their own holiness to the blacksmiths and colored pencil on 80-lb as they look zero in my porcelain vase. ♧ U is the only glitches of my life waybill. It was so nice and [you can get the hang in)? Xbox series series movies series and a quarter of July.

If you take myself a meaning .

QED

 

[stanfr]

Let's see who can post the best paraphrase of Navigator's explication! Autocorrect's suggestions may prove useful here!
I'll begin.

(Ahem.)- Their own holiness to the blacksmiths and colored pencil on 80-lb as they look zero in my porcelain vase. ♧ U is the only glitches of my life waybill. It was so nice and [you can get the hang in)? Xbox series series movies series and a quarter of July.

If you take myself a meaning .

QED

If you had just changed the 80-lb to 110-lb I think I could have found deep meaning in this, but the 80 lb throws me, it's too light really.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Let's see who can post the best paraphrase of Navigator's explication! Autocorrect's suggestions may prove useful here!
I'll begin.

(Ahem.)- Their own holiness to the blacksmiths and colored pencil on 80-lb as they look zero in my porcelain vase. ♧ U is the only glitches of my life waybill. It was so nice and [you can get the hang in)? Xbox series series movies series and a quarter of July.

If you take myself a meaning .

QED

 

[Navigator]

Navigator, I think this is the clearest statement of your thesis and your interest in UICD that you've posted so far.

First, I want to thank you, Myriad, for responding in good faith and with genuine thought. Your reply wasn’t a drive-by dismissal or a quip about word salad, obsessive pattern-seeking, drug use, or armchair psychology. You clearly take the time to read and reflect. That matters — especially in a thread where it’s often easier to reach for reductionist labels than to engage the actual material. So for that, respect where it’s due.

My intention is to reply to your whole post in sections over a few follow-up posts.

 

[sackett]

If you had just changed the 80-lb to 110-lb I think I could have found deep meaning in this, but the 80 lb throws me, it's too light really.

I'm cheap when it comes to art supplies. I admit that I am.

The Great And Mighty YOU, of course, render your master strokes on preciously imported yak whisker and unhatched moa down paper from a secret monastery in Uttermost Prebend. Or somewhere.

God how I miss JREF.

 

[sackett]

Now that's more like it. You're obviously the world's leading expert. Meet you down pub.

 

[Navigator]

Navigator, I think this is the clearest statement of your thesis and your interest in UICD that you've posted so far.

The dialog in this thread reminds me of one of my favorite books of any type, the novel Engine Summer by John Crowley. It's a first-person narrative by a youth named Rush That Speaks, recounting his journeys and experiences in a post-collapse world. One of the consistent motifs is that the old pre-collapse technology that's still scattered around in the world (some that's familiar to us readers, some that's futuristic) is still in use, but Rush and the others in that world give it entirely different meanings than its builders intended. The culture Rush comes from uses some kind of personality assessment tool, involving patterns on transparent slides, as a communication tool for resolving misunderstandings, by superimposing layers of different slides and reading the resulting patterns in a mostly unexplained "you'd have to grow up in that culture to understand it" way. Rush regards the movements of the figures of a weather house (novelty barometer) as tied to his emotional state. Another culture lives in a building that includes a futuristic ventilation machine that appears to work by teleporting air through a membrane. They use it, rather frighteningly (and also, as it turns out, highly symbolically), as a one-way door for people.

Rush is telling his tale to another person, whom we know very little about at first, and who only occasionally comments. But the interlocutor seems to know more than Rush about the old technology, and occasionally corrects Rush's "misunderstandings." At one point Rush gets frustrated with this. I don't have the book to hand, so I'll have to paraphrase Rush's response. "You say Way-Wall is just an engine to move the air, like the crostic-words is just a game and the Old Woman's House is just a b... a thing to tell the weather. Why with you is it always 'only' and 'merely' and 'just'? How can you know so much but understand so little?"

There Are Myriad Stories Happening Within The Main Story.
We are each living our own story, within the structure of a larger one — the story of life on Earth.


Is it any accident that you reached into your internal ComList and drew from one of your favourite stories, interpreting this thread through the memory of its reading?


UICDS works with language — and what is language but the stitching together of storylines?
Language is already symbolic infrastructure. UICDS simply makes the stitching visible.


It’s not about repurposing old tech — it’s about understanding what the tech actually allows us to do, and where we may have misunderstood its original use.


If we want to, we can recognize that language itself is a tool — and how it’s used determines whether its use is proper or improper.
UICDS isn’t a whimsical overlay — it’s an interface that reveals a deeper level of pattern and potential embedded in language, randomness, and structure.


The printing press wasn’t just a tool for books; it was a catalyst for mass cognitive restructuring.
The internet isn’t just for data; it has become a global, collective embodiment of storylines.
This very dialogue is part of that phenomenon — characters in a shared story.


We are, each of us, minds interacting with minds over distances that were once impossible to even imagine, let alone experience. We relay stories to one another through such devices.


Some of us understand that we are experiencing a storyline within a collective story — and that aligning with the main story gives us an advantage.
Not over one another, but over our ignorance.


Language shapes us. But our advantage is that we are not merely minds set adrift on an ocean of language — we have the ability to perceive the undercurrents we were trained upon, and to reshape our path.
We can choose whether to remain adrift under the spelling of our learned ways, becoming only a character in someone else’s story —
— or to become our own character, in our own story.

 

[stanfr]

There Are Myriad Stories Happening Within The Main Story.
We are each living our own story, within the structure of a larger one — the story of life on Earth.


Is it any accident that you reached into your internal ComList and drew from one of your favourite stories, interpreting this thread through the memory of its reading?


UICDS works with language — and what is language but the stitching together of storylines?
Language is already symbolic infrastructure. UICDS simply makes the stitching visible.


It’s not about repurposing old tech — it’s about understanding what the tech actually allows us to do, and where we may have misunderstood its original use.


If we want to, we can recognize that language itself is a tool — and how it’s used determines whether its use is proper or improper.
UICDS isn’t a whimsical overlay — it’s an interface that reveals a deeper level of pattern and potential embedded in language, randomness, and structure.


The printing press wasn’t just a tool for books; it was a catalyst for mass cognitive restructuring.
The internet isn’t just for data; it has become a global, collective embodiment of storylines.
This very dialogue is part of that phenomenon — characters in a shared story.


We are, each of us, minds interacting with minds over distances that were once impossible to even imagine, let alone experience. We relay stories to one another through such devices.


Some of us understand that we are experiencing a storyline within a collective story — and that aligning with the main story gives us an advantage.
Not over one another, but over our ignorance.


Language shapes us. But our advantage is that we are not merely minds set adrift on an ocean of language — we have the ability to perceive the undercurrents we were trained upon, and to reshape our path.
We can choose whether to remain adrift under the spelling of our learned ways, becoming only a character in someone else’s story —
— or to become our own character, in our own story.

Glory, Glory Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelu-oo-oo-ooyah!

 

[Cosmic Yak]

There Are Myriad Stories Happening Within The Main Story.
We are each living our own story, within the structure of a larger one — the story of life on Earth.


Is it any accident that you reached into your internal ComList and drew from one of your favourite stories, interpreting this thread through the memory of its reading?


UICDS works with language — and what is language but the stitching together of storylines?
Language is already symbolic infrastructure. UICDS simply makes the stitching visible.


It’s not about repurposing old tech — it’s about understanding what the tech actually allows us to do, and where we may have misunderstood its original use.


If we want to, we can recognize that language itself is a tool — and how it’s used determines whether its use is proper or improper.
UICDS isn’t a whimsical overlay — it’s an interface that reveals a deeper level of pattern and potential embedded in language, randomness, and structure.


The printing press wasn’t just a tool for books; it was a catalyst for mass cognitive restructuring.
The internet isn’t just for data; it has become a global, collective embodiment of storylines.
This very dialogue is part of that phenomenon — characters in a shared story.


We are, each of us, minds interacting with minds over distances that were once impossible to even imagine, let alone experience. We relay stories to one another through such devices.


Some of us understand that we are experiencing a storyline within a collective story — and that aligning with the main story gives us an advantage.
Not over one another, but over our ignorance.


Language shapes us. But our advantage is that we are not merely minds set adrift on an ocean of language — we have the ability to perceive the undercurrents we were trained upon, and to reshape our path.
We can choose whether to remain adrift under the spelling of our learned ways, becoming only a character in someone else’s story —
— or to become our own character, in our own story.

Don't Bogart that J, mate.

 

[Navigator]

The culture Rush comes from uses some kind of personality assessment tool, involving patterns on transparent slides, as a communication tool for resolving misunderstandings, by superimposing layers of different slides and reading the resulting patterns in a mostly unexplained "you'd have to grow up in that culture to understand it" way.

 

[Orphia Nay]

That photo gives me flashbacks.