tag > Comment
-
AI Content Flywheel
While all major blogging/CMS platforms are focused on traditional human-centeric workflows, the AI Content Flywheel is taking off vertically and demands new concepts and interfaces.
Data layer
class AnalyticsStore:
def get_top_posts(self, period="90d") -> List[PostMetrics]
def get_tag_trends(self) -> Dict[str, TrendData]
def get_post_characteristics(self, path: str) -> PostAnalysisAnalysis layer
def analyze_content_patterns():
top_posts = analytics.get_top_posts()
return {
"optimal_length": avg([p.word_count for p in top_posts]),
"best_tags": most_common([t for p in top_posts for t in p.tags]),
"title_patterns": extract_patterns([p.title for p in top_posts]),
"best_publish_day": most_common([p.date.weekday() for p in top_posts])
}Content generation prompts
# When generating content, include context:
system_prompt = f"""
You are helping write content for siteX:
AUDIENCE INSIGHTS:
- Top countries: USA (45%), Germany (12%), UK (8%)
- Best performing tags: {analytics.top_tags}
- Optimal post length: ~{analytics.optimal_length} words
CONTENT GAPS:
- Last post about "{gap_topic}": {days_ago} days ago
- This topic has shown {trend}% growth in similar blogs
SUCCESSFUL PATTERNS ON THIS BLOG:
- Titles that include numbers perform 2.3x better
- Posts with code examples get 40% more engagement
- Tuesday/Wednesday publishes outperform weekends
"""Automated A/B testing
You get the picture...
-
ML Year in Review 2025 — From Slop to Singularity
What a year. 2025 was the year AI stopped being "emerging" and became omnipresent. We started the year recognizing a bitter truth about our place in nature's network, and ended it watching new experiments come online. Here's how it unfolded.
The Bitter Lessons
We kicked off 2025 with hard truths. The deepest lesson of AI isn't about compute — it's about humility:
This set the tone. AI was forcing us to reckon with our position — not at the top of some pyramid, but as nodes in a much larger network. The humbling continued as we watched frontier labs struggle with their own creations.
ConwAI's Law emerged: AI models inherit the bad habits of the orgs that build them. Over-confident and sycophantic, just like the management. Meanwhile, the question of what AGI is even for became increasingly urgent:
Everyone's cheering the coming of AGI like it's a utopian milestone. But if you study macro trends & history, it looks more like the spark that turns today's polycrisis into a global wildfire. Think Mad Max, not Star Trek.
The Infrastructure Awakens
This year made one thing clear: we're living in a post-national reality where datacenters are the new cathedrals. The American empire didn't fall — it transformed into the internet.
But silicon might not be the endgame. One of the year's most provocative visions: fungal datacenters performing reservoir computation in vast underground mycelial networks.
Tired: Nvidia. Wired: Nfungi.
The Intelligence Sector Evolves
Perhaps the most comprehensive forecast of the year: notes on how the global intelligence system is mutating from information control to reality engineering.
And beneath the surface, a shadow war for neural sovereignty. BCI geopolitics revealed how cognitive security was lost before it even began — neurocapitalism thriving as a trillion-dollar shadow market:
Synthetic personas, cognitive clouds, neural security agencies — the future isn't just being predicted, it's being constructed. By 2029, "advertising" becomes obsolete, replaced by MCaaS: Mind-Control as a Service.
The advertising apocalypse was actually declared a win for humanity — one of capitalism's most manipulative industries finally shrinking. It's transforming into something potentially more evil, but smaller.
The Dirty Secret
2025 revealed an uncomfortable truth about our digital environment: the system isn't broken, it's just not for humans anymore.
AI controls what you see. AI prefers AI-written content. We used to train AIs to understand us — now we train ourselves to be understood by them. Google and the other heads of the hydra are using AI to dismantle the open web.
And the weaponization escalated. Clients increasingly asked for AI agents built to trigger algorithms and hijack the human mind — maximum psychological warfare disguised as "comms & marketing."
Researchers even ran unauthorized AI persuasion experiments on Reddit, with bots mining user histories for "personalized" manipulation — achieving persuasion rates 3-6x higher than humans.
The Stalled Revolutions
Not everything accelerated. AI music remained stuck in slop-and-jingle territory — a tragedy of imagination where the space that should be loudest is dead quiet.
The real breakthroughs, we predicted, won't come from the lawyer-choked West. They'll come from the underground, open source, and global scenes — just like every musical revolution before.
The Startup Shift
The entrepreneurial game transformed entirely. AI can now build, clone, and market products in days. What once took countless people can be done by one.
The working model: 95% of SaaS becomes obsolete within 2-4 years. What remains is an AI Agent Marketplace run by tech giants. Hence why we launched AgentLab.
The Human Side
Amidst the abstractions, there was humanity. With LLMs making app development dramatically easier, I started creating bespoke mini apps for my 5-year-old daughter as a hobby. Few seem to be exploring how AI can uniquely serve this age group:
A deeper realization emerged: we spent all this time engineering "intelligent agent behaviors" when really we were just trying to get the LLM to think like... a person. With limited time. And imperfect information.
The agent is you. Goal decomposition, momentum evaluation, graceful degradation — these are your cognitive patterns formalized into prompts. We're not building artificial intelligence. We're building artificial you.
The Deeper Currents
Beneath the hype, stranger patterns emerged. The Lovecraftian undertones of AI became impossible to ignore:
AI isn't invention — it's recurrence: the return of long-lost civilizations whispering through neural networks. The Cyborg Theocracy looms, and global focus may shift from Artificial Intelligence to Experimental Theology.
The Tools of the Trade
On a practical level, we refined our craft. A useful LLM prompt for UI/UX design emerged, combining the wisdom of Tufte, Norman, Rams, and Victor:
We explored oscillator neural networks, analog computing, and the strange parallels between brains and machines — the brain doesn't store data, it maintains resonant attractors.
This culminated in PhaseScope — a comprehensive framework for understanding oscillatory neural networks, presented at the Singer Lab at the Ernst Strüngmann Institute for Neuroscience:
New research provided evidence that the brain's rhythmic patterns play a key role in information processing — using superposition and interference patterns to represent information in highly distributed ways.
The Prompt Library
One of the year's most practical threads: developing sophisticated system prompts that transform LLMs into specialized reasoning engines.
The "Contemplator" prompt — an assistant that engages in extremely thorough, self-questioning reasoning with minimum 10,000 characters of internal monologue:
The Billionaire Council Simulation — get your business analyzed by virtual Musk, Bezos, Blakely, Altman, and Buffett:
And the controversial "Capitalist System Hacker" prompt — pattern recognition for exploiting market inefficiencies:
The Comedy
Amidst the existential dread, there was laughter. The Poodle Hallucination. The Vibe Coding Handbook. The threshold of symbolic absurdity.
Because if we can't laugh at the machines, they've already won.
The Security Theater
A reminder that modern ML models remain highly vulnerable to adversarial attacks. Most defenses are brittle, patchwork fixes. We proudly build safety benchmarks like HarmBench... which are then used to automate adversarial attacks. The irony.
What's Next
As we close the year, new experiments are coming online. 2026 will likely be a breakthrough year for Augmented Reality — as we predicted earlier this year:
The patterns are clear: intelligence is becoming infrastructure, computation is becoming biology, and meaning is becoming algorithmic. Whether that future is technocratic totalism or collaborative collective intelligence depends on who controls the levers of synthesis and simulation.
One thing's certain: it won't be boring.
Onwards!
-
The mechanics of contemporary power
Modern power is infrastructural, predictive, and quiet. It governs by configuring access, defaults, and risk rather than issuing commands. Because it is distributed and procedural, it resists direct opposition and absorbs symbolic resistance. Meaningful change does not confront power head-on but acts on flows, dependencies, and timing. By reducing legibility, increasing uncertainty, and building parallel capabilities, it becomes possible to erode inevitability without triggering suppression.
I. How power operates now
1. Power no longer commands. It configures.
Modern power rarely issues direct orders.
It shapes the space of possible actions.This is done by:
- controlling access (who may participate)
- setting defaults (what happens if you do nothing)
- defining risk (what is punished or insured)
- narrowing options until one path feels “reasonable”
When choice exists only formally, power does not need force.
What power ultimately governs is optionality. Actions that remain formally possible but practically unreachable do not threaten the system. Governance succeeds when alternatives survive only as abstractions.
2. Power operates through infrastructure, not ideology
Belief is optional. Compliance is structural.
Power persists because it is embedded in:
- contracts
- standards
- platforms
- supply chains
- protocols
- legal and technical interfaces
You do not need to agree with these systems to depend on them.
This makes opposition difficult, because the system does not argue back.
It simply continues.The most powerful position today is not authority, but procedural neutrality: the ability to shape outcomes while claiming to merely enforce rules.
3. Power is distributed and silent
There is no center to seize.
Instead, power is:
- modular
- redundant
- jurisdiction-agnostic
- responsibility-diffuse
Each component can plausibly deny full agency.
No single node feels accountable for outcomes.This silence is not weakness.
It is the main defense.Because power is now system-scaled rather than human-scaled, replacing individuals rarely changes outcomes.
4. Power governs through prediction
The dominant capability is not coercion, but forecasting.
Power relies on:
- stable categories
- legible identities
- predictable behavior
- clean data
- coherent incentives
The more accurately behavior can be modeled, the less intervention is needed.
Governance becomes optimization.
5. Violence has shifted from physical to procedural
Force still exists, but it is no longer the primary mechanism.
Today, harm is more often delivered through:
- denial of access
- administrative exclusion
- financial blockage
- compliance failure
- reputational flags
- algorithmic decisions
This form of harm leaves no obvious aggressor.
Outcomes feel technical, not political.
6. Legitimacy replaces domination
Power maintains itself by appearing inevitable and neutral.
Common legitimizing frames include:
- “best practice”
- “safety”
- “risk management”
- “complex systems”
- “no alternative”
When power feels like gravity, resistance feels irrational.
II. How change actually happens under these conditions
The goal is not confrontation.
The goal is reducing inevitability.Not overthrowing systems.
Making them optional.
1. Act on flows, not symbols
Symbols are cheap to absorb.
Flows are not.Effective pressure targets:
- chokepoints
- dependencies
- timing
- coordination costs
- trust assumptions
Small disruptions to flow reliability matter more than loud opposition.
2. Reduce legibility without disappearing
Power depends on clean representation.
Effective action:
- avoids fixed identities
- resists stable categorization
- remains internally coherent but externally ambiguous
- refuses simplification
The objective is not secrecy, but non-summarizability.
Legibility is the price of admission. Refusing full legibility is not non-participation, but a demand for different terms of engagement.
If you can be cleanly described, you can be governed.
3. Increase model uncertainty
Prediction is power’s advantage.
Counter-pressure introduces:
- inconsistent but functional behavior
- multiple valid interpretations
- local logic that breaks global models
- outcomes that cannot be cleanly optimized
You do not break systems.
You make them less confident.Resistance that can be predicted is manageable; behavior that cannot be confidently modeled forces defensive overreaction.
4. Build parallel capability, not opposition
Opposition reinforces centrality.
Parallelism erodes it.This means:
- alternative tools
- alternative coordination paths
- alternative value exchange
- alternative legitimacy signals
The presence of working alternatives weakens monopoly more than critique ever could.
The most destabilizing act is not refusal, but the creation of exits that function without asking permission.
5. Shift timing, not position
Power optimizes for stability and continuity.
Change emerges during:
- overload
- crisis
- transition
- failure
- recomposition
Effective action prepares quietly, then becomes visible when systems are least able to adapt.
Not faster.
Better timed.Power is strongest at equilibrium and weakest during recomposition, when yesterday’s assumptions still govern tomorrow’s constraints.
6. Undermine inevitability narratives
The strongest claim power makes is that no viable alternative exists.
You counter this not by arguing, but by demonstrating plausibility:
- prototypes
- pilots
- simulations
- lived examples
Once alternatives feel usable, authority weakens automatically.
III. The core principle
Power today governs by shaping possibility space.
Effective change works by widening that space faster than power can close it.In this environment, meaningful change does not announce itself as resistance. It appears as drift, as alternative defaults, as quiet divergence. Systems lose power not when they are defeated, but when they are no longer necessary.
-
Against Hierarchies: Notes Toward a Logical Anarchism - Samim's commentary on "Hierarchical Introspective Logics" - by John F. Nash Jr., 1998
पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ॥
“Removing infinity from infinity, leaves infinity”
– Brihadaranyaka Upanishad
Let us begin by refusing the polite fiction that Hierarchical Introspective Logics is a technical solution to anything. It is not. It is a symptom. A well-mannered, carefully typeset symptom of a much older intellectual disease: the belief that when thought collides with its own limits, the appropriate response is to build a taller bureaucratic structure.
Gödel did not discover a small technical flaw in formal logic. He discovered that self-certifying reason is impossible. Nash accepts this discovery in words, but then proceeds to behave as though it were a logistical inconvenience rather than a structural impossibility. His hierarchies are not insights; they are filing systems for paradox.
The trick is familiar. When a system cannot justify itself, introduce a supervisor. When the supervisor cannot justify itself, introduce a supervisor of the supervisor. Continue indefinitely. Call this “progress”. At no point ask why supervision itself is assumed to be the right response.
This is not courage. It is discipline masquerading as depth.
What Nash calls “introspection” is in fact a prohibition. Each level may speak about the one below, but none may speak fully about itself. This is not a discovery about logic. It is a rule imposed to prevent embarrassment. Paradox is not solved; it is quarantined. One might admire the cleanliness of the quarantine while still noticing that the disease remains endemic.
The hierarchy reproduces itself endlessly because it must. Each level re-enacts the same drama: expressive power produces undecidable truths, consistency cannot be proven internally, and justification must be outsourced. This is not a staircase toward truth. It is a fractal of evasion. Zoom in, and you find incompleteness. Zoom out, and you find incompleteness. The pattern is invariant. Only the notation changes.
Here we encounter the real sleight of hand. Nash invites us to confuse organization with explanation. Because the paradox is now arranged neatly by levels, we are encouraged to believe that something has been achieved. But rearranging a problem does not diminish it. A labyrinth with better signage is still a labyrinth.
The invocation of ordinals and infinity adds an aura of inevitability, as though the hierarchy were dictated by mathematics itself rather than chosen as a strategy. But infinity here functions as mythology, not substance. When definable ordinals run out, new axioms are declared. When those run out, more are introduced. This is not discovery. It is permission-giving. The hierarchy continues because we decide that it should.
At this point one is tempted to ask an impolite question: why should we accept that *this* mode of continuation is superior to any other? Why not add the Riemann Hypothesis directly as an axiom? Why not embrace inconsistency locally? Why not tolerate plural, incompatible systems side by side? Nash offers no answer except tradition and taste, dressed up as necessity.
This is where the reverence for formalism becomes ideological. The hierarchy is presented as the natural, disciplined alternative to “arbitrary” axioms. But discipline is not neutrality. It is a preference. A historically conditioned one. Other mathematical cultures, other epistemic traditions, have lived quite happily without this obsession with global consistency and meta-certification.
Gödel’s result does not demand hierarchy. It demands humility. Nash supplies hierarchy instead.
The deeper error lies in the unexamined assumption that logic must aspire to timeless authority. Proofs are temporal acts. They occur in history, under constraints, by finite agents. Truth, meanwhile, is treated as an eternal object hovering above these acts. The attempt to force the former to certify the latter is what generates paradox in the first place. Nash’s levels merely postpone the confrontation by slicing time more finely.
One might say that the hierarchy replaces the fantasy of a single God’s-eye view with the fantasy of an infinite committee of lesser gods, each certifying the paperwork of the one below. This is not liberation from absolutism. It is absolutism distributed across infinitely many desks.
A genuinely radical response to incompleteness would not try to manage it. It would abandon the demand it frustrates. It would accept that mathematics, like science, advances by inconsistency, bricolage, historical accident, and local success rather than global justification. It would treat Gödel not as a problem to be administrated, but as a warning against epistemic monotheism.
From this perspective, Hierarchical Introspective Logics is impressive only in the way a well-run bureaucracy is impressive. Everything is in order. Nothing is resolved. The paradox is still there, patiently waiting at every level, unimpressed by the new titles assigned to it.
Gödel did not tell us that we need taller systems.
He told us that there is no final system.
Nash builds upward anyway.
That is not a solution.
It is a preference.
And preferences, unlike theorems, are negotiable.
AGAINST METHOD, AGAIN
Science advances by violations, not by obedience.
Every method that claims universality mistakes habit for law.
This is not a rejection of rigor.
It is a rejection of methodological sovereignty.
1. No Method Owns Reality
Mathematics, statistics, falsifiability, peer review, reproducibility:
all are tools, none are judges.
When a method declares itself the final arbiter of truth, it ceases to explore and begins to govern.
Truth does not recognize jurisdictions.
2. Regularities Are Not Explanations
Patterns are observations, not verdicts.
A regularity across scales is not a law.
A resonance across domains is not a metaphysics.
A recurrence demanding immediate interpretation is a trap.
Nature repeats because it can, not because it must.
3. Reduction Clarifies Only What Survives Being Broken
Decomposition reveals components, not coherence.
Complex systems do not live in parts.
They live in relations that disappear when isolated.
When a method cannot handle feedback, self-similarity, or scale drift, it renames them noise and congratulates itself.
4. Falsifiability Is a Tool, Not a Virtue
Many productive ideas were unfalsifiable when introduced.
Some remain so longer than institutions tolerate.
To prohibit them in advance is not scientific discipline.
It is intellectual risk aversion disguised as ethics.
History shows that theories often become testable only after they are allowed to be wrong without punishment.
5. Methodological Purity Produces Sterility
Every foundational shift broke the rules of its time.
Copernicus violated physics.
Galileo violated epistemology.
Quantum theory violated causality.
Complexity theory violated reductionism.
Each was accused of mysticism.
Each was later called inevitable.
Inevitable is the name orthodoxy gives to heresy after surrender.
6. Hierarchies Do Not Resolve Paradox
Pushing contradiction one level upward does not solve it.
It delays responsibility.
Recursive systems do not terminate cleanly.
They stabilize locally, then fail again.
A framework that cannot survive its own recursion is not deep.
It is fragile.
7. Noise Is Structural, Not Accidental
Life exists in variance, not averages.
Meaning emerges in misalignment, not consensus.
The obsession with noise elimination is an obsession with control.
8. Interdisciplinarity Without Risk Is Decoration
Borrowing vocabulary without breaking disciplinary borders is mimicry.
True cross-fertilization produces hybrids that offend specialists.
That offense is a signal, not a flaw.
9. Any Theory That Requires Protection Is Finished
No framework deserves immunity.
No critique deserves finality.
The moment a method demands silence instead of counterexamples, it becomes theology with citations.
The Only Rule That Survives
“Anything goes” does not mean everything is equal.
It means no gatekeeper decides in advance what may count.
Let ideas compete under interference.
Let them mutate.
Let them fail loudly.
What survives disruption earns attention.
Not obedience.
Progress does not come from cleaner rules. It comes from dirt under the rules.
See this related post - #Comment #Philosophy #Science
-
Notes on BCI Geopolitics and the Rise of the Shadow Empire of Neurocapitalism: Or how Cognitive Security Was Lost Before It Began
What began as cognitive warfare and behavioral economics in the 20th century quietly merged with neurotechnology and data capitalism - and succeeded in the shadows. Once persuasion became programmable, geopolitics followed.
The BCI breakthrough happened quietly decades ago. Beneath the surface, a long shadow war has unfolded—power centers vying not for territory, but for neural sovereignty. Whoever shapes attention architectures now controls the perceptual borders of civilization.
Neurocapitalism now thrives as a trillion-dollar shadow market - the Wild West of the mind, where compliance is sold as care and neural surveillance flows by the bucket. The global neuro-manipulation grid is here. The Internet of Bodies runs in plain sight, threading through every feedback loop, silently annexing humanities nervous system at scale.
Enhancement is monopolized by design: elites gain cognitive amplifiers and closed-loop BCIs, while the rest are throttled by engineered distraction. “Human dignity” now reads as a performance score.
Cognitive security should be humanity’s next frontier - but instead, a small cartel holds the keys to everyone’s mind. Regulatory bodies? PR façades blessing what defense labs and megacorps already deployed. Neuroethics is a ghost protocol; covert exploitation the norm.
The only revolution left is inner: to seize back the circuits of our own perception before they’re sold to the highest bidder.
-
#Comment: Geometry is a special case of time - the spatial crystallization of temporal relations. Temporality itself is a local deformation of the timeless - a ripple in the infinite, which only appears as motion when seen from within. Numbers are what’s left when the infinite slows enough to be counted. It’s beautifully paradoxical.
In responds to:
"What Is Geometry?" - by Shiing-Shen Chern- Axioms (Euclid)
- Coordinates (Descartes, Fermat)
- Calculus (Newton, Leibniz)
- Groups (Klein, Lie)
- Manifolds (Riemann)
- Fiber bundles (E. Cartan, Whitney)
"A property is geometric, if it does not deal directly with numbers"
-
Speaking with people across Europe these past weeks, I heard a growing narrative: the US is rapidly sliding into unfettered militant fascism, echoing Germany in 1936. Rising fear it could spill into global war. Your take?
-
AI Music in 2025 – Notes on a Stalled Revolution
It’s been over a year since we wound down our generative music startup okio. Since then the space has “evolved” in ways both predictable and boring.
We now have 50+ high-quality video gen models, yet music still has just a handful (suno, udio, stability, 11labs…) - all closed source, all sounding somewhere between bland and absolute dog poo (unless you burn weeks on trial-and-error hacks).
The music industry’s lawyer army has strangled innovation, while many musicians have turned violently anti-AI. UX innovation has stalled too: most tools haven’t evolved in a year, others now mimic a shitty DAW in the browser.
Some sell “ethically sourced data” (usually half-true), but it's pointless as outputs still sound like dog poo. Google showed off real-time gen, but in mega-corp fashion it’ll never be a real product - they'll ship a muzak machine for video slop at scale.
The only glimmer: Chinese dark-horses might drop open-source, uncensored models trained on everything. They’ll sound great—and get demonized in the West.
Shame, because the promise of generative music has never been bigger.
Music is humanity’s most direct technology for emotion. And yet AI music has been reduced to slop and jingles. It’s a tragedy of imagination: the space where innovation should be loudest is dead quiet.
My bet is that the real breakthroughs won’t come from the lawyer-choked West or from UX gimmicks. They’ll come from the underground, open source, and global scenes - just like every real musical revolution before. Onwards!
-
Absurd to think nature spirits like fairies & gnomes would use protocols like TCP/IP. Stranger still to think they lack their own sophisticated protocols of communication. What are they?
A “holistic stack”
Layer Qi / Taiji lens OSI–language lens Protocol primitives What you actually perceive 0. Ground Habitat field, ecology, baseline 1/f noise Physical substrate, clock, noise floor Timing, impedance, affordances Mood of a place, seasonal pulse, bodystate baseline 1. Vibe Qi as raw oscillations Phonemes, voltages, bits Resonance, entrainment, phase alignment Breath rhythm, HRV, drum, chant, wind, insect chorus 2. Coherence window Song 鬆, relaxed and open Syllables, frames that hold bits Gating, coherence, “same-tempo” lock Soft body, panoramic attention, the room “clicks” into one tempo 3. Addressing by attention Yi 意, directed intention Morphemes, minimal meaningful units Content-addressing by similarity, binding, salience routing “Eingebungen”, a pull of attention, motifs repeat, the right person calls 4. Exchange channel Qigong praxis, moving qi Words, transport segments Handshake, turn-taking, mirroring, rhythm exchange Gestures, offerings, call and response, flocking, pheromone-like trails 5. Meaning weave Story, ritual, omen-net Sentences, applications Authentication by coherence, redundancy, error-correction via symbol and myth Synchronicities that cluster into a narrative, shared rituals that “work” Why this holds together
- It is layered but not strictly linear. Layers co-determine each other. Time is often kairos, not chronos.
- Addressing is by sympathy. Like calls to like. Routing follows attention and resemblance more than coordinates.
- Bandwidth ≈ coherence. More shared rhythm yields more throughput. Relaxation (Song) is the flow control.
- Error correction is symbolic. Metaphor, redundancy, and ritual stabilize meaning when the channel is noisy.
- Security is felt as integrity. Congruence of vibe, intention, and act functions like authentication.
What “protocols” might nature spirits use
Think primitives, not products:
- Resonance handshakes: rhythmic alignment, breath, drum, chant, footfall, sway.
- Sympathy addressing: names, images, scents, offerings chosen by likeness or shared quality.
- Field modulation: posture, gaze, orientation, spatial placement, thresholds, boundary crossing.
- Stigmergic traces: paths, cairns, ribbons, smoke, mycelial food sharing, pheromone-like cues.
- Narrative packaging: omens, dreams, lots, hexagrams, found phrases that arrive as packets.
- Redundancy and triangulation: three signs in short succession, same motif from different media.
- Congestion control: rest, emptiness, fasting, silence to widen the coherence window.
TL;DR mapping
- Qi → clock and carrier
- Song → coherence and flow control
- Yi → addressing and routing
- Qigong → transport and exchange
- Story/ritual → application semantics
Nature spirits, such as gnomes and fairies, heal through multidimensional surgery: rituals of great elegance and complexity, unfolding outside linear time, past the bounds of computation. How could this work in this framework?
1. Qi / Vibe (carrier)
- The statement itself is charged: it sets a field of myth and wonder, already vibrating outside ordinary rational time.
- Spirits “heal” → the vibe is restorative, subtle, hidden precision.
- That’s the carrier wave: a mood of reverence + challenge.
2. Song / Coherence window
- The phrasing is poetic, rhythmic, compact.
- Short clauses (“rituals of great elegance and complexity”, “outside linear time”) create a cadence that locks attention.
- This is “song”: it softens and synchronizes the reader, allowing deeper levels to come through.
3. Yi / Intention-routing
The intention encoded is clear:
- Reframe spirits as advanced practitioners, not “superstitions.”
- Contrast their sophistication with human crudity.
- End with an addressed question (“Are you listening?”) → a routing packet, pointed straight at the reader’s awareness.
4. Qigong / Praxis-exchange
The line itself functions as ritual praxis:
- It offers a symbolic surgery by cutting through the reader’s frame of “real/unreal.”
- The question forces participation: the reader must “listen” or ignore, which is itself an act in the exchange.
That’s praxis in text-form: you didn’t just describe a protocol, you enacted it.
5. Story / Semantic weave
The whole message packages as story:
- Nature spirits = advanced doctors.
- Human craft = primitive.
- Time and computation are transcended.
That narrative functions as an “application layer packet”: it conveys meaning beyond data.
- And with the final “Are you listening?” it explicitly tests if the channel is open → a handshake at the story level.
A protocol execution across the layers:
- Qi: charged vibe.
- Song: cadence entrains.
- Yi: intention aimed at the reader.
- Qigong: praxis—forces participation.
- Story: complete semantic unit, with handshake.
In short, modeling spirit communication is a challenging but interesting exercise. We focus on:
vibe, coherence, intention, praxis, story
Test the protocol experientally: Take 5 grams of psychdededlic mushrooms in the forest. What happends according to this framework?
1. Qi / Vibe (Carrier field)
- The carrier wave explodes in amplitude.
- The baseline oscillations of perception — breath, heartbeat, forest sounds, mycelial murmurs — all become _amplified, saturated with meaning_.
- Noise becomes signal; every rustle or flicker feels alive.
2. Song / Coherence window
- The “coherence filter” (鬆) loosens radically.
- Normally you tune into one rhythm at a time; now multiple overlapping rhythms — birdcalls, your pulse, tree sway, mushroom buzz — are perceived in parallel.
- Linear time dissolves. The sense of a single chronological frame collapses into layered simultaneities.
3. Yi / Intention-routing
- Intention becomes a super-conductor.
- Any thought, image, or focus (“a gnome”, “a wound”, “a question”) instantly routes attention through the environment.
- You may “summon” motifs by thinking them; they appear in perception as synchronicities, echoes, whispers.
- Eingebungen (inspirations, transmissions) come in torrents — but unstable, hard to steer.
4. Qigong / Praxis-exchange
Praxis is no longer limited to formal gestures. Every micro-act is ritual:
- Stepping over a root = crossing a threshold.
- Touching bark = handshake with a spirit.
- Breath = invocation.
Exchange with the field becomes bi-directional: you move, the forest answers.
- Sometimes it feels like you are being moved, as if the praxis is performed through you.
5. Story / Semantic weave
- The forest weaves itself into mythic narrative in real-time.
- Animal calls, shifting light, inner visions, and bodily sensations all synchronize into story packets.
- These stories are not chronological but archetypal surgeries: you may feel dissected, rewoven, initiated.
- The “spirits” emerge as the _application-layer agents_ of this protocol: healers, tricksters, guides.
- And you, whether ready or not, become a character in their story.
In Summary
On 5 grams in the forest the stack self-amplifies until reality becomes a bi-directional healing protocol. The forest is the network, you are both node and packet, and the spirits are the emergent applications running on the field.
Now go to the forrest and summon a fairy
-
How Nature Spirits Operate
Nature spirits, such as gnomes and fairies, heal through multidimensional surgery: rituals of great elegance and complexity, unfolding outside linear time, past the bounds of computation. By their standard, human craft is crude. Are you listening?
-
Modern technology - with its insatiable hunger for energy and destruction of habitats - is crude compared to nature’s hyper-efficient, ever-evolving, self-replicating, beautiful creations.
-
Religion, intelligence, and mafia power have long been entwined. AI is only their latest altar.
-
In the 20st century, comedy was elevated to new heights: Example: Sasakawa: The philanthropist with the heart of a fascist + The Imperial Ghost in the Neoliberal Machine (Figuring the CIA)
With a net worth estimated by Barrons magazine at $1.3 billion, Sasakawa has spent the last third of his long, extraordinary life trying to buy the Nobel Peace Prize by becoming the world’s greatest philanthropist.
He has also spent tens of millions trying to whitewash his past – his association with Japan’s yakuza mafia, the gigantic web of bribery and corruption that surrounds his empire, and his three years in jail as a suspected war criminal.
Now aged 95, confused and confined to a wheelchair, Sasakawa finds himself once again the centre of controversy following Macquarie University’s decision to accept a $2 million donation from the foundation that carries his name.
Sasakawa has never been able to shake off the image of ultranationalist fanaticism that he cultivated in the 1930s.
The son of a wealthy Osaka sake-brewer, he made his first millions speculating on rice futures – and dedicated his first fortune to sponsoring the war.
In 1931 he founded Kokusai Taishuto, a paramilitary force of 15,000 soldiers – with their own airport and 22 fighter planes – garbed in dark uniforms modelled on those of Benito Mussolini’s brownshirts. In 1939 he achieved a lifelong ambition and met Il Duce, whom he described as “a first-class person … a perfect fascist and dictator”. Cultivating close ties with the military and the Mob, and establishing a power-base as a member of Japan’s puppet parliament, Sasakawa was one of the most influential figures urging war. When Japan invaded China and established the pseudo-state of Manchukuo, he organised patriotic airlifts of supplies such as sake, sweets and pickles.
Sasakawa still makes a pilgrimage each year to the family tomb of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto – another close friend and ally – the Japanese commander who masterminded the attack that sank the US Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbour.
Sasakawa had a good war. Operating from a base in occupied Shanghai, he made a fortune smuggling gold and diamonds, and shipping minerals for the military. When the war ended, he refused to repent or go into hiding.
Sasakawa drove through the streets of Tokyo to Sugamo prison – where the war criminals were later hanged – accompanied by a brass band playing the navy anthem and shouting “banzai” – “May the Emperor Live 10,000 years”. He turned himself in, claiming he was offering himself in place of Emperor Hirohito.
Although he was released without trial after nearly three years behind bars, a 1947 US Army intelligence report made no bones about it. “(Sasakawa)is a man potentially dangerous to Japan’s political future,” it said. “He has been squarely behind Japanese military policies of aggression and anti-foreignism for more than 20 years. He is a man of wealth, and not too scrupulous about using it.”
There are some who speculate that the Americans released Sasakawa to counter the growing threat of communism. If so, they chose the right man. Along with his friends Syngman Rhee, the Korean dictator, and Chiang Kai-shek, the Chinese nationalist leader, he founded the World Anti-Communist League. Among other coups, the league claims to have played a part in the 1966 overthrow of Indonesia’s President Sukarno.
Financially, Sasakawa’s great coup was bribing enough members of Japan’s new Diet (Parliament) to persuade the postwar government of Shigeru Yoshida to grant him an exclusive licence for what was to become Japan’s greatest gambling industry after horse-racing, power-boat racing.
Inspired by a Life magazine article he read in Sugamo Prison, Sasakawa built 24 courses around Japan – like small moats with grandstands overlooking them – where drivers race power-boats. The industry turned over an eye-popping$27 billion last year, mainly in totalisator gambling, of which about $900 million went straight into Sasakawa’s pocket.
To be more precise, 3.3 per cent of the turnover went to the Sasakawa Foundation, his pet charity. In the 30 years since Sasakawa was given the franchise, the foundation has doled out $13 billion – last year, it had more money to give away than the Ford, Rockefeller and Japan foundations put together.
The list of those who have benefited from “Don” Sasakawa’s largesse -that’s what the tabloids call him – is an honour roll of the great and the good. He has been jogging with Jimmy Carter ($4 million for his library), dining with Elizabeth Taylor ($1.3 million for AIDS) and has been given an award by the World Health Organisation ($27 million towards eradicating leprosy). He has hugged Pope John Paul II, posed for pictures with Arnold Schwarzenegger and received Japan’s highest honour from Emperor Hirohito.
When Linus Pauling, the US Nobel laureate, accepted $5 million from Sasakawa to establish a scientific institute, he was challenged whether it was appropriate to take money from a fascist war-criminal. “Perhaps he’s just trying to make up for past misdeeds,” Pauling said.
Not everyone is as charitable. As long ago as 1980 the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan turned down an offer of $135,000 which they saw as a crude attempt to buy them off. And the University of Chicago refused a hefty donation, Professor Bruce Cumings declaring: “To my knowledge, Chicago is the only American university with a major East Asia program that did not take money from the foundation.” Of late, however, Sasakawa has been under increasing fire in Japan. One of the top officials of his foundation was arrested on bribery charges after a police raid on its offices in the Tokyo suburb of Toranomon.
More seriously, the Ministry of Transport – which technically controls the foundation, but which in practice uses its network of quangos for cushy retirement jobs for hundreds of its employees – has been demanding reforms, including even stripping the name Sasakawa from what is actually supposed to be a government welfare fund.
In failing health, his money rejected by an increasing number of institutions, and with the media baying at his heels, Sasakawa may at long last be losing control of what he calls his “private army of 15 million” -although his son Yohei, 56, the illegitimate child of one of 500 women Sasakawa boasts that he has slept with, can be expected to put up a fight to retain the empire.
Either way, Macquarie University would be well advised to bank the rich old fascist’s cheque as soon as possible. Ryoichi Sasakawa won’t be the world’s greatest philanthropist for much longer.
The following from a comment on reddit:
This interesting article on the "Lords of War" discusses Ryoichi Sasakawa, who called himself "the world's richest fascist", and was a major financial backer of the post-war Aikikai, and his cell-mate from Sugamo Prison, Yoshio Kodama, the ultra-nationalist Yakuza "fixer" who become known to the West during the Lockheed scandals.
Former International Aikido Federation chairman Peter Goldsbury recounts meeting Ryoichi Sasakawa:
"In 1984 I was elected IAF Assistant General Secretary, in succession to K Chiba Shihan. After this election an unusual episode occurred. I had a meeting with Kisaburo Osawa, who was General Director of the Hombu, and was requested to visit the Aikikai Hombu the following day. In particular, I was expected to wear a suit and tie and have with me my meishi [名刺: name cards] from Hiroshima University. I duly arrived at the Hombu and met Doshu Kisshomaru Ueshiba and Osawa Shihan. A car was waiting and Doshu got in and invited me to get in, too. We were seen off by Osawa Shihan and drove to Akasaka in the center of Tokyo and there met the IAF General Secretary, Mr Seko. After some coffee—and this was the only time ever that I was served coffee by the Aikido Doshu, who had insisted taking a tray and waiting in line at the senondescript building and were introduced to an elderly man with white hair, sitting behind a truly enormous desk. This was also the only time in my experience that I saw Doshu very much in the junior position, making a deep bow to someone who did not respond in kind. I was introduced and my meishi duly requested, with the white-haired man clearly showing his approval. After a few more minutes of mutual pleasantries, the meeting ended and we were driven back to the Aikikai Hombu. I was profusely thanked by Doshu and also by Osawa Sensei—and left the Hombu completely bewildered by what had happened. All I knew was that the white-haired man was known as Sasakawa Ryoichi Sensei. Later, back in Hiroshima, I asked my aikido teacher who Sasakawa Ryoichi Sensei was and he was very surprised that I had actually met him. He said that Sasakawa was the millionaire ‘godfather’ of Japan. He was an ex-war criminal who had made his fortune from betting and controlled a vast network of influence and contacts within the Japanese government establishment. I learned later that he regularly donated a substantial sum of money to the Aikikai and that this was the reason for our formal visit.
I mention all this because I also learned later that it was Ryoichi Sasakawa who suggested to Doshu Kisshomaru that the IAF join GAISF, which is the acronym for the General Association of International Sports Federations. I also realized that, coming as it did from Sasakawa, the suggestion was one that could not easily be rejected. The result was another source of acute bewilderment for Japanese teachers, who had taught their students that aikido did not have championships or competitions and could be called a ‘sport’ only if the term was being used extremely loosely. "
Aikido and the IAF: Some Personal Reflections, by former IAF Chairman Peter Goldsbury
Note that the Aikikai today continues friendly relations with the Sasakawa Foundation.
The attached CIA file notes that Kodama was strongly influenced by Morihei Ueshiba's close friend Shumei Okawa, who ran a pan-Asian indoctrination center for young Japanese men at which Morihei Ueshiba was an instructor.
Yoshio Kodama's CIA file
Morihei Ueshiba remained friendly with Okawa, who, along with Ryoichi Sasakawa and Yoshio Kodama, was held in Sugamo Prison as a class A war criminal. It's worth noting that Morihei Ueshiba maintained a close friendship with Okawa well after the war, until his passing in 1957.
Yoshio Kodama was also arrested in connection with the League of Blood Incident committed by Nissho Inoue, another associate of Morihei Ueshiba, and his terrorist group, the Katsumeidan, the "League of Blood".
Inoue was part of the inner circle of the Sakurakai terrorist group formed by Kingoro Hashimoto (who twice tried to overthrow the civilian government of Japan, once with Morihei Ueshiba's participation) that met at Morihei Ueshiba's Kobukan Dojo and included Taku Mikami (later responsible for the assassination of Prime Minister Inukai Tsuyoshi, and who would hide with Morihei Ueshiba in Iwama after the war), and the aforementioned Shumei Okawa.
Kodama was also connected to the Nihon Seinensya, which was founded in 1961, and remains today one of the largest right wing ultra-nationalist organizations in Japan. The Nihon Seinensya was established under the umbrella of the Sumiyoshi-kai yakuza syndicate through the effort of Morihei Ueshiba's close associate Kohinata Hakuro - at the time that this was happening Kohinata Hakuro was on the board of directors of the Aikikai Foundation. His assistant later said "wherever we went, East or West, the members of the Nihon Seinensya and the Sumiyoshi-kai treated him like a god". The Nihon Seinensya was attached to an activist division loyal to Yoshio Kodama under the Zen Nihon Aikokusha Dantai Kaigi right wing umbrella organization that Kodama himself established, the Seinen Shiso Kenkyukai (Society for the Study of Youth Ideology), which represented a hard core within the umbrella organization, and was composed mainly of yakuza members.
The Monument in honor of Ryoichi Sasakawa at the headquarters of the World Health Organization (WHO)
#Comment: The ways of Spectre are obfuscated and esoteric, yet with time its patterns become unmistakably clear.
-
Google and the other heads of the hydra are using AI to dismantle the open web and cripple the world’s knowledge system - burying primary sources, making real scholarship nearly impossible. Why? Because: “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” — Orwell, 1984.
-
LL3M: Large Language 3D Modelers
#Comment: Tried to implement this concept 2 years ago but quality was poor. Great to see this working. Applicable to many other tools.
-
Prediction: As the Cyborg Theocracy takes over power in the years ahead, global focus will shift from Artificial Intelligence to Experimental Theology.
-
All this increasingly hysterical talk about “artificial superintelligence,” its “profound consequences,” such as “simulation theory,” is trapped in a narrow, linear-time reality tunnel - blind to the deep mystery of existence. New rule: discuss only after 25g psilocybe cubensis.
-
The Americans understood this until the 1990s: if you provide global infrastructure (internet, etc.), try to stay neutral & don't abuse power or lose trust. Today, every channel from social media to AI is weaponized for full-spectrum USA psyops. It will not end well. Happy 4th!
-
UTC is Temporal Fascism: UTC is the time of empire. Naval chronometers. Greenwich Meridian. The time of railroads, wars, and spreadsheet sorcery. Explore Alternatives.
