julian a m.p.

I dream about being (substitute with noun/phrase) trapped in (substitute with possessive pronoun) life.

I am Liza. 

I am Knots.

Fuck you, Perry.

Ergotic is different than erotic. I’m not sure if there is such a thing as erotic theory. Is there? Well, Google gives me no direct hits so I stop looking. But they are one letter different.

Ergotic is a fork of reckoning, which is always pretty sexy. Apparently it also grinds statistical bits of structures. Grinding is sexy – well some of it is…some of it isn’t. The kind that makes sparks is – metal sparks, sexy sparks – yes, very sexy. The kind that chews up bones isn’t. Not at all. Not sexy grinding. 

So lets say it grinds statistical bits of structures. And these structures are caused, and then active and changing.  So there too, a lot like sexy stuff: active and changing and also caused. Someone always causes something sexy to happen. Sexy stuff doesn’t just happen. Well, maybe sometimes. But it is occupied with the actions of this active and changing structure. It is occupied, and it is permitted to go on and on and on by someone for some reason. Who is it? And who does the permitting? Well let’s just say it is me. I am the it and I am orchestrating all the permissions for all the actions of this active and changing structure. I am both, and these active and changing structures one way or another are because of me.

Cellular is different than cellular. Automata is different that automatic. One or both or all are discrete operational systems in a larger operational system. One or both or all are discrete, abstract computational systems. One or both or all are useful as models of complexity. Only one serves as a more specific representation of non-linear dynamics. Are one or both or all also spatially and temporally discrete? Are one or both or all composed of a finite set of homogeneous cells? Are one or both or all each to be counted by a one-to-one correspondence with an infinite set of integers? And what about each time unit? What about the cells? Do they really instantiate one of a finite set of states? Do they really evolve in parallel at discrete time steps, following dynamical transition rules? Do they do this by taking into account the states of cells in their local neighbourhood ? Because we know that there are no actions at a distance. There is no distance. None. Never. Ever.

What if you are composed of a lattice of compartments, and each one is either on or off or one of only a few other possibilities? There are dimensions and there neighbourhoods (but still, there is no distance) and there is something about relatives or being relative to something perhaps itself or its neighbour or just its classification in general. And of course all the compartments are interdependent. Of course, of course. And then there are rules for how to interact with them and rules about what does and doesn’t change over time and whether or not what you do can be applied to the entire lattice or just to one individual compartment in the lattice. And there are exceptions of course but not enough to blow out the sides of the container that hold this in place, sort of. And if you are composed of a lattice, well, you better know your times tables well past 15 x 15.

Well, do you?

R.D. Laing wrote a book of poems about knots. It’s called Knots and all the characters are either called Jack or Jill. I guess Dick and Jane were taken. And there are a number of poems where Jill ties Jack into knots and a number of poems where Jack ties Jill into knots and there are poems where Jill or Jack tie themselves into knots over Jill or over Jack or over themselves. And there are quite a few mentions of a character called “mother.” And then there is the part about projection. There is no Jill and Jane. There is no Jack and Dick. Jack has a dick and Jill does not (yet) but that is as close as they get to the other two who are otherwise not mentioned, ever. 

2020