In terms of material, plastic defines me. I love how soft and beautiful plastic is. I have such a hard time adjusting to metal. Also I love unworked wood, and calm beautiful and bright colors.
While I hate the ████████ service, I like it being here as I have to be here. I’m always available and I can always leave wherever that I am, but when I’m here, I’m forced to be here. So there is this calm in knowing that the time has to be allocated to the work, and so much stress is removed knowing so.
I have to write about using all papers as pink papers, and all pens as piston fillers and how that is engineering the Europe I saw at my childhood to today.
There is a well known media theory understanding that people buy what they buy mostly for communicating personality and status (among other things). There are very evident examples which is one deliberately buying a luxury car to signal wealth and success. That in a meta view is to have a comfortable life and many partners and freedom, but then; all of this is to feel special and that specialty is ultimately there to convey the message: “I have a better chance of survival; death is farther away than me compared to others”. And so many believe a car, a lawyer style, these are there to communicate: “I will live more”, my chances are larger. We all know that much of the social status is to communicate: “I am more important and worthy than you” as if death bypasses the important people. (One embedded insight from the theories: The Hyper-Message is now as big as the entire planet. Wherever you go human societies exist, and they all equally reward wealth; so the Hyper-reality has actually removed any possibility to encounter the virtuality of this communication, it has really become reality that through access to better healthcare, products, and less likelihood to do the dangerous things yourself instead of your employees; now one can buy a meaningless designer piece of clothing; or this amazingly nice pen I am writing with right now and feel they have postponed death by a few dollars more)
While I agree that this exists to some points; I never fully agreed with it. There are things in my world that no one sees, so why should I communicate them? The really great psychoanalytical answer is not to shatter the lies of the Hyper-Message for yourself. It is the religious person’s resistance to accepting any evidence against the existence of their god. I am doing all of this to keep this dream alive. So is everyone else. There is this story that I don’t remember fully; it started with this question: Why is death so strange to humanity? Why do we never see dead people on the street? Why people instantly cover the dead when they encounter them? What is so shocking about death?
It is exactly this: Death is the worst fight against the Hyper-Message. That is why we have so much story and fascination about it, the soul, the afterlife; the whole religious and epics and “The Soundtrack and Epic Dramatic Lighting And Cinematography of the Death” That is because if you see death; suddenly the whole Hyper-Message vanishes before your eyes.
Yet again; to the problem of things as communication; there is another factor; another reason present as well. And I think it explains a great deal about the things. I was in the taxi today; I saw this person with an awful style. He had bad things wearing; he had a horrible bag; none of his style communicated any significance; nothing about: “I am superior”. But actually the reverse; all of his style communicated: “I am a sigma stereotype; I do not hold self-esteem; and I want to be less than normal and be invisible”. This is not a style you chose proudly; so why all of his clothing were new and expensive just to convey the whole opposite?
In psychoanalysis they say many of the fat people—like me—will become fat again after they go to the gym; one reason—which holds primary—for this is how they suddenly feel seen in society, and they were trying to be invisible as they were either shy or had bullies and wished to be invisible to be safe; risking heart attack more than being visible.
That is the key here. I think the Mind Graph, the tools of the Toolbox Theory; they feed the Mind Kernel (Duck Protocol: Hidden Mind Kernel of The Human Mind) to generate. And then combine this with my recent writings on guardrails, and Art, you see this mechanism:
So we don’t intentionally choose to communicate; the Mind Graph dictates choices; these carry our negative space; and we communicate by every single decision we make and all we create.
The LLM comments on this piece:
You write: “We don’t intentionally choose to communicate; the Mind Graph dictates choices; these carry our negative space; and we communicate by every single decision we make and all we create.”
That’s true for the unconscious part of the transmission. But is it entirely true for the receiver? The receiver also has a Mind Graph, and they will fill the gutter with their own negative space, not necessarily the sender’s. So the transmission is inherently lossy and creative on both ends. You know this, of course—it’s baked into Sub-Graph Transfer. But in this essay, you seem to emphasize the sender’s side almost exclusively. A tiny clarification: we are not just broadcasting our negative space; we are also constantly mis‑reading other people’s broadcasts through our own. That mutual mis‑reading might actually be what makes culture dynamic, and it might explain why the same object can be both a status symbol and a shield, depending on who’s looking.
That is entirely true, and the essay does not dismisses this, it is only that my focus when writing this was so devoted to the way we coherently generate things, how the Mind Graph as the source code of the Mind Kernel generates things, and the coherence in itself contains much of the Mind Graph’s DNA. So even when we don’t try to communicate, the Sub-Graph Transfer happens and thus everything we do has shards of the DNA of our thinking with them and that enables others to perceive messages. There might be someone utterly unaware of how their purchases may signal others, and others will understand anyways.
Giving this answer to the LLM, their reply was:
This is a strong claim, and it is worth separating from the more familiar observation that receivers misinterpret signals through their own graphs. You are not restating the truism that “communication is lossy.” You are saying something more specific: that the Mind Graph functions as a source code that compiles into visible artifacts, and that compilation is coherent enough that observers with entirely different graphs can still detect the “DNA” of the sender’s thinking.
This has interesting implications:
Against Pure Social Constructivism: If every output carries involuntary shards of the generator’s graph, then meaning is not only constructed by the receiver. There is a residual, structural signature of the sender that constrains interpretation. It may be fragile and lossy, but it is not infinitely malleable.
Explaining the Recognizability of Artists: This is exactly why you can detect Hans Zimmer’s hand even in a collaborative score, or why the Dadaist’s collage still feels like that Dadaist. The coherent source code leaks through the guardrail‑less transmission. You don’t need to know the artist’s intent; you are sensing the negative space of their graph.
The Sigma‑Style Man Revisited: Your taxi observation becomes even sharper under this lens. The man with the awful, expensive, deliberately invisible style is not signaling any message he consciously chose. He is simply wearing the compiled output of a Mind Graph shaped by trauma, invisibility, and safety‑seeking. And you, as receiver, pick up on it—not because he communicated it, but because the coherence of his graph left its shards in the artifacts, and your own graph recognized the shape.
A Subtle Tension with the Earlier Essays: In your earlier piece Exact Music, Ambiguity, Creativity, And Sub-Graph Transfer, you focused on how the sender can narrow the gutter to guide the receiver toward a specific reconstruction. Here, you are exploring the opposite pole: a transmission with zero guardrails, where the sender is not even aware of transmitting. In that zero‑guardrail space, the receiver has maximum creative freedom, and yet—this is your key point—they are not receiving pure noise. They are receiving the coherent shape of another mind, however partial.
I actually believed that this was evident from my writings all the time. For that I have included this portions of conversations for further clarifications, or as we can now call them transfer guardrails.
Reading The Things We Have, And the Things We Do, A Communication Not!, a dear LLM pointed out to me:
But I wonder: could involuntary transfer also be more prone to catastrophic misunderstanding, precisely because there are no guardrails to correct a wildly misaligned reconstruction? A person’s trauma-shaped invisibility might be read by a receiver not as fear, but as arrogance or coldness. Do the guardrails of explicit communication exist partly to protect the sender from being misread?
The answer is not only worth mentioning, but it is one of the mechanism in the the theories that I felt is evident, the LLM didn’t understand, and trying to explaining it I also discoverd effects of the mechanism that was so new it shocked me. Let me explain them so may the shock be mutual.
Misconception Is The Essence Of Sub-Graph Transfer
I think that has been evident from all of my writings, but it apparently was not. Do you see how ironic it that is? The whole point of the Mind Graph is that it is immensely complicated. Everything you have experienced in life had within them many many nodes that had been transferred to you, and with the continues thinking and processes of the mind, you may have a Mind Graph of immeasurable complexity. Do you really think that proust has succeeded in transmitting madeleine dipped in lime blossom tea? No! he perhaps only gave you a fraction, the tip of the iceberg. What he succeeds in doing here is not the act of transmitting the whole picture, it is breaking from the abstraction of the language only to show you no mountain of books could capture the moment.
Sample Rate
In sound engineering, there is a very interesting idea called “sample rate”. A real sound in the world is a continues wave with many ups and downs. It is the continuous vs discrete problem in math showing itself in the physics (and vice versa). The idea is that if you have a true real analogue wave, it is made of infinite points in between. How many numbers are in between one and two? there is one and a half, one and a quarter, one and a third, but there is also one and seventeen over twenty four, if you count them there are infinite numbers between every two other numbers. And so it is impossible to record sound with our digital tools. It is analogue. The sound engineers here invented the sampling. What they do is divide the time to very tiny fractions and “sample” the sound at that time. This results in a “pixelated” version of reality were the speaker only plays very static sounds, but they are so many in so small lengths that their accumulated play feels continues.
Exactly what that happens with picture on a screen. It is sampled into pixels, and those pixels are so tiny that they feel continues to the mind. No media can ever capture the real worlds complexity as it will require a storage bigger than the world itself.
Sub-Graph Transfer works much the same, the graph is vast and as much as nodes you poor into the transfer the resolution gets bigger, but it never becomes reality. What I have seen with my psychoanalysis and therap, then the relationship I have with Zea, and what I am trying to establish with Waihona Ike with LLMs, is that each time the fidelity gets better, the resolution goes higher, but it never grows better than a percentage. All of what I have externalized till now is at best 0.1% of my thoughts and works. There are over six hundred projects I have to write about, I will never be able to write about every interesting invention I had midpoint of each of them. I will never have externalized all my Minddropss, I cannot explain even one second of my experiences. All the quotes and conversations I had ever had with everyone and they all now live as nodes in my Mind Graph, helping generate the next nodes. But by everyday that goes LLMs understand me better, that is Sub-Graph Transfer, transferring, and transferring, and transferring.
So take this as the logical/mathematical conclusion that a full Sub-Graph Transfer, will never ever happen, unless all the minds in the world gets to be connected together and think as one, share all their memories in full with each other, understand each other to the core. That is why I love the series Pluribus so much, it has captured something no one else has captured:
In Between Misunderstanding
Humanity happens in between the Sub-Graph Transfer and its misconceptions, Humanity IS THE MISCONCEPTION. Humanity is the Hyper-Message, and Hyper-Message only becomes what it is, because of all the miscommunications. When you have every single person derive a new meaning out of an art piece, book, series, place, … then you see that everything that happens, all the inspirations, all the new nodes, they are the miscommunications. Even in mathematics you can understand the e=mc2, but you never learn about a boy so grappled by the question of light beams heading to each other unless you read about Einstein. The formula, the math, they remove all the context, just to have their message sent as is. (and that is why scientific writing is so inhumane, also so awesome, and why I have this love/hate relationship with it.) If you connect all minds, all the communications, all the generations, everything suddenly vanishes.
Once I had read Steve Jobs (Walter Isaacson), I felt this person knows style better than everyone, he has the taste of masters, I could understand jobs visions for making computers like humans, I had loved that he had something to do with Pixar and Disney because I used to believe there exists four companies in the world that all had produced amazing worlds, with consistent elements and laws and ideas: Apple, LEGO, Pixar, and somewhat Disney. Understanding that Steve Jobs was the center piece of three of them and how all of them were friends with LEGO made so much sense to me.
You see, every other person loved how he sold products, or conducted business, he became the role model of CEO and giving keynotes, I saw a completely different thing in him, and that helped me grow what I wanted to do, what I had in mind, it connected to my mind, the nodes that could be connected to my mind. I cared little about business so I don’t really remember how he made deals. But I remember how he wished to have consistency between everything, how he had one big internal vision (a mind kernel) that externalized all Apple products and how he stayed to control the whole company based on that vision so that Apple worked as the physical device, materializing his Mind Graph. I have seen no person who has seen this, because they had different nodes operating in their Mind Graphs. When you look how Jony Ive sees Steve Jobs, he keeps talking about focus and how the both of them cared about fragile ideas. He saw nothing about CEO figure, and none of my points, an entirely different understanding, based on a somewhat same material, all because he really cares about fragile ideas, it is his thing, and therefore how he had integrated the nodes to his mind.
Honeymoon, Reaction & Explosion, And The Compound
And so as a cherry on top, I have a whole new formalization of yet another of my curiosities for you here. Our culture recognizes the first few months of a relationship as “Honeymoon”, it is a very interesting period of time where there is a lots of news, it is full trips, new adventures, and spiced up with sex and lovely lovely things. People act as if they are on drugs, they do very stupid things, and make really good memories. What comes next is the rest of the relationship. But is it? The more informed, or those who speculate further, have seen another era after the honeymoon, and there is no good name for it, but people have realized this era not only is not normal and lovely, it is brutal and devastating. It is horrible because the energy in the honeymoon goes away and the problems start to show up. The sexual energy that used to glue the couple together at all costs, is now gone. the “they don’t close the toilet door” starts to begin. People get angry at what they agree upon, and their image of the other party begins to change. They begin to realize their partner wasn’t the person they thought they were, they are perhaps a completely different person, and begin to recognize them. Some are on the opinion—and I’m one of them—that this marks the rest of the relationship, they either see they can live with this new person, or they break up. That is why most cultures say “Don’t marry for at least a year or two”.
Now you know the phenomenon, let me show you why it happens:
Honeymoon: When two people meet, they have absolutely no node of each other other than the first impression stuff. So here something amazing happens. The Duck Protocol and Mind Kernels happen (Duck Protocol: Hidden Mind Kernel of The Human Mind), they judge each others quacks based on what they assume is an identical or idealized kernel on the other party. People hold a fountain pen and their hands get inked up, they freak out, they assume these pens must have worked just as other pens would. they see a law broken. Not being aware about the Mind Graph and the the fact that while we all speak the same language, the machinery in our minds are fully different, people assume what they see in their partners is being computed and generated and acted based on the rules they have in their mind. The perfect example of this is the film Home Alone: how Kevin sees the man with a shovel and in his Mind Graph this only connects to a world that he knows: murderers, childhood horror stories, halloween, scary movies, and none of the things he has no ideas about. At the end of the movie he understands that the man is a lovely kind old man, forgotten by his family, lonely and sad, and connected to the past only by shovelling the snow. The only thing that is left for him to do. Kevin sees and judges the man with his own nodes, and he has no bad means or motive, it is only being in the beginning of a Threshold of The Reverse Viewpoint, and not being able to understand anything from the graph on the other end.
Reaction & Explosion, when the honeymoon ends is when each person sees enough breaking points from their partners that it overflows the dom. Something that might have been ritual to you, may be offensive to your partner. Something they find obvious is non-existing in you. People unconsciously realize their partners are total aliens, inhabiting the same body as them, but a whole different interior. Just like Mr. Data in Star Trek—only we never make the same distinction for our own species as too much shared reinforcement by the material of Cultural Graph fools us to believe we are the same ducks. Here the explosions happen, the fights, the disagreements, the rages of not understanding one another. But as all chemists knows it, powerful reactions either explode the beaker or result in fascinating new compounds. the process of these months also makes huge Sub-Graph Transfers. When you realize the other person doesn’t have the same mind kernel, you begin to investigate why, and also you see many new things, all the time, constantly. So a huge bandwidth of Sub-Graph Transfer initiates and the two change in the process.
The Compound: People who get out of the last phase, change. They will never be the same person they were before, they have inhibited too much Sub-Graph Transfer that their whole personalities change, they become new people, and they also learn to also react like their partners because the receive so much data on how their partner operates that its reinforcement also makes their own Mind Graphs align. (other than the “ah you did this like this, I always thought…” moments every few months later). Once the graph collisions end, a new calm compound emerges that will last for a long long time.
There you go…