#entpm

Subject X was a poet—at least that’s what he wrote on his application form—and he claimed fluency in a number of languages. Rajiv and I were delighted with this; we thought it would be fascinating to see the brain correlations of someone so intimate with language—with the immense complexity of word manipulation. There was no doubt that he would be our first subject. I wonder, now, if he might have known that; if he was making certain that we’d choose no one else but him. You’ve probably heard me sharing my pet theory—a speculation really—that minds which operate a number of languages simultaneously (a rare phenomenon indeed) are a mutation of the lateral thinking paradigm. Somehow these minds sustain a continuous diversification of parallel dimensions because they must retain their focus on the word they are looking for. It is as if the word they are looking for keeps morphing one into the other, across languages, and so they never lack the appropriate term. Because of this simple fact, the coherence of their thought stream is an unremitting flux that never sleeps—it merely fluctuates in intensity and density—at least, that’s my conjecture... What led us astray at the beginning was the fact that we took language to mean verbal languages only. But language is much more than that. So often, we forget that a visual representation of a chair is not the same as the word “chair” or the vocal verbalization of that same word. The language of chemicals and molecules, the language of magnetic fields, of shapes and coordinates of spaces and times and the language of energy, all these and many, many others—as we now are beginning to understand—exist continuously and in a superimposed manner, only part of which surfaces and parallels the others. What is normally perceived is only superficially and apparently translated into another language. The difference therefore was not only of kind, and thus of quantity, but also of quality. Now do you see how we were caught off guard? When we did our first experiments we did not understand how we got those strange results: the de-coherence effect of immediate reality.

"It is unlikely to do anything interesting just now," Hackworth said. "It won't really activate itself until it bonds." "Bonds?" "As we discussed, it sees and hears everything in its vicinity," Hackworth said. "At the moment, it's looking for a small female. As soon as a little girl picks it up and opens the front cover for the first time, it will imprint that child's face and voice into its memory-" "Bonding with her. Yes, I see." "And thenceforth it will see all events and persons in relation to that girl, using her as a datum from which to chart a psychological terrain, as it were. Maintenance of that terrain is one of the book's primary processes. Whenever the child uses the book, then, it will perform a sort of dynamic mapping from the database onto her particular terrain." "You mean the database of folklore." Hackworth hesitated. "Pardon me, but not precisely, sir. Folklore consists of certain universal ideas that have been mapped onto local cultures. For example, many cultures have a Trickster figure, so the Trickster may be deemed a universal; but he appears in different guises, each appropriate to a particular culture's environment. The Indians of the American Southwest called him Coyote, those of the Pacific Coast called him Raven. Europeans called him Reynard the Fox. African-Americans called him Br'er Rabbit. In twentieth-century literature he appears first as Bugs Bunny and then as the Hacker." Finkle-McGraw chuckled. "When I was a lad, that word had a double meaning. It could mean a trickster who broke into things- but it could also mean an especially skilled coder." "The ambiguity is common in post-Neolithic cultures," Hackworth said. "As technology became more important, the Trickster underwent a shift in character and became the god of crafts- of technology, if you will- while retaining the underlying roguish qualities. So we have the Sumerian Enki, the Greek Prometheus and Hermes, Norse Loki, and so on. "In any case," Hackworth continued, "Trickster/Technologist is just one of the universals. The database is full of them. It's a catalogue of the collective unconscious. In the old days, writers of children's books had to map these universals onto concrete symbols familiar to their audience- like Beatrix Potter mapping the Trickster onto Peter Rabbit. This is a reasonably effective way to do it, especially if the society is homogeneous and static, so that all children share similar experiences. "What my team and I have done here is to abstract that process and develop systems for mapping the universals onto the unique psychological terrain of one child- even as that terrain changes over time. Hence it is important that you not allow this book to fall into the hands of any other little girl until Elizabeth has the opportunity to open it up."

life doesn't want to be fragile, it wants to be strong and regenerative, soft, fluid and encompassing. it seeks to hold itself as an individual, embracing another of itself with emotional attraction affinities, which it knows is best to merge with, just for the while as it experiences the connections. the in-between of having, wanting and dreaming builds realities from rhythms it experiences. connected to an overlapping membrane of consciousness, the surrounds of nature tell stories of all possibilities. capturing a thread of preference begins to bring the mind on a journey. as they depart from the center, the mind and vectors communicate differently with each other, forming new means of embodiment. which vector is going to live longer? can they return? are they able to depart further from the stance of this realisation and trail back to the memory of longing before? can there be a continuation to that predefined destination which was envisioned from both trajectories, which now there is? wait! ... there is more now! which shall be looked from? all? which is the one to see the best future from? as they begin to seed themselves from a point of experience, they are building their topology to create an existence there. perfection is never found. experience creates the story while communication is continuing the growth/build of the environment. if you are at one end and another at the other, and both travel towards the decay point, possibilities deduce to what is right and good. the shape of what is felt is sensed as an exaptive form, expanding between the non-form of the invisible which becomes visible. all that's required is trust & delivery into acceptance as things move on.