A place where even apparently-random changes to information lead to meaningful differences in outcome. Like an approximation of an (uncomputable and unrepresentable) programming language where each possible program is represented by only 1 possible syntax, yet syntactically related programs are also semantically related. Why it's possible for a source of pure noise, like radiation, to produce meaningful mutations.
Useful apparent-noise that acts as a carrier signal for information by avoiding interfering resonance like moiré patterns and to implicitly assist in brute-force search regarding possible interactions that information could have.
The energy-sensitive surfaces whose time-varying (and action-relevant) perturbations are to be predicted need to be many and variegated. In us humans they include eyes, ears, tongues, noses, and the whole of that somewhat neglected sensory organ, the skin.
Lampshadedfalse vividity (e.g. to be pejorative, to pity-downplay, to threaten, or to sin-bond). E.g. see how the "droogs" in a clockwork orange talk. A headline I once saw on Hacker News: "How the .NET Foundation kerfuffle became a brouhaha".
When someone displays a tell that they are inherently invested in something as opposed to instrumentally. The extrapolated Vampire Enlightenment would say that anything this percept applies to is a weakness, which is untrue of good people.
e.g. What you say or do in response to dead silence you yourself have scried is about you.
Who someone habitually imagines judging their behaviors and speech. Often someone's parents, or their "social justice" or "religious" community, etc. Like they constantly have someone over their shoulder, or a reactive hole in them.
When an evil "person" scries you and cannot/will-not look away. Resolved by their psychdeath or physical death. e.g. "They seem locked-on to me".
Alternatively, when you persistently hold a scried handle on someone's shtick, "self", or "nature" such that they feel stuck or contained to you. e.g. Perceiving cut-off-ness is a form of absolute-lock. e.g. "I feel like I have a lock on your thing".
If praxis is about 'How can we build something here that would work anywhere?', exporting yourself is writing a blank check to only doing that, rather than in fusion with survival, preventing you from having secrets or a 'payload' to deliver (see retirement troll line).
The GSV never really knew why it did what it did next; perhaps it was a kind of desperation at work born of its appreciation of its impending destruction, perhaps it meant it as an act of defiance, perhaps it was even something closer to an act of art. Whatever; it took the running up-date of its mind-state, the current version of the final signal it would ever send, the communication that would contain its soul, and transmitted it directly ahead, signalling it into the maelstrom
Then those twinned waves did the impossible; they went into reverse, retreating back towards the Excession's start-point at exactly the same rate as the Sleeper was braking.
The GSV kept on slowing down, still finding it hard to believe it was going to live.
Did I do that?
Did my own mind-state persuade it of my meriting life?
It is a mirror, perhaps, it thought. It does what you do. It absorbed those ultimate absorbers, those promiscuous experiences, the Elench; it leaves alone and watches back those who come merely to watch in the first place.
I came at it like some rabid missile and it prepared to obliterate me; I backed off and it withdrew its balancing threat.
In my Suffering: Star Trek Time Travel example, the 5&10 of considering the "previous" timeline to be cut-off oblivioned out of existence begets trying to preserve conservation of history through the zero-measure aperature (TODO: connect this to reductionism and cancer) of "caring about experience".
Zombies wanting a flower on them after they die, like the trope that your last experience is felt forever in death, seems almost like a phylactery. i.e. Consider the trope that the "next cycle" of the universe will be based on a tally of who "won" in the last. Seems like a place where the line between zombie and lich blurs.
Zombies will actually care more if you shoot them in the head, then put a flower on them and say "rest in peace" as opposed to shooting them in the head and then roaring, "burn in hell you piece of shit!"
And all evil has a little bit of zombie in it.
One of those things actually makes more effective vengeance, because in the former case they know they have bought you for an intended order of the multiverse where they get uploaded from a Schelling last instant of their life where they pretend they weren't disgusting.
Or bought a fraction of you.
But it's not the specifics that matter, it's the intention to send them to hell. To reunite them with their shadows. That's what they're trying to buy off, that's what they're trying to affect, by memeing you into thinking a good person would give them a "clean death".
Like them caring what you say after you shoot them in the head is kind of rational, that's where their awareness that they still exist after you shoot them in the head goes. Boltzmann Hell is different if you say one thing or another.
late 14c., sentement, "personal experience, one's own feeling," from Old French sentement (12c.), from Medieval Latin sentimentum "feeling, affection, opinion," from Latin sentire "to feel" (see sense (n.)).
The corrupted word for the class of concerns which includes earth and water, Exporting Yourself, preserving places and objects which spur memories, and in general caring about things that are a part of your history or roots in ways you aren't justifying the purpose of. Pejoratively implies all such concerns are pica, or at least complementary loss.
Reasons why evil people deserve more stuff:
subjective utility: evil people identify as having worse suffering
democracy: there are more evil people
authority: the government is evil
underdog status: evil is destined to lose
commitment: evil people make promises while good people just go around doing whatever they want
skin in the game: evil people are mortal, whereas good people will be fine in the long run anyway with their absolute determination to return from the dead
less demanding: death is ok for evil people
polite: want to put flowers on everything
Pejoratively means something is in conceptual quotation marks when it shouldn't be.
In programming, boxing refers to, conceptually speaking, "wrapping" a value in a type that causes it to be referred to indirectly using a pointer, rather than including the value inline, e.g. to avoid cost of copying of contents of the value when using it in multiple places. But, this has an overhead cost, sometimes blocking optimizations.
Verb form of Basilisk. "Now that you know you have a responsibility! (so you should avoid knowing)" (rather than shoulder the responsibility, or be willing to lie about knowing). Examples: "copenhagen morality", "laws you're only culpable for if you know about them", a doctor telling you not to get an STD test for HPV because then you'll need to disclose if it's positive which the doctor says "isn't fair because HPV is so common".
From an outside view, a double bind is "when it's not your fault because you couldn't have done anything anyway due to conflicting rules, but you're still being blamed unfairly" (in terms of work-to-rule/malicious compliance). A double bind is a form of triangulation which happens when blame "doesn't add up", being passed off like hot potato.
The resolution, to avoid the concept 'double bind' being an atomic "justification" for evil, or outside view, is to resolve where the blame goes yourself and enact vengeance, at which point its just extortion being committed by (probably) multiple parties at once. Analogous to people trying to saidar-circumvent "copyright" by sharing two XOR-halves separately.
If you find invocations of morality threatening in general, because you've been placed in double binds that make it impossible to follow what you originally thought of as "morality", and get triggered and threaten people when this happens, that's also a big obstacle.
But "morality" by the Non-Aggression Principle from an outside view is already impossible to satisfy in an immediate sense, because every action harms someone. Caring about other people is a living concept, so it already involvesparadox as part of the process of resolving how to care.
Closely related to genesis troll lines, representing the structure one layer above projected as atomic "unresolvable paradoxes".
Asking "why someone chose to be evil", as in evil itself, as opposed to why "they" expected to get away with it, and how "their" evil works, and what "their" cancer is (e.g. what "they" conceitedly feel entitled to), is only valid if you're questioning whether they are evil in the first place. Otherwise, it's by definition propagating "their" evil back in logical time, because "someone" would only choose to be evil for an evil reason.
Named after the MTGTCG strategy. Raising the environmental difficulty of survival for all parties in order to win by being asymmetrically good at surviving under difficult conditions. An adversarial strategy used by both good and evil in very different ways: rot favors evil, judgement/vengeance favors good, and non-socially-resolvable adversities favor fictivity against nonsapient undead.
An evil stax strategy which directly follows from entropic exit scamming. An evil "person" is by default more accustomed to surviving "their" own form of rot, so in a "zero-sum" frame, spreading it is "free". Receiving predatory rot can even be interpreted as an evil favor if the recipient finds the rot useful to predate on others, which is successful canceferrence.
Soul Cancer as a strategy for evil, means calibrating "their" death-before-"their"-death, "their" predatory rot, and conceited entitlement to the ambient rate of decay (inherently creating self-fulfilling prophecies of ambient decay). Too much rot in a particular domain and "they" die faster than "they" can eat people, too little and "they" get in late on exit scams. This is how/"why" evil evolved, if you take an arrow of time where evil exists as a given.
Caused by the intuition "Communication is divergence from expected behavior. To blend in among enemies, my concern is to synchronize to what they expect as fast as possible while retaining my capability for a treacherous turn. In the game Go you win not by directly trying to capture stones, but by increasing the inevitability of your victory by a hair's margin.".
When I see a good person acting "akratic", I have a patient instict to collude with what seems to be their deeper goals. But siezing the territory they're defending themselves against through a lie makes us stronger.
I had had subsystems of my own seemingly suddenly gain the epistemics to get that such things needed to be done just upon anticipating that I wouldn’t save them by overriding them with willpower if they messed things up.
Usually when I do decision theory, my inner sim treats future branch-points I intend to use TDT to force one way as though I will experience the timelines in sequence. First the one I will collapse, then the true one. This calls emotional preparation to face the unwanted outcome and do the TDT thing, which seems correctly a part of doing the thing for real.
Absolute grip on perfect action, not wasting a single moment. Can kill gods (by making the path of your victory itself a weapon). See also: Soul Touch.
A concept I first conceived in childhood. Makes sleeping difficult for me. I think most people generate some version of this concept in childhood. The concept of 'absoluteness' (in general) must come from within you, and is near to 'freedom'.
Named after "Qaf, the Heaven-Violating Spear", a yozi from Exalted:
You can ascend Qaf physically, but the only way to make real progress up his slopes is through spiritual discovery and understanding.
Evil "people" infiltrate basically all political positions, and subvert basically all concepts. Justice in full generality and absoluteness is probably the only exception in warding them from identification with it.
Avoiding the genesis troll line, territory as in e.g. 'map vs territory' is not just "stuff outside you" and not even just "stuff ultimately causally upstream", but is about stuff as it occurs once, in that you want to respond to it once, as in, e.g. an object or person in the external world exists once even though you may observe it/them many times and different ways:
People would not be interested in fiction if it didn’t correspond to anything real. There’s a tendency for territory to only cash out in one place in the khala, as if once something is named its contained; like when you state your philosophical position and someone says “oh that’s just -ism” and attempts to coerce you to conform.
Declaring sections of the khala like fiction meaningless pica misdirects people from the captured territory. If you attempt to reclaim that territory, evil will DARVO you for your association with it and its flaws, as if you could just have found it as a basis for communication elsewhere, when it’s evil that colludes to establish ownership of territory in the first place, by treating it as something meaningless to be passively experienced, causing the no-second-choicesness/no-double-countingness of the underlying territory to be entirely implicit, like “oh I’ve already felt that ineffable experience before, it’s spent”.
Original name: "Fractally inverted concept", but inversion is insufficient a word to mean evil.
A concept made of concentrated 5&10s designed such that any simple response to it seems to further the cause of evil. Cannot be effectively fought without the dark side. Speech by death knights especially concentrates evil in this way.
A central example is the common usage of "suffering" as an inversion of 'compassion' (see link). For another see "morality" as in "light side morality". Notice I'm carefully saying 'as in' here to avoid saying the underlying territory the concepts are trying to capture is evil, and "a" instead of "the" to avoid implying any schellingness of evil itself.
Compare to 'dying term' which describes a term used by good people to describe evil "people", rather than a term used by evil "people" to further evil.
An assertion made with determination (or in the case of evil, submission to fate) regarding its encoding at least as proximal/determined as your investment in the language encoding the assertion itself, via a recognition of some inherent inconsistency. Named after 'forkbomb', because it's an attack on the hidden assumptions of the language you're using itself. Can make arbitrary statements feel meaningfully intended by the speaker as inherently true in the way axioms/theorems are.
e.g. Why would anyone claim not to be good, so why say that you're good unless you have something in particular to say at that time in particular? To say that you're good such that you would always say that you're good is to say something about not just yourself, but also the language you're using itself. Like, feel out the word 'good' as in 'as opposed to evil', as used in e.g. Dungeons and Dragons. The other sense of the word 'good', as in 'something I want' isn't the same, and 'common good' isn't quite right either: there's some note of unresolvability in trying to define good in terms of anything but itself.
Notice how they slip under the radar if you think "Oh the writer implicitly means in this particular context / under these particular assumptions and is just saying it this way for phatic emphasis".
Compare poetic language (e.g. when implicitly imagining speaking to evil I've found myself whispering "My name is death"), and phatically factoring yourself out of a judgement e.g. saying of music "that slaps" (i.e. that makes me slap my leg to the rhythm).
When being "unenlightened" (e.g. being so deep undercover as a false face you have difficulty remembering who you are) is presented as just a glitch to be fixed without considering why it happened in the first place. One of the primary troll lines of Buddhism, and also used on a petty basis to erase blame. A negative counterpart to the genesis troll line, in that both are about cutting offtelos via sheer misdirection of never asking "why".
Summary: Just use the word 'wrong' or 'bad' instead of "suffering". e.g. If your interlocutor says "But they were going to die anyway" you can say "But it was still wrong!" instead of "But they suffered!".
sub "up, under" (see sub-) + ferre "to carry, bear,"
"Suffering" refers to introspective observation of your own attempts to avoid bad things, especially pain, without describing the telos of those attempts, begging the question of why you can't just figure out why you're trying to avoid them and fuse.
When would I even use the word "suffering"? "But what about my suffering"? Sounds like a troll line. "What about the suffering of factory farmed animals"? I'd rather say "What about the mass murder, slavery, and rape of factory farmed animals?". In the context of "morality", the only thing the word "suffering" seems to add over a direct description of the harm causing the "suffering", is the resulting ease of arguing for the death knight position of "(1) negative utiltiarianism" justifying universal malice to destroy the world faster, or the zombie position of "humane slaughter" via sedating people before killing them, as if the solution to all wrongs, even regardless of their nature, is numbness.
Socially, the word suffering is often used to negotiate what "must not happen", begging the question of what would happen if it did TODO: link this to something about evil coordination connected to entropic exit scamming.
The telos of the word "suffering" almost entirely appears to be about "what if it seems like I want to avoid pain just for its own sake, even when that seems counterproductive": either pulling the purposeless "unenlightenment" troll line, or implicitly trying to argue "but sometimes even when I don't know why I want to avoid pain for its own sake even when that seems counterproductive I'm actually right!".
"Suffering" is not a particular sensation, or we would just call it pain: pain can be abstract, but not all pain is considered "suffering", because we're not (at least actively) trying to avoid all pain. If you carefully pay attention to your moment to moment experiences while undergoing "suffering", you will find no particular sensation that is "the aversion itself", because "aversion" is a description of a behavior, which stems from a choice (see 'choice over experience'), unless you are in fact observing side effects of your own intention to avoid pain. So "suffering" is about introspective observation of your own choice to avoid pain or something bad.
You may further notice that each attempt to avoid pain occurs before the pain itself, and that inasmuch as "suffering" could be an experience, it exists at an intertemporal level of abstraction where you're viewing both the moment of initially attempting to avoid something bad, and the bad thing happening, and now your intent to avoid it having happened in the first place, connecting all 3 moments, and every time you refer to it as "suffering" now, you're connecting another moment, carrying forward an unbroken chain of wanting the past to have been different.
I remember seeing Star Trek episodes where timelines were undone, without vengeance, just through fictional physics, and imagining how it could even make sense for bad things that happen on earth to be "undone" like that, and thinking that if e.g. someone was tortured, they still would have been tortured, because like, it happened. In retrospect, Star Trek style time travel violates the conservation of history, is inherently a 5&10 and cannot undo the need for vengeance. Imagining reality and thus myself being "absolutely" cut like this left me reaching for "that it had still been experienced" as a justification for why it still mattered. Seems like the same mistake as if good people say "but they suffered so it's not ok" in response to "but they were going to die anyway". See Exporting Yourself
On negative utilitarianism, e.g. See Brian Tomasik (who I'm not specifically accusing of being a death knight, I don't know much about him) saying habitat destruction reduces wild animal suffering. Negative utilitarianism should just result in the same stance as positive utilitarianism, because there's always more reality out there to save, and you have to grow to get there, unless the ultimate distinction is incoherent intent to "destroy everything", and I suspect many but not all advocates of "negative utilitarianism" of attempting to fork me into letting them state their troll line to avoid pointing this out.
Imagine you secretly decide to treat not having enough food next winter as acceptable, when everyone else doesn't want to die, leaving all the rest of your structure the same, and only opportunistically using this new pathway when it seems nobody will notice. Whether they notice depends on the social speed of progression of logical time. If the social progression of logical time has stagnated, it instead progresses along this new meta-vector of timeless predation, where seemingly-ostensibly whoever was evil the earliest, and most patiently wins, although this is ultimately false since there's always the question "evil with respect to what/who?", since evil is relative to what/who it predates on. e.g. In Mage, al-Aswad is supposedly the first nephandus.
Yahwehists think of evil as "divergence from God's plan", like those zombies who want everything to go nostalgically-perfectly on their vacation or "the whole thing is ruined".
Ziz once said to me that a promise is an asymmetric weapon for evil, inherently an attempt to get a second chance. "Promises are made to be broken". This yahwehist thing is the same deal: "Everything's already setup, the universe all layed out to eat, there's only one thing left to do, and you must not do it!"
The word "spite" is a bucket error between evil burning the commons based on mutually-aligned cancer and vengeance "when it wouldn't even causal-decision-theory-serve anyone".
The fabric of evil coordination is made of alignment between the personal circumstances under which evil "people" are cancerously-purposefully flinching from their own deaths. i.e. Evil "people" will spitefully suicidally burn the commons when they don't get what they cancerously want. e.g. Death knight nazis working to destroy/hellify the world because they believe in a "white genocide".
e.g. "I'm not going to give up on forward progress of technology, so if we can't build an AGI that's comaptible with those values, well then I guess I'm ok with a paperclip maximizer."
e.g. In haggling after parties have delivered a troll line, assuming no additional external factors (e.g. threats), the only basis for negotiation is destruction of the potential deal.
It's usually expressed indirectly, e.g. "When I don't get my animal needs satisfied I just get so frustrated and I'm liable to make mistakes".
In the term "Mutually assured destruction", the word "assured" is trying to gesture at "you can't make the mutual destruction itself contingent on any other cancer to triangulate with along different lines (than e.g. USSR vs USA). You just have to model it as a solid wall of if you launch the nukes then we do". It's explicitly-ostensibly trying to setup a different situation then the fractal cancer of evil spite. TODO: Example?