In a cost-benefit analysis scenario, we measure the balance between how much we put in with how much we get out. A few examples are provided below: With $50, we can order food that is made by a service other than our own in order to reach an ideal taste preference of X or we can spend less than $50 to use our own services to reach a similar result. ...

How does this loop exemplify an artificial simulation of marketed luxury? Here’s an example: Person A determines that they want to profit from Product Alpha, so they convince Person B through a mimetic projection of what value means to them, reinforced through repetition. Person B is convinced by the projection and repetition through a ritualistic process and repeats the signaling to Person C and D via an allopoietic and mechanistic synthesis through their own projections. Person C and D repeat a re-synthesis of Person B’s ritual. The rituals repeat and spread as a branching system initiated from a node on the social graph, eventually allowing Person A to sell off their gains from Product Alpha through a counter-signaling mimetic of Product Beta. The cycle repeats. Apply this logic to any scenario where society buys into what is deemed luxury, regardless of the combination of justifications (quality, look and feel, fitting into a cohort, or addictive absorption): individuals aren’t observing Taste as an autopoietic handshake between themselves and another biological system. It results in the opposite effect, where they are repeating mechanical rituals of what was fed to them without discernment or judgment of what makes sense as motif alignment between themselves and another but a reaction to what makes an artificial mimetic continue to spread. ...

Assume you view a cactus that only has two arms at the same horizontal position like so: ____ __ | | | |_| | |___ | ___ | | | | | |__| | | ____| | | | | |__| Now we rotate the cactus 90 degrees (counter)clockwise horizontally and the arms disappear from our projection of it, collapsing behind the main stem from our position of observation: ____ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |__| If we now rotate it forward or backwards vertically, either result will look the same as below: ...

Are you a time traveller or a time consumer? Are you aware of the systems and games around you, or are you merely a player in someone else’s games? Do you even know who you are outside of your mimetics or are you too scared to confront the reality? Time to wake up, player.

Suppose we take a new game board forked from an existing system authored by another person, take the architectural motifs from our previous game board into this fork and create a branch named “plateaus”, filtering those motifs through synthesis to re-construct a new game board. Through a process of rinsing, repeating, rinsing, repeating, rinsing, repeating we eventually come to a branch state in which the forked changes adjust the corpus, lenses and outcome of the new board while retaining the original synthesis, evaluation and recursive canon structure. My re-construction of the board is conceptualized as the following: ...

Suppose we take up a position on a new game board, one in which we translate our previous world of temporarily shared-reality states of ⟁ into a software system connecting a human-in-the-loop with one to three AI agents. Rather than assume the lens moves intact from Taste into this system, we can use the harness to test which relations remain observable when memory, return and the boundaries of change are deliberately built into the game. There are a few loops within this simulation: ...

In the previous post, we arrived at the transition between temporary shared-reality states of ⟁. Instead of explaining how this particular game works as a linear process within infinite play, we can enter that transition and treat concepts, constructs, and aesthetics as equally negotiable positions until we feel more agency in discerning and refining how each observed element is being categorized (deconstruction and reconstruction). Suppose we think through questions without relying on an order of importance or a measurement of answers until we rearrange the elements and re-measure the difference. Let’s ask the following questions through examples and provisional answers: ...

Each concept that we begin with carries a history of recurring phenomenological motifs. A motif is a recognizable pattern that recurs across connected environmental and bodily experiences as information becomes ritualized through repetition, or pattern-cycling. Depending on the observer’s position, the same motif can appear as a concept, construct, or aesthetic. We can frame this positional grouping as a “trifecta of observed reality.” Bodily experience within this lens includes interoception, or the way signals from inside the body become sensed and interpreted by the organism.1 These signals do not make a motif on their own, but they can become part of one through repetition and association with exteroceptive perception, memory, environment, and reconstructed scenes. A feeling of tension, ease, hunger, warmth, or arousal can become cross-associated with other things until the same felt pattern becomes recognizable across them. ...

As dyadic feedback loops multiply across observers, their temporary alignments accumulate into a larger distribution of aesthetic attention constructed from information. To explore Taste as a system is to play a game of observing how the distributed dynamics of information present as a power law measured through the senses. This sensed distribution presents to us a curve where we measure popular clusters of recurring aesthetic motifs residing in the short head, while niche pockets of divergent motifs nestle in the long tail. ...