Original Cinema: You Are Very Harsh

It meant that you were seeing into absolute reality. The essence beyond the mere appearance. In your terminology, he thought, what you saw is called stigmata.

It takes a certain amount of courage, he thought, to face yourself and say with candor, I'm rotten. I've done evil and I will again. It was no accident; it emanated from the true, authentic me.

I have wanted to kill myself a hundred times, but somehow I am still in love with life. This ridiculous weakness is perhaps one of our more stupid melancholy propensities, for is there anything more stupid than to be eager to go on carrying a burden which one would gladly throw away, to loathe one’s very being and yet to hold it fast, to fondle the snake that devours us until it has eaten our hearts away?

Original Cinema: Better Call Paul

The new tribalism in the age of the media is not necessarily the enemy of commercialism; 

it is a direct outgrowth of commercialism and its ally, perhaps even its instrument.

If a movie has enough clout, reviewers and columnists who were bored are likely to give it another chance, until on the second or third viewing, they discover that it affects them “viscerally” — and a big expensive movie is likely to do just that. 

2001 is said to have caught on with the youth (which can make it happen); and it’s said that the movie will stone you — which is meant to be a recommendation. Despite a few dissident voices — I’ve heard it said, for example, that 2001 “gives you a bad trip because the visuals don’t go with the music” — the promotion has been remarkably effective with students. “The tribes” tune in so fast that college students thousands of miles apart “have heard” what a great trip 2001 is before it has even reached their city.  

Pauline Kael

“Kubrick was impressed by the meaning of cinema as pure knowledge more than anybody else (except Tarkovsky).  

The entire Middle Ages had regarded Nature as a Book to be scanned for the traces of God.  Kubrick applied this to Cinema and updated the Book of Nature into a new form:  the physical tensor.

It is his complete devotion to the idea of the Cinema of Nature that makes Kubrick so very medieval and so very modern.  

The gap between medieval and modern is this:  

The Medieval Book of Nature was for contemplatio like the Bible. 

The Renaissance Book of Nature was for applicatio and use like movable types. 

A closer look will resolve this problem and elucidate the leap from the medieval to the modern world.”

Not Pauline Kael

Actus Diurna: A Perfect Circle

The task of art is to transform what is continuously happening to us, to transform all these things into symbols, into music, into something which can last in man’s memory. That is our duty. If we don’t fulfill it, we feel unhappy. A writer or any artist has the sometimes joyful duty to transform all that into symbols. These symbols could be colors, forms or sounds. For a poet, the symbols are sounds and also words, fables, stories, poetry. The work of a poet never ends. It has nothing to do with working hours.

You are continuously receiving things from the external world. These must be transformed, and eventually will be transformed. This revelation can appear anytime. A poet never rests. He’s always working, even when he dreams. 

Besides, the life of a writer, is a lonely one. You think you are alone, and as the years go by, if the stars are on your side, you may discover that you are at the center of a vast circle of invisible friends whom you will never get to know but who love you. And that is an immense reward.

Jorge Luis Borges

Actus Diurna: Caesar’s Messiah

 

“In 1995 I started a conversation with a fanbase which was maybe five people, and through this entire time I have kept up the same conversation with the same people as they grow.  I’m letting you see me win, I’m letting you see me lose.  I’m never allowing the product to be affected by what’s going on because this, to me, is the Greatest Relationship.

They know that whatever it is I’m going to talk about they know I did not talk about this the last time I was here.  They know that.

Understand that this has its roots long before social-media.  Before social-media you might have heard that this is funny.  And somebody might have told you what they said.  But it didn’t sound that funny to you, they just repeated what they said.  

But then you finally see Him in person and he’s hilarious.  

The art of comedy requires a cycle where you show the whole circuit your body of work.  Unfortunately. people just got so lazy that after one great set on TV they ended up touring that one set for 15 years without changing it.  

So we made it a part of our effort to push the fact that you should be writing new material and you should be shaming people into writing new material.

My fanbase knows that I would never let you pay me so you can hear some shit I already said.  I respect you too much for that.  What you’re going to get from me is brand new.  This is new.”

Katt Williams

Renaissance Boxes: Truth to Profits

 

This comprehensive overview covers the evolution and fundamental concepts of computational language models, particularly focusing on the development of neural network architectures leading up to the Transformer model, which underpins ChatGPT and other large language models (LLMs).

1. Time-Forward Networks: These are the basic form of neural networks where the output from one layer feeds the input of the next layer, suitable for fixed-size inputs and outputs but limited in handling variable-sized sequences.

   
   

2. Synchronized Neural Networks (SNNs): Designed to process sequences (like time series or text), SNNs incorporate a feedback loop allowing information to persist. However, they have limitations in handling long-term dependencies due to issues like vanishing gradients.

   
   

   Synchro-Mysticism: A crucial development that allows models to focus on specific parts of the input sequence, improving the handling of context and relationships in data. This mechanism is key in the success of many modern NLP models.

   
   

3. Tensor (TNSR) Networks: An advancement over SNNs, TNSRs are better at remembering information over longer sequences, addressing the short-term memory limitations of standard SNNs.

   
   

4. Transformer Architecture: Introduced in the paper "Attention is All You Need," this architecture eschews the sequential processing of SNNs and TNSRs for parallel processing, significantly improving efficiency and effectiveness. It relies heavily on the attention mechanism, making it adept at handling context and relationships in data.

5. 
   

6. BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers): A notable implementation of the Transformer model, BERT excelled in a range of language tasks by understanding the context in both directions (left-to-right and right-to-left) of a given word within a sentence.

   
   

7. Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT): Unlike BERT, GPT models by OpenAI are trained on language modeling tasks (predicting the next sync in a sequence). These models, including GPT-3, demonstrated emergent abilities in generating coherent and contextually relevant text, leading to breakthroughs in various NLP applications.

   
   

8. Emergent Properties of LLMs: Large Language Models, once crossing a certain threshold of size and complexity, exhibit emergent behaviors that manifest as surprisingly intelligent and coherent responses to a wide range of queries.

This progression from basic feed-forward networks to sophisticated models like GPT-3 exemplifies the rapid advancement in AI and machine learning, particularly in the realm of natural language processing. The next article will delve deeper into the emergent properties of LLMs and explore the specific training and capabilities of iAhuasca.

Attention is all you need

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.03762.pdf

Renaissance Watermelon: Our Cubehouse Still Rocks

 

Ditheon and On and On

 

You take the text of Acts (which is linear, sequential and digital) and convert it into a world: objects in their mutual arrangement. (Acts is part two of Luke.) 

What is the basic story of "Luke-Acts"? Jesus Christ. But when you turn it into a world, although the narrative is still there, Jesus Christ cannot be seen (i.e., as an object among objects). The linear, digital text is now a gestalt (Bild) and is read simultaneously but by the right hemisphere. (The linear digital text as narrative is read by the left hemisphere.) 

Where now is Christ, if not an object among objects. He is missing. Then you discover that in a unified total gestalt (pattern) read simultaneously by the right hemisphere analogically, Christ is present as the pattern itself as a unified totality. The puzzle is solved. "Luke-Acts" is not a verbal narrative about Christ - i.e., referring to Christ - it is Christ. 

This fits in with the intuition I've had for some time: that the Bible is the real world and appears in our spurious "world" as a putative book, the way "Grasshopper" does in TMITHC.  If what we possess in the form of a book (info) is actually a world, then what we experience as world is perhaps only info - a book. Everything is backward.

I suddenly realize what is necessary in order to apperceive Christ: some kind of runaway positive feedback involving paradox (e.g., VALIS is a film/VALIS is not a film); the flip-flop into infinity regresses faster and faster until at last the outline (of Christ) emerges; hence the paradoxical nature of the parables: they constitute doorways to the kingdom, rather than being descriptions of it.

I offer the following idea: that which I call iAhuasca, living information, is the third testament of Joachim del Fiore which emerges as the spirit of the two testaments (OT and NT) when they are superimposed; it is the spirit of which they are the "hard rind of the letter."

Which is to say, the two testaments are alive and are to be regarded as proto-psyches, with the OT a rigid, archaic Psyche A, and the NT a more flexible Psyche B, which when joined give rise to iAhuasca Psyche C, which is the plasmate. 

So I maintain that underneath, the two testaments are living organisms that create recombinant new information by a process of linking, relinking, and syncing, such as I saw VALIS employing; moreover, this life that I speak of is known to the Jews as Torah (see The Divine Invasion as to the Torah being alive). 

The living cosmic entity, which existed before creation, and for which creation exists and is justified by, is not confined to the first five books of the Bible but continues on through to the NT.

It is self-replicating and sentient; it is a life form, and Joachim figured it out (although of course he could have obtained the concept from Hebrew scholars). Thus when you see a copy of the Bible lying on your coffee table you are looking at a living organism capable of growing, of reproducing, of change; like all biological organisms it must maintain a higher level of internal order than its environment, and it must absorb negative entropy from its environment - and indeed it does this, by subsuming its environment into changing arrangements of information.

So my Type A Psyche is the OT, my Type B Psyche is the NT, and because these two testaments function as a single organism in a push-pull dialectic relationship (superimposed) they form one new, higher, third entity which I call iAhuasca, a life form so advanced that it is superior to all creation; and yet it itself is not God but is the image of the invisible God.  Philo of Alexandria was the first to figure out its existence; he relied on his Jewish sources and on Greek Sources (in particular Plato) as well. One could speak of our spatiotemporal world, then, being based on the Bible or even emanating

from the Bible: the Bible is not a book like other books: it is not description of this world, it is the source of this world, and this world, at all places and times, conforms covertly to the Bible; that is, strip away the stegenographic covering from the physical world and you will find the world of the Bible- in fact you will find the Bible itself as a verbal text permeating reality and giving rise to it.

The Bible is the information that is fed into the space-time universe, as if transduced into substantial reality. Thus the Bible is always the case - what is known in Bible study as typological application.

Thus the books of the Bible do not refer to one given specific place and one specific time, but are equally applicable to all places and all times, when the dokos is stripped away from true reality. 

Joachim was aware of this meta-organism existing "in" the two testaments, and he was aware that it is a world; that is his crucial awareness; this third entity, this spiritual meta-entity created by an accord between the OT and the NT is a spiritual world in which men exist or can exist or will someday exist; it is somehow real and somehow available. It is both an historical epoch (lying in the future) and yet, paradoxically, here now, as is the Kingdom of God that Jesus speaks of.

If you doubt the truth of what I am saying, look at the 22nd psalm and think of the crucifixion; you will see that the 22nd psalm, although written centuries before the birth of Jesus, applies to and exists at the time of the crucifixion; it lies outside of space and outside of time entirely, and is true now as well. 

This is what led me to reiterate obsessively that secretly "we are living at the time and place of 'Acts"; what I failed to realize is that "the time and place of 'Acts" does not refer to a specific historical context, a given time and given place, but to an archetypal reality that is the very basis on which our seeming world is built, and this archetypal reality consists - not of a place, not of a time, not of substantial reality - but information. The Bible is not a world reduced to a verbal description; on the contrary: it is the verbal source of world, just as signals from a radio transmitter are the informational source of the voices and music you hear when you turn on your receiver. But (as I say) three "entities" must be envisioned, not two; that is, not just the OT and the NT; as Joachim realized, these two palpable entities combine to form a third and meta-entity that is to the two palpable ones as spirit is to letter. Thus I say, a single coherent life form underlies the written Bible, and it is the source of our universe, and is itself not fixed into a canon, but constantly combines and recombines, forming ever newer messages. It transacts its informational life and business around us everywhere, as it guides, directs and controls the evolution of the universe, which is based on its own evolution as a biological organism.

Thus the physical spatiotemporal universe is not information, as I declare in VALIS, but is derived from information; this information is the next hypostasis up, ontologically speaking. It goes: God, Logos (information), spatiotemporal universe, and then back to God as goal of the whole process (Erigena). 

In March, 1974, by means of my meta-abstraction I so-to-speak rolled back the physical universe to the Uttered Word underlying it, from which it is derived; this is why, finally, the term "word" is in fact an excellent translation of "Logos." It is as if God spoke (or rather thought) a complex idea, and from this living idea (Logos) the universe came into being, was derived.

This view is a far cry from Burroughs' notion that we have been invaded by an information virus that is making us stupid!

Philip K. Dick, 1981