The industry puffed up like a soufflé. Often people will attempt to use the Secret Mantra methods. The stars come off on your hands. If a warrior lives within hope, that makes him a very weak warrior. “Everything is eight.” Try zinc-free Super Poligrip. A scheduling algorithm is the set of rules by which tasks are assigned to the individual processors. Hardcore or not, you’ve got the wrong scumbag. I finally found out what was meant by the defenestration of Prague. And the year approaches its end, complete with red pipes lain in the art hut. ALL THE BOURGEOISIE KNOWS IS HOW TO KILL. Good evening. What a coincidence. Our eyeballs wear lead boots for bobbing. I flang the cawfee cup. But what are we all but small time extortionists in the proportionless universe? Goodnight, Helen Frankenthaler. Relax, stand at attention, and. Purple snakes stand out on porcelain tiles. The Low Countries disappear as smog melts icecap. South America, a huge cloud … I reject a symbol for pig-iron. “Any man who believes in the existence of angels but does not believe in the existence of chairs has a lot of explaining to do.” This sentence refers to Peter van Inwagen. Bring in the white hose; a carving of coal is made to sit on the edge of a cliff. Some crap about the immanence of vowels, etc., the Monument of the Accursed, Thomas Ligotti, and protective white jumpsuits who had to walk through air-shower chambers before entering the sanitized “cleanroom” where the equipment was stored. I haven’t tried the red stuff yet. The perfume became a tree and colors fly from the transatlantics. The landscapes keep dissolving until we’re left with an inscrutable ambient, a projection, between a freeze-frame and a frieze: 0.06 inches were precipitated where the instruments are kept. And then there is eros+struggle taken too far, like when poet and co-founder of the Occupy Wall St. Poetry Anthology Stephen Boyer says in a poem, “Get down here and gang bang for democracy,” or in an interview, “you just want to walk through [the occupy encampment] and have sex with everyone.” Like my friend in the Baltimore Feminist Reading Group said, about the line “gang bang for democracy,” no word in that phrase is okay! (Err … except maybe for.) He had limping blue forelegs. He then began to walk, two steps forward and two steps back. I’m tempted by the a, d, 0's & 1, 6, 10’s of CREDIT. The administration sold or gave the weapons needed to fulfill the tactics. I don’t really have a People, though of course of course, yes. “Radioactive materials (such as cesium) that scattered and fell from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant belong to individual landowners, not TEPCO, the utility said. Diseased seals in Alaska tested for radiation. [Anonymous, TEPCO needs to be next.] The drama of noise – home events that call themselves into question. That hold some walls up, tenuously. And then the insufficiency of the noise, the events, speaking the events. There’s nothing to add to what you already know. I know. To do? To do, ever enough? You are inside the house, but listening from another hill, simultaneously. The basic theorem is this; instead of looking at one program, put all possible programs in a box and blindly pick one. What is the probability that this program will halt? One can express this probability as a real definable number but Chaitin chooses to express this number in an infinite binary, base-2 arithmetic expansion native to information theory and relative to Borel’s paradox (an infinite number between ’0′s and ’1′, where each independent ‘bit’ is an independent fair toss of coin at each stage: either 1 or 0). So whatever this real number is, it has a definite value, just like π or the number ’45298′, and it is in binary notation, so the number must be greater than ’0′ and less than ’1′. It is defined as Chaitin’s Constant and because there are infinitely many possibilities, Chaitin just uses the notation Ω. Ω can be defined as an infinite sum, and each N-bit that halts contributes precisely 1/2N to the sum. Basically each N-bit program which halts adds a 1 to the Nth bit in the binary expansion of Ω. Add all the bits for all programs that will halt, and you will get the specific precise number of Ω. This makes it sound as if it were a real number which is computable, but it isn’t. Ω is perfectly well defined and it is a specific number, but it is impossible to compute in its entirety. In fact, Chaitin’s proof shows that Ω is irreducible, maximally unknowable and cannot be defined by any finite mathematical theory no matter what the computer language. The output cannot be condensed into a finite number, which is simpler than it is. The point being that the first N digits of Ω cannot be computed using a program shorter than N bits – that’s the irreducible part. In information terms, it is structurally random, with little to no structure, and no rational way of reasonably reducing it to something shorter than it is. True. True, yes: buoy, aureole, eutrapalia. No. Probably not. No. No, on both counts. No. Yes. Don’t know. False. Certainly not. No. True. False. No, never. No. Yes. No. Not really. Sure. No. Isn’t that the definition of love? True. False. True. False. True. Yeah, I guess I do. Maybe. No. False. False. That’s putting it a little strongly. Probably true. Yes. I must admit that I must admit that. Yes. Yes. How would I know? No. Sure. No. No. No. Not really, though that would be fine. Yes. No. No. On rare occasion. No. Yes. No. No. No. No. Someone did. I hope so. No. No. No. Not really. True. Yes. I wouldn’t put it that way. No. No. No. Yes. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. True. I guess. I doubt it. No. No. No (no). No. No. No. Um, probably. False. True. Maybe. No. Not seriously. No. No, I’d kill them. No. Not really. No. Depends. No. True. No. No. No. No. No. Uh, I think that’s a no. Certainly not. Sure. No. Of course. Yeah. My people? No. No. I wouldn’t say that. Sometimes. True. Yes. No. Uh, yeah. No. No. Negative. Yes, lately. Recently, yes. No. Yes. No. Not since I was a kid. No. True. Depends. Depends. I don’t know. I wouldn’t say that. I don’t think so. Dread is probably too strong. No, but that sounds good, actually. Maybe, depends. No, doesn’t matter. I don’t think so. No. Sure. No. No. No, I’m not. No. No. No. No. True. The madness of a teen girl is under-appreciated. Many people I know have some form of debilitating depression or anxiety in addition to other practical impediments. The tangent potato burrows quietly into the dark: See how the antlers look like dendrites! I mean, using reason isn’t wrong. But with an object this huge, this massively distributed, this counterintuitive, this transdimensional, it's not enough simply to use art as some kind of candy coating on top of facts. We can't just be in the PR business. Percy Shelley put it beautifully when he wrote “We [lack] the creative faculty to imagine that which we know.” That was back in 1820 and it's only gotten worse. The other trouble with the candy approach, or the reason-only approach (its twin in many ways, really), is that human beings are currently in the denial phase of grief regarding their role in the Anthropocene. It's too much to take in at once. Not only are we waking up inside of a gigantic object, like finding ourselves in the womb again, but a toxic womb — but we are responsible for it. And we know that really we are responsible simply because we can understand what global warming is. We don’t really need reasons — in fact reasons inhibit our responsible action, or seriously delay it. No neonatal or prenatal infant is responsible for her mother's toxic body. Yet that is the situation we find ourselves in — on the one hand terrifyingly regressing, on the other hand, enragingly implicating. It's like the joke about the man who ended up in an asylum as he was paranoid that he was being stalked by a gigantic chicken.
[Note: Sources: 796. William Neuman, “Slicing Costs, and Still Serving”, at The New York Times, 28 Dec 011, via Graham Harman, “on ‘zombie restaurants’”, at Object-Oriented Philosophy, 27 Dec 011; Traktung Rinpoche, and Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, at Exploring Vajrayana Buddhism; Laura Moriarty, “Tristania”, “Winds of Mars”, as quoted in Jack Foley, in Visions & Affiliations: A California Literary Timeline: Poets & Poetry 1940-2005 v.2; tv commercial seen 27 Dec 011 approx 3:30 PM PST; Elle, “Psychodrama” episode of Criminal Minds; JBR; Bhanu Kapil, “Duration”, at Was Jack Kerouac a Punjabi?, 27 Dec 011 (cancelled post); anonymous quote on back cover of Sean Bonney, Happiness: Poems After Rimbaud, and a couple of the poems therein; Stephen Rodefer, A. & C. Under the Midwest, in Foley; Joanne Kyger, “Breakfast. He assured me …”, in Foley; Michael McClure, “The Death of Kin Chuen Louie”, in Foley; JBR (i.m.); Barrett Watten, Progress, in Foley; John E Mack, and Graham Harman, as quoted in Harman’s “great first sentence for an Amazon review”, at Object-Oriented Philosophy, 27 Dec 011; phaneronoemikon, “User-maat-re Setep-en-re”, at Jellybean Weirdo With Electric Snake Fang, 27 Dec 011; JBR; Majestic, “Connecticut’s Cold War Secret”, at Disinformation, 27 Dec 011; Del Ray Cross, “mdliv”, at Anachronizms, 27 Dec 011; Carlos Oquendo de Amat, “port”, and Urayaán Noel, as quoted in Noel’s “5 Metros de Poemas / 5 Meters of Poems by Carlos Oquendo de Amat”, at Bomblog, 13 Oct 010; David Bromige, “One Spring”, in Foley; Jackie Wang, “Eros // Revolution // Occupy // Erotic Power”, at Ballerinas Dance With Machine Guns, 27 Dec 011; Will Alexander, “The Neutralized Sore of the Unshackled Bear”, in Foley. 797. JBR; “a selected version of CREDIT by Mathew Timmons”, as seen at lulu; Stan Apps, “On Jack ‘King’ Kirby and the Latin American War” (“While I was reading these exciting but very disturbing comics, in which heroes from far away must make the brave decision to annihilate the innocent with the guilty, in order to preserve the greater good, the Guatemalan military was making the same decision …”), and “On the Emotions of the Left”, in The World as Phone Bill; JBR; Citizens for Legitimate Government, “TEPCO says it ‘no longer owns’ Fukushima fallout”, at legitgov.org, 28 Dec 011; Reuters, “Diseased seals in Alaska tested for radiation”, at TVNZ, 28 Dec 011 (via CLG); blurb for Harold Abramowitz, Sunday, Or A Summer’s Day, at PS Books; Robert Jackson, “Who Is Gregory Chaitin?”, at Algorithm and Contingency, 28 Dec 011; Craig Dworkin, Legion (II), at Eclipse; Feng Sun Chen, “meandering thoughts on Elizabeth Grosz’s ‘Becoming Undone’ and caves”, at Montevidayo, 28 Dec 011; JBR; Timothy Morton, “The American Chicken”, at Ecology without Nature, 28 Dec 011 (for those of who don’t know the joke: “Upon being released, he returns a few weeks later, sweating and terrified. The chief psychiatrist tries to reassure him: ‘But you know that there is no chicken.’ ‘I know that,’ says the man — ‘But try telling that to the chicken.’”)]
