MORE ON NOT-KNOW, AND A RECALL PROCESS (Attn. ROGERS)

Ref: Post 50.txt

Date: 5 Mar 1999

On 23 Feb 99, "Rogers" responded to my

post on "Super Scio Tech - NOT KNOW PROCESS (Self Clearing etc.)"

> Hi Pilot! (Anjin-san!)
>
> I've snipped your post quite brutally here just to keep the whole thing a
> reasonable size as well as focussing on a specific area for comment.
>
> Just wondering if the masses that were, shall I say, excited, by the fact of
> mocking things up (book and bottle) and then not-knowing stuff about them
> might have possibly felt like "glee-masses." Well, that's just my own
> descriptive phrase (I think) but I'm sure you get the picture.
>
> Quite obviously, your later ingenious application of the not-know principle
> did deal with these masses, so maybe this is a moot point. But I am sort of
> curious.
>
> Don't mean to overrun you on this - just off the top of your head
> recollection is fine. But did the masses have a similar vibration (as it
> were) as when you were doing that other process where you had two
> counter-postulates instilled into an object at the same time. I am
> referring to a sort of "It is" versus "It isn't" process you covered. Hope
> you know which one I am referring to. Anyway, was it like that or did it
> have a taste of glee in there. Or both?

Neither. In fact, now that you call my attention to it, it had a different quality than anything I've hit before in processing. There was a bit of a chaos and mystery quality to it. Not unpleasant, just strange, about like looking at static on a mistuned TV set.

> Just conceptualizing. Just seems like a possible shortcircuit between
> Create and Not-Know, like maybe there should be one or two more items
> in-between them. Either that, or perhaps the process just needs a buffer
> command inserted between the two given.
>
> It strikes me that this process might hit the "irresponsibility" button, if
> you know what I mean, but then again, maybe this parallels what we actually
> did very early on the track.

The simple process, alternating mockup with not-know who created it seems to run very well and easily and did not turn on the chaos effect mentioned above. I just tried mockup a book alternated with not-know its contents and again, that is fun and flattens easily. So these are basics.

What turned on the chaos effect was changing the not-know each time. So don't run it that way except as an experiment, and then handle it by flattening the same not-know repetitively. Running "not-know who created it" definitely works and blows it without flattening the other not-knows. I'm not sure if flattening "not-know its temperature" for example would have the same effect since "who created it" might be an undercut.

> I am a also made a bit suspicious by the fact that the masses that were
> excited were "over to the side." Almost as if they were "peripheral" or a
> side effect.

It seemed more likely that in not-knowing its location (occasionally, interspersed rather than flattened) enforced that it would not be in the location it was created in and so it pushed off a bit in a random direction. You could try it and see what happens, just be sure to clean up later with a straight run of "not know who created it" repetitively on the mass.

> Perhaps the process just activated an automaticity?

It didn't really feel that way.

> I could postulate some notion along the lines of "Create a machine.
> Not-know who created it." as a possibility but then again, I am
> still not sure there isn't some missing ingredient.

There probably are missing things in regards to this. See below.

> It certainly is a great topic, so I hope you won't mind me giving you
> another opportunity to analyze it.
>
> The section of your post that is in question is immediately below. Best,
> Les.

(I didn't repeat it again since it is in the archives)

It would seem that pure create and exchange of creations doesn't require a not-know. At that level, even responsibility / irresponsibility doesn't exist except as a concept in context within a story line or a created frame of reality.

One can also play both sides of a game in an exterior manner without a not-know. Consider, for example, setting up and working chess problems. It is not true that one has to not-know the solution to enjoy the puzzle. The solution is not there to know until it is mocked up. Only then would you have to not-know it to be able to solve it again, and why not mockup another puzzle instead.

However playing against an opponent rather than with one does require not-know so that one can trick and outsmart the other. And some games (many card games for example) are not interesting from an exterior view.

And so not-know would run earlier on the track than interiorizing into games.

Not bothering to know something is different from putting up a barrier to knowing.

One probably has to not-know first before one gets into protests and other more sophisticated aberrations.

But communication is more basic.

So the early pattern is probably 1) separate, 2) create, 3) communicate, 4) not-know, 5) protest, 6) invalidate. After that comes grade 1 and so forth.

Since recall of pleasure moments works without finding any whys or handling any case, it has to be close to basic just like the comm processes. But it has to be a bit less basic than comm because we do get some benefit by running stops on recall (reasons for to forgetting, etc.). So it feels right to put this around the same place as not-know.

Based on that, I looked at forgetting as simply not-knowing the past.

So I tried "not know what I had for lunch" for each day of last week. Two quick cycles, just thinking of each day and deciding not to know what I had for lunch that day and I not only remembered what I had each day but even the various thoughts and so forth that I had while deciding what to have on those days.

This is a spectacular recall process. I would suggest doing a good bit of recalling pleasure moments first and then also getting one's confront up on force and overts and things like that. But based on some brief fooling around, this is the fast one that brings up tons of whole track data quickly.

I've been looking for a fast high powered recall process for awhile now and this is it.

Best,

The Pilot