Sunday, December 30, 2007

I've stopped building my latest perpetual design

out of a kind of mortal terror that it will work.

The chasm between a 'divinely inspired' schema (or one I would megalomaniacally perceive as such) and one with design flaws is intimidating.

The idea that there are abysses of history without an example is itself a terror.

More rationally, I might pretend that my handicrafts are at fault, that a working design is no economic solution to my life, that physicists would actually want to shoot me, that I'm not the person for the job, or I was soon to discover something completely wrong with my thinking (similar to balancing my expenses last week).

To ask the best has so far not been to know the path.

Latest Drawings

"Silky Form", ink on paper, 2007

"Hectic Flirri", ink on paper, 2007

Monday, December 24, 2007

No news from the reporter

about possible marketing. Perhaps this will be a long-term commitment.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

New Volitional Concept Under Construction

For the first time I notarized an original document, with the intent to keep the design secret even from potential computer vulnerabilities.

The design marks 1 year and four months from the formation of my website at, indicating that some published designs are no longer patentable, even with evidence of priority, workability, and a good lawyer.

Recently purchased materials from Hull's Hardware may allow me to build a model of the latest design in the next several days, whatever its merits. I have been eager to post photos or even a movie clip of a design or my experiments with it for the purpose of promoting the website or generating wider audience appeal.

I have even considered that a device functioning by one measure or another, or applicable as a non-perpetual toy of one kind or another might be marketable as a sort of trinket or novelty without patent protection. The urge to tinker with these materials is not inherently an urge to find a windfall of cash (some might say the opposite. For me the materials have a value similar to ink, that in certain forms an art object is produced, which seems valuable to me apart from its saleability. Maybe this points towards a hobby or career direction as I mature).

News or photos hopefully when this takes a sufficient form, however until then science indicates there's nothing to get excited about. I'm suppressing notions that some government agency would appropriate it into the "secret" energy program, as part of an effort to promote the foolish urges of future pseudo-inventors. To some extent my lack of interest in this sort of approximate delusion suggests that there are things wrong with the world, if only because free energy has been so much a pipe dream, that laws can be taken for granted outside of philosophy.

Monday, December 10, 2007

I have sent

A revised introduction to a reporter who has offered to assist me in marketing my work. Otherwise there have been few obvious strides in Motism lately.

I continue to operate a Motist art gallery at Machina Artistika: Part of the Impossible Machine

The photographs in Cycle 2 (most often updated) are now ordered according to the most recent appearing.

I have a few potent projects which depend on signs of success to grow.

I've considered forming a website called The Terrapinian as a platform for authorship, with Motism in mind. However, its so contingent now its a little irrational to think its of the greatest importance. But how to plan ahead in these endeavors?

When I consider the Terrapin who would sell books, I feel like so much more of a person. Life in cafes and little bookshops could begin to mean something. I'd be a smeller and breather of ink. I'm even working at a library. I'm so contented with bits of my introduction, part of me is apprehensive that I'm just setting myself up for unexpected failure. The same feeling has existed to various degrees for several years. The things that are gold to me! To think it isn't folly!

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Logical Generalizations

Its interesting sometimes to look at logical statements in how they refer to themselves. There is a popular belief that if you look deep enough, nothing is there. However its my view that this is a mistake based on the notion that to look at something exclusively in terms of logic is to avoid content. This is not to say either that logic is empty or that any content that might appear is empty because of logic. Instead, logic is a context for finding meaning in statements which have substance, even while logic itself may seem colorless and tasteless.

For example of this (what led up to this posting) I'll present a simple series showing what statements imply about themselves, and some things that may be deduced, according to a series of degrees of qualification, the first (degree 1) being solid by assumptions, the second (degree 2) by clear analysis, the third (3) by extensible or contingent logic (still logical, but perhaps by multiple premises), and the fourth (4) completely baseless. As you will see in these cases I may discard degrees 2 through 4 within my conclusions.

Premise 1 (P1): This statement makes sense
Premise 2 (P2): It would make sense if we knew it
Premise 3 (P3): Knowing knows it knows
(Q1): This statement (P1) is a basis for knowledge if it is true (if we premise it)
Degree 1, vis. to not know it makes sense is not sensical.

(Q2): Thus, the statement only makes sense by a higher degree if we know and the knowing makes sense.
Degree 1, vis. those who consider are more sensible; knowledge reflects consideration.

(Q3): Vis. just because the sensical leads to or promotes knowledge does not mean that all knowledge is sensical, speaking logically.
Degree 1, vis. knowledge is knowledge; it would make sense even if the sense was that it didn't make sense ('{p} knowledge' that doesn't make sense is often assumed to be qualified by the senseless, when in fact it may have a senseless logic apart from the individual, for example inequality or differing pragmatic imperatives); hypothetically there are objects as truths that do not make sense even to extreme discernment; in a certain sense finding them may be equated with discernment, but not to the undiscerning.

This sort of thinking could be summarized within a Venn diagram within which the sensical (equated with conscious analysis) is a small part of the knowable/knowledge (equated with experience). In a more discerning fashion, the same situation is expressed in a cross-like diagram in which an axis unreason-paradox passes through a scaleable "datum of the sensible", with an axis ignorance-antiparadox passing diagonally, demonstrating how a trend towards confronting paradox is reasonable, however unreasonable a paradox may seem in itself.

Although by comparison to unreason philosophy is then not strictly reasonable, in the context of the datum of the sensible it becomes quite definitive in relation to ignorance, (esp. if ignorance is equated with unreason or death-by-paradox, the latter being only half a joke since speaking dramatically fatal flaws and ironic unexpected turns are themselves somewhat paradoxical, and not always yet archetypes).

"Impertures" a Motistical ink drawing

"Impertures". 5 X 7" Unframed, Ink on Acid-free Paper, 2007

You can always click on the drawing for a closer view.