Sunday, July 28, 2013

Recent Attempt at Book Promotion

Sent package to Barnes & Noble office in New York, with a copy of the Dimensional Philosopher's Toolkit and Creeping Cadence, both with accompanying materials.

No word yet.

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Tractatus of Gamification

I found a video by gamifier Zichermann on Google+, which linked to the main gamification blog/website at

I felt inspired to share my ideas about gamification, in the form of a tractatus.

          1. The value of a game is its dynamic value. There is no game without dynamic value. If the end-user does not have a dynamic, the game must create a dynamic. If dynamics are artificial, the result is artificial value. But where the game actually has value, value can be created.

          2. To gamify, it is possible to add user-value. But this seems to incur a linear expense. How to add infinite value to a game without having an infinite game? It seems important to connect multiple games rather than leaving a dead end-product. The value of psychic games, the value of coherent games. The value of games with a functional concept, versus the commercial value of expendability. The need for phenomenological mapping. The value of creative games. Variablism: adding the exact factor that extends the value of the game, or the desire for relationships of products, sub-categories of functions, etc.

         3. The user should add value to the product.

         4. If the end-user /crowd-sourcee has no value, then where is the incentive to gamify? The need to add value to the consumer is also the opportunity to build the game into a more permanent context.

That's it for now, pretty brief, covers a lot of the source, solution, future, and problem.

Sunday, July 21, 2013

Ascetic Virtues

3 Ascetic Virtues of the Cyber-Age


3 Diplomatic Virtues of the Victorian Age


3 Philosophical Virtues of the Classical Age


3 Noble Virtues of Ancient China


3 Dubious Virtues of Ambergris


Friday, July 19, 2013


I posted some more casual reviews, one from a bookstore employee, and one from an analyst I met at a cafe, along with a repeat of Phil Hall's encouraging review from the bottom of the page, at my DPT page on Amazon:

Anyone who has just stumbled on this site should read my earlier post on Prodigious Fame, and my much earlier posts about my Interview with Ian McGinn the Philosopher, and my Coincidental Interview with Warren G. Buffett or A Very Good Impersonator (maybe I'm in a different universe than I was then to account for the different initial---).

Recently I've been spending time at Starbucks a lot, and still avoiding coffee unless Chai Lattes count (the concentrated box gives 4 out of 5 stars for caffeine, I don't know if that means no matter how much milk you add or what. Anyway, I have been cutting down the number of pumps, just in case it's coffee. But supposedly it's not).

I have a plan to go to an art show on Friday the 26th at ArtSpace. A young woman named Erika, who is an analyst, will be showing art work there. She has agreed to analyze my book for me, and possibly provide some kind of review material. Hopefully so.

The biggest news recently is the earlier post about KGBANSWERS.CO.UK. They said I'm one of the top three perpetual motion theorists, along with Newton and Einstein.

I still have medicated schizophrenia, and I'm still not depressed. Things are pretty good, although not as economically or emotionally rewarding as I would like. This conversation with Erika was one of the best things that happened to me recently. Not love at first sight, but at least she's attractive and would talk to me. She has very short hair, which I attribute to Lesbians. But it's not like I'm a player, in the only language that's available locally.

Sometimes I think my sexuality is architecture. And I'm not an architect, so that rules that out. But don't misinterpret me if you're a young woman who happens to be obsessed or fascinated for good or bad reasons.

Thursday, July 11, 2013

Tidings of Prodigious Fame

To quote

"Who is credited with 'the theory of perpetual motion' ?"

"Several scientist has been credited for their theories of Perpetual Motion such as Isaac Newton, Nathan Coppedge, and Albert Einstein."

Here is the link:

My perpetual motion website:

Background: I read a newspaper article some years ago that the KGB had been bought by England to serve as an information-gathering agency. Apparently it is true.

I was contacted around the same time, or perhaps a few years later, by someone who identified him or herself as an agent for KGB incorporated, or whatever it's called.

The question was, "What do you know about perpetual motion?"

My answer was much like the following:

Dear KGB Agent,

There are three theories of perpetual motion, or more like three people.

The first of these persons is expressed by Isaac Newton, representing conventional physics. Although many people have conducted physical experiments relating to perpetual motion, most of them fail Newtonian Laws. Thermodynamics is an extension of this. So Isaac Newton is a major category of perpetual motion attempts.

The third category attempts to do physical perpetual motion what I call the easy-hard way, that is, by advanced, specialized, and high-power applications, such as nuclear power. Besides the methods of production, and methods of perfecting conventional methods, this technique is rather easy. It is essentially represented by mathematics, that is, Albert Einstein. Note, these are to a large degree conventional methods, if it is accepted that mathematics has a foundation. Yet mathematics alone is not perpetual motion, and the techniques used in nuclear power are actually highly inefficient, causing permanent damage to the ecosystem.

The second category, which I skipped earlier, and which, perhaps for obvious reasons, occurred late in the process, is a theory of genuine perpetual motion. Until recently, this theory was missing, which explains the confusion about conventional and advanced methods. Earlier devices such as the Baskara wheel were really significantly resisted by the mere force of gravity. In this sense, they were conventional (and failed). The genuine theory emerges with the theory of an unbalanced principle, without using electricity (since electricity contradicts a conventional principle of over-unity, by using more power than it generates). At this date in history (April 2008[?]) unbalanced principle is best demonstrated in the works of Nathan Coppedge, such as the lever-versus-counterweight paradigm, the horizontal wheel paradigm, and the modular unit paradigm. That I happen to be this person is incidental.

After I send this message, I am deleting my e-mail.

My memory is poor.

You will be the sole bearer of this knowledge.

Perhaps you will be remembered as the perpetual spy.

I will hesitate to elaborate those theories.


--Nathan Coppedge
perpetual motion "inventor"

By the way, this entire story is true, although I later learned that the KGB actually stands for the Knowledge Generation Bureau, a British news-gathering company. The fact that many Russian KGB agents defected to Britain is apparently a coincidence. And I'm not sure if it was really written in April. It may easily have been a different month. I would have made up a different month, except I'm a very honest person, and I think I tend to be creative about media in April. People are sometimes also more open-minded in April, unfortunately.

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

The Song of the Coquette

When will come the tilting coquette---?
What kingdom will lend its crown---?
Above the tree the form will tilt---!
By scaffolds built a gleaming machine---!

Older than the ancient em-pire---!
A seed, within a star
Higher than embiciles of gravity
It turns travelers a-jar---!

Here is this most simple infinity
Sitting beside a crumbling chimney
Made of brass or metal fair!

Physics lost its wits to make
The bricks stick together bricks, it takes
An engineer two thousand years to make----

A Til-ting Coquette!

perpetual motion designs & theory: coquette

I have been receiving some attention at the following websites

If you visit them I will feel even more popular--------!





Also, if you want to do the dimensional thing and buy a book, then visit:


Many of my works are available for free or in partial form, because I believe in reciprocity, innovation, and social utility. They are not what might be called backhanded works.

Saturday, July 6, 2013

Gnomonic Symbols

 How To Interpret the Following Symbols?

The gridi-form structure appears to be composing or decomposing. It might be a symbol for language, graphical games, or physical structure. It appears to offer a manifestation of reality, a manifestation of secrets, an access to manifestation, and a secret access. These parts describe a two-dimensional pyramid.

          This more dimensional figure looks like a metallic orb with a path winding into it. It seems to express a duality. Secondly, there is a transposition of nature and architecture. It also looks like a woman's head. It could represent culture. Looking at the lines for independent value from representation, there is a latched quality which suggests mechanics and then again perhaps a plan of winding paths. It looks like a kind of marked serpent. Perhaps it represents the unknown.

This last gnomon looks like petrified rock. It has a Zen quality. The figures are both open and closed. The organization seems to be having a thought about itself. Nature seems both eternal and eroded.

Combining the three figures, we might find a structure that is paradoxically complete. The snake becomes the garden, the stones have variation, the grid is partially complete from more than one angle.

I've had several interesting dreams lately

I'm in the habit of recording a dream diary / journal in which I use the online dream dictionary (see my miscellaneous links) to analyze components of the dream. It is somewhat effective, but I get mixed results since not every word I want is present in the dictionary. Sometimes the results are a little surprising or even fall short of meaning much of anything.

For example, I had a dream that I was God with a vision of a symbol for two-thousand years of history, and the result the dictionary gave was something like "great accomplishments" and "uniqueness" (the closest approximation I could find for the symbol was that it resembled a cow. I couldn't find Zeus in the dictionary).

I also had a dream that I went on a field trip with some kids, and our parents and chaperones declared war on us, and we ended up victorious by commandeering a hover tank.

Sometimes I'm wondering if I'm taking my dreams too far due to my thirst for dream dictionary definitions. Seems possible (I've used up significant parts of all sections except Q, X, and Y, which I haven't clicked on yet).

I can fantasize that I have significant dreams, at least. That makes my days seem more important.

For those interested in the two-thousand year symbol and other visions I've had, see my Visions Page.

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Future Conservatives Versus The Conceptual Apocalypse

The traditional debate between irrationalism and rationalism, which dates back to Zeno and Aristotle, and earlier if you include religious debate, is now coming to a further head in the resistance to radical development of old ideas.

I have been a kind of spear-front of the resistance to this trend, called Conceptual Apocalyptics or Apocalyptic Avant-Garde. We (or I and my erstwhile followers), have several beliefs:

1. It is possible to iterate Cubism.

2. Metaphysics or something like it is possible.

3. There are real undiscovered classics.

4. In all justice the Renaissance should repeat throughout history.

In contrast to this is people who have abstract ideas about NASA. These, who I call the Future Conservatives, do not believe in a re-envisionment of the past. They hold that, in contrast to the past movements in which the future is dangerous, now the only danger is a re-envisionment of the past.

My view is, clearly there is less thinking involved in the Future Conservatives than in the Conceptual Apocalyptics. Surely this difference expresses (in this case, at least) real differences in values.

1. Where the future conservatives have relied on computers for their jobs, they need to be conservative with computers. In contrast, the potential of the Conceptual Apocalyptics is to do new, radical things with computers. The conservatives are painted as doing things which have a 'new angle' / the Conceptual Apocalyptics have been painted as doing nothing with conservatism. However, there is an obvious mutual dependence.

2. Where the future conservatives depend on new applications which are ultimately conceptual / apocalyptic, the Conceptual Apocalyptics are ultimately conservative, and depend on the advances in computer science. The two are interdependent, and while one is painted as conservative, the other has more 'teeth' about conservatism. Nonetheless: only the Future Conservatives have been painted as having viable potential with computers. Perhaps it is time to re-enstate the viable aspects of classical computing: e.g. the dependence on classicism, even unrealized classicism.

See the following references:

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Follies of Ideation

[Linear Sets]

Set One: The Drifter

1. Nihilism
2. Laziness
3. Pre-Determination
4. Acceptance

Set Two: The Artist

1. Ambiguity
2. Inspiration Alone
3. Desire Alone
4. Mere Sophistication

Set Three: The Professional

1. Belief
2. Work
3. Chance
4. Failure

Set Four: The Corporation

1. Arbitration
2. Boring Rules
3. Meaningful Trajectory
4. Back to the Basics

So, in categorical terms we are left with the following meaningful sets:

  I. Nihilism, Laziness, Inspiration, Ambiguity

 Deductions: Nihilism is lazy when inspiration is ambiguous,
Nihilism is ambiguous when inspiration is lazy.

II. Pre-Determination, Acceptance, Mere Sophisication, Desire Alone 

Deductions: Pre-determination is accepted when mere sophistication is the only desire,
Pre-determination is desire-alone when mere sophistication is accepted.

III. Chance, Failure, Back to the Basics, Meaningful Trajectory

 Deductions: Chance is a failure when back to the basics is a meaningful trajectory, Chance is a meaningful trajectory when back to the basics fails.

  IV. Belief, Work, Boring Rules, Arbitration

 Deductions: Belief works when boring rules are arbitrated, Belief is arbitrated when boring rules work. 

Ostensibly these deductions provide guidance both for good and bad approaches to the folly of ideas.

Monday, July 1, 2013

Curiously, I found a very different site

For those interested in coincidences, At a very similar address: Notice, that one is 'BLOG-POT'.