Coherent Neocodes As Economic-Political Hypertext (Recursive Ecology)

'Windowjarpool' - You have to make something of a jar in a pool: if it has sand, you can see all of it; if it's clean and clear, then you know it absolutely. But if you drop the jar, it's invisible. If you pee in the jar, it might be a yellow jar. But what if you're a scientist, with a window on the pool? The pee and sand doesn't always seem so significant. Part of what is significant about the pool is that it is fully clear and manifest.

'Minnowtarbowl' - Let's say you eat minnows. If one of the minnows eats a gob of paint, then you have to eat the paint. Unless the minnow has a special way of digesting. But how does the minnow know not to eat the paint? Do you want it to have a big brain? What if big brains know not to eat paint, but love to eat tar? What difference some little instructions would make!

'Terrajunkbowl' - We don't just have paint going into the ocean, we have diarrhea, and dish detergent, and other waste products. Some would say it's just a work of art, and life is always functional some how. But what if football players got tired of dirt, or if theologians declared that God was fecal matter (because it would be divine in any case), or if humanity decided it had to evolve beyond shit by dying? Does this mean it is the end of football, God, or humanity, or is there a solution to the 'junk bowl'?

'Terabunkerjew' - Now, what if we could solve all problems with a computer? How much depends on that? What if the computer is a waste product, or composed of irreplaceable materials? Doesn't it have to solve all problems, if it is a one-shot deal? And what if the computer user is solving personal problems (humorously, 'Cabbalah'), rather than global problems? Does that make the computer useless, or instead contribute to the value of waste products? And, what if it all looks like clear water? What if there's poison? What if the same problems apply to the brain? Are the first problems the most important or the final ones?