18+ Thoughtpad from a gay couch-sona, uncommercial model for a magical upholstery. Published illustrator. Hobbyist media theorist. Along with WIP sketches and updates. Opinions my own.
People can be original, and still be insufferable.
Newness and the one an only uniqueness are not the same, Given the progression of time for each. One Direct response (extend) and the cognition (brand).
Newiness, we know the news can be ignored if it ain't emergency room stuff.
The others have gone through the gauntlet of conflicting symbolism, through pundit or cute to the blips of hosts/platforms. Well, professionals that don't attend.
If that the thing is one is first and lucky, then that ain't good enough. The law of diminishing returns takes it toll.
Badmouse said that streamers earning fame ( or infamy symbolic relatable capital ) and money hinders the overall struggle.
I say, yeah as an activist, no as an entertainer. Yet, do these editorials say otherwise, ho ho ho, well, you do encourage me Harlen.
Staying in sync is the most important of all these.
Since streaming is the best take to be able to manage ones one personal space, there's no editing, one clear distinction between editing (non-sync) and unediting (sync).
Leaving a trail, editing along the genealogy of ideas to pluck out moments of consciousness. That is one sense, to bring verisimilitude with the work.
So, I haven't read James Joyce yet, guess I'm not a savant.
Yet this stream of consciousness where i entertain thoughts without committing to them fully is point, if they get offended or not, outside my purview, like how did can be responsible for that?
Is disclosing a bibliography a rant? Not that i know off, well, it could be a that i disclosed and overshared. Well, the bibliography is the part where one should overshare. Those are all the sources.
Authors can be authors without becoming authoritative on this, under there own volition of responsibility to do what they want and not intrude into others self-defence function for each other, co-exist.
They can be direct with me if my indirect bibliography in this blog.
🛋⭐
Here it is. Minus the sex joke.
"Heya, bibliography thoughts on Ai. (Hopefully I don't get blown up by a butlerian jihad like in dune ) It's not that simple. So it's why I'm showing it. @sunnmcheaux and @Austinmconnell has done reasonable takes, Flazfire has done a video on Twitter Artists and how annoying they are, yet I think he's wrong on plagiarism and environment. That's youtube. Alexander Avile is the top banger though. As for environment, the accurate take was by Andy Masley on substack, I'm being anti-doomer on this while taking a more preperationist stance like Neil Postman. Reading his Technomoply and Amusing ourselves to death.
It even intersects with Media Theory, Tim Wu Attention merchants, Matthew Bartholmew Adcreep, Seth Godin This is Marketing, (He has done a course on AI) Doug Ruskoff The Merchants of Cool and the Generation Like Documentary. Even Harlen Ellison The Glass Teat and the Second Glass Teat editorials on the television industry complex. Herschel Gordon Lewis books on copywriting. Woo! Foundherentism of evidence matters is why all these theories intersect like a crossword, By Susan Haack. Moral theory to Deontology and Utilitarianism somewhere in the background. Thank you! Phew 🛋️💨 Feel free to ask questions."
Yet, I know with this prosumer culture, do they care? Am I showing off? Or is it the part that is required? Well, it matters to those who read, no point to those who are illiterate, or the post illiterate now.
Can't lapse into consistency for consistency’s sake. Or simplicity for simplicity due to me not being able to face the Curse of knowledge with these simplified platforms of micro-blogging memes and gag shorts.
Those platforms are designed for those who don't read, and don't have a bibliography there, I will have there. It will remind me of the curse of knowledge which will permit me for another post.
Finally, a word that's opposite of reductions. By Julian Baggini who's been reading contemporary philosophy, well, some would call this pop philosophy, at least I had to get it.
Reductionism served its manner with the attempt of the sciences, and economical means, this verification does not translate to the art and aesthetics.
Realism maths contingent on money, right? Everything down to profit, right? It's not so simple.
Holism (Even associated with odd practices, this is outside of it. Complementary medicine, mysticism) It is the combined efforts of strategic systems that Aristotle, the macro-level of the taxonomy, such is the view.
Why is it the matter of the internet thinking that entertainment and advertisement, of the reductionism model being all there is, that the TL;DR. Concision and cogency for the sake of it.
So, the copywriter and industrialist are distinct, mistaking the parts from the whole.
Television advertising ain't incompatible with internet, why?
Along with it's 90s origin, it was not meant to be like that. Designed for one to one with minimal video hosting.
Foundations on interruption advertising, with a platform especially without foundherentist lifeboat on the sea of the internet, it's a race to the bottom.
A rift of an internet and a mass marketer, the internet user, from world I inter was designed for a specific one.
People have written about it, Tim Wu and other ethicists to anti-consumerism. Tim Wu has written about it in with James William article being quoted. To saying the remote control is the first adblocker to exist. For the glamour medium, that's the one that draws in the most illiterate audience, and it's crowd.
(Not that bad movie when it comes with remote controls)
. Will still remain, as with all axiological concern, is suspended to make it continue with advertising campaign. . Scepticism will still remain, any user who's based on the sole business model will have to make the sceptic feel right.
. Since it's not going to go away, Interruption advertisers will have to face that anarchists will continue to use it. That's always going to happen as they uncommercialise everything . Lack of clarity of using interruption advertiser can lead to downfalls like Ello . Advertiser-friendly and word-friendly words of babyspeak are and have contribute to adversial relationships . Scamvertisements, unregulated, irresponsible interruption advertising. The Faustian bargain with them is that there is arguably the biggest race-to-the-bottom compared to subscriptions and direct donations.
. As noted with Matthew Barthmolows Ad-creep, advertisers and mass media have been equivocating free speech with commercial speech.
That's merely some of the challenges, as people set up guardrails.
Even Robert Mckee's stated that interruption advertising is going out, with statistics moving towards subscriptions and direct transactions.
This is why I'm https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ including my blog, including my ideas. Disney and Nintendo are too litigious. With there flexible permissions and the remixes of fan art of prospered.
I'm reminded that our licensing laws, as there fullest are full of controversy and disagreements, here's one I agree with Jimmy. Copyright, an obsolete concept, or something that may be undone by capital.
Oh my, the entire copywriting profession, being completely hackneyed, each is a vote for copyright, or a vote for the legitimising of such a system.
One of the reasons why I self-publish.
I'll continue. What I've learned from licensing that people, like libertarians, have a market fundamentalism view of that only artistic energy can be placed within the desire of making money, oh how easily measures yet naive. Also, that's not art. Not even the conversion rate an executive makes, well, that of the work's exchange value is reductive in of itself.
Work schedules, crunch culture, sigma grind set, Criminalisation/decriminalisation of sex work/anti-work, sexcess, design theories and praxis, those are all the things a craftsman can discuss that don't need licence. Pro-bono and other charity projects are always there that can be done without permission.
Including the ontology of licence. Along with the witherist position. The licensing industry complex, yeash. Sustainability being a trained skill again.
( Oh btw, since capital is going to disintegrate licences due to jingling keys with it's David Foster wallace Infinite Jest that can be played on doomscroll is qualitatively different from establishing a community that prioritize mutualism and equitable, resource redistribution of the co-operatives will always be more beneficial. No from the reactionary populism this big companies have. )
Here's a 15 video by Shiddy kickflips with cussing, I need to document it here in case you missed it.
Next time! Couch Gregor will look within Comfy UI, the stuff coco was made from. 🛋🔎
Does nor exist, economists log off. There is the knowledge domain. What they ain't is a scarcity of knowledge. Such a scarcity with what is able to be searched today.
Such a dubious concept, along with the attempt of an intellectual monopoly and monopsony. As if thought can be controlled. Such a matter with idea's concepts and style that are too broad to be categorized with a thing.
This brings a division, on how these matters where tutors tell other artists to use reference, yet not when it comes to copyright, our that such a matter concerned with its own withering and the means to monetize.
These are the alternative laws with regard to displacement with others, with defendants can in regard to maximalism of licensing laws.
From Alix Aviles* second video.
Oh dear, looks like it's going to be a combination of AI and Copyright, yet with such licensing laws there's going to have to be a reimagining with them. Or circumnavigating them, as it merely will make fan iterations impossible.
Copying non-commercially was forever a practice within classical academics, I've done sight size method myself as a manner of teaching Copying were to mean to bring design patterns and their aesthetic axiologies into a new repeatably and consistency. Copying will help transform and merge
A scientist goes does deep down of the ideology of libertarian, western thought - pro capitalist thought left behind via Ayn Rand. Well, I could draw a line down there, Adam does not know how that from Steven Jay Gould and to the moment of our technocracy of yearning for a sense of control, a matter that transcends copyright and the licensing laws of the ownership to our attention and the control of it with our attentional facilities
That reminds me when it's comes to AI within the idea of making our own ideas with controlling the conversation, aiming for the outsider.
1:34 hours (Yeah there was criticism where the sponsor previously, yet welcome to the machine of entertainment that we live in. ) *Anywhere, here's the vid
That's curious, that was a different definition of accelerationist, (Maybe he's using a different definition which I don't hold. The direct action plan sounds well, though. Also with something off-base with certain sources such as Mark Fischers miserablism.
It's all.. Mild and inoffensive, though, all things considered. Even with the direct action strategy.
Yet the legal battle, I can't really join in that circus.
(This one is on my to-read list, so many on the bucket list.)
Tom scott also did a video in regard to other work
Patricia also did a video in regard to understanding the licensing laws. It's not going to be easy.
Well, imagining other means such as a right to the city and other means of direct action is a anarchist methodology of accomplishing that's also suitable. Also, the handshake deal that is taken for granted. Such as a simplicity on that with a written agreement.
The copyright industry complex. Urgh. Why are so many willing to die on that hill?
Has our licensing laws every been pro-worker? Look at those perverse incentives.
As with the naturalistic reductionists with what happened with religion, so will there be a trend with our own licensing laws. What I also dislike about this reductionism that it reduces all aesthetic energy to how much will commodify it, the get-rich-and-famous contract. Something wiggling inside me is telling my that's not art.
So, to confirm.
LLM and Diffusion models are remixing tech that's mindless and iterative to our designs. Only through the deal that ain't contingent of NDA's and several escrow payments and paperwork, we could do work or anti-work that makes a difference.
Thoughts...
My editorial:
I tend to prioritize fraudulent behaviour than ontological perfection of IP/Copyright. John Lockian property rights are a liberal conception that can lead into petty sport of the printing press. (Even John Locke opposed monopoly, btw)
I don't like either the diffusion model training data and copyright. It's catnip to industrialists because they are about faster and cheaper product.
I'm currently doing more journalism within the legalese stuff, this gets quite
editorial and even into political and economical matters. Never underestimate the simple, direct transaction over complex.
Since property rights are easier to argue from an industrialist due to capital, it's only a matter of not playing their game. Only a different game and system that the independent not dependent of the commercial industry.
( Oh and if they decide to content ID this article on Goofy being incredibly hot, they erm I guess I told you so. Guess entertainment ain't an amorphous blob. ) Guess I'll have to preserve it here for great justice.
I guess this is a matter of taking a deep breath. Along with focusing on the main struggle. I guess that's enough of this hornets nest of da industry.
Copyrighting copyrighting, Self referential metamodernism into what appears to be the opposition of meaning and then towards at hyperreality where nothing can be sincerely enjoyed any more, and then it's too pure again, back and forth, back and forth.
So that's the trap, it's never-ending. It's a concept, it's not measured.
Thinking about this video
Had some disagreements with the golden mean and Peter skinner, at least what Peter Skinner was not as contentious as other works. Yet I did not know how self-referential has been used by artists when nothing else can be referenced, unless it get slapped.
So as with our texture to weave patterns that are meaning is made. With recursive recursion the perfection of advertising of attention retention provided by the advertisers being the perfection, yet circular reasoning it is that's unpersuasive.
Directly measured things are going to matter to those who seize it,
Not in an opportunistic way, yet generous. Inorganic reaching to the point of connecting on with a way that can open a door, a call to light is the call to action.
Beyond the race to the bottom, and the commodification and the attack of our attention to anything, there's the moment of stimuli that makes us a whole new being that we are aware and restructure for our own ends. Then the attention stimuli is rendered anew.
Finally, even with such commodification of indirection and the commodification of our direction, there's still our decisions that we make all day and into a new passage. Knowing and understanding- the control of the mise en place is the first step.
Even when the funds, and the time runs out.
Such transactions, that are not commodified, are intrinsic.
What are we to do when our attention and time are not commodified?
Commodified and slop by definition and profession?! Say it ain't so. The reason I study slop is I can clearly see the antithesis. The attempt to make a work of art and art work continues. What's Copywriting for? Cleaning the dishes? Oh well, own it.
All this was to attempt to make something out of a factory shop of furniture, making inspiration come from weird places.
With Song, that's it.
All propaganda is hackneyed, it has to be on the nose with the theme, simple, direct. Not clever for its own sake. So it's direct and in-your-face by design, to the point of it causing agreement or disagreement.
I don't know where this mediocractic line, you don't, yet I'm paranoid.
Avant Garde Artist to Hackneyed graphic design. Interactions of commodities and vision.
Crosswordism, a conciliatory epistemological framework of viewing the world for out philosophy, of complete true justified belief. Yet here we are, some of here essays are good, some of them are not. Regarding Neurlanaysis and the overwriting of very within the language.
I gravitate towards Stephan Jay Gould and the mismeasure of man, along with Delusions of Gender as authority sources of Cordelia fine in regard to that. (I'll have to reread it.)
I wanna leave phrenology to the academics, I'm an artist/entertainer first.
Nobody's perfect with my wabi-sabism, So I take a bit from there, a bit from that. Now, such a visualisation of 3-dimensional epistemology is a way of reasons and clues being evidentiary experiences. Wow, she does like paradoxes, as do I within my fiction.
Well, that's ambiguity, that's a way to approach an essay or a fictional work.
Later she critiques the further industrialisation with academia and that's reflected or the orderisation and packaging of student into products that's a simple way with SAT tests, that later is the golden lining that brings with topics. Ad agencies lines of thinking that Seth Godin that has thought, or that he has to seek.
Attorneys being representation of advocacy rather than scientist being that of the pursuit of knowledge. Along with other distinctions, if you ignore thing, she provides a good framework for paradoxes and a 3-dimensional way of seeing discourse.
Trippy, man. Things for the philosophy are to be questioned, nothing is safe, from copyright and curious questions, a lot of questions, and then there are answers.
I'd recommend, despite the odd bits. (Ignore the gender essentialism, stay for the naturalism and epistemology.)
Another outer inner Claude Hopkins Scientific Advertising, which determined the markingtese of salesman and their hacks for surplus accumulation.
How it comes, some merely want to cut to the chase. (Fundraising) while others want a more romantic treatment for the more literary types. Yet, people know that if they are treating this medium as a money-making mechanism (microblogging and direct messaging especially) the risk of burning trust becomes apparent.
Yet all of us seek to keep their budgets with our creative projects.
Make it so that whenever to simple it down, and not dumb it down. All concern and curiosity of the prospect with the specifics flirted.
Stuff writing has taught, that audiences that chase the latest mass market trend are not going to step off the carousal. Writing with the limited showmanship of literature can be a humbling experience, some say it's harder to write a game than it is to program it.
All part of the process rather than the results that appear fresh of the social media, which everything is not sacred there from the vulgarisations of the internet. The amount it takes to verbalise thoughts with sucking others with jingling keys respects other literacy, which I hope to increase and illuminate, not level up. Yet shine a light.
A bit of an enlightenment and not a metric based metric, I know, we are talking soft skills here, stuff that's hard to measure. Where ideas and the enrolment matter and conceptual abstraction helps make this a testing ground.
Not like going viral and monetizing was an option today, despite other companies capitalizing off it. Well, you give what you take with those under the .com things.
Even copywriters, and certain commercial novelists, how do you deal with mass ignorance? Nobody want's to read with attention and time commoditized into content, and at this point. It's merely our keyboards verbalising our thoughts.
Typology/taxonomy is something to consider for... urgh, marketing.
All the Casua Sui, or it's a fiction that's like that. Any aesthetic enterprise or ensemble.
Brand is typological, defined by nothing contingent by metrics or epistemology, it's intuitive. Indirect.
Direct advertisement is dependent on measurement and metrics. It's all generalising and stuff, estimates that are not accurate.
This is all left to the producers demands of a product first, unfortunately that will have to remain as a legal fiction. It's what commercial models and copywriters do, they have to deliver a product. They have to be hacks. Functionalism is there existence. The delivery of specifcations, unlike the matter.
Nobody talks with the markingtese of brand, and they don't speak of measurements. Function commercially with the commercial taken out of cease to function. Their inauthenticity is what makes the function.
Ads and advertising, ads serve that function of turn and towards with the matter, to re-turn, it's the point of direct functionalism that means.
This is all the thought'n ideology of capital, so that's how it is with Cartesian work ethics.
Such as the way of the esoteric discussions must be made into the communications of the outside world to an exoteric domain.
For familism to novelism, to the other way around. Even with the Egyptian specifications, who remade their crafts toward the avant gardes. Out of sociological reasons, there it is again, we are going round to a status play. To our governance.
I keep moving through this conceptual distinction, from that to the last. Discovered and made into better specifications, or not scaled for intentional craft.
The collective consciousness has spoken. Everbody's jaded. So it's our time to see if it's time to move from the copywriting, from action towards age of belief.
This is the basic sociological principle underlining each and every action of using interface design of interaction of media companies.
User or be used. Media platforms and its popular publishers aren't our friends.
So It's okay to give your self permission to make bad art, bad for what? If it has intent, then it must mean something else into another time. Immediate responses that don't count cannot be the only thing that matters.
Oh, All this action is directionless within the vortex, how that ain't talked about.
What a complicated way to say focus. Yet logicians in philosopy don't pull there punches when talking there jokes to academics.
Such as the troubles of learning to forcibly focus, isolated and into the trials.
Not wanting to be picked, not being selected within the right place in the right time.
Merely sticking towards a Wacom screen and not looking at the second screen. Along with thinking as an unglamorous producer, then not. Wrestling with the plumber paradox.
A ditch digger though, what a method to loosen writer's block, to loosen it's holding.
Then, when it publishes, the body of work continues.
So what is ultimately sold to the advertiser on platforms is tension, distilled.
Especially if the concept is mediocre, or plain indefensible.
So that's the hope for a new concept, in its abstraction is the thing that ain't tested within the reality of the now, it's only a matter of time such a conception is to begin.
Believe me not, there are those who cannot figure out what the word means, when it comes to concept and to the idea of having an idea. Oh, that their words do not reflect from their minds. Maybe there is no internal dialogue and all pre-determinations, well.
Despite the frequency rule of advertising (Stop till your accountant gets bored). It becomes apparent there's a need to switch it up. Pivot for interest, or stick to the usual kind.
Overexposure can breeds loss of dignity, so focus on anything else on that.
