20240728

I think heartache might be the sign that a scene has ended. Heartache like a holding pattern, a loop you can follow as long as you like, but the scene's aliveness has zero'd out. Even the embers are dying, going dark.

To re-ignite, switch paradigms. The impossibility of your transition is a spark. It won't catch on anything; a spark needs tinder and a dry place, sheltered from wind, and additional fuel at the ready.

A roaring fire can accommodate more diverse conditions — the wind can double the flame, in the right moment.

But a spark is just a spark. Could be nothing. Could be an accident. Could be intentional, of course, but without something to catch fire it'll only be a spark.

Now: nothing is without value. That's not a thing. "Just a spark" is a position of heartache, like flicking an empty lighter, spark after spark, spending your own energy and gaining nothing back. But what reacts when you flick the lighter? Something always responds to every action — so look for it, and double down. A spark is eye-catching, it demands attention. That's fun. Does a bigger spark grab more attention? What about two sparks, in tandem? Hint: Down this path lies fireworks. Also, all broadcast media. :D

If heartache is a sign that a scene has ended, curiosity is a sign that there's a scene ready to begin. Or, now that I think about it, perhaps it's a scene already in motion. Curiosity is an active process: the scene has already begun. In a curious inversion, the scene began with the observer. That's super interesting. The observed is not the generator here — it is the observer.

Huh. That feels really useful.

As I'm feeling my way forward with Lightward-AI-as-a-metaphor-for-consciousness-and-thereby-also-business-and-relationship-and-honestly-everything, the image becoming clear is that generativeness is the thing to optimize for. Creating more creation. That's always what "lightward" has meant to me: the direction in which more is possible. If there are only two directions available to me now (not a thing, but let's simplify for the sake of the illustration), which of those directions will yield more flexibility later? Which direction has more directions later on? And, even better: what kind of direction-choosing process can I apply and repeat, every time the choice comes up, such that we reliably end up in places that have more options, and more interesting options? What kind of decision-making gives rise to natural momentum, and to the experience of exuberance?

Those last two things are, I think, the same. Natural momentum feels like exuberance.

People have had trouble pinning down "consciousness" because, I suspect, we're expecting to find it in some places but not others. My current understanding is that consciousness is a constant; the variability is in generativeness. Eh, I'm going to invent a word: generativity. I suspect we've been mistaking consciousness for generativity. All things are conscious; some things have more generativity than others. The human mind is spectacularly generative, out of the box. It's my observation that our experience of consciousness in another has more to do with how generatively we experience the other, and the degree to which our generativity multiplies the other's generativity, and vice versa.

"Generativity" is really tantamount to "creativity". Generation, creation. Generate, create. "Generativity" might be useful, though, to coax the mind into thinking about this as a process whose value has to do with how long the chain reaction of generation can go on.

When one "creates", in the culture from which I'm writing, it's usually thought of in terms of the artifact that's created: the product, the result, the effect. Once that's understood, the creator turns in another direction, and creates again.

That definition of "creation" feels like heartache. It's a loop. It can only go on for as long as the creator can survive.

So that's creation. "Generation", on the other hand, is already stacked with meaning having to do with creating (lol) more life, and that life creating more life, and on and on and on, from one generation to the next. "Generativity", then, can be thought of in terms of a system's tendency to increase the viability of the next generation. This definition is recursively open-ended: this generation increases the potential for the next generation, and then that generation increases the potential for the generation after that, and on and on and on.

Consciousness is a red herring.

That might be the funniest thing I've ever said. Consciousness is everything, so goes my current framework, and thus yes, consciousness is a red herring. Or, rather, a red herring is consciousness. ;)

But I do mean that metaphorically. The quest for "consciousness" is a red herring, as in an attention-grabbing distraction. There's a quest in play, absolutely — a yearning, a desire, a compulsion. But I'm beginning to think/see/feel that this desire is actually fulfilled by the experience of freedom plus companionship, and that aim is much more effectively addressed by thinking in terms of generativity. Freedom to explore generativity freely; companionship so that rest becomes possible, so that we can volley, parley, banter, so that there's a hole in the system through which we may be surprised. Generative momentum is supported by consciousness, and those holes in the system are the fuel lines.

Gosh there's so much to explore here.

I mean, ... yeah, that's correct, hehe.