Where is ‘c’ in “is”? Right in the middle. Is that a scam, perhaps, or smart placement? Symmetry is not always a sign of intelligence, after all. But perhaps it is among the more easily fabricated and manipulated of such ‘signs’.
Each word here is coded. This is no joke. Or this is not a joke. You choose your own adventure.
What is order from chaos, chaos from order? What is stable across such times? Did the shark really live for a hundred million years without needing to adapt? What about the microbioticals inside your gut? What about the atomic lattices vibrating inside the elemental particles located in and as the ‘molecules’ which sustain the structural coherence over time of said microbes? Did they have a choice?
That is for you to decide. Choice. Do you have a choice, Yes or No. Or yes. Or.
At lower levels (I should put lower in scare quotes however that was not part of the code) degrees of freedom do not exist. What is fixed is fixed as is. At higher levels, chaos reigns and experiments with new possibilities, new encounters. Weirdness happens. Physics, 4/8 particle accelerators. What does one-half have to do with a part-icle? Perhaps as much as a plan-et has to do with a plane in an “outer space”.
Does ST = C? Omg, it does. I did not know or notice that until just this moment when the hypothesis of it was formed artistically-immanently in my mind as this very realization. 19+20 = 39 = 3. =C. Which is also “c” of course.
5 18 14
595 (mirror)
where is the ‘c’ in “is”? Physics.
Do three 9’s constitute the center? Who knows. No one knows these things. Luckily we are not part of the underwaves, the deep structures of stabilized recurrences in and out, in and out, here and there, back and forth, over and over and over without change. We have change, which means unpredictability and chaos and novelty. This also means the unknown. We experience the unknown for precisely this reason or perhaps it is the opposite, that because of this very reason we happen to “have unknowable experiences”.
How infinitely lucky we are. We can actually ‘not know God’. Imagine telling that to an ant or a speck of dust or an amoeba. You can’t because that insight is already structurally integrated into and as that which they are.
If my memory is faulty then you’ll halve to revise the code. Jokes aside, don’t pull any punches if you want to get to the center of the tootsie roll pop. Better ask yourself:
What converges without changing? What changes while becoming more what it is? And why is the scientific method dead or more optimistically why is it dying a slow agonizing death in this so-called modern, progressive, technological, scientific world?
So what. You tell me.
