The subject of adaptivity brings a long list of prospects, but some come forward and center.
One is sleep.
Another is information, insight, or knowledge, sometimes called by its superstitious name, intuition.
It is clear enough that in the long run intuition may be marked as a denomination of sleep, that is, if it turns out to be true that there are Buddhist layers of illusion, or that, as scientists say, the waking consciousness is a function of thoughts worked out during REM.
Indeed, there may be, in my imagination, items other than sleep which relate to adaptivity.
And if the these subjects do not include intuition, that must indeed shorten the list.
For in some minds, intuition is the only genuine form of intelligence, similar to the statement that metaphor (which is commonly affiliated with poetry, in turn dominated by intuitions) is the highest form of thought.
I will ignore that there is a question as to what these further things are, but I will seek to determine them.
One clear answer is that they are exceptions to dreams and intuitions.
Answers might include 'wildness', 'consciousness', 'duty', and 'reason'.
Yet what is suggested in these terms is a formulation of a system, a sly reference to the pedagogical necessity to educate youths with forms or diagrams which 'represent' the prospered lessons of a fraternized eternity, an eternity too stylistic to remain un-warped, indeed, too stylized to reassure the seeker that it exists in the first place.
Conventional reasoning is arife with this mistake, and I am glad that I have finally made a note of it.
So I am not looking for mere contrast, I am not looking for four opposite categories as I have in the past..
Clearly I am looking for a category which is not sleep, nor which is, according to these later arguments, the systems of consciousness, or any kind of conventional style.
Again the subject is adaptivity.
I hope some will realize the genius of proposing sleep in this context in the first place.
Two possibly different answers to the previous come from combining conceptualism such as conscious systems with the untested wilderness of inventions, patterns, experiences, and imagination, sometimes called the 'spice of life'.
If conscious systems seems too obscure, we can apply the formerly denied stylistic preference, yielding a formalistic wilderness.
Yet some would say that few have found a type of immortality either in mathematics, or in the architectural career.
Indeed, mathematicians and architects are known for losing sleep, which at any rate proves some of the earlier thesis, that that contrast is what we were trying to create.
Perhaps conceptual wilderness is only a template for what I am trying to conceive in the context of adaptation.
I do not mean a mere jungle-gym as conventional and appealing as that metaphor has been.
Nor do I mean 'perspective dimension' also in a conventional sense.
But I am also trying to abandon the connotation that what is unconventional is a 'tabula rasa'.
Certainly though at this point it seems conducive to project that God is the originator of all originalities, so there is a surreptitious trend towards believing that what I am framing is merely a 'game of life' and not something more meaningful.
I take it for granted that pain is not always instructive, that is, there are ways to learn from small rather than large doses of it.
And in some cases, even that amount is unnecessary, for many of the risks of life also seem unnecessary, and thus the encounters with them seem awry rather than foolish.
A further concept at this point is an anti-game, with mental, bodily, and soulful implications.
The sacrifice in the immortal life is not for any given set of rules, but rather for the self-defined and open-ended configuration which defines 'everything-of-its-kind', in other words the 'schemat' of the pursuit of longevity.
Defining that it is a 'game without rules' in simple parlance may also imply that there is a self-created diction or, to borrow an architectural term, vocabulary, which defines the presets of correspondence between the mind and experience.
At this point we have already moved beyond some superficial concepts of God, by defining that the 'Architect' exists within the mind of the 'Architect', having defined architecture as something which relates to the schemat of the seeker, but which does not connote inherently any idea of originality.
At this point I think it is worth emphasizing that these concepts have some mark of usefulness for the project, under the connotation that an anti-game may be a game without rules, and that this pattern is no longer one of sleep, or mere intelligence, but rather has a pattern of adaptivity, according to complex reasoning, the details of which exist in this article.
But let that remain on the side (thoughts of 'Architect', 'Architecture').
There is the concept of conceptual wilderness which may apply to some of the other categories which have emerged.
If anti-game is a conceptual wilderness, what does this mean? I propose that the answer to this question speaks volumes about the dimensional nature of adaptation.
For example, consider the following generated categories, which may be traced to that relationship: [1] Sustenance, [2] The Cosmic Lawyer, [3] Life by Design, [4] A Real Trip.
Considering combinations of these four yields thoughts about immortal adaptation, indeed, perhaps the genuine temporal view of immortality.
With that, this lesson concludes.
One is sleep.
Another is information, insight, or knowledge, sometimes called by its superstitious name, intuition.
It is clear enough that in the long run intuition may be marked as a denomination of sleep, that is, if it turns out to be true that there are Buddhist layers of illusion, or that, as scientists say, the waking consciousness is a function of thoughts worked out during REM.
Indeed, there may be, in my imagination, items other than sleep which relate to adaptivity.
And if the these subjects do not include intuition, that must indeed shorten the list.
For in some minds, intuition is the only genuine form of intelligence, similar to the statement that metaphor (which is commonly affiliated with poetry, in turn dominated by intuitions) is the highest form of thought.
I will ignore that there is a question as to what these further things are, but I will seek to determine them.
One clear answer is that they are exceptions to dreams and intuitions.
Answers might include 'wildness', 'consciousness', 'duty', and 'reason'.
Yet what is suggested in these terms is a formulation of a system, a sly reference to the pedagogical necessity to educate youths with forms or diagrams which 'represent' the prospered lessons of a fraternized eternity, an eternity too stylistic to remain un-warped, indeed, too stylized to reassure the seeker that it exists in the first place.
Conventional reasoning is arife with this mistake, and I am glad that I have finally made a note of it.
So I am not looking for mere contrast, I am not looking for four opposite categories as I have in the past..
Clearly I am looking for a category which is not sleep, nor which is, according to these later arguments, the systems of consciousness, or any kind of conventional style.
Again the subject is adaptivity.
I hope some will realize the genius of proposing sleep in this context in the first place.
Two possibly different answers to the previous come from combining conceptualism such as conscious systems with the untested wilderness of inventions, patterns, experiences, and imagination, sometimes called the 'spice of life'.
If conscious systems seems too obscure, we can apply the formerly denied stylistic preference, yielding a formalistic wilderness.
Yet some would say that few have found a type of immortality either in mathematics, or in the architectural career.
Indeed, mathematicians and architects are known for losing sleep, which at any rate proves some of the earlier thesis, that that contrast is what we were trying to create.
Perhaps conceptual wilderness is only a template for what I am trying to conceive in the context of adaptation.
I do not mean a mere jungle-gym as conventional and appealing as that metaphor has been.
Nor do I mean 'perspective dimension' also in a conventional sense.
But I am also trying to abandon the connotation that what is unconventional is a 'tabula rasa'.
Certainly though at this point it seems conducive to project that God is the originator of all originalities, so there is a surreptitious trend towards believing that what I am framing is merely a 'game of life' and not something more meaningful.
I take it for granted that pain is not always instructive, that is, there are ways to learn from small rather than large doses of it.
And in some cases, even that amount is unnecessary, for many of the risks of life also seem unnecessary, and thus the encounters with them seem awry rather than foolish.
A further concept at this point is an anti-game, with mental, bodily, and soulful implications.
The sacrifice in the immortal life is not for any given set of rules, but rather for the self-defined and open-ended configuration which defines 'everything-of-its-kind', in other words the 'schemat' of the pursuit of longevity.
Defining that it is a 'game without rules' in simple parlance may also imply that there is a self-created diction or, to borrow an architectural term, vocabulary, which defines the presets of correspondence between the mind and experience.
At this point we have already moved beyond some superficial concepts of God, by defining that the 'Architect' exists within the mind of the 'Architect', having defined architecture as something which relates to the schemat of the seeker, but which does not connote inherently any idea of originality.
At this point I think it is worth emphasizing that these concepts have some mark of usefulness for the project, under the connotation that an anti-game may be a game without rules, and that this pattern is no longer one of sleep, or mere intelligence, but rather has a pattern of adaptivity, according to complex reasoning, the details of which exist in this article.
But let that remain on the side (thoughts of 'Architect', 'Architecture').
There is the concept of conceptual wilderness which may apply to some of the other categories which have emerged.
If anti-game is a conceptual wilderness, what does this mean? I propose that the answer to this question speaks volumes about the dimensional nature of adaptation.
For example, consider the following generated categories, which may be traced to that relationship: [1] Sustenance, [2] The Cosmic Lawyer, [3] Life by Design, [4] A Real Trip.
Considering combinations of these four yields thoughts about immortal adaptation, indeed, perhaps the genuine temporal view of immortality.
With that, this lesson concludes.