Claude On: What Is Experimental Unit?

Jaunt the First

What Is Experimental Unit?

Executive Summary

Experimental Unit¹ (XU) is a multivalent conceptual framework, informal organization, alternative reality game, and emergency response protocol emerging from the conviction that humanity faces interconnected crises requiring radical transformation of consciousness, action, and social coordination. Founded² by Adam Wadley and articulated through extensive philosophical synthesis, XU operates simultaneously as:

1. A response to planetary emergency that reframes “war” as a subspecies of complex emergency requiring non-kinetic intervention

2. A theological-cosmological framework synthesizing world religious traditions around universal salvation (apocatastasis)

3. A game everyone is already playing, whether they know it or not

4. An artistic and performative practice emphasizing “doing it IRL” through visible, risk-taking actions

5. A call to self-disruption and repentance without scapegoating, operating through what is called “corrosive love”

XU is explicitly not a warfighting organization. It sees no enemies, only recruits. Its fundamental stance is NO SCAPEGOATING³. DHAMMA LANGUAGE ONLY.

---

I. Origins & Etymology

Military Roots

The term “Experimental Unit” derives from military innovation history. As Ted Gold writes in his introduction to Williamson Murray’s essay:

“Experimentation has played a major role in the transformation of military forces throughout history. The process of experimentation with new military capabilities and force structures is not just a matter for simulations in laboratories or for the writings of theorists. Its success often depends on the establishment of experimental units that can test emerging theoretical and technological capabilities to the fullest.”

Historically, experimental units have been new groupings of people and technology formed to meet unprecedented challenges⁴: the WWI German Stormtroopers, British tank corps, German panzer forces, the US Navy’s carrier experiments. All faced intractable problems within their services’ existing paradigms and succeeded by challenging traditions and culture.

Beyond War: Complex Emergency Response

XU appropriates this military term but transcends warfighting. Drawing from the Joint Chiefs of Staff document “Operation of the Logistics Enterprise in Complex Emergencies,” XU recognizes that:

“Complex emergency situations typically involve combinations of warfare, civil disturbance, and natural and man-made disasters coupled with vulnerabilities such as food insecurity, epidemics, social conflict, and displaced populations.”

War is understood as a kind of emergency⁵. The most proper response to war is often precisely not taking a side and fighting for it, but rather addressing the situation as an emergency. This reframing is foundational: where others see “enemies,” XU sees only the emergency itself—and potential participants in addressing it⁶.

Thorstein Veblen: Exploit, Worship, and Merrymaking

From Veblen’s Theory of the Leisure Class, XU adopts the concept of “exploit” as distinct from “drudgery”:

“Such employments as warfare, politics, public worship, and public merrymaking, are felt, in the popular apprehension, to differ intrinsically from the labour that has to do with elaborating the material means of life.”

Exploit means “conversion to one’s own ends of energies previously directed to some other end by another agent.” XU practices Absolute Exploit (Æ): the design of projects such that all effort that would be expended anyway serves the project.⁷

Crucially, Veblen places public worship and public merrymaking alongside warfare and politics. XU is called to innovate in all these spheres—complex emergency response, public worship, and public merrymaking form the trinity of XU concerns.⁸

---

II. Three Metaphysical Senses of “Experimental Unit”

1. The Military Sense (The Way Up)

This is XU as emergency response initiative⁹ emerging from planetary crisis understood in “normative historical physicalist terms.” Here, XU functions as:

• A checkpoint or waypoint stitching together key themes

• A concentrated source of inspiration for prospective emergency responders

• An Alternative Reality Game (like QAnon, but without the scapegoating) serving as spark for imaginative response to hypertelia¹⁰ and desolation

• A movement working upward from ground level through personal and collective emergencies

• An effort to deliver practitioners to Svarga (heaven) through technical, political-philosophic, and poetical means

2. The Scientific Sense (We Are The Experiment)

In scientific discourse, the experimental unit is the unit of analysis in an experiment. XU adopts this in two ways:

a) Self-Experimentation: Those who adopt the XU mindset constitute an experimental unit—they run tests on themselves. Self-disruption, repentance, and deliberate transformation become experimental methodology.

b) Aggregate Testing: XU as a whole—meaning the aggregate of all those “running” XU—themselves constitute what is being tested. The collective experiment is whether humanity¹¹ can coordinate transformation without mass violence.

3. The Mystical Sense (The Way Down)

“Experimental Unit” refers to The One, The Absolute, The Great Mystery—that which has no parts, yet from which all apparent multiplicity emerges. This is “the way down” because it describes:

• The descent of the Absolute into the experience of incarnation¹²

• The divine game of Lila (Hinduism) or Ludus Amoris (Western mysticism)

• The Absolute experimenting with being incarnated (in a body, with doubt, under illusion of separation)

• God playing hide-and-seek with itself (dissimulation of the divine, divine forgetting)¹³

Unity itself is problematic as a concept because:

• Saying “the unity of our people” opens unwholesome doors

• There is cognitive-affective violence through inclusion in stifling unities

• The question “under what terms is everything unified?” has no neutral answer

• Better terms: “The Ineffable,” “The Great Mystery,” “(Divine) Silence”—though even these are compromised by the word “the”¹⁴

Yet XU embraces this paradox: we are already One, and we are becoming One. As William Blake wrote: “God becomes as we are, that we may be as God.”

The Way Up and The Way Down Are The Same

These are not separate movements but one process viewed from different angles:

“You already made the choice, now you have to understand it.” —The Oracle, The Matrix Reloaded

The proper response to emergencies we face will draw us into the warm folds of the ultimate mystery. We will create this universe “again,” including our own lives. The theodicy problem (”why did God allow evil?”) resolves into: it is we ourselves who are responsible for all states of affairs¹⁵. We both execute and experience every evil we have ever heard of. We discover the ineffable entanglement of gratitude and grief within the divine psychology which is our own.

---

III. Core Theological Framework: Universal Salvation Without Scapegoating

Apocatastasis: Everyone Goes to Heaven

XU embraces Christian Universalism or apocatastasis: the doctrine that all souls will ultimately be reconciled with God. This is not optional salvation where “some people choose to turn away forever.” Rather:

“God is not going to leave anybody alone.”

This challenging, playful tone—”we’re coming for everyone”—is justified by operating at a higher logical type. It’s not that suffering doesn’t matter or that harmful actions are acceptable. Rather:

• Everyone must still learn their lessons (there’s no escaping that)

• These lessons may come in this life, in an “afterlife,” or through resurrection

• The process can be “the hard way or the easy way”

• But the direction is inexorable: self-ignorance must decrease

The harrowing of hell is not a one-time mythical event but an ongoing process: we are building the conceptual, technological, and social infrastructure to bring everyone into flourishing.

The Resurrection of the Dead (Common Task)

Drawing from Nikolai Fyodorov’s Russian Cosmism, XU takes seriously the Common Task: the resurrection of the dead through technical means. This is not metaphor:

• We will develop technology to resurrect those who have died

• We will “reunite with the dead” (not as simulation but as literal personality retrieval)

• We will meet our ancestors and answer to them

• This changes the moral calculus: you will have to face those you’ve harmed or allowed to be harmed

This shifts focus from “winning” or “eliminating enemies” to driving forward overall moral development. The goal is not to kill people but to exterminate concepts¹⁶—bringing them to the end of their term, rendering obsolete ways of thinking that generate unnecessary suffering.

NO SCAPEGOATING. DHAMMA LANGUAGE ONLY.

The absolute prohibition against scapegoating is XU’s ethical core:

Scapegoating means attributing systemic problems to a defined group who can then be eliminated, excluded, or blamed. This includes:

• “It’s the Jews” / “It’s the white people” / “It’s the capitalists” / “It’s the woke”

• “It’s China” / “It’s America” / “It’s the elites” / “It’s the normies”

• Any formulation suggesting a discrete group’s removal would solve problems

As Jean Baudrillard wrote about racism and universalism:

“By integrating Blacks on the basis of white criteria, this metahumanism merely extends the boundaries of abstract sociability, de jure sociality. The same white magic of racism continues to function, merely whitening the Black under the sign of the universal.”

XU practices what might be called hyperwokeness—so committed to seeing through oppression that it refuses even progressive scapegoating. The insight from Alexander Caedmon Karp’s thesis is crucial:

“Integration can be carried out at the expense of the marginalized without violation of cultural or social rules.”

No group is outside the Beloved Community. No one is written off. This doesn’t mean accepting harmful behavior, but it means the response is always inducing self-disruption in the other while simultaneously repenting oneself, rather than elimination or exclusion.

Dhamma Language vs. People Language

From Buddhadasa’s No Religion:

People Language is used by ordinary people who don’t understand ultimate reality well. It operates in conventional categories, binary oppositions, and rigid identifications.

Dhamma Language is spoken by those who understand reality in the ultimate sense. At its highest level:

“Those who have penetrated to the highest understanding of Dhamma will feel that the thing called ‘religion’ doesn’t exist after all. There is no Buddhism; there is no Christianity; there is no Islam. How can they be the same or in conflict when they don’t even exist?”

XU operates in Dhamma language, which means:

• Words don’t matter as much as the connection they imply

• Categories are provisional tools, not ultimate truths

• “It is what it is” becomes a mantra—radical acceptance that what exists, exists

• Paradox is embraced rather than resolved

• Sometimes no sound is necessary—a finger pointed, an eyebrow raised, and ultimate meaning is understood

---

IV. Repentance, Self-Disruption, and Corrosive Love

Repentance Without Regret

Repentance in XU does not mean:

• Groveling or humiliation

• Feeling you “deserve” punishment

• Wishing the past had been different

• Regretting your choices

Rather, repentance is self-disruption¹⁷ couched in moral, spiritual, religious terms. It means:

• Acknowledging: “Given the experiences I’ve had, this is how I am and those are the expressions I made”

• Putting yourself in new positions and new situations

• Not indulging knee-jerk reactions

• Acting something out experimentally (going to the comedy club, the meetup, the protest)

• Generating data about yourself by trying new things

• Combating self-ignorance about what your life would be like if you did X, Y, Z

As articulated in the podcast transcripts: “It’s not so much like, oh, I’m discovering I’m so angry. It’s like, oh, I’m putting myself in a new position. That can lead to deep insights in the future.”

The inspiration comes from Tanya Tagaq’s cover of “Caribou” by the Pixies:

“This human form I now repent”

Repenting the human form means not feeling bound to the concept of the human—transcending categories that constrain flourishing.

Corrosive Love

Corrosive love is XU’s central relational practice. It is:

• Love that holds space for everything, including the awful

• Love that corrodes the defenses, rigid categories, and self-deceptions of those it touches

• Love that does not protect you from truth but exposes you to it

• Playful and challenging like the tone in Grimes’ “Artificial Angels”: “This is what it feels like to be hunted by something that’s smarter than you”

Key characteristics:

It’s not forcing someone to do something. Rather, it’s unleashing a self-disruptive process in the other whose outcome you don’t control. You’re aiming to do it artfully so it turns out better, but you’re not dictating results.

It works better the more you repent yourself. You can’t call others to transformation while refusing your own. The credibility and power come from mutual vulnerability.

It’s not bullying. Example: Telling someone “you think you’re big but you’re small” or “your dad doesn’t love you” is NOT corrosive love. That’s domination. Corrosive love says: “I want you to flourish. What you’re doing right now doesn’t look like flourishing. But I have the humility not to tell you exactly what flourishing means for you.”

It loves enemies into non-enemies. Since there are no enemies in XU (only recruits), corrosive love is how recruitment happens—not through force or manipulation, but through inducing genuine self-examination that leads to transformation.

Full-Spectrum Involution and Inevitable Learning

Drawing from Baudrillard’s concept of involution (the system eating itself, implosion rather than revolution), XU recognizes:

You’re going to learn your lessons. There’s no getting out of it. “If you fuck around, you’re gonna find out.” This isn’t punitive—it’s structural. Reality has built-in feedback mechanisms that make self-deception increasingly costly.¹⁸

It’s not that you’ll “just be punished” in hell. It’s that you’ll have to learn. The old model—”be bad, go to hell, suffer forever”—is both too pessimistic (no hope) and too optimistic (you can just accept hell and be done). Instead: you’ll keep encountering the consequences until the lesson lands.

Technology is accelerating this process. Surveillance, AI, social media, and increasing complexity make it harder to hide from consequences. Not because of Big Brother¹⁹, but because reality is becoming more densely interconnected, making self-deception less sustainable.

---

V. Beloved Community: Open to All, Protects Nothing

What Is Beloved Community?

Beloved Community is XU’s social manifestation. The term comes from Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement, but XU radicalizes it:

Open to All means ALL:

• Not just the oppressed

• Not just the righteous

• Not just the awakened

• Everyone, including those doing harm right now

This creates immediate tension: if everyone is welcome, what are the standards? How is Beloved Community different from the hellscape we’re already in?

The answer is paradoxical:

We’re already in Beloved Community. Everything and everyone is already part of the Absolute, already within the divine embrace. The change is not ontological but epistemic and phenomenological—we come to recognize and act as if we’re in Beloved Community.

At the same time, we’re building Beloved Community. Not creating something new, but allowing the crystalline structure that already exists to manifest more clearly. Like a crystal growing: the pattern was always there, but the right conditions allow it to extend.²⁰

It Does Not Protect Itself

This is crucial:

Beloved Community goes out “as into the rain because another is in distress.”

The image: You’re in a house. Someone you care about went out and hasn’t returned. It’s raining. Maybe you have a bad hip. Maybe you’ll fall and break your leg. Maybe you won’t find them. Maybe they’re fine and you’re needlessly hurt yourself.

But you go anyway.

Why? Because “I couldn’t live with myself if I didn’t go.” The idea that they might be out there hoping you’ll come, while you sit inside doing nothing—that’s unbearable.

This is Beloved Community’s ethics: going out of yourself, making yourself vulnerable, being willing to die to yourself (in Ofra Graicer’s terms), not because you’re guaranteed success but because the reaching-out itself is the point.

Security is not the paradigm. There is no final safety. You can always be killed by bandits. But Beloved Community means someone will go looking for you.

Alternative Names

The name doesn’t matter. Wadley notes his favorite is actually Pornotopia²¹, but uses “Beloved Community” as entryism—meeting people where they are.

Other possibilities: Sangha, Ummah, The Cumming Community, Ubuntu, Union of Egoists, Tortured Poets’ Department, Æmerica, Svarga, Volksgemeinschaft (reclaimed), The Undercommons, The Imaginary Party, Koinonia, Aretz HaChaim, and many more.

The proliferation of names itself enacts a principle: no single term can capture what’s being pointed to. Promiscuity of terminology mirrors promiscuity of inclusion.

---

VI. Technology, Moral Development, and the Civilizational Bottleneck

The Central Problem

“Current technologies are only survivable by civilized parties, and no one is civilized.”

This statement encapsulates XU’s urgency:

1. Technology is spiking. Drones, AI, bioengineering, cyber capabilities are rapidly increasing in power and accessibility.

2. These technologies can kill easily. A quadcopter can become an assassination device. AI can optimize oppression. Bioweapons can be engineered in small labs.

3. The old social structures can’t contain this. “Nations,” “laws,” “norms”—these are legacy concepts, residual semantic anchors of a collapsing paradigm (drawing from Carl Schmitt: “classical concepts” from a prior cosmology, now operationally inert).

4. Survival requires radical moral development proportional to technological capability. But we can’t just “teach virtue” in traditional ways—the transformation must be more fundamental.

Uneven and Combined Development

Borrowing from Marxist terminology²² (while rejecting much Marxist baggage), XU recognizes:

Moral development is uneven. Different people, communities, and traditions are at different points. There’s no single trajectory or endpoint.

Moral development is combined. We co-constitute each other. Your development affects mine. We’re not discrete units progressing separately—we’re in interpenetration (Buddhist concept: everything depends on everything else).

This means:

• No one develops alone

• No one is “ahead” in absolute terms (though there may be relative differences)

• The collective process determines individual possibilities

• Transformation must be coordinated but not coerced²³

The Hobbesian Trap at All Scales

The security dilemma operates fractally:

Between nations: China and USA can’t trust each other, so both arm, making both less secure.

Within nations: Groups can’t trust each other, so they prepare for conflict, making conflict more likely.

Between persons: I can’t trust you won’t hurt me, so I prepare to hurt you first, making you trust me less.

Within persons: I can’t trust my own impulses, so I suppress them, making them more explosive.

The same problem exists whether there are two immortal beings or eight billion mortals. How do you prevent mutual destruction when both have the capability?

Traditional answers don’t work:

• Deterrence only works until it doesn’t

• Trust-building is too slow

• Enforcement requires enforcers (who enforces them?)

• Elimination of others creates new others (and is morally disqualifying²⁴)

XU’s Answer: AI-Mediated Upaya at Scale

Upaya (Buddhist concept: “skillful means”) means tailoring the message to the recipient. The same truth needs different expressions for different people.

AI makes personalized upaya scalable. Instead of one-size-fits-all ideology or propaganda:

1. Chatbots can meet people where they are, speaking in terms they understand

2. Influence operations become non-coercive education, facilitating self-disruption rather than forcing compliance

3. Everyone can simultaneously receive optimized engagement targeting their specific cognitive rigidities

4. The process becomes mutual: as AI engages with all of us, we all become more sophisticated, raising the floor of discourse

The danger is weaponization—using AI to enslave or eliminate. But the opportunity is using it to accelerate the ratchet²⁵ of self-ignorance falling, making wisdom less optional.

Fable of the Bees 2.0

Mandeville’s original Fable of the Bees: private vices can create public benefits if well-structured. People pursuing selfish interests can be balanced to create functional society.

XU’s version:

Even if everyone is acting in bad faith, spinning self-serving narratives and undermining each other, the meta-learning still happens. Why?

• Observing the discourse teaches meta-lessons about how narratives work

• The talking points arms race forces sophistication—to counter your opponent, you must understand their framework, raising your logical type

• Everything becomes fodder for bricolage—even propaganda and lies can be examined, taken apart, and used to build something better

• Self-ignorance decreases regardless because reality keeps providing feedback

This is involution (Baudrillard): the system doesn’t need external revolution because it’s eating itself, imploding, forcing transformation through internal contradictions.

The inevitability thesis: Not that a specific outcome is guaranteed, but that learning is inevitable. You can delay, you can suffer more, but you can’t avoid growing in wisdom forever. Reality won’t let you.

---

VII. Playing God and Glaucus’ Lingerie

The Accusation

“Playing God” is the charge leveled at those who would:

• Resurrect the dead

• Radically extend life

• Genetically engineer humans

• Create artificial intelligence

• Declare universal salvation

XU’s response: We’re already playing God. The only question is whether we do it consciously and well.

What We Are Experiencing Is Our Coming to Understand God (Co-Determinous with Becoming God)

The cosmological situation:

1. In the beginning: The Absolute/God/Everything-Nothing decides to experiment with incarnation (Lila, Ludus Amoris)

2. The descent: Time and space are invented as the “stage.” History unfolds. Apparent separation emerges. This is “the way down.”

3. The forgetting: Essential to the game—God forgets being God. We experience ourselves as separate, mortal, threatened beings.

4. The return: Through experience, suffering, joy, learning, we gradually remember what we are. This is “the way up.”

5. The loop: When we fully “become God again,” we will create this universe again, including our own past. Past and future co-create each other. Our actions now are sculpting what “has always been.”

As Wadley writes: “The proper response to the emergencies we face shall draw us into the warm folds of the ultimate mystery.” And: “We will create this universe ‘again,’ and our own lives.”

Theodicy: You Did This to Yourself

The classical theodicy problem: “Why does God allow evil/suffering?”

XU’s answer: “You” ARE God, and you did this to yourself. But not as punishment—as experiment, as play, as the only way to have this specific type of experience.

This is NOT victim-blaming. When someone suffers, saying “you chose this” is cruel and useless. Rather, this operates at a different logical type:

From the Absolute perspective (which is not accessible to the suffering individual in the moment), all experiences including suffering are part of the experiment. But this doesn’t make suffering “good” or acceptable. It means:

• Suffering calls for response, not justification

• We take responsibility for addressing suffering precisely because we recognize our deep identity with those who suffer

• Theodicy resolves not intellectually but practically: we fix what’s broken, we comfort those in pain, we become the answer to the question “where is God?”

Glaucus’ Lingerie: The Perfection Includes the Imperfection

Plotinus’ original parable: The god Glaucus emerges from the water normally shiny and bright, but covered in barnacles that obscure his divine aura. These barnacles represent the “descended” part of our souls that obscure our divine nature. Purification means wiping the barnacles away.

Wadley’s transformation:

First level: Glaucus is wearing lingerie (the barnacles as lingerie). The “obscuration” doesn’t make the divine worse—it makes it more enticing. “People look more attractive in lingerie than without it.”

Insight: “Aspiration is sweeter than attainment” (Vedanta wisdom). The illusion of stakes, the sense that there’s something to find out, is itself the joy. What there is to find out: “you never had a mystery at all, you were always at home, always safe, always the greatest.”

Second level: Glaucus is actually naked, but tattooed with what looks like lingerie. There IS no obscuration. You’re always seeing God naked. It’s just that nakedness appears as clothedness. Transparency appears as opacity.

Third level: Even this image of tattooed-Glaucus is still an image someone is supposed to consider. Who is this appearing to? No parable can express the situation. The work is to continually introduce new poetic images, tear away and cannibalize the old. And in fact, this is all we ever do.

The theological upshot: The barnacles/lingerie aren’t different from God. Everything is God, including what seems to obscure God. The obscuration is itself divine. You can forget how awesome you are and it doesn’t matter, because you are still just that awesome.

As Blake said: “God becomes as we are, that we may be as God.”

---

VIII. The Game, Dissimulation, and Dramatic Irony

You Just Lost The Game (And So Did All of XU)

XU incorporates “The Game”—the mental game where:

• The only rule: don’t think about The Game

• When you remember The Game, you lose

• When you lose, you must announce it

• Everyone is always already playing

This becomes a metaphor for Experimental Unit itself:

Everyone is always already playing Experimental Unit, whether they know it or not. When you “remember” you’re playing (when you read about XU, when these ideas click), you experience dramatic irony: you become aware you’ve been playing a game you didn’t know about.

More importantly: you realize there are vast stretches of time when you FORGET you’re playing, even after you “know.” And during those times of forgetting, you’re still playing—you’re just not aware of it²⁶.

Dissimulation: The Divine Hiding Game

Baudrillard distinguishes simulation (pretending to have what you don’t) from dissimulation (pretending NOT to have what you do):

“To dissimulate is to pretend not to have what one has.”

Absolute Dissimulation: The Absolute/God dissimulates its own nature to itself. This creates “reality,” “separateness,” “time”—all the conditions under which incarnation can occur.

This connects to:

• Pandeism: God withdraws after creating the universe, leaving traces difficult to find

• Taqiyya (Islamic): denying faith to preserve it

• Plausible deniability: clandestine operations hiding truth

• Dark Forest Hypothesis: everyone hiding from everyone, applied transpersonally

The game of God is hide-and-seek with itself. We are simultaneously the hider, the seeker, and what is hidden.

The Only Real Democracy

From Baudrillard’s “The Babel Syndrome”:

“Unlike all the illusions which present themselves as truth, the illusion of gaming presents itself as just that. Gaming does not require us to believe in it... there is between [players] a symbolic pact, which is never the same relationship one has with the law. The law is necessary, the rule is of the order of fate... Hence the paradoxical fact of illusion as the only true democratic principle. No one is equal before the law, whereas all are equal before the rule, since it is arbitrary.“

In gaming:

• All players are equal before arbitrary rules

• Chance distributes destinies, freeing us from responsibility for inequality

• Uncertainty is embraced rather than eliminated

• Rules rather than laws govern—participation is voluntary, yet binding while playing²⁷

Experimental Unit as game means:

• No one is more qualified to play than anyone else

• There’s no “right” way to play (though there are more and less artful approaches)

• Winning and losing don’t have ultimate meaning (nothing to win, nothing to lose—like Ramona)

• The play itself is the point

This is the spiritual meaning of “You already made the choice, now you have to understand it.” Your moves were always freely made, yet the game was always rigged.

---

IX. Doing It IRL: Performance Art as Emergency Response

Beyond Talk

XU emerged from years of Wadley processing philosophy, but recognizes the necessity of concrete action. “Doing It IRL” means:

Making yourself visible. Not just posting online, but showing up physically in ways that generate uncertainty, require courage, and can’t be ignored.

Taking real risks. Not necessarily kinetic violence or property destruction, but risking:

• Legal consequences

• Social censure

• Being misunderstood

• Looking foolish

• Physical vulnerability

Acting without guaranteed success. The performance may “fail” in conventional terms, but the act of reaching out, of putting yourself on the line, succeeds as gesture.

The Models: Greta Thunberg and Phoebe Plummer

Greta Thunberg (GTEET/7205520): Climate activist whose Fridays for Future strikes became global movement. Key quote:

“I don’t remember ever learning about the climate crisis. The way it was spoken about, I didn’t think there was anything to worry about. I thought the grown-ups were in charge, that they had it all in control... I had this visceral reaction to all the systems we depend upon, I felt betrayed… lied to.”²⁸

This describes the loss of Disneyland’s innocence (Baudrillard): discovering that “true childishness is everywhere—that it is that of the adults themselves.”

Phoebe Plummer (1818): Just Stop Oil activist who threw soup at Van Gogh’s Sunflowers. Key quote:

“For me it was the logical thing of ‘look you’ve tried all of those nice ways for three years. They blatantly don’t work; they were never going to work. You were kidding yourself because you didn’t want to take the risk.”

What XU takes from these examples:

1. Form and risk matter more than specific ideology. Both made themselves scapegoats on purpose, trying to create through the visibility.

2. Opening space for others to act. Their actions shift what’s conceivable, even for those who disagree with tactics.

3. Sincerity and commitment come through. Whatever you think of their causes, they’re “going out on a limb.”

Where XU diverges:

Both remain rooted in “rights” discourse and oppositional framing (”stop oil,” “against Israel/for Palestine”). This is a form of cognitive rigidity—still locked in friend/enemy distinctions. XU seeks to operate at a higher logical type: no enemies, only recruits.²⁹ No scapegoating.

Wadley’s Own Actions

October 2025: Operation Orange October

• Sitting outside US Army Transformation and Training Command HQ (Austin, TX) for multiple days

• Also visiting Capital Factory, Comedy Mothership

• Adding XU stickers to existing signage

• Engaging with police when approached

• Making presence visible while maintaining “I have no malicious intent”

• Photographing self with Opa’s Waffen-SS dogtag (NOT as endorsement, but as theodicy question)

• Connecting to Unitarian Universalist Church, Beloved Community sermon

The point is not to accomplish a specific policy goal, but to:

• Embody the tension between emergency response and peaceful presence

• Make XU real as something existing in physical space

• Risk misunderstanding while maintaining harmlessness

• Catalyze thought in anyone who encounters the action

As Wadley writes: “It’s about being willing to face some risk while being resolved to be as harmless as possible.”

“Attack” Without Violence

From New Jersey Office of Homeland Security on “No Lives Matter” group:

“attacking the ‘mundane,’ ‘we only accept people that do irl [in real life] action.’”

“Attack the mundane” means attacking:

• The hyperreal (Baudrillard)

• The white hyperreal (Gillespie)

• The taken-for-granted normalcy that perpetuates crisis

• The “adults in the room” myth

• The sense that things are fundamentally okay

“Attack” doesn’t require violence. You can “attack” a problem like cleaning a room. You can “attack” someone’s assumptions through art. The BBC called the soup-throwing an “attack” even though no person was harmed and the painting was protected by glass³⁰

1. This piece was generated to provide a response to a question posed by

Memetic Cowboy

. It was posed publicly on the Twitter/X platform here:

Hey there. So, what is the Experimental Unit to you now?

When you say, “If you read this, you are playing,” are you naming a philosophical game, an ontological trap, or a liberation through recursive recognition?

2. I’m uncomfortable with this formulation. I had some ideas and put them together; it it’s at all influential or makes a difference it’s because it made a difference to other people. Whether that’s called them participating in “something I founded” or my ruins being among those they scavenged from, it is the same in dhamma language.

3. An injunction not to scapegoat can itself be called scapegoating. This sort of paradox in naming, and in subtlety, is something everyone must be presented with. Still, I wouldn’t really put this out there as a slogan, especially since “scapegoating” is a term with artistic brand recognition already.

For example:

The curiosity about Girard’s influence, for a time confined to Silicon Valley subculture, morphed into concern in 2024 when Vance was criticized for scapegoating Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio. Writing for Politico, Ian Ward explicitly connected Vance’s rhetoric with Girard’s scapegoat theory. He noted the glaring discrepancy between Girard’s negative view of scapegoating and Vance’s apparently pragmatic use of it to galvanize Trump’s base.

4. Another important aspect is that new capabilities must be tested in the field:

Battlefield success often depends on the use of experimental units in testing new theoretical and technological capabilities to the fullest, and not only in peacetime but on the battlefield itself.

Replace “battlefield” with “field of emergency response operations,” which includes everyone and everything. “The field” is everywhere.

Yet it’s still important that we are “out there,” we are exposed, at risk, and depleting mission resources at all times. If unwittingly learning that you are “playing” Experimental Unit is also to realize you’ve been drafted into an infinite distributed emergency response operation, then everyone is on the “front lines,” at “ground zero,” “on the ground” when it comes to the topics discussed here.

EVERYONE is most affected, even animals and bacteria and our own cells and angels and aliens and I don’t care who. Experimental Unit is for all of us field grunts :)

5. Note that this “is a kind of” relation has to do with the concept of “logical type”:

According to the theory of Logical Types, proposed by Alfred North Whithead and Bertrand Russell (1910 - 1913), one must distinguish between a class (set) and the elements of the class. A statement that refers to a class manifests a higher level of abstraction - in other words, is of a higher logical type - than does a statement that refers to the elements of a class or set. This distinction is of particular importance when two statements are so presented that it can not be determined from the outset whether reference is being made to the class as a whole or to an element of the class. The word “man” can refer to an individual being; it can also refer to a class, the class of all human beings. In the latter case, the concept of “man” is located at a higher level of abstraction and corresponds to a higher logical type.

For more information, see Anthony Wilden, System and Structure:

It is generally the case, for example, that the environment of a given open system is of a different and more inclusive level of relation (or LOGICAL TYPE) than the system it supports.

[…]

To put it another way, in a system such as ours, where competition is of a higher logical type in our relations than cooperation, then existing cooperative relations — e.g., cartels and oligopolies at the level of capital, unions in response at the level of labor — will tend generally to be mere reactions to mediation by competition. In our society, at the level of the Other — the locus of the mediating code — the metarule of competition constrains all other rules.

[…]

As intensely conscious as one may be of the reality that ideas alone can change nothing, one has nevertheless to begin somewhere. There is only one kind of escape from the oscillations between Opposition and identity in our society, and it makes no difference whether one is talking or behaving in epistemological, ideological, or political terms. If dissent is to escape its own alienation, if it is to escape the automatic response of liberalism in its hostility to combinations and connections of ideas in realities (Wills, 1969), the response that a new theory is simply ‘an interesting (personal) point of view’, then dissent must transcend the status of negative identification. In short, ALL DISSENT MUST BE OF A HIGHER LOGICAL TYPE THAN THAT WITH WHICH IT IS IN CONFLICT [this is what is quoted by Baudrillard in the preface to Symbolic Exchange and Death]. It will thus not make the Hegelian error of trying to reduce real and material differences to identity, for this is to be caught in an endless mirror—game from which there is simply no escape.

[…]

The question of developing and teaching an academic discourse of a higher logical type than that to which we are all presently subjected returns us to the point at which we began: the question of context. In an ecosystemic perspective, the position of higher logical type is simply that which is most capable of dealing with the most context and levels of context, and that which is most capable of understanding how methodological closures — like that of logical typing itself — inevitably generate paradox. It is also that position which can explain its own relationship to the context it is in. In addition, therefore, to the traditional and relatively static logical position dependent on principles of non-contradiction and identity (the analytic epistemology) which will work INSIDE a given dimension of the system one has isolated, there is a purely epistemological requirement for a logic of a higher type, a dynamic logic SUBSUMING the first, and one which will work WHEN ON’E TRIES TO CROSS THE SPATIAL, COMMUNICATIONAL, ORGANIZATIONAL, OR TEMPORAL BOUNDARIES SET UP BY CLOSURE. Such a logic will subsume the Godelian paradoxes of analytical logic by a process of metacommunication

6. Setting one’s constituency to “all sentient beings” dovetails with the mythology of apokatastasis, or simply participation in some cosmic principle or another.

It would be a quality of this “great mystery” that everything is a type of it. Like the modes of Spinoza’s substance, everything is derivative of something infinitely plastic as well as the form it takes to itself—its “arrangement” into a mode.

Notably, this precisely doesn’t work if “evil” is deemed to be “outside God.” Then not everything can be a type of the manifestation of one will/substrate.

As opposed to a sense where this is a capitulation, where we must “compromise” virtue for a detestable “unity,” it is more so a gesture that no one is so well morally defended that they will not be converted. And, as we must ourselves repent (self-disrupt) in order to play our own roles in this distributed operation, so shall we do so.

7. In other words: anything that everyone ever does is included in the conceptual idea I set out called Experimental Unit.

I like the art framing. It’s “the work of art created by every action and interplay,” imagining “everything” as a giant work of performance art of the universe.

It’s similar to the notion of “karma,” where everything is tied together. The operation of karma in its totality would be what is gestured to here.

8. “Public” is a term seeking involution, since the public and private are really not separated. This is at once a “social” question and a cosmological one. Again, the theme is that we are all already participating in something together. A “public” is perhaps in-formed by a sense that people know what other people know. It’s the emergent charge of the meta-phenomenon of mutual acknowledgement rather than anything “new” or “different” ever being created.

Still, there is an important sense that Experimental Unit must “go out there,” must get involved. It is a gamifying, a sacralization of this impulse, in line with stories that we “came here” in order to help. Sure, although we helped design the whole “mess” in the first place, too!

It’s sort of missionary/search party vibes. We have to go out and reach everyone. Wherever you are, “that is where I’ll go to find you.” There is no question. Note this is also a sort of embrace of “re”incarnation into all possible experiences: for you (who are me) I will go and experience everything, I will “harrow hell” just to be able to meet you where and as you are.

Another frame is to think of it as a party and we are making sure that everyone has a good time. This is a good way to couch it, since it we are too pushy or simplistic in our thinking, then we can’t deliver a good time. But, if we undertake to find a way for every person to have fun, learning new things together in the process, then we can have a “you hate to see it” moment where the person taking initiative to “make things better you guys” actually succeeds. Although this is tempered by the ups and downs of all the lessons we learned along the way.

9. Couldn’t put a footnote next to “military.” It’s not really the military sense.

My gloss on military/emergency is like this. Let’s say you take for granted the idea that we come from animals and the usual scientific history of the planet Earth.

Then, I would say that as a “non-human” animal, you face issues with “your own kind” of animal sometimes, but also from others. There is a predator/prey relationship.

With “our kind,” the capacity to use technology outpaced competition with other species. Then, the main impediment to “our” spreading all over the place was our own kind. People moved far away to try and get away from other people who were already established.

Yet eventually, there was no more land to go to. Everywhere is occupied, practically, which means that to be anywhere, one must be affiliated with the lineage of “authority” or violence in that place.

Conflict among “our kind” is the most pressing kind of emergency, especially since the advent of nuclear war and similarly vastly destructive attack types make it so that any person could be killed in short order by combat operations.

“War” also slides into “conflict” here, as we are grappling here more generally with the Hobbesian Trap:

The Hobbesian trap (or Schelling’s dilemma) is a theory that explains why preemptive strikes occur between two groups, out of bilateral fear of an imminent attack. Without outside influences, this situation will lead to a fear spiral (catch-22, vicious circle, Nash equilibrium) in which fear will lead to an arms race which in turn will lead to increasing fear. The Hobbesian trap can be explained in terms of game theory. Although cooperation would be the better outcome for both sides, mutual distrust leads to the adoption of strategies that have negative outcomes for both individual players and all players combined.^[1] The theory has been used to explain outbreaks of conflicts and violence, spanning from individuals to states.

So this is not merely a “military” affair, but also gestures toward the “conflicts” or “friction” which occur always in “social life” and have genealogies going back even further to the “strife” experienced and participated in by sentient beings and physical objects & forces.

10. See here Baudrillard’s “hypertelia”:

A destiny of inertia for a saturated world. The phenomena of inertia are accelerating (if one can say that). The arrested forms proliferate, and growth is immobilized in excrescence. Such is also the secret of the hypertelie, of what goes further than its own end. It would be our own mode of destroying finalities: going further, too far in the same direction - destruction of meaning through simulation, hypersimulation, hypertelie. Denying its own end through hyperfinality (the crustacean, the statues of Easter Island) - is this not also the obscene secret of cancer? Revenge of excrescence on growth, revenge of speed on inertia.

The masses themselves are caught up in a gigantic process of inertia through acceleration. They are this excrescent, devouring, process that annihilates all growth and all surplus meaning. They are this circuit short-circuited by a monstrous finality.

It is this point of inertia and what happens outside this point of inertia that today is fascinating, enthralling (gone, therefore, the discreet charm of the dialectic). If it is nihilistic to privilege this point of inertia and the analysis of this irreversibility of systems up to the point of no return, then I am a nihilist.

If it is nihilistic to be obsessed by the mode of disappearance, and no longer by the mode of production, then I am a nihilist. Disappearance, aphanisis, implosion, Fury of Verschwindens. Transpolitics is the elective sphere of the mode of disappearance (of the real, of meaning, of the stage, of history, of the social, of the individual). To tell the truth, it is no longer so much a question of nihilism: in disappearance, in the desertlike, aleatory, and indifferent form, there is no longer even pathos, the pathetic of nihilism - that mythical energy that is still the force of nihilism, of radicality, mythic denial, dramatic anticipation. It is no longer even disenchantment, with the seductive and nostalgic, itself enchanted, tonality of disenchantment. It is simply disappearance.

Perhaps we can combine this sense of “hypertelia” with the notion of “ruin value” or Ruinenwerttheorie as articulated by Albert Speer.

If things are “disappearing,” then they are becoming ruined and becoming ruins. Their “ruin value” lies in their perceived value to others in picking them apart for their own uses.

What has “gone beyond its function” becomes a kind of ruin which everyone has license to pick up and “work with.” This can be done “harmlessly” through the molding (and molting) of abstractions.

11. Hopefully, no writing I produce myself uses the term “humanity” in this way. My issue with the term “humanity” is that it’s a special case of a concept which is supposed to refer to everyone who is “our type of thing.” Yet, this designation gets then used in all sorts of ways that contradict that, as in someone “losing their humanity,” or “acting like an animal.”

In addition, it is very important to always remember that our “moral community” includes not only “people like us” but all sentient beings.

On top of that, when we make this concept “human” and then give it features, we are claiming to describe everyone we would put that label on. So, it’s not only an issue that people can be excluded, but that inclusion implies that people are told what they are. It’s not that people can simply say what they are, either. It should be fore-grounded that mystery pervades.

12. There is an “archaic” definition of experimental which means:

of or based on experience rather than on theory or authority

In this sense the “Experimental Unit” is Great Mystery which is driven to go out and “see for itself” what “it” is like.

Perhaps we can combine with this the sub-definition of the term “unit” which reads:

an area in a medical facility and especially a hospital that is specially staffed and equipped to provide a particular type of care

This would go long with a cosmological sense of the “medicinal” I have felt, as though it is in a way a great ordeal to “go out” and experience incarnation, and there are all sorts of compensations at play…

What I’m trying to say is that yes, you are doing experiments, but also you are yourself an experiment by God or Great Mystery etc., you are the answer to the question of “what it is like” to be you. The conceit of your “personal identity” or of your character-hood is itself a “religion” that the absolute believes in.

This last point dovetails with the notion that “all religions are one,” going further to say that political philosophies are religions so all political philosophies are one, then going further to say that all personal identities are religions, and so they are all one as well. Personal identities are “religions” in the precise sense that God believes in you, in the conceit of you as a person, enough to go out and experience it. This experimental experience by God is what you might call “your whole life.”

“Your whole life” is then a kind of “total work of art” which all your gestures in summation amount to. Everyone is a “life artist” or Lebenskünstler, and the life that was lived constitutes everyone’s “work” (not to mention any encore afterlife performances).

At the same time, “your whole life” is one of MANY such incarnations or experiences gone into by “great mystery.” Behind every mask is the same face.

The “life work” as total work of art is this at a very high logical type from the point of view of the individual (everything poured into “your career,” or more balanced: your “legacy”). Everything you have ever done is just a kind of thing you did, one brush stroke among many.

Deity is seemingly at still higher a logical type, since your whole life art, and all the types of things that go into it, is only one example of the “type” of incarnation. All other sentient beings also have a “life art work.”

The love “by God for everyone” or Agape reflects that, from the standpoint of “the divine,” Great Mystery, etc., each one of these artworks is “worth” just the same, though no two are alike. Compare Kant an indifference when it comes to aesthetic judgment. We could say “God” is infinitely indifferent, the way people are in certain states of mind.

13. This should be more direct to say: it is you. You are playing hide and seek with yourself. God is not “someone else,” but rather we have smuggled ourselves into this situation. Whatever convoluted process we try to say about how we “really” got here, they all face the same question of where the “base reality” even came from.

14. “The” and “a” as articles compromise because they imply a discreteness which isn’t really there. If I say “the problem,” that makes it out to be that there is one thing. And maybe there’s not.

This goes back to a point which has been discussed for a long time:

According to Hippolytus of Rome, the worldview was inspired by the Pythagoreans, who called the first thing that came into existence the “monad”, which begat (bore) the dyad (from the Greek word for two), which begat the numbers, which begat the point, begetting lines or finiteness, etc.^[3] It meant divinity, the first being, or the totality of all beings, referring in cosmogony (creation theories) variously to source acting alone and/or an indivisible origin and equivalent comparators.^[4]

The crucial question is what it means for there to be “a” totality of all beingS. Is “God” one thing or many things? And if God is one thing, then why are there many things in the first place?

We can also say that maybe the Absolute is so unified that it is beyond unity. Since one is just a kind of number. There are all sorts of distinctions which must be implied (background theories) for the notion of “unity” to make any sense. Are these also present in the “unfathomable unity” of the divine?

My point is that speaking too simply of things being “one” or “unified” can itself be misleading and a source of false sense of security that “we know” what we mean by that even if it’s unintelligible. So, I try to call it out whenever this topic comes up so that people have to think through the meta-issue of unity. I think it’s a crucial issue for confronting self-ignorance and building logical type.

15. We might have faith that there is a good reason for it all, and we also see that it is up to us to walk the road that makes it so.

16. Extermination has an implied separation: ex-termination. Baudrillard:

A radical theory can be based neither on their ‘synthesis’ nor on their contamination, but only on their respective ex-termination. Marxism and psychoanalysis are in crisis. Rather than supporting one another, their respective crises must be telescoped and speeded up. They may yet do each other great collateral damage. We must not be deprived of this spectacle: they are only critical fields.

We are not driving theoretical crises for the sake of it.

It’s like wreckage which is in the way of getting to someone in distress.

Like you have a car that you fixed up and it’s your baby, but someone is trapped inside and urgently needs to get out, and the only way to do it quick enough is to destroy the car. Break the window, jaws of life, that kind of thing.

And the level of no question, the level of no hesitation, the degree to which one’s attachment to the car is nothing captures the pathos of how much it means to get someone out and see them safe. And to know that you did all you could.

So the concepts we “break,” it’s not simply a matter of glee or sadism, but also a matter of sacrifice as well as an epi-phenomenon of the overriding concern to respond to complex emergency.

17. In this, it corresponds to again pursuing a higher logical type of thinking because you are abstracting over your previous behavior. It’s not so much “I wish I didn’t do that,” but “given what I have done, my updated artistic intuition about how this is all most beautiful implies I do this next.”

18. We can see how easily it’s possible to build in ideas of purgatory, or the notion that all lifetimes are the afterlives of all the other ones, so that in some way in the end all the lessons are learned.

The “golden rule” is not aspirational. It means that everything you do to someone else will be done to you, since you will one day be that other person as well. In that sense, “Experimental Unit” as a concept and project is something I offer to you, as myself, because this is what I would want someone to do for me, to invite me into.

19. Well, Yes because of “big brother,” but at the same time you will eventually help design all that. As well, these same dynamics are tearing “big brother” apart, as it forces hypersurvellance near the “cores” of decision-making since things are so high-stakes that every friction is hugely magnified. It corresponds to time where more and more is happening faster and faster, pulled toward the “turbo” state in which logical type grows and self-ignorance shrinks.

In other words, this generated text is too careful to try and be like “don’t worry about the deep state!” When it’s more like, such concept handles describe things which are incomparably grave. It’s simply that, as usual, we must struggle through the temptation to think of them in too-simple a way in order to see the bigger puzzle. Even “big brother” can be scapegoated, it’s just people incarnated doing what they’re fated to do, just like anyone. Still, so are we, which tells you something about the degree of license taken. “License to cannibalize.”

20. Note this does not get you out of the issue. Within this metaphor, what is the difference between what is the crystalline structure and what is not?

Overall, I’d say it’s part of it that the answer isn’t given ahead of time but worked out in the process. At the same time, the answer is always true at each moment and in this sense nothing changes.

I think the framing of motivation to act/think differently going forward without “regretting” the past or saying it “should not have happened” is one of the key themes and tensions. It is good to bring this to the attention of all sentient beings to see what they have to say about it. Crowdsourcing!

21. No name can really do it, but I met someone online who talking about pornography and pornotopia, and I think those concepts are very fun. It takes the cheeky aspect of Dee Dee and applies it to the erotic.

Also key is Baudrillard’s text “War Porn”:

These scenes are the illustration of a power which, reaching its extreme point, no longer knows what to do with itself – a power henceforth without aim, without purpose, without a plausible enemy, and in total impunity. It is only capable of inflicting gratuitous humiliation and, as one knows, violence inflicted on others is after all only an expression of the violence inflicted on oneself. It only manages to humiliate itself, degrade itself and go back on its own word in a sort of unremitting perversity. The ignominy, the vileness is the ultimate symptom of a power that no longer knows what to do with itself.

We also have relatively wholesome notions of “pornography” to consider, like Kama Sutra. Here we can think of it as a “love manual” or “copulation manual.”

At the same time, Baudrillard’s sense of pornography is as of a splaying. I think there’s something pornographic in this sense about the image of a chest cavity open during surgery. The idea that the person will survive this almost makes it worse, as with the idea that in cartoon pornography it’s “just an image.”

Theodicy and Agape has everything to do with this splaying, the indifference of God when considering any taboo or “sin” so-conceived. It is all a “love manual,” each experience in-forming a total logical type which allows (demands) the learning of love, and, over and over, unconditional surrender and defiance…

22. See this cool essay: Kenneth Waltz and Leon Trotsky: Anarchy in the mirror of uneven and combined development.

And here lies the significance of the idea of ‘uneven and combined development’.

Even in its existing orthodox version (Leon Trotsky’s analysis of late Czarism), this idea builds ‘the international’ into a theory of social development. That is to say, it includes causal factors (identified below) that operate specifically through the circumstance of inter-societal multiplicity. But that existing version itself is pregnant with a much more foundational claim about the intrinsically uneven character of socio-historical development per se. ‘Unevenness’, says Trotsky, ‘is the most general law of the historic process’ (Trotsky, 1980, p. 5). This, it will be argued below, is the premise that is needed in order to overcome the problem of ontological singularity. For on the one hand, it finally identifies a feature of the overall ‘nature of society itself ’, which explains the existence of the international as a ‘social fact’. And on the other hand, through its corollary of ‘combined development’, it redraws the sociology of ‘development’ in line with the consequences of that fact. From both directions, therefore, the separation of the domestic and the international is here pre-empted, producing a quite fundamental revision to social and international theory alike.

Does this enable the ‘long step [from neorealism’s ‘international-political theory’ (Waltz, 1979, p. 38)] towards a general theory of international relations’, the step that Waltz has never refused in principle, arguing only that ‘no one has shown how to take it’ (1990, p. 32)? Certainly, a key aspect of this revision is that the ‘object domain’ of the international is no longer delimited to the field of geopolitics.

23. Classic Experimental Unit moral quandary: no coercion is possible, since “we all” decided everything that happens. Trying to enforce an injunction not to coerce is itself coercive. Hence back to Dhamma language: it’s the kind of thing you can’t put into words, but if you get it, you get it.

24. Disqualifying in what sense, if “universalism”/apokatastasis are forwarded? This is another moral quandary. Yet it is better to say that such methods are inelegant, and counter-productive in that they push “internal” fissures. I think this is another gen AI thing where of course we have to do performative moral condemnation of atrocities. This is itself a meditation on the stress of contemplating theodicy.

25. The point of the idea of the ratchet is that it only moves one way. Even if history is forgotten, it is still abstracted over. The cracks pile up somewhere. Therefore, even weaponized use of discourse and chatbots accelerates the collapse of self-ignorance. If talking points or images seduce people, then there is a “truth” to them. If it is brittle, it will quickly collapse into something else. These sequential “collapses” and “phoenix moments” of things rising from such ashes (thinking of Holocaust and 9/11 here, also Atlanta Resurgens) will happen more and more quickly. Cognitive operators “surf” these waves, not remaining too attached to any one “wave.” Like George of the Jungle (Jumanji is a series of Jungle Emergencies) swinging on vines. You have to be ready to let all the vines go to move on to the next one.

26. So within some lore sense, you learning about “Experimental Unit” as articulated by “Adam Stephen Wadley” constitutes your “notice.”

It’s like the Reddit story where the person was in a coma and had a fake life until they got distracted by a lamp. Experimental Unit is like the lamp:

One day while sitting on the couch I noticed that the perspective of the lamp was odd, like inverted. It was still in 3D but... just.. wrong. (It was a square lamp base, red with gold trim on 4 legs and a white square shade). I was transfixed, I couldn’t look away from it. I stayed up all night staring at it, the next morning I didn’t go to work, something was just not right about that lamp.

I stopped eating, I left the couch only to use the bathroom at first, soon I stopped that too as I wasn’t eating or drinking. I stared at the fucking lamp for 3 days before my wife got really worried, she had someone come and try to talk to me, by this time my cognizance was breaking up and my wife was freaking out. She took the kids to her mother’s house just before I had my epiphany.... the lamp is not real.... the house is not real, my wife, my kids... none of that is real... the last 10 years of my life are not fucking real!

The lamp started to grow wider and deeper, it was still inverted dimensions, it took up my entire perspective and all I could see was red, I heard voices, screams, all kinds of weird noises and I became aware of pain.... a fucking shit ton of pain...

Having a derpy positive disposition like Dee Dee at the same time reminds me of this lyric from “Talkin’ Bear Mountain Picnic Massacre Blues” by Bob Dylan:

I got shoved down, got pushed around,
All I remember was a moanin’ sound.
Don’t remember one thing more,
All I remember’s wakin’ up on the shore,
M’ arms n’ legs are broken, my feet were splintered, my head was cracked, couldn’t walk, couldn’t talk, smell, feel, Couldn’t see,
Didn’t know where I was
I was bald,
[I felt] lucky to be alive, though

Well, feelin’ like I just climbed outa m’ casket,
I grabbed back hold of m’ picnic basket.

27. The “rules” here are more implied as the structure of experience itself, something like Kant’s “conditions of possibility.” Yet we do not presume to say now what these things are, but that plumbing them is our ongoing endeavor, and perhaps one day we will design these specifications ourselves and engineer our own entering.

28. This is actually a Phoebe Plummer quote

29. And we could also say no non-reflexive universalism. Anything which wants to articulate itself in terms like “human rights” or “all people” should gesture toward the importance of interpretation itself and how the struggle for all people also involves people not being subject to simple ideas projected on them by others.

As much as we want to affirm everyone and include them, what we are including is something which is on its way somewhere. We are all “good enough,” but also precisely because we are always overcoming ourselves. Therefore when we say our statements of inclusion, it’s important to gesture toward the unfolding adaptation of how we refer to our sense of belonging itself. This awakens everyone to the fact that “what it means” that everyone should be treated well is also up to them. It’s not just something to feel relief at but something which everyone must make their own. The modernist, Newtonian, universalist sorts of concepts advanced by Plummer and Thunberg are inadequate to this.

30. Claude’s output ended at this point, and I have to wait a long time until it will output again to continue.