I'm sitting in the library not much is going on in the building or in my head. I was hoping to have more to type, to be more prepared, but this is the best I can do with how ready I am now. It's very quiet, just the hum of my computer and that of one other guy's, people coughing, talking below a whisper, throwing things noisily into trash cans . . . or perhaps it's only apparently noisily, as this is a library, I've been here a while and thus am habituated to the relative soundlessness. Habituation is interesting, it's as though any noise could be going on for a day or so and after the first couple hours you'd hardly pay attention anymore. You'd only recognize it again once someone pointed it out, then it'd fade. So much is like that, for instance, it is only through feeling sad that we can fully appreciate our times of happiness. Only through experience of evil that we can differentiate good from it. That which makes things most apparent is contrast. I could draw you a picture of a polar bear in a blizzard or a black dog in the middle of a dark forest and you'd probably see a white sheet of paper or a black sheet of paper, respectively, but if I drew you a picture of a grizzly bear in a rainstorm or a green dog in broad daylight then I'd have to actually have some artistic talent, which I don't, but once again, it's only through viewing my doodling and bad sketches that you can recognize the masterpieces of van gogh, rembrandt, escher. Escher's an interesting one, his pictures representing in 2 dimensions that which is impossible in three, or simply tesselating objects that wouldn't normally be juxtaposed . . . it's like listening to bach, the crab cannon, sorry to use the stuff straight from GEB, EGB, but it's a great book and the several recognitions today of godel's theorem in action around me have brought it to mind. Even if you're prepared for everything, even if nothing can catch you off guard, something will. With any logical system that is sufficiently complex, all theorems within that system are not derivable using the logic of that system. The anomalous terms, numbers, theorems, whateveryoulike, are put into a new group, and labeled, still underivable, but at least named. But what is to name something?  Very far from actually understanding it. So we separate those out, create a class for them, etc, and say we've rendered godel's proof useless, but he answers, pulling yet more whateveryoulikes out of your system, causing it to constantly divide, in infinite schisms rendering scientific method, mathematics, logic, thought, computers, money, the world senseless, but hell sartre, camus, kafka all did that in their own ways. Murphy and Godel, two sides of the same coin, one the observationalist who saw that the other's mathematical explanation of Murphy's law was true. I hope that makes sense to someone besides me. How can anyone ever trust words?  They give us so little to go on. Try describing an experience you had to someone else. They'll hear your words, take them to mean something, then perhaps if your experience was interesting they'll attempt to pass it on to someone else, but all they have to go on is your original words, remembered imperfectly, thus if they're asked to elaborate they cannot. Divorced from your own head, your own experiences this same thing could happen to you as an individual as opposed to spanning people. The impossible to deny separation of the observer and the observed defies the unity each of us feels exists in the world. I am the universe and I act in the universe. I can view only so much of it and wow this has gone to quite an odd part of my head. Let's try some meditation. You hide, they seek. Sound should precede action, light should precede all, but that is not always the case. Instantaneous data transfer thru entanglement disrupts causality. This is as true now as it will be now. Hahaha. oops. I don't know what it means. My ass hurts. I should shift or something. That's better. I think I forgot what I was supposed to be thinking about. Don't take points off, please, haha. I still don't know what it means. Any of it. I've done this type of thing before but the time I remember best the words that came out were absolute nonsense. The goal was to choose your next word based on how it sounded being connected to the previous words. Phrases like 'other ear' came up, each word having a similar 'er' sound in it, and other odd things like that, and that one I was handwriting and somehow, I still can't explain it, I just got stuck repeatedly, perhaps recursively, writing the letter ddddddd 

Big Five personality labels — Extraversion: n, Neuroticism: n, Agreeableness: y, Conscientiousness: y, Openness: y