Bigsley the Oaf


Posted in Uncategorized by bigsleytheoaf on March 26, 2010

I will make no attempt to make this readable.


I prostrate to Shakyamuni Buddha, who taught that all things are unborn, undying, that all phenomena are not arising and not falling, that all is without beginning, without end.


When you are hungry, eat.
When you are thirsty, drink.
When you are horny, fuck.


Many beings are in conflict.

In a time of great diversity such as that in which we live, at a time in which both the ugliest and most beautiful live side by side,  at a time when the most intelligent live hand in hand with the most ignorant and foul, at a time when the most skillful sharpen their blades on the same rocks as the most dim – in a time such as this there arises great conflict.

Each man bases his arisen self in his conception of self. At the point of its creation his self becomes its own reflection.

A man who wishes to save the world becomes a reflection of this wish. He becomes unconcerned with all things unrelated – he cannot taste his food, he cannot feel the cleanness of his air. It is by the self-consistent nature of this wish that he cannot do so.

A man who wishes to indulge in hedonistic pleasures becomes a reflection of this wish. He cannot see past his bowl, he cannot hear past his music, he is dumb and blind, and it is by the self-consistent nature of this wish that he cannot do so.


A man who looks into the future must come into conflict with a man who sees only the present,

A man who sees only the present must come into conflict with a man who sees only the past,

A man who sees only the past must come into conflict with a man who sees only the future,

And so on.


But a man who seeks sustainability is not essentially desirous of that sustainability.

A man who seeks pleasure is not essentially desirous of pleasure.

A man who sees the present can see the past and future.

A man who sees the past can see the present and future.

A man who sees the future can see the past and present.


All prophets spoke at the level of mind – Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha – and many others, to be sure.

All prophets lived in time of great strife, time of great conflict.

All prophets saw the center of this conflict and shed a light so that other men could see that center, so that men could return to that center and live at peace with one another.

This is not to say that all prophets were beacons of peace – it is to say that all prophets showed some men their similarities and that, strengthened by their similarities they united and were at peace with one another.

Jesus realized that men must see themselves as equal in body.

Muhammad realized that men must see themselves as equal in sex.

Buddha realized that men must see themselves as equal in mind.


So it shall be said that we live in a time of great strife, that a calamity awaits us, that we withdraw and form ourselves, that we are far from ourselves and so

Our bodies shall clash

Our sexes shall clash

Our minds shall clash

And as the clashing recedes we will find our united self, we shall return to our original whole, we shall see each other as brother and sister, we shall unite as one

And a time of peace and prosperity shall fall among the people.


What is the nature of that self? What can we realize? How can we realize it?

A man who sees only the future cannot convince a man that sees only the present that the future is important. How could he? By allusion to the future? A man who sees only the present will not care about the future, tautologically.

And so on.

We cannot resolve our conflicts through conflict, we cannot resolve them through connection.

Conflict must be resolved by the efforts of individuals returning to the self.


Suppose that someone asked you what you were doing for a living and that you told them “understanding my essential self?”

“How silly!” they’d say, “what do you do for work? what is your job?”

Such is the nature of their fall from themselves, such is the nature of their retreat from their bodies, their sex, their minds, their origin.

Do you have the strength to grasp yourself? Do you know yourself well enough to shake all the leaves from your branch? To return to your origin? To know what is you and what is clutter?

Can you feel the winds, can you taste the direction of their change?


The prophecy:

The eagle soars.

The slug crawls.

But the eagle will crawl

And the slug will soar

When gravity rears its head

When the winds shift and shake.

Such is the nature of the emptiness of eagle and slug.

Such is the nature of all that is eagle or slug.


again again

Posted in Uncategorized by bigsleytheoaf on March 12, 2010

No No Wait, let me Try Again.

The point is that we create these states in which patterns can inhabit us. But these patterns exist as seeds which can sprout.

Fuck, look, ok, look. Let me try again.

There exist structural truths, ok?

For instance, a thing cannot refer to every part of itself – if it could then this reference would have to be as large as itself, so it would have to be larger than itself (being composed of the reference and the things referered to).

Another structural truth: Suppose we have two disjoint systems S1 and S2. Suppose that S1 has attained equilibrium and then S2 acts on S1 – S1 will attain a new equilibrium which stores the information of S2’s action.

Another structural truth: information must have bounded “speed” in the sense that information recepticles have “speed.” If not, we run into relativistic paradoxes.

Paradoxes are structural, tautologies are structural, isomorphisms are structural, etc.

So anyway, suppose it’s the case that, anywhere in reality that a certain -type- of context is created random perturbations will bootstrap an identifiable structure – then this structure is a “spirit.” It “exists” in the sense that laws of the universe exist.

I mean, in what sense is gravity not a spirit? In what sense is it not essential? It’s fucking essentialized! It has a capital fucking G you fucking assholes!

But gravity is just a fact about what happens when two pieces of matter exist. It’s something we see over and over again.

How then are facial features we see over and over again not spirits, not laws which are indelibly true in the context of people? Gravity is a law which is indelibly true in the context of matter – why is “matter” the supreme context? How is gravity any more or less a fact of the universe than feline-ness? Round-ness? Hills? Orthogonality? Dimensionality?

My point is not that these spirits have form – my point is that they are identifiable and inextricably bound to the universe. The lower level rules of the system create them over and over again, forever.

Incarnation is simply the fact of a pattern attaining form.

Re-incarnation is a pattern re-attaining form.

Form is empty, emptiness is form.

I see.

Beauty and Capture

Posted in Uncategorized by bigsleytheoaf on March 12, 2010

Just a warning – this is all super-rough. I’m kind of thinking out loud, here.


Beauty exists, surely, and just as surely we are but dread nets set here to capture bits.

So systematic S, let’s let there be a beauty B, and we’re E lying in wait:

So B has arisen, as it does, as all things are risen, as all Buddhas and all Patriarchs, as waves on a windless ocean.

But before B there was shadow(B). So systematic E says: “B!” regardless of B or !B.

SO systematic E, alas. Can’t he tell? Oh well.


How does beauty arise – have you asked that? What is the process by which you judge, have you asked it?

What’s a law, as in law-of-the-universe law? “Just try and break me,” says God: type-of-law.

But people aren’t so interested in questions, these days.


Look, there’s all this random crap, and something pops up out of it (because it has to), and something else sees it and captures it (because it has to), and that symbiosis of create & capture is beauty.

Beauty is something arisen from nothing. I’m talking tautologically, here.

A beautiful thing X has to be arisen from nothing. If it arises from some thing Y then Y must have had X’s imprint in it. We cannot draw a picture we do not understand – we cannot write a novel we did not conceive of.


I just had a vision of something enormous.

Let’s conceive of a system with two components: M and S.

M is the model – it is the bits and pieces which interact via fixed laws. It evolves through time – let’s call the state of M at any point M(t).

S is a space of patterns – it interacts with M by imprinting itself on M. Like, M has some particles which get aggregated into objects with essences which interact via different rules – agh!

This isn’t what I meant at all. Let me try to be more concrete. Here’s what I envisioned (the enormous thing):

Like – let’s say that I draw a picture. OK, so if I conceive of every facet of the picture it will be boring and rigid like Thomas Kinkaide’s work. But if I allow randomness then it will ruin the picture, right?


What I can do is create a system and allow some degree of randomness/jitter/play within that system. For instance, I can concentrate only on local details and see what evolves globally. For instance, I can drizzle paint on a canvas at semi-random, letting it be the imprint of my emotions. I can let myself go down a long narrative path and draw what I see.

But how do I do this? How do I create randomness, but direct it? How can I make randomness adhere to rules, result in structure?

My vision was of a spirit – you can think of it as a pattern if you like – inhabiting my mind. I create a state in which I can be inhabited, I am inhabited, and my picture results.

Now, this isn’t so crazy as you think. We already exist as massively self-referential patterns. We know of our physical presence, we can refer to our thoughts, etc. We are very much a describable system, a pattern, inhabiting a body (Ghost in a Shell). This is not to say that the pattern or the system has form, is “real” in the sense of being palpable, having location, etc.

So why can’t we take on other patterns? People act, for instance. Actors aren’t so self-aware as it might seem – they simply concentrate on a feeling, a presence, an essence, and become it. They put themselves on auto-pilot and let another spirit fill them for a time. They lay down some ground-work and run some different software.

What I’m saying is that we are software. Damn, that’s cliche.

Fuck, I hope I’m not becoming a Platonist.

Ugh! I wanted to say this all differently. I had something different to express. I guess I didn’t capture the spirit.


entangled in noise cling noise noisy cling

Posted in Uncategorized by bigsleytheoaf on March 11, 2010

I hate the extent to which I have become entangled in elements of the world that have no better categorization than: Noise.

The world is mostly noise. Most of everything is noise. Evolution is infinite little rock climbers throwing infinite little grappling hooks in infinitely many random directions, each one hoping (infinitely) to pull him or herself above all the other infinite little rock climbers (more places to throw your hook up there!)

You may have value, you may not, your conception and rearing may have been just noise, it may have not. If you were raised in some sort of powerful tradition, placed in a position of power, etc. then you are extending something non-noisy. If you have risen from shit to be a flower then you have value – you are non-noise. You are a statement of truth about reality, or at the very least social reality. There is a lot that can be said about the relative levels of noise in the various parts of society.

But. The point is that most of what goes on around you c0nsists of people trying things randomly. They come up with all sorts of justifications for what they do, schemes, etc. But it’s all bullshit – it’s just noise.

Most of how people look is noise. Beauty is rare and easy to crush. It is very difficult to produce – ugly people do not have beautiful children – ever. Ever. Ever.

If you have any value whatsoever – if you are bright or funny or creative or beautiful or tough or sincere or …

If you have any value whatsoever then those infinite rock climbers are looking for you – you are the rocks and they want to snare you with their hooks and use your value. They want to entangle you so that they can stand on your shoulders and throw more noisy hooks infinitely above you. They want it more than they want anything.

Note what happens when you signify value – if you are hot (bless your soul), if you make a lot of money, if you indicate intelligence? People crowd around, people want to hear what you have to say, people want to know your contact info, people want to friend you on facebook, people want to ensnare you, trap you, bask in the warmth of your awesome.

Well -fuck them-.

I decided today that I’m going to stop giving a shit. There are lots of people who I don’t like – they aren’t funny, aren’t interesting, aren’t sincere, don’t try hard, aren’t beautiful, aren’t rich, aren’t etc. etc. Nothing against them personally – I just have no interest.

I’ve come to realize that I have lots of 1-way relationships where people like me, a few 2-way relationships where there is mutual respect, and maybe 1 or 2 1-way relationships in which I am the clingy fuck. KC comes to mind, but besides that, well, let me know. I tend to not cling. Maybe I cling more than I know.


The first step in resolving this imbalance is that I’m cutting ties motherfuckers. I’m unfriending everyone who I don’t care about from facebook. It’s not that I love you, it’s not that I hate you – I nothing you. The criteria I used were very simple:

1.) Have I talked to you within the past 10 years?

2.) Is there anything positive that I can honestly say about you – that I would honestly say to someone I respect and trust?

3.) Have we ever had a conversation lasting longer than 20 minutes?

If I can’t answer “yes” to 2 or more of these questions then you are gone. I’m tired of swimming in a sea of losers. I’ve already cut my number of friends from 290 to 135. Think about what this means! This means that there were 155 people who I don’t/didn’t give a shit about who wanted to be my friend. Maybe it helps if you know that I have never added anyone as a friend on facebook.

Basically, I’m done with acquaintanceship. Why does the fact that I met you mean that I should continue to think about you, know you, privilege you with my thought? Why do you deserve it anymore than anyone else? Oh, so I knew you in highschool -> I should care about you now? Why?

I think that there is nothing “amoral” or “cold” about what I’ve stated above. I think there is nothing “cruel” in my approach. Knowledge or awareness of grief makes it no more grievous. Visibility is an informational concept, not a normative one. The fact that I know of a certain person’s suffering does not necessarily entitle that person to more of my resources than another, unknown person’s suffering entitles them. This is not to say I am against assuaging suffering – what it is to say is that I am not going to build my life up with parasites clinging all around.


Posted in Uncategorized by bigsleytheoaf on March 7, 2010

It feels like the eye of the universe has stopped looking at me. Perhaps it is no coincidence that Jen has gone. Perhaps this is the desire we wish to satiate by our construction of inseparability.

Today I have thought many times that I would like to make some beautiful art, or a game, or a poem, or a song. But who would be looking on? I don’t think that anyone cares about what I create, so.

Enter the concept of a muse, yeah? An entity who, regardless of the degree to which it is imagined, looks on. For instance, who do I write these posts for? My muse, my muse.

But there is so much art in the world, so many songs – why would anyone care about mine.

No, no, the world just wants my ability to map data into data, to be a good programmer, to sit at my desk and type type type, gather that data, recombine, calculate, manipulate. Pah!

But, it’s seemed more acute, recently. People cut off their conversations with me. The readership graph for this blog is dropping off. I’ve felt it very immediately, this turning of all eyes away from me. When I walk down the street I feel like a ghost, a ghost. No one’s making any definite plans to visit me.

Ah, I’m just lonely, is all.

sometimes infinite

Posted in Uncategorized by bigsleytheoaf on March 7, 2010

I think that an interesting thought experiment to do is to think about what it would be like to know everything, to have infinite power, to be a god.

It hits on one of the basic abstractions we use to make sense of ourselves – Desire. In our shared ontology desire is a cause uncaused. Desire is why we get out of bed. Desire is why we eat. Desire is why we fuck. Desire is why we push towards our long term goals. Desire is why we indulge in hedonistic excess.

But would we have desire, as gods?

The evolutionary psychologists would have you believe that your desires take root in evolved pressures, psychological imbalances. Desire for “social acceptance,” desire for “sex,” hunger, thirst, desire for “stability,” etc. If they are correct then our desires are finite – they can run out – isn’t it so?

So, would a god simply satisfy his or her desires? If so, why would he act? If his desires limit his actions then he is not all-powerful so that, perhaps, the concept of a god-entity motivated by desire is self-negating. I suppose that a god that -also- comes equipped with infinite desire would have infinite power, but wouldn’t it be awful to be such a god? Wouldn’t it be terrible to have an itch that you could never fully rid yourself of?

Or perhaps we would operate outside of desire entirely. But! Deep in our intuition we know that desire is requisite to the type of consciousness we pride ourselves on experiencing. A stream does not flow downhill because it desires to go there, the sun does not shine because it desires to do so – desire is what keeps us together – and it is precisely the fact that we wish to flow uphill, that we wish not to shine or to shine, that we construct our own destinies – THAT is what makes us human and conscious and aware, isn’t it?

Examining the converse, could we claim that the gods among us are those with insatiable desires? Those who are compelled to obsession, overwork, compulsive climbing of rocks, solving of equations, plundering of riches. How could you touch the stars without an everyday burning itch in the roots of your soul.

I suppose it’s a pretty old and difficult set of questions – what are our desires? what is the nature of “to want?” Can we want to want? What is the real source of our desire for desire?

Lots of questions. The universe remains silent, yet.


Posted in Uncategorized by bigsleytheoaf on March 7, 2010

I don’t really have interest in much of anything, at the moment. I guess I’m interested in rock climbing, but that’s really about it – and I can’t even do that much since it requires a lot of recovery time.

I wish there was something easy and fulfilling that I could do. The truth is that most easy things just leave me quite bored. Most hard things are too hard – so I fail at them and they leave me bored, too. Bored bored bore.


The overwhelming feeling I have, recently, is that there’s some deep way in which I’ve “figured everything out” and that all there is left to do now is push hard. And I don’t even get anything for pushing hard.

For example, I know how to get better at go – I know exactly which steps to take to make myself quite good at it. But why would I? Why should I care?

It’s as if the universe is just a string of numbers – 1,2, 3, … – and all that’s left for me is to count. But I’m pretty tired of counting.


I’m going to Boston, soon. I really don’t want to see many people – only my closest friends. I don’t know why it’s so hard for some people to take a hint.


I wonder what the “problems” in my life are. I wonder if there’s something I could solve to make it feel better. I wonder why I feel so hollow.


Posted in Uncategorized by bigsleytheoaf on March 6, 2010

Jen is gone for the weekend. This is the first time that I’ve had a substantial amount of time to myself since she went to England last August. This means that it’s been about 6 months since I’ve had any semblance of real solitude.

Whenever I am alone like this my body kind of shuts down or reverts. It’s very strange. I tend to masturbate obsessively, play go, and eat very little. It makes a degree of sense – while around other people I am generally deprived of the satisfaction of my sexual and violent desires and my eating rituals are compelled more by convention than hunger.

I wonder if my body wants me to fast. Can a body want such a thing? Can bodies ‘want?’ I wonder what it would be like to sleep through the weekend, eat nothing, and just think. Is this an acceptable thing to do?

It’s like the first time I meditate after a long hiatus – generally this is a very painful thing. The front of my brain really hurts, my eyes strain – I guess I have to pay the piper, as they say.

I’m kind of just prattling on, so I guess I’ll stop here.

bubble world

Posted in Uncategorized by bigsleytheoaf on March 5, 2010

Everyone lives in a bubble. Everything is trivial or impossible.

I really want to find the boundaries of my bubble

and pop it.

Any help?

free free

Posted in Uncategorized by bigsleytheoaf on March 4, 2010

It’s so easy
to forget that words flow freely.

It’s so nice
to think the same thought twice.

It’s so peaceful
to bake a cake and eat it
sitting on a white veranda
with iced tea and parasols
beside a brook with ducks and a field with children laughing behind white masks.

It doesn’t matter if what you say happens to be cliche.
Or rhyme unnecessarily or if it’s ugly, that’s ok.
It’s not very important the content, but the will, but the hand that moves the pen, but the mind that moves the hand.
And what moves the mind? Etc. etc.
It’s so easy to walk these same paths made of simple motifs.

My first blog was so ridiculous and weird, so free. Because I didn’t care. It was an expression of the pure ability to put word on page and push to internet – to say whatever for anyone to view. It was pure liquid possibility. And all this care and obligation has stopped the works and pushed my words back down my throat and gotten me quiet and weary.

But it’s about to be spring, from death flowers life, and such is the way it goes, it goes.