You must learn to reject acceptance and accept rejection.

Do not take criticism from someone you would never ask for advice.

I am going the hard way; that is just the problem now. Too many people want it easy.

If you say ‘I own that star’ and you really believe it, you do.

DaVinci was not ‘the DaVinci of the 14th century’. The smartest people of now are not who we think.

There is no such thing as failure.

There is no such thing as waste; there is only applied or unapplied to a given purpose.

How extraordinary it is that you can silence yourself, and then — there it is. A limitless well of new.

I feel right now although I really have become inlightened. I realized now that I misspelled this, but did not correct it (and in fact corrected the auto-correction) because as Dali says, mistakes are sublime. Mistakes are felt, and feeling is the highest form of thinking. I feel I have taken the light in and I have truly connected and bridged myself a bit more through to the world (out from a six year old me). When you are open to ideas, you see them everywhere. If I want to start a company manufacturing notebooks, all I have to do is to find the manufacturers and designers in Chapters, and call them.

I have felt separate from a society in a long way. I have taken that to be a bad thing. It really is not. My happiest times have been when I felt totally out of step, which allows me to feel in step with myself. I was back in Florida on the 2017 trip, and I was wearing awfully baggy and unfashionable clothes, and walking around target and drawing and drinking icees and going to panera bread and sleeping on the couch and constantly having all these ideas. Real ideas — for monsters, robots, head explosion special effects – not filtered to-be-classy ideas. I had a great resolve to direct a B movie, because why the hell wouldn’t I? And I had a dream where DaVinci and Bucky visited me, and said I was on the right track. (I often worry about being out of step with Bucky, but, here he was telling me I was alright. And I don’t think it is a coincidence or accident. At the least and most real (so called) and least metaphysical, it was my subconscious’s real opinion of myself.) I can be totally separate. I don’t want to be famous; don’t want to be noteworthy in any sort of a way except to some future cole. And he will recognize him. How wonderful not to be in step with the whole world, with any part of the world at all, except for just a few people; a few people now, a few people then, and even one person five hundred years from now.

We do not live in capitalism; we live in Neo-feudalism, which is more strongly correlated with royalty fascism than the ideal of capitalism.

As envisioned by philosophers,
and,
as increasingly touted by the new age media in its ensuing application 1800s-present
the advantages of capitalism
are supposedly to be
to enable a higher standard of living to the mass populous
and to reward good ideas and good application. These are really the same aim:

Aim One: enable a higher standard of living to the masses —
How?
That is — how do we enable a higher standard of living to the mass populous, and, in fact further, how do we allow this standard to be ever raised, at, ideally, an accelerating pace?
What is standard of living?
Taking care of all physical needs — food, water, transportation, sanitation, clothing, shelter — and enabling more self-direction in the realization of higher individualized needs and wants engendered through the meeting of and therefore beyond these physical needs; creativity and further idea-generation once base needs are taken care of. Though applied unequally this has been the resultant of present known ‘capitalism’ — mass food, clothing and the like production, progressing to novelty entertainments.
Do we improve standard of living simply by giving more clothing, more food, and the like? From the survival stage, more is better — but only to a point, and, therefore, devoid of engendered-through-time technology: is it better to have enough bread not to starve at a greater tonnage, or to have a lesser tonnage of an equally distributed nutritious diet? The latter. But many, coming out of the survival stage, are too fear-ridden to do anything but take the former. More-ing is the instinctual response to survival, and we have not, as a mass, been conditioned out of it yet. In fact, the opposite: the advertisers have wanted us to continue our more-ing, as, lacking good ideas and good application, more-ing of the same is the only adequate way to rapidly improve the cashflow. Being that the ‘real’ assets — like real estate — have been carved up and monopolized by the few asset-holders, everybody is essentially born into debt; if not outright debt, into an inability to continuously base-line survive forwardly without making money. This has been touted as ‘a reality of life’. It is nothing of the sort, anymore; it may have been for most of human existence, circa 500,000 years ago to present. But, as of most recently — somewhere within only the last 50 years — it has absolutely and as a matter-of-fact ceased having to be you or me. With the money spent on entertainment per year, we could house — in their own house, one per person, not one per family — not even all of the world’s homeless, but all of the world’s inadequately housed. With half the money everyday spent servicing nuclear weapons, we could feed every hungry child on earth. We already produce more than enough food to adequately take care of everyone. In economics, we are supposed to have supply and demand: the demand for such life necessities is fixed and only changes in relation to population; the supply, most recently, has been adequately met. Somewhere specifically between 1970-1980, we met the point at which all basic needs of everyone on Earth (demand) could be taken care of with what was produced in the same time frame (supply). There must be a grave miscommunication — or intentional damming — of the flow to make the two forces suddenly incongruent. It is only the decisions of the leaders of earth — not just the big leaders, but the complicit decisions we all of us make everyday, from the mid-managers to the pay check-takers — that are allowing this situation to persist.
How did we realize a full — in fact, a surplus — supply to all of earth’s inhabitants, even as that number crossed what our ‘best minds’ listed as a full carrying capacity of our total systems — many times over — decades ago? How did we succeed? And how, despite the over-adequacy of supply and over-saturation of demand, are we failing to unite the two: to take care of everybody? How are we failing?

Let us return quickly back to the earlier question I raised: how is it possible to raise the standard of living, as a goal of hypothetical capitalism?

Is it only to produce more for each more-producing baby maker aboard the planet? When there are two people to conquer Earth, they can each have half if they agree that all can be taken care of. Now, we each can have only, at maximum, 1 eight billionth, with the number growing lesser. If that was the case, we would be extinct decades ago. People have been seriously — and rightly — foretelling the end of human society by simple atrophy of capacity since the 1920s. We’ve missed it every single time, in fact far exceeding the concerning maximum population point. The doom sellers were right at their time, but wrong when they caught up to their prediction. Why?

We often hear terrified cries about the expansion of material items in today’s world. In reality, we already reached the peak of this trend, and are now on the down-wave. In fact, we reached the peak some time ago. As Buckminster Fuller prophetically noted — and meticulously catalogued — in the 1940s, at that time (and since) the in-circulation amount of every major resource per person has been decreasing. That is, in 1940, there was more iron, coal, steel and the like on the markets per person than there was now. But — do we live better than in the 1940s? Our dietary fulfillment and indoor plumbing would suggest so; all measurable outcomes would.

How would we improve the performance with less input? It is a very simple equation, to which there is only one answer: phrase it however you like. We’ve invented, we’ve innovated, we’ve improved, we’ve gained efficiency. It is all the same: we have done more with less. And indeed, Buckminster Fuller charted that, at the microcosmic and the macrocosmic that was exactly what was happening. Macro: outcomes improved, less circulation of all materials per person. Micro: looking at specific units-based performance, we see the same: more energy is generated with less coal burned, more area enclosed more sturdily with less steel.

Capitalism, if it could only solve problems of standard of living by brute more-ing force, would run for a very short while indeed. Initiated amid the revolutions of the 1700s, it would not even have brought us indoor plumbing — a new invention unsuited to a more-ing now production-only system. The only way it can — and has been able to — meet its own ends is through the figuring out of ways to do more with less. You do not produce more doo-dads per person. Given the critical doo-dads, everyone only needs — or even can really have, so much. We all need a house, and even billionaires can only spend so much on housing. We all need food, and, even as our lifespans increase, the calories a human being can and will consume over a lifetime still hits a fixed maximum amount. If we are not to engage in trickery, and only give to people what they want or ask for, the needs of people for any given doo-dad — be it important, like food or water or shelter, or less important, like a music-making tool — are quite fixed. We do not improve the standard of living by making more doo-dads; we only improve the standard of living by figuring out how to make the desired number of doo-dads with less input at a higher standard. Even in the mass production of early industrialization, this was still the ever-present equation, we have only forgettingly reframed it. Getting mass car ownership was not at its first principle about mass producing them; /it was about designing them to a point that they could be mass produced/.

We see then how both aims are one in the same: to reward and thereby regeneratively incentivize good ideas and good application, and to improve the standard of living of the populous. The only way to accomplish the latter is through the former; the ever better figuring out — which is why we need a system whereby the figuring out is rewarded.

I do not prefer to use the term rewarded, but rather regeneratively accelerated. A reward is past-seeking. A regenerative continuing allowance is future-trending.

Capitalism is completely dependant on ideas for its function. But more broadly — and the reason its even limited application has led to improved outcomes — the whole basis of economic value whatsoever can ever and only be ideas.

Ideas and application. Application itself stems from the ideas — how to make the doo-dad is just as important a step as what the doo-dad is. Product and process are a whole and unit system. You cannot ever have one without the other.

“Real wealth is ideas plus energy.”

Here, I am quite confident he is using the physic-al definition of energy, being both matter and energy as per Einstein. Once again, not only is the Earth a sum-system, but the whole Universe is: matter-energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only be reconfigured. There is no /making/ in Universe, there is only /recycling/, in accordance with our human engendered design. We can never /lose/ physical materials or capability; we can only /lose/ usefulness of design for a given purpose.

Capitalism is derived from the word capital, meaning, broadly, input to the operation. Conventionally, there were understood to be only a few parts: labour, land, materials. The philosophers got it right in broadly considering the driving force of a system to be a feature which, when tasked with making or directing decisions, would enable positive outcomes. If capital, they said, would direct itself, it will do so, well. Brilliant. But, they got it dead wrong when identifying what exactly this feature was. What is capital?

I have a gold mine. It contains endless tonnes of gold. And yet, I am dirt poor. I have nothing to mobilize, and not even a plan for expansion or development. How is this possible? It is 100,000 years ago; I’ve made my camp above this gold mine, but don’t know what gold is, what it could be used for, or how to get it. And so, it is worthless. (This is why it is so important to be a comprehensivist: to look at the whole and not the parts. Too many people, even economists, are sitting in their own frame of reference, and cannot ponder, even at a subconscious level, a gold mine, or gold, or money, being worthless. The only sensible way to look at anything, at any level that can tell you anything, is 100,000 years out and 100,000 miles away.) Suppose, though, that, miraculously, I invent a process for converting dirt into a pill which would cure any ailment. My ‘dirt farm’ may become quite a ‘gold mine’ after all. Today, we are now awakening to the value of so-called intellectual property: ideas, books, code, plans, strategies, brands, concepts. As of 2002 75% of the sum value of the largest 500 companies in the world was pegged solely on intellectual property — intangible assets. It is also noticed that small businesses nearly almost undervalue their intellectual property, meaning, definitely, even by the sellers of the other systems and the asset-accounted, intellectual property officially became the largest resource on Earth even by their system within the last two decades. But the stark reality is, even in the age of great industrialization, there was never anything but intellectual property. All property, all trade-value, all assets of any kind are created strictly from ideas. A gold mine is only useful if you know the gold is there, how to get it out of the ground, and what to do with it. Coal is just a dead black rock until you know that it can be burned. And it is a much less useful burning fuel until you have not only the stove, but the steam engine.

Quick: Do this exercise, without looking anything up. Can you name who was Pope, anytime from 1400-1500? Or even 1300-1600? They surely would have been “the most powerful person in the world”. Can you name any of the great heads of the great city states, anywhere across Europe, from 1400-1500? Any of the wealthiest merchants? When I speak of this time period — who do you think of? I have given this problem now to many people, and have not had anyone yet name anyone other than DaVinci or Michelangelo. We think of — what do we call them? — the Renaissance men. The literal namesake for an entire era in history. And what did they do that was so monumental? More monumental than being “God’s ordained” world leader, the ruler of a military fleet, or a billionaire? DaVinci was the son of a slave with no formal education, sent to prison and to live in exile, struggling through poverty. But, he also scribbled ferociously in notebooks; he scribbled new ideas — not even published in his lifetime — that turned out to be worth a lot more than anything paid for or shipped by the merchants. The people we always remember history through — without even trying — are the inventors. Because they are the only people that bring value to human lives — they are the only ones capable of seeing and defining value. They are the ones with the ideas.

If I really want to help people, believing that I can’t isn’t going to help anybody.

The problem with the world is perhaps not that the incompetent are so full of confidence, and the able so full of doubts, but that the uncaring are so unlimited in their actions, and so full of confidence, and the caring are so full of doubts. Anybody who wonders with distress if they are doing the right thing, if they are a good person, is: if they were a psychopath, they wouldn’t care.

The most successful people and organizations in history don’t allow their resources to define their missions: they define what they’re going to do, and mobilize resources to that end. People don’t live in or out of their means; they build (more accurately, being in-flow, mobilize) their means by defining how they will live.

Debt is not real; money is not real. Being both unreal, debt is perhaps even less real than money. They are both agreements, but debt is an agreement that in fact can be renegotiated in light of expanding circumstances. Its accounts can be renamed and resettled between two parties — borrower and lender — not between the total economy (as would be the sum-total ‘negotiations’ of interest rates, stock prices, inflation, and so forth).

There is a difference between debts and it is far too often demonized in society: credit card debt, at high rates and compound interest, is obviously bad debt: they give it to everyone. But for business debt, the banks have to think about it; and think about this: when it is good for the banks, do they show any hesitation in doing it? No. If they are trying to keep it from you, it is good for you. If it was good for them, they would give it to everybody.

Think logically: in which cases will it work out? In which cases will it not? Cases for working out forwardly are, further, always augmented by your thought at the case-time: the number is always bigger than what you can think, now. So take your present prediction, and increase the chances it will work out in the future, given the interim thought time. These are the real chances.

The advertising reality of today is very much different from the one that Buckminster Fuller found himself in. In his time, you had to pay ad men to play your message to a certain number of people on the radio, or, much later in even his own life, the television. This is pay for play access, and is the sole reason why Coca Cola is able to exist as a company whatsoever, let alone their continued dominance of a market which should hardly exist to begin with.

Advertising has thrown a wrench into economics: it makes the system make no sense. If an inventor is supposed to be rewarded for their usefulness, how is one of the largest companies on Earth one that provides a certain recipe of sugar water, having no correlation to human need or function? It’s a trick.

The reality of today is very much different: one need not pay for communications capability or capacity. One need not censor their message in nearly any way. Circa 1790, there were likely less than 100,000 people truly literate in the English language. The cost to reach them would mean printing presses, horses and carriages, and more. In the present day, it is quite possible for me to reach a potential of 8 billion people — and even more, forwardly moving through time — with an input cost of essentially zero dollars. Moreover, these individuals may find my message only when they look for it. If I describe it accurately, it will be promoted, at least somewhat, in search functions and algorithms; critically, not to the masses, but to those who have /searched/ for it. While all of these companies operating this grand infrastructure, still — out of sheer ignorance, and lack of any better ideas — generate revenue off of a pay for play model, how /you/ may use it is completely the opposite of pay for play. The creators are the new advertisers of their own works and the paying advertisers are the suckers.

Buckminster Fuller’s philosophy was to leave artifacts, that people might pick up when they needed it. Social messaging can be exactly this, if we are to step out of the revolving numbers drive that these companies, and the public, has chosen to align themselves with. These isolated bits of thoughts, converted to artifact-message, and scattered periodically in the digital sand, may be found by search and picked up when needed. An Instagram post does not have to be totally different from a book. Due to increase in bandwidth capacity, an advertisement now has to be hardly different from ‘the thing’ it advertises. The technological capacity is a framework, a minimum; is an empty vessel, is omni-encapsulating — that is majority being used in a small minded way at present. But you don’t have to use it that way. You can use it differently, and beam out your different messages differently, with very little expectation or hope of money or massive promotional reach. You simply make honest artifacts, and automate their continuous distribution — quite possibly to no one. You don’t want any more views than the right number. I don’t write my books, or invent my inventions, for anyone other than the people who need them.

It is entirely up to the viewer if they listen to what I have to say in my artifacts. I never want to ‘sell’ anyone. I do not want to convince anyone. I will state the facts, the contents, the plan, clearly and simply, and will trust that if what I have created is needed it will be used. You can fake a lot, and a fake can even bring in a lot, but there is never — and never has been — a substitute for the real thing. Tesla may have been mocked, bullied, ridiculed, and forced out of school. But, receiving his patents for the totality of the A/C electric generation, distribution and use system (‘the grid’), Westinghouse never said: “Now where’s your degree? Your esteemed position?” The proof was in the patent. The highest calling is not to be liked, or popular, or wealthy, but to be useful. The only way to ever become the first three, if you do decide it is something you want, without being a fraud resting their considerable weight on a house of cards is to be the last one: useful.

I too often feel locked in place, like a broken tin toy. Is it that I need winding up? Or that my wind up is inherently broken? Or that I spend it all on useless little dances… Yet I forever feel a crushing weight of so much to do and so little time. I fear telephones. It’s people I have to listen to on the other end. I am so used to thinking about what the telephone voices might say, that I don’t know what I might say back. My telephone calls have become one way. I might as well have a simple radio-broadcast of the thoughts of some key individuals. That’s what our new version has proven to be, with the social apps and things, a very sophisticated one way image radio. You can only say something back when they’re not listening. Everyone is in their own vacuum, which would scare the old person who asked — “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it…” But science caught up: there is no sound in a vacuum.

What a wonderful world to be born into? And somehow all the adults have the child still in me — the child I really still am — scared stupid. That I can’t do anything. That I can’t be liked or be enough as I am. That might be well in a world of only one town, but not a one town world. How many other people out there, who need what I have to say? Not the other Cole 500 years from now. That’s a comforting thought too, but it’s not true. It’s not true on its own because it’s true now! The 500 other Coles, at least, out there now. What a thought; what a world.

I found myself googling in a half awake state why is x so pretentious, and then I stopped myself because I couldn’t all the way remember what I was thinking about, but then of course realized: everything is pretentious! I have this great realization now, which I’m glad my migraine introspection has led me to (as it always does). I started off in school and had done well in mathematics and sciences, and always pictured going there, and then went elsewhere in my stint in college because I thought it was too pretentious. So I went to arts and political sciences, and quickly found that very pretentious as well. I patented things — which I , ironically, considering it’s the only most real thing — found to be the least pretentious, but this naturally led to putting the idea into practice in business. Surely, I thought, here, this one could not be pretentious, because it was putting things into practice. And I was dead wrong! The business heavyweights — the banks and so forth that you need to interact with — are deadly pretentious! Why the hell are people making thirty minute video breakdowns of having to do things properly, when they’ve never done the thing! I know I often take part in criticism — I love talking about movies, for instance — but I always think it is interesting to understand why or why not I like something, in the preparation for me to make my movies. When people say, “I don’t like the Shining” (which is my favourite movie) I find myself often saying back, “I can understand why you wouldn’t.” I agree with most criticisms — it’s slow, uneventful, too building and drawn out. And I agree, I can see that, because I see those things and like them. And I know other people will see them and dislike them, but I watch the Shining and think so much about it to see what I like, so I can make things that I like, full well knowing that those things would not be liked by all people. In general, though, I think the criticism speaks to a focus of society that is inextricably linked to the pretensiousizing of all these things. This is something I have thought about a lot. As it becomes easier to do things, people make those things harder for themselves. My favourite example to think about is writing. Much of the great old writing or great old storytelling is not edited and typeset, it is what we would call today a rough first draft, simply because it survived. You sat down and wrote, maybe with some planning, but there was simply no ability to go down and tinker with each letter laboriously and forwardly, over and over and over, like we have today with word processors. What an ugly word: a word processor. You’re grinding it up like mincemeat in some silver mechanical lair. What we have of these great thinkers is not polished like we have today, it is just what survived. And it makes sense that they did not have a need to polish it: there was not the same competition, not the same effort and time to be allowed to be spend on competition and critical tearing down. Most people were not thought workers. Most people for most of history (since farming) were farmers! When you had time to write a story or read one, that was a great treat. And we went at it like children, thinking full and pure. Now, we have not the need but the absolute luxury, the awful laborious mind-numbing and -eating luxury to tinker. The sheer time we’e technologically procured for ourselves as a joint species has allowed for onward explosive creation, but that is not how we have used it. We have used it for what it has also allowed for, the entire tinkering professions: the critics and editors and armies of bureaucrats. But in all of that a great, great many things are lost. I don’t believe in art schools and theory classes, because I think it presents a fundamental misuse of how we are discovering and know more and more our mind to work. I subscribe to the subconscious, and therefore, to our relatively slight and pale-some ability to make something better by thinking about it. Most people attack everything like this. They do only by thinking — scrunching the tip of their eyebrows while they put down a few words or a few brushstrokes. This has been the latter dictating the former: with such newfound capacity to be prolific, people and industry are afraid of it, and want to artificially limit their own output once they can have a lot of it to slow down the already increasing competition, only identified and labelled as such because everybody is still set on going about doing the same things as everyone else and not being themselves. There is this false myth of a solitary genius executing a few things, of many educated minds working in tandem in a staircase. If you look at the developments which really change things, and the people behind them, you see this is nothing of the sort. The few people behind the many great ideas are maniacally prolific; not a few novels but dozens of books, millions of words, a cascade of stories or paintings or inventions. Yes, even in scientific discovery, most of the great changes are made in multiple by a few people, because those very people set and destined to make them have minds buzzing constantly. That’s why Tesla singlehandedly makes the first draft of the entire electric grid! Most of the people bearing the society approved title of scientist today are lucky to transmit his designs to be a few percent more efficient, transmit a few kilometres farther, while they have literally ten times the scientific education, and a million times the knowledge base and tool capability that he had access to. People today are held back by barriers to stop our society from careening forward, a chief one being their own (in-bred) tepid nature. The best things I’ve done I haven’t thought about. I am the happiest with the stories I have simply sat down and zapped out onto paper. Even ideas and inventions: you cannot explain, fully, an idea, even to yourself, when it is just a seed. You can only see it vaguely, work with it, and get a feeling for its potential. My best ideas come to me in a flash, and I have to play with them — without the intruding critical eyes, which would always tell you to stop, to not reinvent the wheel — before I show them polished enough for anybody else to even see, remotely, what I mean. This is the great downfall of data itself. You cannot collect data on something which does not exist; so the new idea is always at a loss, and the old one always has a great supposed amount of suppository proof, always measured with what we were measuring then. You scrunch up your face to posture as smart and you start to lose your mind. You crumple up your head into nothing more than a paper wrapper, a piece of garbage. We now know that the subconscious brain processes of which we are not aware take up much more energy than our conscious processes, that most of the things we notice we do not notice that we notice, and that most of our judgements and thoughts we arrive at without much of our conscious input at all. Why fight it? The best we can do with the consciousness is to steer the ship. That is why I focus care on what I am paying attention to, and let my intuition take me the rest of the way. You are not a captain of a ship so much as a nudge at the rudder, or, more astutely, the tender to a garden. Your mind is your garden, and you only have certain limited controls of what you can do to it to yield results. Water it right. Feed it, care for it, right. If you think without feeling — without being propelled by that vast subconscious sense — you’re using your brain wrong, or, at the very least, incompletely. Trying to laboriously think through a task is using only the pin prick of your brain focused back and between your eyes. It is like trying to write a novel on a typewriter with one key. We have, in trying to quantify and subjugate, denied the vast spectrum of human intelligence. And I believe that this was done at least partially intentionally, to accommodate the great proliferation of fake fields at which people can ‘earn a living’ while contributing nothing of real value. Society has not economically figured out how to delegate the so much we have been able to procure with the so little in the normal job making system, so we have to keep people employed while dampening the acceleration of production and reorganization output with minimal input. Hence drafts, editing, critique, gatekeepers. You go back further, and there is less specialization, but people making greater breakthroughs, because they are omni present in all fields; in the only field: nature. You go back and nuclear physicist becomes physicist. You go back further and it becomes scientist. You go back further and it becomes, only, thinker — which most of the people would have considered themselves. Our today labelling of them as scientists or whatever else is propaganda designed to sell books and University courses. It is not that we are so advanced that we have neared perfection. We are nowhere near it, we are barely into the mix. Look at what we have done in the last few hundred years? And still: we barely have indoor plumbing and our designs now back up and overflow. We still have not solved adequately many of our base problems. We are not at the polishing stages to demand little change, to demand little changes and small build up and shavings! We are at the very beginning! Every society at every point we have known in history has said “Thank god we have it all right now.” It depresses me immensely to see such fakery everywhere; to see artists talking about their subtextual post Neo whatever practice instead of doing and thinking. Buckminster Fuller used to say, in many cultures they had no difference in words for sculptor and inventor. Why do we now? All of these things are inter-accommodative; nothing exists in a vacuum. These great people are and were able to make great leaps because understanding and natural law and imagination — the very fundamental components of the universe — do not delineate themselves based on fields. When everything is inter-accomodative it is also inter-applicable. Expertise is a sham. We all have the same amount of ex-perience directed in our own unique life path based where our consciousness is and was pointing. We are all experts in our own experience. I am drawn by immense power and posses great inspiration to know, for example, how terrible our toilets are; how laborious and how many steps it takes to cast and prototype an object, to sculpt it, in a foundry, say. How primitive our brick buildings are, cured out of rock drilled out of the ground. Everybody is patting themselves on the back with theory and titles while we see so clearly around us in so many places, everyday, such staggering primitivities. There is work to be done! Subconscious is not not thinking, it is deep thinking. This is also why I am cripplingly opposed to most of the insane and baseless debate in critique and analysis videos on intention. If it is functional, to help one forwardly build something better, intentional or not should not matter. And, we can do things without having a full reasoning-out pre-done ourselves. Many of the great thinkers have recognized this, and I have stollen it from them. Ray Bradbury and Dali both talk about the importance of mistakes; of keeping mistakes. As Dali said, they are of a divine subliminal nature. Bradbury would start his stories by typing the first things to come to mind, then asking himself: Why have I put that there? So in ways you pour things out without realizing, and then realize part way through and work with it for the rest of the pouring. Is it intentional and is it planned may be impossible to answer. Whatever I put down, even if I am not aware of thinking about it, I have thought about since I put it down. You also work with it. You notice things; the fact that you’ve put it down and then it jumps off the page back at you reaffirms two-fold that it is important. Often I start pouring out, and from there find a theme simply by noticing: isn’t it interesting that I said this? Then I reaffirm it and be sure to work it in. It’s working with yourself. I have been on the set of movies that I have (tried to) make, and had ideas — what if we put this in the background, what if we play with this? You think about that all the time with stories. Inventing is the same way. It is a push and pull of leading yourself without knowing where you’re going (but of course, at some level, you must). In a dream, you talk to yourself; every character you get information from, while it is still new to you at the conscious level, is still you. I guess the best way to say it is that the subconscious you, the unknown you, is doing the real work; the conscious you is just trying to keep up and articulate it, and pointing the energy and the machine at what it is to be looking at.