Aristo Tacoma [[[ESSAY found at norskesites.org/essay20110917.txt Written talk. Yoga4d.org/cfdl.txt redist license. Consult published works as at yoga6d.org/cgi-bin/news/f3w which are containing key concepts connected to what this writer calls 'neopopperian science' and also 'supermodel theory', which involves also perceptive processes -- concepts effortlessly drawn upon here.]]] CIRCLES, RECTANGLES AND COPULATIONS [[[Please also get the picture as found at norskesites.org/essay20110917.jpg mentioned within.]]] I wish we could talk over every theme in utter detail, each one with full attention in a dialogue where nothing is left unclear or confused about any such theme as finiteness, infinity, God, reality, love, copulation, freedom, anarchy, dance, death, beauty, eternity and logic. But I have to say that if reincarnation is to have any meaning whatsoever -- and it surely can't be what some buddhists have claimed, namely that the goal of reincarnation is to get rid of reincarnation and land happily into sheer void forever -- no, it can't be that. Reincarnation, if it is to have any meaning which is not mere self-centered hope of something ever-lasting, must surely be that in fact we DO HAVE THIS TIME to go into every theme just about infinitely well. So there is a magic combination to optimism -- such as enthusiasm, en-theos, god-within-ness -- and patience, in the sense of utter flexibility. It is good if it happens now, this insight, but, come to think of it, NOW is a pretty big concept. It may be in the next body of yours that the big insight into why the notion of 'any finite number' has to be ditched! But seriously, perhaps we should work a little now, just in case that by this work, we could get an insight right with these bodies we have at present. Right? ;) However I would caution the dancer, and each one of us is, with the suitable perspective of depth, also a dancer, to understand the dance too well. How can you understand it totally, if you are to give yourself up to it elegantly? There is then the intellectual understanding. And it may feel very good and yet the next day, or next life, that new brain, better than the brain you had before, points out that it is probably right, but a bit fuzzy on the edges. Rather like the dizzy view some human shapes and house shapes may take on when one has got just one too many good essential whisky liquor: and this dizziness invites more questions. However you intuition may say, despite the whisky or the lack of whisky and wine and such, despite the intellectual bit of confusion, that it is, as far as result goes, hardly containing any mistake. And so it is, I think, when you work at infinity. One must never ever, as a human being who is to walk upright and speak clearly and funnily and dance well and elegantly aim at hardening the intellectual understanding into an absoluteness. The brain is no diamond, it is no crystal. A perfect total understanding is not possible at the material level: it would mean that the brain attains to a super-charge which can whack it to pieces, so watch out. Even the best of minds can tip over if the enquiry into infinity takes on a certain intensity. So that is why, when we explore, as now, that we do not merely explore like it was the only thing in life that mattered. We must allow the other themes, the jokes, and also the little bit struggle with the syntax of the f3 programing language, and some words on beauty, sex, whatever, to come in and as if defuse the exploration into the grander questions. Still we can have a progress in insight -- that is what I meant when I referred to fresh incarnations: it is my intuition and instinct to say, that it is right to say, that the feeler of joys and also of pains and more is woven directly of such more subtle stuff as the supermodel theory allows, and which is hinted at (but not proven) by the phenomena which also inspired de Broglie, Bohm, Heisenberg, Bohr, Dirac, you know the guys, and Einstein, Schroedinger, the whole lot. The hint is intellectually woven into a masterpiece, if I have to say it myself, in the theory of active models, -- the theory of super-models or without the dash, the supermodel theory. These hints provide an intellectual foundation, and within the very long and complicated work to erect that theory, I put it a whole shebang of acknowledgements and so for that reason, too, I keep repeating the name of that theory when we do these explorations. And it runs like a true thread through the tapestry of the super-model theory that N = (1 , 2 , 3 , . . . ) doesn't exist in the sense of a clear, coherent, qualified idea if by the three dots we mean a boundless range of et cetera, adding one to the highest member on and on and on, and by the parentheses, in this case, we attempt to say -- and by the letter N for Natural Numbers, and the equal sign =, that we have a set or collection of only finite numbers of the same kind as we started with. You may perhaps say, does it matter? But it is surprising, is it not, in this infinite life of ours (cfr. reincarnation), what might matter one day. If you are about to eat a flower -- they make good salads, some of them, both tasty, and elegant-looking while you eat, while you cannibalize a flower, -- it pays to know the name of the flower and to check with a book that it is not of the type that can kill a bastion. You might argue that we are not eating infinite sets of numbers. So we are not eating them, but we may build work somehow related to dance, to massage, to art, to sex, to architectural ideas, design of chairs -- and so on -- right from our philosophical notions. At least sometimes such happens. And sometimes we also sell these things we make thus artistically and philosophically; and the sold becomes money, money becomes food, and so, in a sense, the food will taste better if we got coherent ideas. For these will typically appeal more to folks, be more beautiful, and have greater inner SM strength in them, and what not and all such things don't know you. And so, in fact, the food gets as good as our ideas, when we boil it down to that. For the simple reason that we can afford better restaurants when we get more money from them: I must add, before this sentence is complete, that I am a bit joking, and that I am not regarding the sales market as the ultimate qualification device for things of philosophy. But let us consider a possible fuzziness on our arguments as presented perhaps just recently in this context. Suppose I say, one cannot generalize what a finite number is from looking at some examples, 5, 10, 239284, and 93827233. These may be five good whole finite numbers all within the constantly adviced range of 32-bit which, if you read through the calculations on bits in computer language thinking, means that they are not going any much higher than about a billion or so. But let us imagine a person, certainly not any one of us, who are so beyond doubting this great truth, but one bigoted, prejudiced person imported from the bygone past, such as Mrs N N. Mrs N N says: 'Sure you can generalise. You must just start with 1, and with addition. You all, we all, know what addition with one means. And we start with 1 and by doing this addition by one, this increment, we get to 2. We then get to three. A finite number -- any finite number, mind you, is what you get to if you do this for some while, and then cease doing it. This is a very easy, simple, clear idea, and this is the general check we can apply as to find out whether an entity is a finite number or whether it refers to an infinity somehow.' The trouble with being so good at picking words to argue for a point of you as I am, immodestly spoken, is that I can argue too well for a stupid point of view if I give my heart to it. I almost, but only almost, convinced myself for a fleeting instant when I articulated the view from long-dead Mrs N N. In order to point out what is wrong about something, one must be able to hold each segment of what is said separately, and show whether each segment is any good or not. If it turns out that there are several foggy segments in what appears to be a rock-solid argument, one must have the clarity and calm, the attention and patience, to brush aside the immediate glamorous appearance of a set of words, and just look. Not search as much as look. The word 'search' involves restlessness. Looking, as seeing, involves free perception and simple intelligence put to work, in a spirit of fun. You see why exploration is different from heckling, from discussion, tearing things apart with impatience. Such impatience is justified when a leader has integrity in a company, has a sense of gut instinct of goodness, and the company must act, not merely think and reflect, and act as a whole. Then the leader can say, even shout -- this is the view we take, and get on with the work, and keep quiet about any counter-argument you may have. This is the only way some things can get done. But here, our duty is to persevere in the pain and joy of looking for the sake of looking, as it were. But then again, only up to a point: so we don't over-analyse. Referring now to the imagined Mrs N N, I will first point out that in talking of finite numbers outside of a meaningful, good computer programming context for the first-hand programming language f3, we must conside such finite numbers, in case, as having for instance twice as many digits as there are electrons in the universe. Let us also keep in mind that the number of billions of electrons in the average human body is so staggering that the word 'billion' is really almost rediculous to use. So neither Mrs N N, even if she was a woman of exceptional longevity, nor any other human being, can actually work all the way up to such a number in order to check whether it fits with a number where one stops adding 1 or not. So although I concede in a fashion that such a number as twice all the electrons in the universe is finite, I do not regard it as "number" in the technical strict sense of a meaningful first-hand type of number for human beings. It is a fiction which loosely associates with something which by analogy rather than by close meaning can be called "number". And we must then hastily add that of course such a number is merely a piece of cake compared to the number that is this number multiplied by itself this many times. Which is a number with still less of the original good meaning of an item within the 32-bit range. So Mrs N N cannot in praxis check out whether the digits are finite, nor can any other human being. Nor can she reach through all the digits if she looks at them one by one. She has to imagine that some kind of being of greatness is willing to do the work for her. But then she is already conceding a second-hand-ness in meaningfulness in that she is not herself the mind-holder of the checking-event of whether the number is finite or not. Mrs N N can argue, as she did, that the notion of doing something, like adding, and then not doing that anymore, after a while, is a clear idea in a very general sense. But I doubt how general the sense of it is, since doing something for a while -- for some time -- for some finite amount of days or hours or minutes or whatever, months -- and then not doing it anymore, after that time, has no relevance for such big numbers as we indicated, and there are, if her line of reasoning is any good at all, infinitely many such big numbers, bigger and bigger. There is no clear-cut human sense to 'do this for a while, and then don't do it', when it comes to numbers which couldn't even be written given all the paper in the universe. So we see that the apparently innocent argument is really very immodest: Mrs N N, of ordinary intelligence, argues with certainty of how beings of absolutely supreme intelligence handle numbers. Her own mind cannot do anything of it, but still she argues that there is a validity to going on and on and on with something she is entirely incapable of going on with -- EVEN AT THE LEVEL OF FANTASY. But even if the muses did agree to her suggestion, which they do not, as I feel, the whole question reeks with a fundamental lack of appreciation the notion of meaning in our dealing with abstractions, also numbers. I grant that when we have a clear-cut range of meaningful numbers, and with a little work all numbers of 10 digits or less -- especially when equipped with some commas to group three and three of these -- can look meaningful when written in a good font -- when we have such a range, then addition by one, or increment, makes strong good sense. There is also no denying that one can start with 1 and get all the way up to two billion by this process, if one absolutely wanted to. But to abstract some such technicalities from a meaningful context of a clear range, and say that these technicalities can be assertative in a hyper-general sense, is immodest, it is arrogant on behalf of what meaning is to the human mind. And it is very far from a clear idea. It is also intuitively wrong, for although we may play with imagined new ranges for numbers beyond 32-bit, these are psychologically faltering compared to the numbers that we do work with in computer programming and outside also, such as to measure length of legs versus torso, or length of feet for fitting to shoes. The fact is, dear Mrs N N (I imagine saying to her), you do not visualise what happens in your et cetera building process of the set of all whole positive numbers of a finite kind. You merely visualise the beginning, and think of some tiny examples, but you do not visualise it as a whole. You ASSERT that it is meaningful, but it is only meaningful for those few initial examples. Your argument, which can be proven only by mindful meaning, is mindless. It is but empty assertions; moreover, these assertions lead to some reductio ab absurdum elements (as we have seen in earlier stuff, a long time, since I cam with it). That's enough. Do I hear a yawn? But these things give us extra strength, even if they are a bit boring at times, when we later on do works where we must be pretty sure that we didn't brush too fast over significant facts. In talking over another theme, but related, namely that of perception of wholeness, perceiving also graphically, and in music, as dance, and in numbers, not just contrasting similarities and similar contrasts but also that vibration of the whole -- the new phrase which has a very near or identical sense as to that which I have called 'reverberance' (see supermodel theory), there is something in supermodel theory which stretches perception beyond form, beyond immediate content, to the larger substance of the universe, so to speak. For no matter how much we peer into a form, a beauty doesn't exist in abstraction, but in a kind of meant-to-be-ness which speaks of all existence in that moement, and where life is going, where the stream of duration is going. You may turn to religious words here, -- is it good? Is the drawing good, in the sense that it fits with the intent of God and his muses? This resonance beyond the immediate content with the largest context of all involves something of what can be called the Principle of a tendency a Movement towards Wholeness, abbreviated PMW. This PMW speaks of what is called for, in the wholeness of existence. One has to go beyond any of one's own intentions in doing art, and listen, as it were, to the intention of life. This principle also works on smaller scales, so to speak. The bird is hungry, it is sweet and makes sweet sounds and cleanses some trees by its particularly and very peculiar food habits, and so we want the bird to have its meal, and keep on flourishing and making good bird-babies to continue its tweeting little race. So life responds, in one way or another. There is a fulfilment of a form, also so as when you see this and that and the other circular shapes, in comes something more rectangular and centers them. Right? In this way, we can also see copulation, sexual action, in which not only the whole body is an erotic instrument, and the whole of mind, in many ways (which we can discuss or muse more about), but the lovely vaginas, the many vaginas are hungry for the rod or shaft maybe of the dildoes, or of the thing of flesh. Certainly, we are speaking here of a principle of movement towards wholeness in how the very sexual action and feeling and form are leading to all sorts of interesting and good actions. This involves also the larger context of the endurance and renewal of the human race. And so, we are touching on what in one way of counting it could be said to be a fourth dimension of perception: similarities and contrasts, that's two, the vibration of the whole, that's a third -- playing on the first two but involving a sense of melting infinity which is never merely a dyad or duality, but a whole onto itself -- and so, hence, the fourth is the fulfilment of a form within a much larger context, also in that it becomes more obviously whole in itself -- but also so that it connects to the ethical and moral questions of goodness, of fitting-within all that is and where all is going. Abstracting some features out of this for a playful model, I have in mind this: make a program, let's make a program, around these lines: (LET FULFIL1 BE (( )) (( (( GJ-ON )) (( 10 (COUNT (( SHAPE-3-CIRCLES-AND-INSERT-RECT )) COUNTUP) )) (( FT A-KEY )) (( GJ-DONE )) )) OK) [[[Added note 20110919 -- the word A-KEY simply waits until a key is pressed at the keyboard, such as ENTER. Please, on an addition to manual about this, for stability of programs, see note in HOLOGRAM program connected to essay20110918 as to why FT, which unshows mouse, is important to do before a-key, keynum, key or any loop which takes place without something like 100 => GOODPAUSE when mouse has recently been turned on by SHOWMOUSE, FEET or use of a routine like PEN-DRAW which, by its definition, calls on FEET. If you have any program which uses mouse and which turns out to be unexpectedly unstable, increase value to GOODPAUSE. This is a feature connected not to the programming language f3 as such, but rather to how the f3 is being performed within a dosbox such as dosbox74 -- it is to ensure that the timing connected to showing the advanced shapely-foot-like mouse pointer is not spinning too fast for the overall performane of the dosbox. This simply 100 => GOODPAUSE will prevent any unwanted closing of the program.]]] In English words, the program FULFIL1.TXT will do ten repetitions, in a graphical spring-green / black context (the GJ context), where three circles are made, and a rectangle near or partly within or whatever. We'll see. Like groupsex. Let these circles be made in the same way as the rectangle, by means of a thinking about angles, rather than by direct call of a circle-making or rectangle-making finished routine. We want to make the circle by means of approaching it, not making it exact, but drawing it by a number of small lines and turn the angle just right after each little line has been made. For this, the f3 programming language has some routines which, for historical reasons, are sometimes called LOGOLIKE (for they are similar to a language called LOGO in some ways). Drawing lines thus 'manually', and by thinking in terms of just how far one is to draw them (the number of pixels), and what angle to shift before drawing onwards, is extremely helpful for some more advanced graphical art. So even though now it will be some more lines to the program than we have to have, it will be easier to think about what happens, step by step. A rectangle can then be made this way: draw a long line, then shift 90 degrees, draw a short line, shift 90 degrees, draw a long line, shift 90 degrees, and complete with another short line. The 90 degrees is a sharp corner when 360 is all the way around a circle. Here, in LOGOLIKE, we multiply all angle-numbers by ten, for a bit of increased resolution without having to bother about decimals. So we will turn 900 degrees. It is possible to turn the other way by putting a sign in front of the number, like -900. Here we might, with luck, be able to get it all done without turning it around more than one way, using only happy, positive numbers. PEN-X and PEN-Y holds present position. Remember that we do have 1024 pixels horisontally, and 768 vertically. As a convention, which one can change for advanced programs, 0 is background tone or tonation, as brightest, and 1 is black, the so-called "foreground tonations". The light green monitor looks, as afterglow when you look at something very bright and more white, quite pink and rosy and sweet. For f3 programmers, then, the world is -- when going away from the computer -- quite pink. Light green is brighter than white. All the GJ photos can be presented from tonation 128 to tonation 191, where 191 is brightest, and 128 darkest, and the levels between are enough to give all the remarkable appearance or effect of smoothness of thighs of the GJP photos, as you might have noticed. But we are allowing your own mind to do a bit of work, because the greatest art is always within, and outer world must only enlist it. But in this case, we stick to painting on the screen with 1, with black. The model will then tell us something. What it tells at once may be little to what it tells after a while. Like a plant, or a flirt, it will grow. The more we allow it to be a pure idea, resonant with our context, and not over-worked, the more clear is its contrast to the richness of the outer world. And this is why it can, by contrast, energise -- for it is, though different in key respects of many types, also coherent and in connection with reality. I suppose, then, that when we make such Lisa GJ2 Fic3 programs, we are doing something which ancient sanskrit folks might have named "yantra". Tantra, mantra, yantra -- sex, meditation, physics. Yantra is the geometrical shape which allows the mind to go deeper; the mantra the sound; the tantra -- I think you know all about that already! Let's get some meat on this one: (LET SHAPE-3-CIRCLES-AND-INSERT-RECT BE (( )) (( }* .. }* )) OK) It is a kind of convention that when the PEN-DRAW -- which moves the LOGOLIKE pen ahead a given number of pixels, while drawing with a value set by a variable you can modify if you like, and the PEN-FORWARD -- which moves with the pen up from the virtual paper, as it were, moves without drawing -- and other such LOGOLIKE routines are used, then you start each drawing with calling PEN-ORIGO and PEN-STRAIGHT-UP. It is very possible for the advanced programmer to open up FIC3.TXT in an editor and search for the definition of these tiny, sweet functions. One can also type LOGOLIKE in text mode, inside F3, to get a small example one can run without having to type GJ-ON and GJ-DONE, where another notation is used. In any case, I suppose we begin with these two inside that routine. To do this really leisurely, and why not do it really leisurely? -- then we simply divide the actions it should do into subtasks and name them and avoid spelling them out in needless detail. If they should communicate over some common numbers, let them do so by some variables that we define afterwards. So, let's see. How about this. (LET SHAPE-3-CIRCLES-AND-INSERT-RECT BE (( )) (( (( PEN-ORIGO )) (( PEN-STRAIGHT-UP )) (( FIGURE-OUT-WHERE-THE-FIEST-IS )) (( SHAPE-A-CIRCLE )) (( SHAPE-A-CIRCLE )) (( SHAPE-A-CIRCLE )) (( INSERT-RECTANGLE )) )) OK) It couldn't be neater. The fiest in question is in this case the area of the screen where we tell'em to work it all out. We are at liberty to speak funnily and poetically once we do so within a non-pretentious context. But I consider it nothing less than blasphemous to make a program named anything like MIND, LOVE, BEAUTY, or SOUL. Name the program something less pretentious, and you have the mental space to poke a bit fun with yourself in the middle of the program, in the routine-naming part. So we are going to do something which can use a relatively FRee fluctuation generator, the function FR, which is meant to snatch values from a speedy number stack for larger loops when needed, so it is called a bit strange. To get a value from 1 to 10, try type ^10 FR GETV and then type POP to get it out from the main stack, as it is called, and printed on the monitor in radiant green. The inverted v, or the hat ^, tells a number to go straight to the variable number stack, used in background processes all the time when we do such as <>> to fetch a value from a variable. The FR is the name of the function, and then GETV gets the value from the variable stack and puts it where we ordinarily put the numbers, the so-called main stack. This then speaks to POP when we wish to pop the value out onto the monitor in text mode. So to find out where we are going to do the drawing is a matter of going well within the 1024*768 range, so we don't put drawing routines out of range. So we have to begin to estimate how big the stuff we're gonna draw is. I suppose a rectangle can be, well, oh 200 pixels in height, between a third and a fourth of the monitor height. It should be slim, say 42 pixels, to pick a number at chance, or by intuition, rather. Then the circles can vary quite a lot, also position. Let us then imagine that we pin-point the exactly middle of the rectangle by an FR number, a free number, for X and Y in the horistonal and vertical positions, respectively. From this middle, then, a hundred more pixels in height is minimum range of distance to corner of screen, and some 42 divided by 2, which is 21, plus 40, equals 61 as safe range, in width. I want to round off all this stuff. Then I imagine we get far with something like this: ((DATA FIEST-X )) ((DATA FIEST-Y )) (LET FIGURE-OUT-WHERE-THE-FIEST-IS BE (( )) (( (( ^800 FR GETV ; 100 => ADD FIEST-X < ADD FIEST-Y <N3 >N2 >N1 )) So, we might ask: Why does it say >N3 >N2 >N1 rather than the other way around? We put in X and Y here, the horisontal and vertical position, in strict sequence. These numbers are in X Y sequence just as a convention that we can apply, and which is typical in f3, and the way to remember it is that X and Y are that way in the alphabet, and X is more to the left on the keyboard; also, the Y has a vertical line in its shape so it gotta be the vertical number. Got it? Good. The third number is a hint of the size of the circle. I say a hint for we are exploring also intuitively, and not making car vehicles. I am not going to bring in the number pi 3.141519 stuff, just have a vague sense of size converted into some function stuff, that feels to be adequately to the point. It is supposed also to have a pleasant bit of surprise, the output, and it is always possible to tweak the program to make the output better. So when we give two numbers to CIRCLE-LIKE, like (( 333 ; 555 ; 50 => CIRCLE-LIKE )) it means that we want X=300 in width position, Y=555 in height position, and 50 as size. We have to choose an interpretation of this -- is size radius, measured from the center? Perhaps, yes. Now, when it says >N3 >N2 >N1 after 333 555 50 what happens is this: 333 555 50 >N3 >N2 >N1 50 goes to N3 333 555 >N2 >N1 555 goes to N2 333 >N1 333 goes to N1 If you disagree, start up F3 by typing F3 inside a dosbox, and use the word STK to show the content after you type the numbers in. Then do >N3 first, on a line all of its own, and type STK, to see the change. Then type >N2, and so forth. So the convention is this: Always put the >Nn stuff inside the header of a function in the sequence of counting towards 1, rather than counting up, and then you will with ease, within the function, know that such as N1, N2 and N3 have the content you gave to it in the same sequence as you gave it, from elsewhere in the program or by a direct call from the F3 command line in text mode. To make a really fast function for very many repetitive calls, where minute differences in speed matters a lot, it is possible to skip the use of >N1 and such altogether and just use the stacks directly, for this words such as ONE, TWO, THREE, ANGEL, BRIDGE and RM work really well, and the manual comes up if you type WORD and allow the MTDOC.TXT to be loaded. You can then learn how to search in it, if you type such as (( ANGEL inside the CTR-F function, and repeat with CTR-L. I am going to program now and explain less, for I didn't intend this to be a tutorial as much as an exploration of philosophical themes and related scientific themes where we model using f3, without assuming too much prior work with f3. But I think you will want to see the program soon now, and the screen output image, and assume that anything unclear about the program content is if not already explained at least indirectly, then fairly easily sorted out by a little and a good wading in the muddy waters of MTDOC.TXT (which sometimes is named F3DOCS.TXT). Skip stuff that appear obsolete and just look for an informative bit. If not, the best bet is to look at other programs which use the function that you are wondering about, and see if you casn figure out the meaning of the program word from such examples -- the word or phrase or whatever we call it. You do the same in English spontaneously, when you allow a question to linger over a word that you encounter in one context and, as you encounter it in other contexts, you naturally abstractify or generalise a meaning. Don't loose your good spirits if something is having an appearance of unreadability at first. Get acqainted with it by repeated context several times a week, then start sorting the pieces out and play with them a little. One thing about these N1, N2 and N3. Once you start a loop by (COUNT .. COUNTUP), you have to have a way to get the values of the counting out of the loop. It is always N1. And N2 always contains the upper range of the loop, which you feed the (COUNT with, usually on the line just above it, if you write f3 by its typical good-looking convention, as I suggest you should. So these values, on what is called the simple stack, for the N1..N11 are such a simple, elegant idea, are said to be PUSHED two steps inside a (COUNT .. COUNTUP) loop. You add two to the index number, N1 becomes N3, N2 becomes N4, and N3 becomes N5. If you have several (COUNT .. COUNTUP) loops inside one another, two steps are pushed for each such loop. You must then take care not to use to high indices -- the N10 and N11 are simply not easy to reach if they get pushed two steps, for the range of these N1..N11 words is entirely clear-cut, there is no N12 nor any N13 (there are however words to manipulate the simple stack for cases where one has got to do so, but in praxis, a bit of thought makes such peculiar measures unnecessary in mostly all cases). I feel that you have got very much more than enough of f3 syntactical chat for one such session. I will now complete the program, and present it, from the first line to the completing line. If you look up this essay in an online form, you can copy the text, delete all but those lines, and run it directly, when you save it to the name chosen. You then type F3 inside a dosbox, and type the colon and the name, a space character, and the word IN. Each example run of the program will give a somewhat different result. Here is an example of one run: [[[Look at norskesites.org/essay20110917.jpg here & now]]] And this is the syntax of the F3: }* FULFIL1.TXT WRITTEN BY A.T. with L.A.H., }* }* Yoga4d.org/cfdl.txt copyright -- redist. }* ((DATA FIEST-X )) ((DATA FIEST-Y )) (LET FIGURE-OUT-WHERE-THE-FIEST-IS BE (( )) (( (( ^800 FR GETV ; 100 => ADD FIEST-X < ADD FIEST-Y <N3 >N2 >N1 )) (( (( PEN-STRAIGHT-UP )) (( N1 PEN-X < PEN-FORWARD )) (( N3 ; 15 => DIV => >N4 )) (( 36 (COUNT (( N6 => PEN-DRAW )) (( 100 => PEN-LEFT )) COUNTUP) )) )) OK) (LET SHAPE-A-CIRCLE BE (( )) (( (( FIEST-X >>> => >N1 )) (( ^100 FR GETV ; FIEST-Y >>> => ADD ; 50 => SUB => >N2 )) (( ^40 FR GETV ; 60 => ADD => >N3 )) (( N1 ; N2 ; N3 => CIRCLE-LIKE )) )) OK) (LET INSERT-RECTANGLE BE (( )) (( (( PEN-STRAIGHT-UP )) (( FIEST-X >>> PEN-X <>> PEN-Y < PEN-FORWARD )) (( 900 => PEN-LEFT )) (( 21 => PEN-FORWARD )) (( 900 => PEN-LEFT )) (( 100 => PEN-DRAW )) (( 900 => PEN-LEFT )) (( 42 => PEN-DRAW )) (( 900 => PEN-LEFT )) (( 100 => PEN-DRAW )) (( 900 => PEN-LEFT )) (( 42 => PEN-DRAW )) )) OK) (LET SHAPE-3-CIRCLES-AND-INSERT-RECT BE (( )) (( (( PEN-ORIGO )) (( PEN-STRAIGHT-UP )) (( FIGURE-OUT-WHERE-THE-FIEST-IS )) (( SHAPE-A-CIRCLE )) (( SHAPE-A-CIRCLE )) (( SHAPE-A-CIRCLE )) (( INSERT-RECTANGLE )) )) OK) (LET FULFIL1 BE (( )) (( (( GJ-ON )) (( 10 (COUNT (( SHAPE-3-CIRCLES-AND-INSERT-RECT )) COUNTUP) )) (( A-KEY )) (( GJ-DONE )) )) OK) (( LOOKSTK )) (LET AUTOSTART BE FULFIL1 OK) What does the whole thing say philosophically? What questions arise, about perception, about fulfilment, about copulation, about contrasts and similarities, art and dance?