revising SPE from the start, omitting the "obvious" clause. See if making that spin, brings clarity later.
Why make it hard all the time, just because everything is hard anyway, some hard might be more sustainable. And what is hard to one, might not be hard to another (not in the same order of magnitude), and vice-versa. Accepting strength, weakness, and human diversity of those (until we compete ourselves and consume the earth to our extinction, and ejection to mars, rinse and repeat, but there is always a pyramid to build somewhere on the nature given to our species by some father figure, maybe not to our species but a king among it, another father figure, hmm.... coincidence? I love my father, but he is my father, not my other thing, if one needs a thing, why not take it as the ambient space we seem to be cohabiting, all of us. Not just mother earth, btw. All of it, and beyond. We are in it. That spun out fast... ahh.. in the morning.
How can abstractions help us in the tangible. Tangible, shmtangible. Well, in the other direction. How to choose the most efficient tangible that can help us with a bunch of other tangibles, when the time comes. knowledge itself versus knowledge (or is it skill?) of how to acquire knowledge and make it useful or delegating its derived knowledge to be found when the times come. Different kinds of knowledge then?
But really, I think it is about diversity (not skin color or other group identity that we can figure out or get rabbit holed into, struggling with our fundamental contradictions or individual assertion, while being pulled back into group belonging).
That internal model of the world, unique vision, that we can never really test being the same. some sort of qualia, that permeates a lot of things. The need to delude ourselves with certitude or impose them onto others. When in doubt, don't doubt. It is dangerous. Imagination killed the cat.
I guess, being somewhat inadequate, long enough, through life, might bring some aspect as above to the forefront of perception. in the long run, then backward, explaining consistently how it could be so. The answer, we don't all think the same way, not in the same skill set distribution at least. well, a hypothesis that keep resonating upon new data after new data.
Also, just looking at performance as a 1D measure, will not help us find that out. As there maybe me more than one path to that kind of Rome, and there might be many Romes. (one should not forget the target constraints selection pressure on the population distribution of hidden traits. So, what would Occam say. ELO? we know how the population is distributed, from which we can specify individual value given that knowledge. Or can we go wider and let some influence from yet not ever measured endpoints. Using a NN within a rigged context at the ambient/restriction space, would not let it figure out the full set of relations in the multidimensional problem. So, zero is in the eyes of the beholder, doing the optimizations with the chosen ambient space. Each shortcut upstream of some design decision tree, might be cutting on what it can find, that is hidden as a more compressed representation (or better set of emerging rules than just the local determinism can allow us to construct one at a time, using the smallest brain of the 2).
I am psyching my own ego to be committed by oversharing.. It will be tool late, after this. Who cares, if I play in my sandbox, I put warnings in the team. I do need the possibility of being read for this to have some selective pressure on my thoughts, as I put words after words, as if on a thought mirror.
let's assume, my lurking, relentless intuition or curiosity or whatever seems to be driving me, is not running in circles, (very wide, so I might not be perceiving it in time, before I forget where I was at some point). That might be a belief. But, as long as I keep the feeling flow in the right directoin, I trust my emotions about ideas being compatible with each other (and me understanding at a given time point), and about things not fitting, conflicting, or missing some cog (dissonance is between ideas explicit or not, a set of them). A question is usually a tool to find out, what sometimes our emotion based radar can sense ahead of our conscious verbal flow, and have a dialog between inttuition, and conscious logic..
so here is what I wish I would do sometime in future. or I would like to have done.
So, tangible. SPE is a tangible book. It has going for it that the questions are well posed. From small cardinality of material (the usual retrograde plan of discovery, not the same computational tools), to within those classes, placement difficulties, or outcome class criticial boundaries hugging..
So, I find that by having that knowledge dependent obvious clause, the progression of the presentation has shot itself in the theory of learning foot.
It would certainly make a more select audience, filter at entry. but I think it was not intentional.
theories need more than one or 2 heads. min. 2. but the more the merrier, if all have the same goal of understanding, that is. this is not another .... contest. I meant chess theory there. pawn and king endgame. (btw, who thinks that a seed position problem, only study value is for a future encouter of the same position in real games? well, all those that make a differene between practical endgame value and theoretical, they are likely to assume that, or favor that. But if chess is not a game of knowledge storage and retrieval, but has more of that reasoning upon equal "perfect" information of the current position type of game, how could reasoning skill beat knowledge absorptoin skill? Could it be considered not just invoked as experience learning, what is preventing giving some model of that internal aspect about chess theory of learning. Do we want to keep it a pure individual prowess act under time pressure (or duress, as I would feel it... hahaha).
so, we all agree that there are difficulty progressions plans to be had in any decent theory of learning. cognitive load type and all that. even the clunky working memory-long term memory juggling act model (sorry, I am an incorrigible court jester, masking ignorance through editorials)
seed material then positional complexity is one plan. and I think SPE does it very well, and maybe even for once in chess, pedagogically, or with care put into how is the audience thinking progressing, trying to stimulate their ability to generalize.
in some way, the obvious clause, could be seen as taking that into account.. Where I think it shot itself in the foot, is that beside the logical contortions later, it might explain, an abrupt thinking method difficulty climb.
at some point, the seed complexity requires certain tools, themselves high on the teaching or learning or communication scale.
it find itself having to present the stiff climb of the method, while in also the steadier but still climbing seed complexity.
If there were a working memory cognitive load obstacle to learning the global task objective or problem-solving goal, that would be one. It ends up doing a convergence of difficulty climb. That would not be reviewed in the socially competitive chess "psyche". Who will admit, they had a hard time. This is a GM book, after all. It is audience problem if they can't take it.
And, indeed, this is how good stuff, gets lost. Not being critical enough of the delivery. Critical does not mean dismissive. it means being able to take the good, and still able to find the less good.
so. to work on the good. exercise to review first chapter, with zero obvious clause (I guess we might be influenced by some other branding, but it is not in vain.. acknowledging ignorance has some clarity virtue, I have many times tasted.. ).
it brings back the game of reasoning, where we might be improving at that skill, while having same information at current positoin. reach the audience where it is. do not count on its self-deprecation reflex, oh, I might not know what the author knows, and therefore, out of my reach.. close the book. Let's fix it ourselves.. a dream..
I have not been alone in that, I can't read books by myself anyway.. It has to be interactive. but I can be tasked to look at diagrams in the books... I think chapter one chunks at least the first are within my solo reach, as a revision experiment.
bring some of my luggage about bifurcation theory into the picture.. I itch to test and find out where that scaffold breaks into the finiteness of chess.
seems to be the most general titled thread where I can dump ideas I want to see in writing at least once...
so, can too many critters presented as different categories, be regrouped by pinning underlying parts (which would need research into transiently more critters), in such a way, that holding onto those parts, would let the previous critterology, not have to be held on live memory, as they could be deduced by mecanistic logic or induced also by that with some imagination to fill in some gaps (well it might already have been doing it for the many critters, to work against its defects as a criterology).
reductionism does go through a research phase where the number of parts do increase indeed. Before recombination with added understanding of the mechanisms, shows us that it was more generalization, than the previous more morphologically enumerative grid of understanding was, in that one would not need to store as much information in order to be able to "understand" that apparent complexity.
the gain in chess in that way, I don't really know. but I am not sure it is a very active direction. It seems there is some reluctance or there was, about reviewing hypotheses. We need engine ELO gods, and the belief in superhuman truth (the champions being part of that too, demi-gods maybe), the license to not understanding mechanisms, but get the truth directly. `
Not my kind of lazy ness.. I don't have lots of room for the amount of truths in big chess.. And I thrive in hypotheses building and testing loops (or spirals, if any progress). And chess does not hide implicit rules or variable rules. finite set visible to all.
But my comment is more general. about high level models, we should always remember they are not the reality, but how we can understand it. And therefore, we might seek to keep questioning them.. not to dismiss them, to further their usefulness.
for some reason, I find machine learning to be a machine test experimental laboratory for mathematical formulations of psychological theories of cognition and learning. Where, we have control over the internal parts. So, for now, I understand from that support, notions of associative learning (old ML, maybe some recent, I did not keep up with), supervised learning, and deep reinfrocement learning.. All with NN at the core. Connexionist machines..
They show that one does not have to keep category building spoon feed the "brain" models down to the microscopic, that the NN is very flexible to find by those learning schemes to build its own set of categories out of a quantitative sensory input from the world (however we quantized it, it is still in its ablitiy to explore over as tiny as necessary gaps of hyperangles, that it can find what will fit the problem complexity, to the best of its desiign capacity, and the scheme ability to visit the data that will find the complexity to be learned).
It turn out I like not to have to prescrived the nook and crannies myself, I prefer a robust delegation to such process I already have a mathematical understanding of (without the machine, even, but I can refer to those experiements), some parts might be not fully linguistic yet (or I might need to refresh with external memory support of the formulations, but the internal model I might have built over the year (in the past) are still there.. haunting me, and not letting go...
I am saying this with ready of cognition and chess. and what I find might be some precedenc put to some frozen chunks in high level model of cognition. pattern recognition and problem solving are not undefined entries to my intent of understand with high level mode of cognition. I find it dissectable. and probably I have my own subhjective data point in support of my budding unerstaning using the math. models behind machine learning.
also, that paper that gave a response to the "Do not offload information if you want to preform in a memory task" by saying "Do not throw the book yet, if you have a problem solving task" in that case, it is not appear to me, that problem solving was about calculation, it seemed to be more a creative task mixed with visual search and back and forth hypothesizing and verifying..
I could see myself in a math. course, debating with the book while the teacher was presenting inexorable flow of mathematical construct. (I had not taken the prerequisite course this was the second part of, so I was using the book to solve my own retarded questions that the growing blackboard scribbles, thank for offloaded information, that way, not relying on verbal, or gone information because it is the next frame of the video and the narration is priority flow, not your own thinking....
so. I think I would like that problem solving be itself an object of cognitive sciene not just an atomic concept.
and patterns. they also seem to be immutable atomic thinjgs.. that might not depend on the task used for testing or elaborating theoriies.
poke hole in that? I already have some ideas fom under that. patterns are not black boxes for me.. that is my big point I guess.
I find that the sucess of AI brand might be warranting more attention to what it might say about natural I. as models made industrial tools.. of sort. they could also be ethical probes into cognition models.. not just to reproduce and make money but make science.. put hypothesiis of cognitiion theory to play in more interpretable internals ways, not just technologically markettable prowesses.. the big data thing, is not a requirement for the scientifi progress into their mechanics..
different point of view on ML, than just having things that beat humans in performance, but the complementary usefulness into the how they do it, and is it like we do it? it was inspired by how we do it.. So, somewhere iin there, is the formalism alreayd usable that could shed light back on its sources of inspiration, cognitive science (of the past?).
now, is this sort of research even already in play, or is it always from cognitive science to machine prowess.. I think the black box tenet has to go. And with it the black box big data.. blablabla. (in the overfitting emerging problem of ML there is also the underfitting.. but often that was studied as given a known representative data set.. what is the problem of generalization. That is ubiquitous to all machine learning.. once formalized, mathematically, such notion can be approached and measured. within assumptions.
now, what about the big data. or not being sure we have a representative data sample (sample = database) of the scientific object.. Well, then one has to relax the other end of the assumption about the data sample itself being a subset of the full world sample we are not sure to have at hand.. One has to consider that as part of the problem.
One way, is to test scenarios. Many papers recently from deepmind and others seem to be relevant to that. but I just want to finnish here on my data thing.. The notion of covering of the target wilderness that our ML model is build to capture the essential mecanisitc relations from, its emerging logic even. Both the internals and that can be formalized.
I am glad there is a movement toward interpretable, it means I am not the only one asking such questions. My point here is more that it might be relevant to the question of machine models helping cognitive science, not just as quantitivative machines, but as testbeds for cognitive science models. So the interpretable research front, might help in that direction, of continuing the model consistency, but also defiinitoins of tasks and furthering, possible not so well defined things held previously frozen by consistency (while keeping in own bubble of assumption that we know what we are studying alrady).
chess is great microcosm even for other sciences.. I would say knowing the mechanics under makes for a control group for epistemological questions...
i guess this thread is for my most grandiose hypothetical, self-indulging imaginative musings. those I smell to be interesting.
it might help understand of ther threads. that I am trying to the a good assocation or consistency of associations withing. For I am a pavlov or skinner animal of science, chew on science homewors called papers as if it was food.. and meanwhile a bunch of bell might be a-ringing....
brewing.
size of chess (schools of thoughts about that) makes for 2 or 3 threads:
1,2 many,
infinity (but which kind): infiinity, omegas, alephs
measure, volume , metric
toplogy. aha. not everything is distinc... metric induces a topoloy (if we can see it). finite metric space embedded and possibliy induced metric in Euclidian (and its metrics) space. and their respective but relatable topologies, if we so are willing to even consider the question, before invoking the glorious past of well established things. (or actually not even that, subconscious not considering because its establishment is not common sense).
ok.. and now.. for what makes it to be in this half assed timid but still minimal experssivity of mine: is there only one logic in all our small brains of the many of us.. (or actually even in those of us, who pretend to be purely rational or logical, if anyone, I don't know anyone with whom I am made sure we were aware of the same world is bigger than us being on their radar, that would still believe that, but I think the myth of calculation (even with human horizon), is strong in that crowd (of which I might have been, and am, but not having drank that cool aid for long, if I ever believed it for myself as a goal anyway).
subjective logic.. probabilistic logic. what does that have to do with chess. pretty much the same thing that finite metric spaces might have with euclidian metric spaces.. and throw some measure theory in there.. has taking care of all possible notions of sizes.. even cardinality...
64 embedded in euclidian 2D, 32 things that can move or, get to be prevented from moving anymore, by other still finite things all rules of motions and end of motion. some crude rule of reward.. such as 3 bigger than 2 bigger than 1. or 10000 bigger than 7 bigger than 0.00001.
in short W bigger than D bigger than L.. trivial ordering of 3 things. but the middle one is called equal. well, i might have missed that W seem to be definitely more adored than L.. D is when one is depressed, and therefore realistic.. but one can't survive that way.. we need the wins,
so. finite metric and euclidian metrics (topologies, might be more how we find a use for that.. even if only to suggest new words for chess, that allow clarity through the paraodical contradictions... thank you providential poster, for increasing my vocabulary.
but this a research program. I don,t do already chewed stuff, should not be news by now.. th ebest thing a reader can do , it gets their own imagintions going to infrm or confirm or imagine better connections of their. own. there is more to reasoning that deducing from known.
it there was not, we would still not have learning to walk.. or put legos on top of each other.. we would be waiting for that be a conclusion from our DNA. but it is not economical for the DNA to assume a constant environment. ooops.. I made an hypothesis of mechanism that smells like anthropomorphism.. ooops.. but I never pretend to not be human.. I also pretend all scientists are humans. and they should never believe that their words and extended working theories are not the universe itself, but how we make reproducible sense of it.. of what is reproducible in it that we can perceive commonly as being so, when we accept both that there is fod, but that we can keep expanding the many of our function of seeing through the fog incertain "regions" of that primorial maximal ambient fog.
lost thread. now time for real threads. study program. associations by other minds having made stuff commonly sensory accessible. publised papers, whose titles abstract and own context explicitly shared velleities of purpose and associatoins that actually offer me cause to ask the questions.
EDited: I took a big paragraph, because it might have been counterproductive in my analogical ways.. the constrasting analogy might have distracted. but now too tired to distangle. and so if beside the usual non-sense expection one might have learned to expect coming here, there seems to be even more jumping in the flow of thoughts.. well.. that edit. might contain.. i might look at it later, practicing language tools.. (if it could start figuring out semantics not just linguistic smooth talking, then maybe it could help the concision impaired people like me). I have this instability.. radcal punch line or wall of text.. in the middle.... well I am blind.
I almost forgot. In my recent swarming session (in minds eye, and probably in mind's locomotion and beyond too), over the webs of the Internets, like semantic scholars in some alternance with Google, when PDFs are behind paywalls (I hate it then, this compromising of science... made institutional binding proof or die), there should be a comma here, indicating a mind's breath being taken by the reading, because this or that writer (which 3rd person is better?), where, they are breathing their miasma all the time, and typing has got nothing to do with this...
This is not like penmanship, and the hand cramps, needing also muscle breathing from holding the same isometric muscle tensions (one might say repetitive microscopic motion of muscle fibers always the same mostly), while typing can be delegated uniformely over different less isometric repeptitive motions so the muscle fibre workload is in time and breadth of muscle resources committed, more sustainable longer, howerver impaired one started the expression session. I have not been able to hold a pen for long since my Ph.d. thesis, and remaining full time aborted research carrers years. And voilà, a nice way for my subconscious primary intent here to get on with it, my initial intention.
I feel a bit pretentious, given my objective failure at that carreer continuation. but I will dump a thread that is not about chess, (not yet), and it might be for some who still read me from afar, (well not in mind but in traceroute hops maybe). Fractioanl calculus stuff. Let me say right there, that I have the same mathematical simplicity preference objection about that surge, or that I want to paint it explicitely in some corner with respect to what I actually did in that direction of non-local reaction diffuci9ons extensions modelling (language) for certain biological problems of not only neutral evolutionary nature (I mean object is not to paint the tree of speices, but the selective forces shaping the population distributions of trait, say in polygenic aspects for exemple, but still with some empircal semantic layer infusion and dialog, still about science not just math. and actually not for math sake.. it was the science I wsa learning that made me look at that extension of local reaction diffusion.. In hindsight from having had to confront my ideations to other angles in that pioneering field (20 years ago, and now I just found there is a cluster of papers that are proposing the same thing, but it seems stuck in the numerical analysis computation priority, which bring me back to my then argument of mathematical analysis being clearer project in the intergral general formulatoin (there is no need to go the physics specific, where they timidly consider non-locallity, and some how, not the full fledge intergral with non-timid kernal families. I used gaussians, or just even symetric (it could have been a piece constant symetric kernal, for the type of sciencitic discussion I was searching to make with my nested chain of models (or model experiements maybe, depend on which epistemological train track one is looking from (**).
** Ding! i just made a connectiion with a pair of papers, that are only mutated from that aspect.. the data role in the title being swapped.
anyone reading still this, would understand later with other thread which pair it is.
this is under work. got sidertracked.. also i decided that it was not pretentious and I could reclaim my past and remaining intuition from those years I was able and pursuing with my curiosity drive and some of my abilites (sometmies a an ability comes paired with defaults, and maybe I was globally unfit to keep going, in spite of external accelerant I would percieve and had to feal with, who knows, if someone else in same shoes would not have been more resilient. That is often some tht one can only figure out in hindsight, but not really, as we stlill have more diviersity of internals and still a lot of diversity of trajectories, so our invidiual trajectories might not be such an excellent basis for comparison like I am slightly considering now. I have learned long ago not to clind to comparisons like that, but the question still exist of whether I was not able to susteain what others with same skills but not same default of accumulated badluckes (that is aslo something one could fool themselves with, blame it on circonstances, but then at some point one has had many years, to learn own limites and hone some level of self-observation, maybe even tried things out of their ways to test their limits as well. Takes times to see the consequences of certain behaiviors we sometimes adopt as they seem to work for a while. but if they work at the price of something elese unsustainable, that can damge one for longer then conceibable while in the hot soup, well it will come back in the face, again and again, and with more stickiness.. until, we leearn to ask for help.
and I did.. a while ago. still benefitting from what I learned.. been practicing some of that, as I am a very normally shy person, or I was, I might still be if I had not abandoned certain activites as not fitting in my remaining daily stamina. that has to last for long time.. now,.. tried the temp surges too many times. it wears down ..
like athletes that keep pushing and pushing, becaues that is somewhere in that zone that some physicological improvement in the sport from body assets gain can happen,. but pushing it past that get diminishing returns, and usually that does not show until need to talk longer breaks increasingly to heal the damage.. well. I guess I only heard about such warnings.. it might be part of the trainers jobs to be aware and guide while priming.. Not my world at all. Although I have been doing sports for fun and mostly for health.. never compteitive as ultimiate goal, only as theatre, of the activity.. when a competitive sport rule set. but running or biking or swimming was self-referenced .. and not even about improving anything else than controlling my mood, and general stamina, in my more passionate pursuit of my short liied research years.. when I could live from my ability aspect, as appear to be able to pursue.. that. and so.. that is what I am gonna talk about. what took my whole intellectual and emotion energies for some 5 or 9 years. and some of which I could later part time try to adapt in other contexts. to realize there is not part time in research, at least that which can give you mean of living financially. not part time in academia.. so I gave up. eventually, not before I learned a few more things, a bit away for my previous grooves..
but that thing I just say in some cluster of papers yesterdy.. it rang some bells.
and the gist. is why don't thy go full speed ahead.. it has much nicer properties at that level. I even could in my humble solo computer (or workstations) tools, test the models and figure out by simulation and also a careful occam razor small to more complex series of nested models, test its expressivity power, and parameter space "topology" in relation to the scientific set of targetted questions having motivated the mathematical model (familly of them), constructino in the first place. I wanted not just to use science as motivation to do self-congratulating math. stuff, i wanted a full conceptual scientific loop, like my alma mater science of physcis (first degree) had kind of imprinted as intellectural purpose for the mathematical language. That I was better in math, than physics, did not change that. It is just a nuance.. so .. i will try to make sense for once. to a few persons, not necessarily on lichess.. but I would not mind that either..
this is my home for expressing myself anything sciency.. because lichess and chess, kind of resurected that drive in me.. So. . I should be proud of my short but intense priori work..
and I should find some gratification in discovering that from 1994 when I finnally defended the written thing of my ph.d. (I had defended the science of it before, in specialized confrerences, whch also served as my debating or discussing ground, and same mind group cross stimulation incubator, as my in house resources were more of the mathematical tools, or biology without the mathematical tools. Then biolgoy and mathematics was a fringe idea. I think. no department mixing the 2. Now is different I gather.
and so. I should mark the time passed.. and not keep thinking I am deluded in wanting to resurrect that past.. interest.. And it would explain my claim of function space mathematical modelling being of deep internallization, that is persisting beyond my difficulty finding the words. as globally crippled I might have been and as past is gone healthy direction I was keeping up.. Why keep looking at some shiny past of productive or creative pursuit.. If that is only going to be a nostalgia and reminder of some part of my soul or drive or trust in the universe and me having some point..
There was my close familiy I should say that was a lot more real future project to keep close to me and my daily concerns. very rewarding my siblings and their kids growing up.
So science might be tangled with part of my soul.... at least that which has a mind outlet.
so.. wip. i still have a 3 or 4 workspace of tabs on backburner. (Trying that to avoid future derailments of purpose, while curiosity ability and curse is still there. using external memory offloading for productivity in my volatile productiivity external conditions dependencies.. capricious, and having abused on ceratin behaviors in the past, I can't go back to that.. not for long. my body is constanlty fighting that hypothesis...
1994 to 2024. how many years is that? my questinos then for why people keep preferring local diffusion and its numerical step size artefacts with respect to the scientific interpretation needs. ( I have theory of why, for then). but now it is a bit more difficulty to ask the same. or wsa.. i also looked at the timid way non-local is considered.. and it does come from physics problems.
they seem to have rediscovered the arrow of time. in the models themselves. now instead of t parametrize groups they could invert, they need models or benefit from (that I would not know enough to say, although by some conituity away from local, it might be the science itself that points to non-local.
in evolutoinary biology and "trait space" or for exemple posited shape space standing for molecular interactoin specificitii, and represneting DNA or heritable reprocible through generations phenotypes, etc.. I won'T say more.. I would screw something..
The thing is thhat there is another analogy i see here, that is behind my claims that going ambient makes things simpler to look at, instead of getting lost in contorsions and possible combinatorial spurious complexity increasese.
the differecen even at the numerical analysis level. between a local diffusion operator. and a function space big enough to be useful in the integral verions of the time parametrise semi-groups of integrl equations that usual in ^physics and derived rather exact sciences would could as differential in time. I might be going a bit confusing. and fasat.. but why compromise..
specially that I already see some hints of making it hard on themselves on account of where they have been used to swimm as model families common sense would go.
I would rather view functional semi group equation in time and space integral forms. to those with some numerical analysis backgound. the spatial diffusion operator, when computerized, was usually ( I was told, and read about) the sources of local snaffus to watch for, with respect to how much ELO saving by computed variable type cost one would go quantizing the math... there i made connection.
now I give myself license to go where I was hesitating to go, emotionally .. and pretentious appearance struggling.
maybe I will write some of the stuff in french, even though all was while immersed in English speaking context. like most of science has been growing into, now even in France.. it becomes faster to speak english between people of french native language, over the internets, for efficiency of the science exchanges. the overhead of having to keep an equivalent hot lexicon of words all the time, might have become a competitive load, or just that it takes some of the mental juice away when in pursuit. Having to keep split brain all the time.. ask teh canadian government translations services.. they are eying AI delegation for the French over there. . It might not be that obvious the bilingualism utopia of one of our current prime minister father legacy. the delusoin of bilingualism as a who society structuring daily reality.. Smoke show, slow consequences to realize the absurdity of it. It was the way of the british, kind in inoxerable assimilation whole population plans. Not like the impatient brutal industrial fanatics bulldozer of the 20th centure and stlil now.
ethnic cleansing is impatient.. because one can also wait for the culture erosion if making sure the structures keep a strong, non-brutal but still inexorable gradient in place.. ..
so I will try french, in a don quichotte way.. or for when I find I might be tired on the non-sciency english syntactic quality.. french is still my better language when tired. i might not shine in the living rooms ou salon literaire anytime soon, but I never aimed at that, I was just brainwashed into the typical french split brain dichotomy between spoken form and written form. It was very explicit in my eduction.
so, even when exhausted, I might conform better to that old doctrine.
A below-average night of sleep later. So what did I express yesterday? Nothing I can't fix, I hope.
bah.. better go look if one of my games is ripe for a think sesh.
