but really the thing should be autonomous

"I'm only attracted to you", he replies. "Like, you only."

I'm trying to picture the scene inside, like I was trying to picture the scene in the tree.

She says something that isn't really right but isn't really wrong. I'm not taking in their words any more, just their voices, trying to get a feel for whatever is going on between them. I'm imagining what it's like for them in this delicate situation, what I would say if it were me. She has that perfect upper-class accent, and she's using whatever upper-class tact that comes with it to navigate this. Style. They can't be together, but their voices are betraying them.

"Anyway, you're you. I mean, look at you!" she says. "You could get with anyone, anyone in the street. Really."

The bird dives back into the tree. It shakes, some leaves fall.

Above and behind a window opens and a cigarette hangs out.

Rain, starting

Maybe, Jack, I'm doing this because I'm English?

its performative

Imprint, memory, impact, representation, impression

we want to live the knowledge too live the content

so at the end

i guess imagine a multimedia obsidian or notion that behaves according to some insane arcane rules that you can't ever really determine

think this is much more rhizomatic or immanent or mazelike than mainstream education now

there is a distinction between western-modern pedagogical systems that's like text-based as in a legal method but there is an idea of "pathshala" or "guru shissho"/ "porompora" i mean how masters relayed knowledge to the student by (oral) transmission often by memorising books. so what was taught was always interactive. knowledge was interactive, you spoke with people rather than read texts.

this is possible in mazelike research sprints on the internet

much more tactility

ion