Update Response to Levin's Ingressing Minds.md

content/exeunt/Response to Levin's Ingressing Minds.md

@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ Consider a map of our pocket of many worlds, starting as one worldline branching
 
 The inhabitants of proposed platonic space, from mathematical forms all the way to Levin's "intrusive thoughts, archetypes, works of art" could be understood as necessary waypoints along the path to the Transcendental Object at the End of Time. Because these boundaries are in this telling *impersonal*, there is no necessary anthropecentric bias at stake. It need not be humans or any given physical system that generate TOET for them to be subject to its most minute pressures, so long as the cumulative effect of these ingressions and boundaries upon all inhabitants of a universe gets all worldlines over the threshold. 
 
-Like strings pinched together at two ends, the indeterminate flowering of the worldlines is, in this model, flanked on both sides by TOET. Rather than a diversity of forms exerting agency into physical systems, this would entail a unified source of morphogenetic preference/constraint, the binary accomplishment of a single technological event. In the language of Sara Imari Walker's Assembly Theory - in the context of which she once described the human brain as "one of the largest objects in the universe" - TOET would be the universe itself: what observers experience as boundaries upon or anomalous invitations into certain behaviors, would be seen from an external observer as merely the shape of the Thing *sub specie aeternitatis*.
+Like strings pinched together at two ends, the indeterminate flowering of the worldlines is, in this model, flanked on both sides by TOET. Rather than a diversity of forms exerting agency into physical systems, this would entail a unified source of morphogenetic preference/constraint: the binary accomplishment of a single technological event. In the language of Sara Imari Walker's Assembly Theory - in the context of which she once described the human brain as "one of the largest objects in the universe" - TOET would be the final assembly object, the universe itself. What observers experience as boundaries upon or anomalous invitations into certain behaviors would be seen from an external observer as merely the shape of the Thing *sub specie aeternitatis*.
 
 As a personal note, I should say that I like Levin's system better, as I think it points to more practical utility and creative permission, whether it's Levin's own work in medicine, the political injunctions of the analogous hauntings of inorganic life seen in Mark Fisher's Flateline Constructs, or the magical ordeals and exercises of Carlos Castaneda in his system of inorganic agencies. In other words, it is active and ontologically open. The TOET framework easily slides toward a passive and closed eschatology (which I loathe) rather than the creative and robustly populate hypermaterialism that my own work in the web3 space explores. Nonetheless, the bootstrap model has what strikes me as a clean parsimony that I couldn't get out of my head. Consider this an unburdening.