A thought stream from July 2026.
Sun 19-07-2026
Piano songs +musical-expression I’ve been playing around on the piano and put together some notes I like the sound of, forming a kind of nebula that will hopefully collapse into a song as I try new things and try to string the segments together. I’ve never “properly” written a song before - I can only ever seem to manage very short fragments, but have difficulty combining these into a coherent, decent-sounding final piece. I also have difficulty finishing a song - in my random key-pressing during the (attempted) development process, I end up finding other sequences/segments/combinations I like the sound of, but that don’t really fit the current thing I’m working on, and so I get side-tracked with the new sound, and then I get overwhelmed by the number of different fragments that would probably only fit / correspond with different songs, and I want to record/capture them all so I don’t forget, but don’t know how, so I try to memorise but because they’re all pretty different, I get them muddled, and then it all becomes a big flop / f(l)ailure and I then resort to just playing the ~3.5 songs in my repertoire that I haven’t expanded for almost a decade to give my ego some sense of accomplishment. Anyway, I’m saying all this because I’ve come to a decision/conclusion that I no longer want to approach piano-ing like this. For one, I actually want to learn new songs (and complete the ones I haven’t). But primarily, I want to actually materialise at least one full song. I want to develop my ability to take a small seed (string of a few notes) and nourish it into something that resembles an actual “piece of music”. I have felt the pure joy of witnessing even the tiny, barely-existent beginnings of a musical representation of emotion/thought and I just know that it’s something I don’t think I could forgive myself for if I didn’t devote energy to “taking it all the way” into a song, and then ideally, hopefully, a collection of songs/music blobs, each acting as a “spokesperson” for different clusters in TB’s internal space of emotional experience. I also want to perhaps add/layer lyrics/vocals with this as well, but I think for now, my priority should be the piano “skeleton”/basis. I’m curious about how experiences, masterful songwriters approach the process - both the differences and commonalities in their approaches. I guess that some start with lyrics, the other stuff (what to call it? not “music” because lyrics are encompassed by that - just non-lyrics? non-lyrical music? “instrumentals”?) later, or vice versa. I feel drawn to both approaches: sometimes lyrics occur in TM, and then it’s a matter of matching some kind of instrumental thing to these, but other times, just fiddling around with the keys, random progressions, chords, yields something that sounds like “song potential” and then lyrics could be considered later, an optional add-on. But I feel it’s probably best, as in “most productive” to take one approach for now and stick to it, and then maybe trial the other after/later. Currently, I’m leaning towards the instrumental-first-lyrics-later approach.
I want to (1) learn about general song development process, including musicians match lyrics to instrumental, (2) best way to record segments of song (along with potential lyrics) during development. So, for (2), I want to be able to easily record which notes I pressed (MIDI) and as part of this, see the notes and corresponding keys for easier recreation (minimise friction in the re-learning process if I forget certain parts), and manipulate the notes digitally (without e.g. re-recording the whole thing), which I guess is a defining characteristic of MIDI. But then, eventually, once a song is finished, I want to be able to record the actual sound emanating from the piano, not just the digital note representations, which will require e.g. different cable, connection. But for now, I only care about the MIDI (but will keep the sound-recording in mind, in case any equipment I might need could “kill both birds with one stone” (I hate everything about that phrase apart from its utility in conveying the meaning I mean (yes I know it’s “two” birds not “both” but TM adapted for semantic fit))) whatev I guess then what I need is (1) hardware (probably including a MIDI cable able to connect via USB to laptop) and (2) software - some sort of program, ideally free + open-source, to record, see & play with the notes.
^Using the whatev tag to more clearly demarcate the end of a particularly “astray” rambling.
+ego Embarrassment & ego-pacification TB (well, its ego) feels quite embarrassed at the prospect of sharing these musings, probably primarily due to their messiness, imperfection, grammatical incorrectness/inconsistency, general all-over-the-place-ness, pedanticism (?), etc. Ego wants to emphasise: that’s the point. Not supposed to be perfectly refined, designed for “signalling intelligence” or any marker of it (in e.g. well-thought-out structure, proper word/punctuation usage, minimisation of repetition and redundancy in word & thought usage, generation of synonyms - though, TM feels naturally inclined toward this, but sometimes, CBA and the first word that comes to mind just works best, even though it may have been used many times prior). Yes, very long, unwieldy sentences. Yes, will probably repeat all of this, signalling that it is not supposed to be perfect, and explicitly labelling perceived (by TM, and also probably by OM*) imperfections, the same imperfections, for ego-pacification purposes.
*Have introduced the new term/symbol “OM” above, to represent, for now, “other minds” in contrast to TM’s “this mind”.
Also, want to emphasise: these ramblings, in this “stream” thing, are supposed to be a raw documentation of TM’s thoughts, which TM will (hopefully) later refine/condense into more coherent “outputs” (such is a phrase/concept very regularly referred to by TM elsewhere, EP*), but this is for TM to see the evolution/development of its own thoughts, and is available for any other minds to input if interested, either in the thoughts themselves, or the approach to / process of documentation.
*Introduced “EP” to represent “ego-pacification” which TM might append / situate around any thoughts deemed to only (or mostly) be externalised for the purposes of making ego feel less inflamed (concerned of other-perceptions), de-flaming ego, and its usage/inclusion is also itself a form of ego-pacification (EP), because labelling instances of ego-pacification is supposed to indicate some level of “self-awareness” that ego wants others to be aware TM possesses - so ironically, in “normal speak”: my ego wants others to be aware that I am aware of my ego. But, generally (or always), the signalling of ego-pacification also serves a beyond-ego purpose of demonstrating the benefits (e.g. more comfortability in expression of thought) of the explicit call-out of EP to other minds, which can hopefully help their own thought-externalisation endeavours.
+experiments Strands I would like some way to track particular “strands” of thought - thoughts relating to the same object/pursuit/endeavour - to enable easier synthesis/collation. For example, something to do with “musical expression” (related to the piano stuff discussed above), something to do with how I’m experimenting with presenting/organising thought (particularly on this site), something to do with any particular current/future investigations/explorations into area (defined by a problem/question) of interest, etc. For now, I’ll try to implement this by using a relevant “wikilink” (which looks like a link, but is called “wikilink” in Obsidian speak I think because it links internally, just like a wiki), such as the “experiments” used above, and each of these links can be thought of as a tag, which may or may not correspond to an active page/note. If the note is active, in my private Obsidian (and perhaps also the public Quartz version), I can see all the “backlinks” and from this find thoughts related to that tag/link. It will be a very messy thing for now obvs, and will refine this system over time. Eventually, ideally, I’d just be able to e.g. tag a thought from this stream with relevant note(s) and then the thought is automatically added to a “nebula” or “diverge” section of the tagged notes, for further synthesis/incorporation into those notes. I’ll keep track of any strands I seem to regularly pull on at the top of this stream page / the general Stream page ?
For now, I seem to be putting the tag on top of the thought, followed by some kind of descriptive emboldened text trying to capture the gist of the thought below it. And then, there may be multiple of these “thought chunks” below a given tag. This I think is just allowing me to have a better idea of where to write a particular thought (to keep relatively related thoughts together) as it occurs throughout the day.
+outputting Public vs private When I think about the thoughts expressed here on this stream thing being publicised, I find 2 main mental phenomena:
- A desire to be more explicit, clear, verbose, to have better chance of making sense to any inputters.
- An inhibitory self-consciousness, decreasing ease/fluidity of expression (due to some mental energy being siphoned into the perception of potential perception from others, and desire to mitigate negative perception, instead of just directing the energy toward the “thought at hand” (well, thought at mind, ig)).
The (1) is possibly a positive thing that doesn’t concern me rn. The (2) is something I need to design this “outputting system” around, because I do not want anything inhibiting freedom of thought, fluidity of expression. What I think might help, then, is to tell myself that any musings here can remain private indefinitely, for say, a month, and that after this time, I can just resort/default to the “motto”/mantra that “these thoughts were expressed by a very-much past version of mind, and are not necessarily representative of current thoughts/views, and/or have adapted, developed substantially from the time of initial export”.
Introduction of ‘T’ Like usage of TM (this mind) and TB (this being), TM will also use “T” to refer to me to allow reference of more me-specific things, endeavours. Honestly, they can probably be used interchangeably, but as usual, TM will use them as inclined, as felt in the moment of expression, and reasons for doing so may become clearer after repeated usage (when contrasted with non-usage, and textual context (“contextual”?) around this).
Sat 18-07-2026
mindscaping Mindscaping refers to the creation and usage of infrastructure for better (intra + inter) thinking. Mindscaping involves the development of mindware: the hardware and software that can “host” our minds - store and manipulate thought. We can consider 2 categories of mindware: (1) intrathinking and (2) interthinking. Of course, there will be overlap between the two, but for now, given the quite primitive state of existing mindware, it’s useful to think in terms of these containers.
Each mind/individual has their own mindscape - their “independent/individual thought space” (ITS). These mindscapes can be connected to form the Mindscape (the aggregation/integration of all mindscapes - the “collective thought space” (CTS)), using mindware.
One type of mindware could be a “syndicator”: all minds output thought in their own ITS, and then the syndicator distributes these thoughts in different formats across different platforms. This syndicator thing is possibly only relevant/necessary during the transition to a digital-cognitive infrastructure in which all minds have their own ITS, which interact via mindware (as opposed to thoughts being shared via monolithic privately owned platforms).
Another type of mindware could be an “aggregator”, which can refer to different but similar functionalities. One is the aggregation of minds - so, an aggregator mindware module could identify likeminds (or even minds with just a likeness in a certain realm - say, a particular area of interest) and “bring them together” (togather?) and then provide a space for them to interact and collaborate on the identified area of likeness. For example, minds wanting to execute a similar kind of project (e.g. a community kitchen, a particular avenue of research in nuclear fusion, a hypothesis about the cause of a certain disease, etc.) can share thoughts related to this project on their ITS before it has taken form; an aggregator comes along and recognises that this potential project is similar to one proposed/discussed by another few minds; it notifies these minds and invites them to join a shared thought space (a hub); the minds can accept/decline the invitation, and if accepted, their thoughts related to the project (which they can explicitly indicate/tag, or can be inferred by the aggregator) can be automatically displayed on the project hub, and the hub can also hold a space for direct discussion. Direct digital discussion could be better enabled by e.g. automatically recorded meetings that take place on the hub (in the context of its project) which each come with an accompanying collaborative whiteboard (like Miro, and this type of thing is another object/functionality mindware could replicate/pertain to) to enable multi-media expression of thought, and real-time capture of this expression, for future reference and re-input.
Monthly Divergence Log I think what I would like to do is create a monthly “diverge(nce) log” to hold the kind of thoughts I just want to ramble through (writing in order to process as opposed to package, as polished output). Then have an entry for each day. This will be the “first port” for shipping thought - the default place I visit to externalise thoughts. This is a place of divergence, for TM to diverge into mental/ideational terrain it feels invited into, inclined to cartograph (“cartograph” not grammatically sensical here, neither perhaps is “sensical” (at least, not linguistically common usage) but TM felt inclined to use, and this is precisely the point and joy of divergence). Also enjoy usage of nested brackets, even though perhaps more difficult for mind to process.
The yin to this divergent yang would be a “converge(nce) log”, which corresponds to a parallel thought store (mental → digital shelving unit), representing a place to combine, synthesise, integrate all divergences into something coherent - a structured delineation of all thoughts, full mapping of TM’s worldview, and current (mental and physical) pursuits. More difficult to arrive at. For now, priority is just capturing divergences. Can determine what exactly to do with them (in terms of convergence) later.
Actually, just realised: probably better to refer to “diverge(nce) log” instead as “stream” as in thought stream / stream of consciousness (as previously done). Seems more fitting. But the fact that it represents divergence, is a space for diverging, exploration, without any obligation to condense/cohere/converge, remains.
Repetition. In these divergences (ramblings in this space), many thoughts will be repeated, perhaps in even identical expression. Repetition could be thought to serve several purposes: (1) drawing more attention to / placing more emphasis on particularly salient/integral thoughts/views, (2) embedding same thought in different contexts to increase associations (arcs/edges to the thought node), (3) solidify/crystallise thought in the thinker, as minds often mull over the same objects over long time period, even lifetime (e.g. meaning of life, best way to live, how to alleviate suffering), and so of course, need to revisit same thoughts to process and then internalise the processings, (4) . Probably more reasons for repetition, but these are top of mind. Repetition of the reasons for repetition is 99.9999% certain (as subjectively probabilised by TM).
What is TM? “TM” is generally used to mean “this mind” (self) but could also be used to represent “that mind” (other) and TM feels inclined to use it for several reasons, one of which being the blurring of the border between self and other. It just feels particularly “integral” (as in, conducive to integration, which partially, can be considered as the state of being in which oneness is recognised). Additionally, it allows a kind of separation/distinction between the “I” that is your entire being, and the “I” that is the mind/thinker - so, it allows “you” (whatever that is) to observe your thoughts, and to externalise them in the recognition/acknowledgement that they are simply outputs of the neuronal/biological processor you have been allocated in this lifetime, and not necessarily representative of your being. So, concomitantly, TM also enjoys the usage of “TB” to mean “this being” or “that being”, which is similar to the TM (mind, rather than being) version, but instead pertains to the entirety of a subject (in this context, conscious entity) as opposed to just its thinking/sensory-perceiving mechanism (which could be considered “mind”), and so encompasses e.g. emotional, even spiritual, experiences, which can’t necessarily be represented via thought (via mind). Indeed, sometimes useful to draw distinction between self and other via e.g. “I” and “you”, but use of “TM” and “TB” encodes the view that everything is ultimately (universally) unified, stemming from the same Source. Can potentially allow for more self-transcendent (non-egoic) modes of existing, acting, and externalising thought (communicating). So, “I” and “TM” will be used relatively interchangeably, based on TM’s momentary inclination.
Thu 16-07-2026
Nuclear fusion I’ve started to become interested in nuclear fusion; I saw a PhD project for it, and have generally heard about the progress made - seems more “promising” than previously conceived (?) And given how damn hot things are currently, wouldn’t it be awesome to finally have an excuse to transition away from the burning of fossil fuels? (clean) Electric everything? But then, of course, need to consider material usage of e.g. lithium in batteries, and need for (1) more sustainable production, recycling and (2) new mode(l) of transportation, where we e.g. don’t have so many private/personal cars - maybe fleet of robo-taxis or until the full, safe automation of driving (until widespread adoption & proliferation of driverless vehicles), we have a system where e.g. (preferably electric?) vehicle hubs, anyone with a license can be a driver, widespread cheap taxi service where navigations/logistics designed to minimise energy use or distance/time travelled, pick up / drop off service, need to demonstrate reliability, near-instantaneous call-out available (but cheaper fare if you plan/request in advance, perhaps cheapness proportional to how far in advance you book, to give time for optimal logistic calculations/evaluations).