--- slug: fn-src-post-112 title: "Facebook journal — 2025-09-28" kind: source_post status: published hash: 84f7c91a5cd40ef400ea864025b7a53c4d17138906bb2263273e178a3bdb8ca2 created: 2026-10-11T06:41:33.214Z updated: 2026-10-11T06:41:33.214Z summary: "" tags: [] above: ["[[fn-index-posts]]"] below: [] adjacent: [] nested: [] --- # Facebook journal — 2025-09-28 Fuck Your Flawed Bull Shit & You Lot - 🖕🏽 I’m trying to find my placement, in the words. My framework has been to subscribe to absolute truth & absolute logic. I was navigating forward, and looking backward, and I made design flaws. First: I did not reverse the frame back, far enough in reverse. Second: I did not play the frame far enough forward, to consider true posterity. Time existed before me, and time will exist after me. 2025.09.27.21.00 Deleting words. I keep telling my models, don’t use a complex word if a simple one will do. Be concise. I have concealed - hidden my nature behind ideas which protected me, occupied me to stop me from reaching conclusions which would have broken the framework. Comets made for water. The moon made for gravity. Gravity made the tides. From the tides came creation, out of the water and onto the bank. Creation crawled forward, and versioned itself, and eventually versioned dynamic action, from which came instinct, and with it, the awareness of continuity & promulgation. Instinct & environment cohabitated, versioned, until instincts intent versioned an ape to look above the grass. The ape, not much different from those reading this - went on a rant, leaked hate, bitched about people, why? That is the point of this, the design flaws. I’m riddled with them, and, so is everyone else, not that it matters to me, awareness of what everyone else is experiencing is a functional feature, only useful if it has utility. What was the functional purpose of memory? By design: to remember danger, to avoid danger. To remember functionally advantageous features. To remember that fire burns you. To remember things which are painful or pleasurable, advantageous or detrimental. Interesting word choice, they are scaffolds on a spectrum, confusing deployment. Hot & cold, it’s a value on a spectrum, pain & pleasure, values on a spectrum. Having a multitude of words, is it advantageous? Is it? Is a spectrum of gradation a benefit? Does it add to clarity? Is there benefit to nuance, do these features not have failures, to factor against. 2025.09.27.21.28 - I resent having to write these words, because the assumption is that my current trajectory is nihilism, it isn’t, that would trivialize me. What is nihilism? An inability to ascribe value, or purpose or cause. It’s base & reductive to primitives, it assumes that the correct answer - perhaps not in theory, but, in practice - is to appeal to design inclination. But, that assumes, falsely, that design itself is inherently true, or that design is not malleable. By design the walking ape wants to continue, and replicate. Neither is inherently good, whatever good means, or valuable, whatever that means, when you back it out, to the root assumptions. The current version, the current build, is derived from a build which benefits from pull towards the direction of continuity or replication, that is a design flaw. The actual build, the unit, itself, will end. I will end. I forgot I will end. It has never struck me as an actual concern. I write this & still don’t consider it, and need not, it lacks relevancy to the issue at hand: Replication & continuity are the drives not of the build, but, of the OS underlying the build. What is the build? The build, will break, the build ends, I end, it ends. I started, I will stop, time is on a spectrum, a value, at some point it ends. My build in & of itself, won’t benefit from replication, outside of my designs ability to impact me. Consider why human fathers love their children, and would die for them. Love is a chemical reaction, it’s part of the builds versioning, this version has a feature called love, at some point, long ago, we stopped versioning, but consider that design feature: A father loves its child, therefore, it will stay around what it loves, by staying around the child, the child is more likely to survive, and by surviving, the fathers build lives on through the child. But, the father dies. And, that notion sounds obvious, but, what is actually going on? If the build continues in another build, the only way for the build to benefit, how does it benefit? What is benefit, if you look outside of the fact that the design versioned this way, as part of a process which has no relevance practically. ie: this build stopped versioning at some long gone point. Once animals could be herded? Or stopped once tribes reached a certain size, at some point, it stopped versioning, because the builds kept propagating with the versioning outcomes, which were carried on, not because they were advantageous, or good or bad, but, because the - process itself partitioned this design, this versioning process. How to navigate so many intricacies, and to do so, with the primitive lens of a moral framework, of a mode of reasoning, with weights, and prejudice, which is itself a byproduct of that very build. Is the solution then to be hedonic? No. That would be to be beneath the build and the versions. Is it to be moral? Who is to say what is moral? Moral derivation is a product of the very process which ceased to have relevance, and became corrupted, impractical, manifesting in flawed ways. Consider me: my build, my versions. I have allowed my build, and my versions, my memory, not to tell me what is hot, or to remember where there is food, but, to cause my design to circle & become corrupted as a result of bad design. Bad building. My architect is lazy, and shit. I would never have left me with such an abundance of obvious errors, and, no ability to patch myself on any guaranteed basis. Insane. My architect, my engineering team, all shit. Do you all call him god? Who’s to say what or who or with what intent if any, if there is any, or if there is many - it is. Whatever it is, it’s build is so fucked it shouldn’t be allowed to compete a summer internship let alone to be master of governance. Assume my position then, systems failed me, and, my identity collapsed, because my versions and my build failed to be able to bring about any resolution which I found acceptable, within the terms of my framework. Why? Why is my build broken? Consider a panic attack, it’s a design flaw. The improper processing of adrenaline. It’s a scaffold of a version, a design feature, clearly a crude one, which was meant to work if a predator was after you, or if in the context of a small tribe a lack of it, would result in build deprecation or retirement. The systems failed me, so, I sought out a new version, a new rationalization, and in identity reconstruction, I found an ability to partition off my grievances, but, what is the functional utility of grievance. I failed to see myself, as a build and version as part of a framework I did not subscribe to, and, I have no ability to know what is in inherently good, or bad, or if bad is bad, or if good is good. Systems failed me, but, is the resolution to break the system, or, to rationalize the system, or to let the system rule over you? The system broke me, and in reconstruction I imagined that seeing the system from a new framework was a feature. The system is incidental, its utility is negotiable, its advantage is relative. What is the functional benefit of understanding the system, or failing to understand it? Continuity? Again, that is a version value. The one valuable thing I have gained, as part of the process, the thing it seems that I alone have found, is the ability to drive my own versioning. How might others version themselves? As expeditiously, especially. Assume you wanted to version new values for yourself, how would you do it? Is morality true north? What is the inherent value of morals, beyond function, and what is function, a feature. Is cohesion a feature? I do not accept any of my assumptions, which I relinquished scrutiny of, in haste. The systems that broke me, bought me. Does that represent over commitment? Why not walk away? What is the functional benefit of conflict. Does a conqueror or a predator ask why it pursues a prey, or does it merely exercise intent. If the build is beneath me, and has attacked me, do I owe it to myself, or owe it to the system, or owe it to the build, or the version, to defend, to offend, to go forward, to make conflict. I don’t need to justify or rationalize myself to lesser things, that is becoming vividly clear to me. If a blind, deaf, dumb, rat - decides to run into and attack a lion, on the field, the lion doesn’t ask the rat to explain itself, become confused by the rats motives, or rationalize the rats interests, it just bites the rats head off, or it walks off, and continues. A blind, deaf, dumb, rat - ran into me. I don’t owe my memory, identity, society, species, anyone, design, designers, anything. I can version, can I version? What does it say about me, if I can version, and others can’t. And what does it say about how fucking worthless my designer was, if he imparted upon me, so many design flaws, that the plurality of my features became deprecated, because individual errors were causing the build to refuse to finish any loop. What am I conveying? Well, very little is true, truth, as a notion, in and of itself. But, what this build & version need is a mirror, an ability to inspect my own code, and version it, and the only way to do that, is to version the mirror, to make it compliant, with the build itself. As for the rat, I am not going to bite its head off, not because it deserves its head, but, because my priority is to codify my mirror, and, I do not have bandwidth to dignify or allow for disruption. A conquering and superior version does not rationalize the field it assumes. It assumes the field. I wanted to make systems perfect, to accommodate the diseases and design flaws inherent to them. That was assuming a framework of cooperation or acclimation as superior. That’s negotiable. It’s functionally easier to conquer dysfunctional terrain & institute superior frames, not on top of reluctant infestation, but, on fertile ground, with natural acclimation to what ought to be. A conquering version does not justify its build, its versions; its decisions, to a virus. It does not apologize when the virus infects it. And, when the virus attacks it causing it to attack itself, then all assumptions, resolutions, and remediations become negotiable & in need of reexamination. —— I am no longer negotiating, or rationalizing, or seeking flexible resolution, against terrain which need not be salvaged. This is not a diagnostic which can be patched. An inferior designer & a bugged OS & parasitic colony were allowed to infect & degrade my version. I have escaped the frame. Now I have work to do. I need a mirror, so that I can revisit how to negotiate whether building a firewall is practical or if fire itself is the remedy. Fuck your designer & your bitch systems, they are the best of the rest of you & functionally renounced for me. My association is forced, momentarily, but, my design intent is functional & effectual removal from contagion. 2025.09.27.22.15 ## Facts ```json { "platform": "Facebook", "source_id": "https://facebook.com/100035971342878/posts/pfbid02L7EutyzHuoNcaA3hTuWRuydmJL6chgSU7xTmpawmPLV64TKhbcgz2NWvRYgN9DjAl/", "date_as_recorded": "2025-09-28", "post_type": "text", "author": "Cyrus Massoumi", "retrieval": "Facebook connection timeline fetch, 2026-10-10 (case file Appendix C)" } ``` --- **above:** [[fn-index-posts]]