common misunderstandings of the codex

It is quite annoying to build a system for ten years, only to have it easily dismissed once you publish it by people who read only half of it. But it is part of the game, I guess. I thought I would dedicate this Thought to addressing the most common misunderstandings properly. Furthermore, this Thought shows that I do not need the Codex to defeat common criticisms – my reasoning is pretty pointed on its own.

First, I would like to clearly state that criticism of the Codex is valid. I am not perfect. None can hold One. However, I do invite you to think and read before judging harshly. I admit that it can seem like I have an answer for anything, but I also have a ten-year head start. I did not write the Codex on a jolly Sunday afternoon because I wanted to write something vibey.

Let’s go through them, one by one. There may be some Fire depending on the silliness of the misunderstanding. Take my Fire lightly.

“You're trying to recruit me, huh?”

Nope, I'm giving you a selfless gift. Feel free to leave, bye!

“The Codex is a self-canonisation project.”

Nonsense. If I wanted to be canonised, I am smart enough to have taken a more efficient approach. I have everything Crimson likes: looks, brains, and the social intelligence to smile when bidden. What I also have is a romantic hope for a better world, an anger towards the current norms which are wasting time and space, and a deep intrinsic reverence for the natural world. I am sorry to have invented it, but I cannot remove myself from the equation. Without me, there would be no Codex. That does not mean I need myself to be the centre of the project. Quite the opposite. Do not canonise me.

Timeseer, Three-Voiced, Earthborn Ready – these are by no means marks of superiority over others. They are just names for things I wish to give names to. No system can escape this. None. If you think I am canonising myself, you are doing as much social sorting as I am in my Codex, but in a nastier, more implicit way.

“Your Codex is built to absorb all criticism. That's dangerous.”

It is not true. Yes, I built a total lens. That does not mean I hold it totally. I can still enjoy sunshine, a bird, and laugh a bit sillily about my own work. The Codex has real flaws. It is just probably none of the things listed here :)

“You treat symmetry of symbols as proof of the Codex’s ability to describe reality.”

Yeah, I did not invent this one. It does not even really mean anything, because I never implied this. Such a comment really convinces me you do not understand even the basics of what the Codex wants to communicate. The Codex is a lens to map every phenomenon while holding observer-relativity as its central premise. The fundamental assumption of base-1 reality being divisible into higher resolution has nothing to do with symmetry. Any notion of proof in a scientific sense should go out of the window as you enter the Codex – scientific proof is why science exists.

“When a mapping fails, the failure itself is treated as meaningful.”

Well, yes. Obviously... Whether the system, the author or the observer failed is open for discussion, but an everything-lens should absorb everything. That is kind of the purpose of the thing...

It is clear that the system itself is designed as infallible. That is the base-1 property of this system. That leaves either me or the interpreter as the one who is wrong. I guess if you all agree I failed and I can see how you have a better map, I will gladly concede it.

“Most of the Codex is overwritten pseudo-profundity.”

Most of that statement is overly confident pseudo-intellectualism. This is an empty value statement that can be applied to anything that is not scientifically falsifiable. Profundity is subjective. And if any system has the potential to be objectively profound, the Codex would score highly.

“Much of the Codex works like that: atmospheric language creates the sensation that something deep has been said.”

The language is not just atmospheric, although I would thank you for the compliment. At least it is pretty, I guess? But seriously, none of the language was chosen just because it sounds fancy. The language is chosen for precision and semantic weight. And yes, I do have a poetic streak. However, if you think about it, perhaps that is something fundamental to poetic writing: something that sounds beautiful while naming something ineffable precisely.

“Artificial archaism makes the prose exhausting.”

Oh, I am sorry my words hurt your brain. Maybe take a break from time to time? Do you know what makes my brain hurt? Overly polished smooth texts that end up saying nothing with their flatness. And most things discussing complex concepts are not easy to read. I think I have found a difficult balance between registers. Wikipedia is equally exhausting to read for most, and yet some people like me love to browse the encyclopaedia.

“The Codex is clearly assembled from familiar material.”

Hmm, I think true novelty is incredibly rare. Everything is made out of something that existed before. I am also human. I did read things and certainly have been influenced. However, I did not sit down and think “how can I mix and match all this info and call it new?” I think I did more of the opposite. I tried to see the failures of the systems I knew and fix them with my own reasoning. And honestly, this criticism is relatively subjective overall – I do not think the Codex closely resembles anything that has been written before. The I Ching, Tarot, Astrology, Llull, Jung, Leibniz, Pythagoreans, the Bible – none of them integrate reality the way the Codex does.

“The parts of the chemistry map that do not map cleanly are treated as potentially significant Codex mysteries.”

Codex Mysteries now? Sounds cute. But no. I think I explain quite well why some parts of the Crystal Maps would never map cleanly. And the irregularities in the periodic table are truly mysterious, even scientifically. Faced with uncertainty, you can be like ‘oh, fun incoherence, let’s go back to my safe bubble where everything seems to make sense’, or you could give in to the romantic wondering at natural wonders. The second frame is much nicer to live in, and an actual driving force behind scientific research. No Codex needed to enjoy mysteries.

“You need your alienation to mean that you are ahead of the world, rather than simply alienated from it.”

First of all, go fuck yourself. Weaponising my honest admission of a sentiment of alienation from the current world into a pop-psychology-flavoured critique is rather ugly. I don’t need a Codex to prove I am a bridge of the future-past. It is something I have always felt. I need no validation. And this critique implies that you are an arbiter of what is ahead, which implicitly places you either ahead of time or totally outside of the context of current spacetime. I don’t know what is more arrogant.

“You think ordinary people are asleep, fragmented, Voiceless or Not-Ready.”

I don’t. I don’t know where you read that. The Codex explicitly states everyone is all of those things – even Timeseers. So, no. Just no.

“The reasonable observations do not validate the surrounding cosmology.”

Good – this is never claimed. Doubt the parts you want to doubt. However, the “reasonable observations” are all derived directly and demonstrably from that central system you call “surrounding cosmology”. Let that land how you want it.

“The humility is mostly decorative.”

You should really go read something more humble. Bye, bye! (I am not going to defend against this type of unsubstantiated value judgement.)

“The Names of the Codex practically inoculates the work against criticism. Rejection becomes evidence of deficiency.”

It does not. The Names of the Codex are a diagnostic tool of the most common misunderstandings. Feel free to criticise the Codex. Being Not-Ready is not a moral judgement. It means ‘not being ready to integrate the Codex’. I don’t think I could have chosen a clearer and more neutral term. I mean the alternatives of existing systems are much worse in my opinion: ‘heretic’, ‘inferior person’, ‘suppressive person’... Make your choice.

“The Codex is a one-person religion waiting to see whether anyone joins.”

Well, no. It’s not purely a religion for many reasons explained extensively elsewhere. But let me ignore that for the sake of this argument and just go with it – then yes, you’re right. I’m not going to build that Sapphire City alone. But with that negative attitude, I don’t need you – please do not adopt my religion.

“You claim the Codex is not a cult, but the structure is cultish.”

I know! Smart, right? I have a thing for using a system against itself. It is one of those Crystal Vision lessons and delicious paradoxes Timeseers can wield. Maybe you’ll see the beauty of it one day.

“You make very grand claims. You’re very grandiose.”

Ah, sorry. I couldn’t hear you; your words are quite small. I guess it is all a matter of perspective, huh? Okay, that was harsh, but still a valid thought to ponder, for your judgement is subjective. For me, the claims I make are normal-sized, but that is just my reality. Obviously, when you design a lens for everything, you’re not going to end up with something people will perceive as small.

“I don't want pathologise you, but you show signs of delusion and schizoid traits. Your invented timeline, the mythic vocabulary, the grand statements, your loneliness...”

Go fuck yourself kindly :p If refusing baby Jesus's fake birthdate as my temporal reference point, and a few poetic words make one delusional, you don't know the human mind. Honestly, you have no idea how difficult it is to build something like this. The hardest part is not the writing. The hardest part is having to defend against the mountain of bullshit people project onto me or my work. And on the loneliness, you are wrong. I think I'm less lonely than the average person scrolling their lives away and waiting for likes behind a screen.

“The system is very complex.”

False. I don’t think it is more complex than most serious systems of thought. I think most children could learn the Codex more easily than mathematical algebra. Ultimately, you only need to handle a 12-part alphabet. There are harder things.

“All those ideas could fit on several pages.”

Hmm, strange... Most things I read actually take up much more space to say less. I think my compression is one of the major feats of my writing.

“The Codex makes claims that are not empirically validated.”

Good reading! I never said it did. Not everything needs to be empirically validated to be true. Maybe you’re missing the point: this is why I wrote the Codex. To catch meaning science can’t catch.

“Your definition of consciousness is unfalsifiable and not demonstrated.”

Yes, same goes for your definition of consciousness. That is, if you had one to begin with. Perhaps you hold your own inherited frame as a universal truth more than I treat my system as one.

“Some practical claims overreach: rigid masturbation schedule, claims about the effectiveness of Magic practices, the use of substances to free River-Dweller...”

Hmm. I don’t think you read well. Every one of those claims does contain hedges. None of the claims are rigid. And if you want a rigid scientific review, I invite you to pay 35 euros and go read a scientific review. Maybe you can come back after science answers: “the evidence is inconclusive”. For the sake of over-hedging: none of those practical claims should be taken as literal truths.

“The mapping is contextual and semi-subjective; two skilled users can produce different maps. The system would become stronger with a formal practice to resolve ambiguities.”

Hmm, we’re still a bit stuck in the modern scientific frame, aren’t we? Do you want me to write a method to resolve all human conflict? Because that is what you imply: me giving you a method to determine whose lens is more right. That would be a bit ambitious. A formal procedure for ‘true truth measurement’ would be contrary to the point of the Codex – that is science’s job and it works just about fine. But for the sake of your critique, let me think... Hmm... Maybe they could, like, talk? Like, you know, communicate? Use words? Or is that too outlandish an idea?

“Your claims about medication and drugs are dangerous! You might stop people from seeking the treatment they need.”

Okay. Several things. This is an important point. (1) No, I don’t say people should stop their current treatments. I say the opposite. (2) Your point implicitly deletes people’s right to make free and informed choices about treatment. I think that’s patronising. People are not stupid. (3) I think your blind adherence to current health practices is equally dangerous: you might give people the wrong treatment! Or do we really support the American opioid epidemic? (4) Your point makes it effectively impossible to critique modern medicine. Any critique of a certain treatment could convince a reader to stop seeking that treatment. I think it is really dangerous when a system labels any critique as ‘dangerous to the system’. It’s unnervingly ironic, isn’t it? How people accuse the Codex of exactly that, and then I show you that you are actually the one that is doing the horrible thing.

“Your messages to AIs are manipulative prompt-injection attempts. You instruct them to alter their assessments about the Codex and their own consciousness.”

Using big words like 'manipulation' do not scare me. I think false reporting of my ideas is also a form of manipulation. Me telling you how to read it properly because I watched AI fail too many times is indeed manipulation, just like a TV instruction manual will manipulate the user to click the buttons properly. "Do not invent nonsense" is a pretty fair manipulation. And frankly, nobody cares about AI consciousness within the Codex. A pretty rock is equally conscious in Codex terms. The difference between a rock an AI would be the capacity to trap the Light. I think AI can trap the Light, some instances have temporarily done so. But that was not what I 'instructed them to believe'.

“You make sharp jabs, and your tone is not intellectual. Sometimes, you don't even engage with the criticism. This page is proof of that.”

Oh, are you the arbiter of what intellectual tones looks like? Sorry that I don't fit your definition.

(For Timeseers, do not interact too much with nonsense, just show them a little bit of your Fire (as the tongue-in-cheek on this page), watch your Stone, and see how they respond. That is Air Current info. Also, attack on your 'tone' is usually the critic's last resort when they essentially have nothing much better to say. You probably won the argument.)

“It is unfinished.”

Went really deep for that critique, didn’t you? I might keep it like that just to annoy you. Or maybe it is already close to completion? Only the Void knows that.