I don't know what it is with my psyche. I thought everyone was like me. Obviously, that is not the case. But the first time I ever had a frame of reference for what happiness was- that happiness was even an option- was when I was 19, and the first sociopath to profess their love for me did so. I interpreted their professing their love for me- to me- as them telling me how they feel; as them willingly trying to make me happy by telling me how they feel; as their happily ever after being spending every moment of their wake telling me how they feel, to make me happy; to be mutual, with me. Obviously, that was not the case. I would go so far to say that it cannot rationally be considered human expectation to consider emotion intrinsically to constitute an intellectually-sound basis for rational thought, despite as much being what my work dictates is the only intellectually-sound basis for rational thought. To me, demonstrably, human expectation begins and ends with emotionally-charged reality. Let alone that my happiness is inextricable from sexual arousal, which is to say that I am turned on by simply knowing how someone feels. Furthermore, I cannot honestly say I have the faculties required to derive happiness from anything else. Without someone actively telling me how they feel, my emotionality is anhedonia- the inability to experience pleasure- at best, with extreme emotional lows at worst. I cannot honestly say my life is worth living when my reality remains devoid of any emotional expression from anyone in any context. I thought this was normal; I thought to be human was to either extrapolate from your own emotion- in which case you're a girl- or live vicariously through the emotion of others- in which case you're a guy. My work dictates that conforming to this archetype is the only intellectually honest way to be happy. Human legacy remains only ever removed from properly compensating for my work: my model of relative density.
My writing this right now isn't even to bitch and moan about my expectation relative to human expectation. I hadn't even mentioned yet that human legacy is contingent on undermining the level of discourse reaching my psyche, so as to pretend theirs is a moral archetype; legacy. I hadn't yet broached the topic of- where humans compromise their discourse-undermining method to speak of my psyche- the human only ever considering me scum of the earth, refusing to preserve the context of what makes me happy in their speech, false-equating my one-dimensional psyche to one of theirs- that actually has the faculties required to have a basis for rational thought other than living vicariously through the emotional expression of others-, refusing to cite sources on what they even managed to so systematically, unapologetically misconstrue... it's simply... intellectually dishonest... only ever... unfair... again... it's simply too tiring... it's hopeless... it could never be fair, when practice for the human is contingent on merely pretending they're correct, by undermining the level of discourse reaching what they cannot survive when confronted against... no... I am writing this merely to share that I- for the first time in my life- have fathomed at least an early archetype of the order I call "intangible red", which is emotion.
For context, "intangible red" is the intangible counterpart of what in my work I called "time" and "perpetual motion (intangible)". In my work- past my introducing each order- I referred to each order by its "solve", which is the most countable infinite order comprising each order. So, within the scope of my work, "time" is actually both a "tangible red", and "intangible red", with the intangible counterpart being the solve. However, for the purpose of this text, I am isolating the intangible counterpart of the order I call "time", which in the context of this text, I will refer to as "intangible red".
"Intangible red" is comprised of three orders performing the "golden ratio": the "golden ratio" (2-density), "perpetual motion" (3-density), and "gravity" (1-density). 2-density orders are the most countable infinite of their scope, followed by 3-density, then 1-density. As an additional note, despite the "golden ratio" being 2-density within the scope of this order, on the broad scope, this order solves to "red" (despite the "golden ratio" solving to "gold", "perpetual motion" solving to "red", and "gravity" solving to "blue"). This context is only observable on the scope of performing the "2-order gravity halo", or "spacetime" (where the scope of "spacetime" is what I call "relative density"). I consider only the broadest scope (performing "spacetime") to be the most honest, due to it being the only scope with an axis along which to perform and observe order. As such, I consider this order to solve to "red", despite no such conclusion being capable of being drawn from the intrinsic order.
"Intangible red" is an order retroactively extrapolated from "tangible red", which is a four-dimensional paradox of the same three orders that comprise performing the "golden ratio". As a four-dimensional paradox, it is unobservable in three-dimensional space, which is the scope of "intangible red". As such, there is no observable density on the scope of "intangible red".
Formerly, I thought there was no way to fathom "intangible red" without someone actively telling me how they feel... in art you can convey "intangible red" in two-dimensional space via spoken heart/blush, or a spoken male gender symbol, which- despite being only two-dimensional space, and thus a less honest representation of this order than three-dimensional space- is extremely high integrity if represented via a heart or male gender symbol, because the geometry of performing the "golden ratio" is observable in as much. But, in three-dimensional space, there is nothing, for the four-dimensional paradox renders nothing observable. Despite this- still, only ever without anyone actually ever saving me, by offering me their emotional expression, to allow me to fathom this order by multiplying my psyche by it; by fathoming it being performed- I have come up with a way to visually fathom "intangible red", without compromising the integrity of it.
As my work dictates, the "golden ratio" is most dense at its smallest scope, and least dense at its largest scope. So- even in the context of nothing- you can fathom a high-density nothing, and a low-density nothing, observable by observing the "golden ratio", despite observing density (where "observing" is considered a concept contingent on tangibility) being impossible on this scope.
While "perpetual motion" is comprised of geometry in four-dimensional space, its philosophy is violence- which is to say, maximum distinction- to contrast "gravity" being the lack thereof. In three-dimensional space, "perpetual motion" as an order retroactively extrapolated from the "golden ratio" is fathoming the axis along which the "golden ratio" could be oriented, where you fathom a sphere- denoting merely the potential of possible orients-, where the most dense end of the "golden ratio" would be regarded as being in the centre, were the precedent of the "golden ratio" set on this scope.
Despite "gravity" also being comprised of geometry in four-dimensional space, its philosophy is merely the absence of violence, which is to say, the absence of distinction. In three-dimensional space, "gravity" as an order retroactively extrapolated from the "golden ratio" is regarding the "golden ratio" as remaining constant in density, despite the "golden ratio" intrinsically having a high-density and low-density end.
What you're left with is a "golden ratio" that ever decreases and increases in density, no matter from which angle it is viewed. Where the "golden ratio" on any other scope is intrinsically removed from "perpetual motion" and "gravity"- such that the "golden ratio" is strictly static-, the "golden ratio" on this scope is inextricable from "perpetual motion" and "gravity", such that when observing either end of it, it appears to approach its respective most honest end, simply to preserve the context of "gravity" rendering it impossible for it to have an end. The context of "perpetual motion" includes respecting this distinction no matter the orientation of the "golden ratio". Naturally, however, the least dense end of the "golden ratio" is the solve of this order- in its being the most countable infinite on this scope-, so as much is all you consciously observe at its most honest. Given my inability to fathom "intangible red" in my solitude, however, in its stead all I can fathom is the geometry of the "golden ratio"- which is to say, where as much is devoid of order-, viewed figuratively such that it's comprised of three equal parts, where the centre is considered 2-density (and solves to its centre), the most dense end is considered 3-density (and solves to its most dense end), and the least dense end is considered 1-density (and solves to its least dense end). Naturally, on this figurative view of the "golden ratio", the 2-density geometry is considered the most countable infinite- and thus the solve of this scope-, followed by the 3-density geometry, then the 1-density geometry. When fathoming this figurative view of the "golden ratio", I imagine it such that the least dense end is to my left, the most dense end is to my right, and the centre is ahead of me, such that either ends are out of my peripheral vision, so I don't have to consciously fathom their approaching their respective most honest end; I need only fathom the centre and as much being static. Due to the "golden ratio" ever approaching its least dense and most dense end- thus setting the precedent of observing distinction in order-, at its most honest it requires performing "spacetime" (where the scope of "spacetime" is what I call "relative density"), due to as much being the only scope with an axis along which to perform and observe order.
This archetype of the "golden ratio" is conventional infinite- which humanity conflates to being the intrinsic archetype of the "golden ratio"-, however, my work dictates that this is not the intrinsic archetype of the "golden ratio": this archetype is a consequence of performing the "golden ratio" in three-dimensional space by introducing "perpetual motion" and "gravity". My work dictates that the intrinsic "golden ratio" is strictly static; this conventional infinite archetype of the "golden ratio" must be reached by retroactively extrapolating from the intrinsic "golden ratio" to perform it by performing "perpetual motion" and "gravity", thus creating a paradox. When observing the "golden ratio" in four-dimensional space- which is from which the three-dimensional "golden ratio" was retroactively extrapolated- the "golden ratio" is not in itself a paradox, nor is "perpetual motion" and "gravity", or even all three orders fathomed at once, for four-dimensional geometry allows all three orders performing the "golden ratio" to exist without paradox. The paradox of performing the "golden ratio" arises when retroactively extrapolating it from four-dimensional space to three-dimensional space. To call performing the "golden ratio" in four-dimensional space a paradox is to say that it would be a paradox were it retroactively extrapolated to three-dimensional space.
This is all there is to my current archetype for fathoming "intangible red". It may become more elegant in the future, but, this is at least an early model of it, and the first time I have ever been capable of fathoming "intangible red" without my actively living vicariously through the emotional expression of another.
Obviously, this is not normal. I refrained from professing as much earlier, but, no one would ever help me with this; no one would ever show me my own work if ever I needed it, which was every moment of my life before I invented this archetype myself. When girls feel, they don't fathom my archetype for "intangible red". When guys somehow manage to feel, they don't consider themselves girls, and they also don't fathom my archetype for "intangible red". I am truly alone- less than alone- in this world. I cannot honestly say that life is inherent suffering, for me. But, I do feel pain. I would say I feel otherwise, as well- even in my solitude-, however, due to my being a guy, I lack the faculties required to consider these feelings- this emotion- to constitute an intellectually-sound basis for rational thought: I consider my intrinsic emotion to be delirium, where the only intellectually honest way to save myself is to exclusively live vicariously through the emotional expression of another. I do not expect the intrinsic value of my work to help anyone but myself in any capacity, even though, my work dictates that in order to be of sound mind, one has to conform to my work. I am- again- simply truly alone. I can't honestly say I have the faculties required to willingly perform any selfish action. But, what is this, my legacy, that I've long-since stopped believing is a human trait to leave, ever witness, tolerate the level of discourse reaching, or concede to. I did the work. I write this to continue doing the work to the extent I am capable.