creativity is based on survival. creativity is driven by limitations. working within and around and despite limitations is the crux of organic striving for life. for instance, we can't see very far, nor at very fine resolution, so we have to either go closer to interesting things, or develop better sensors, or...? sometimes we die trying. what if we had no limitations? i don't think we'd continue to exist. that is, i don't think *we* would continue to exist. it would be like zeroing out all the data. or "one-ing" it out, whatever. our existence depends on the interaction of information, and information is patterns, and patterns don't exist without zeroes, without absences, without some kind of void. death defines life. blindness defines vision. maybe the total value of limitation remains constant. the only way to gauge progress is to compare to the past as framed by the present--even if we could see a hair on a zit on some kind of extremophilic space-paramecium on betelgeuse, we'd still have limitations somewhere, wouldn't we? then *that* would be normal, and something else would be out of reach. is there an end to this filling of the blank page? is it even a filling, or is it endless recombining, like taco bell? what are *our* ingredients? Resolution of language evolves as well. Internet as linguistic proto-supernova? Who owns computers, and how is that related to who owns language, and how is that related to survival? Who or what is it that is actually striving to survive? "We" aren't the ultimate, are we? While we fret over the "quality" of "our" "content," what are we missing, not because we lack the sensors but because we're not aiming them correctly? There are no right answers, there are no stupid questions, sure, but more important is that we can and must think or feel that questions (and answers, sure, but aren't they just a different spin on the same thing?) "exist" at all. It is alive to be a bit. You are a bit. You are alive. (2015)