mental metaphor: network protocol

The agents in my brain talk to each other. Even more interestingly, perhaps, the progression of the mental state could possibly modeled as each prior agent passing system state to each next one.

Scoping of certain information to certain entities, maybe certain subgraphs, ensures preservation or destruction. Not necessarily currently endorsed.

Multi-layer network model

sketch

Each agent passes a picture of its completed state to each next model, after some magical processing I don't want to explore at the moment and executing an action of some sort (possibly purely mental). The end state consists of a forward-motion-impulse, with an image of large-scope status on top of that, with the heuristic or specialized processing output on top of that, an immediate feeling about the agent's behaviour on top of that, and the woven legible narrative on top of that. Dependency arrows go backward-down one level (or backward-up?). More complex relations are built virtually, inside the top layer. The agent doing the pass-along I want to keep as empty as possible, but the fact that complex processing is unavoidably part-magic at this point means I shouldn't try too hard. It's a metaphor, and stretching it too far would take us useless places. This means that when I'm panicked, I can basically only write panicked stories at top level. When I'm stuck in a pattern, the recognition needs to be a heuristic thing if it has hope of propagating up the ladder to interrupt. This means that breaking a mental habit has to be a habit too. It also means that if I want to regularly do anything at all I need to find and cultivate the gut-feel space that lets me do it comfortably. I've been working all along from a selective-intervention model, but the mistake lies in only illuminating the bits I'd like changed to myself. This makes a good framework for the entire structure I'm trying to change, and it's minimal enough not to feel obtrusive or inaccurate (yet, anyway). Hopefully the selective intervention can now do a better job of exhaustively considering the relevant issues to a problem.

I have been shopping for a higher framework of understanding, but honestly, as cobbled-together as my present one is, it's not entirely terrible. The principles upon which we're operating - keep it minimal, do what works, consolidate when and if you can - are fairly good and well-supported; adherence is decent. It feels cobbled-together, but that's because it's in its alpha stages. You're not so scared of scrapping it all that you'll let it grow on a bad foundation. The foundations you're finding when you're out shopping for foundations aren't working for you, but you have a chance in hell of taking the good things from them as you need. And it's not that you're not thinking of debuthings - what's held you back and is keeping you slow is largely the fear, and that'll be overcome by every time you act in spite of it, as you're doing now.