---

What makes something 'original'? Is it being completely unique? Is something original because it's brand new? Can an old idea be considered original in a new context? Maybe. Can a new invention be considered passé before it's even been debuted? It could. What traits does something need to have to be original?

What if the only thing that we need to consider something as 'original', is for the object to be ontologically associated with the concept of 'originality'? What if it just came down to perspective?

I'm Dr. Garrison, but you can call me Heather. Heather wasn't always my name, if you haven't noticed yet, somehow, I am transgender. My deadname was— well, that's the thing. It doesn't exist anymore.

No, I mean it doesn't exist. Let me rephrase, my deadname is nothing. Not like that's my fucking name— I mean that my deadname was associated with the concept of nothingness and… well, that's a whole other story. The point is, a single concept, and a bit of memetics meant that I was able to make it such that everybody forgot it. I erased an idea from collective human history.

And it wasn't even that hard, you just have to know what the price is, what you're giving up.

No, not like a blood sacrifice. Well okay, that's not true, blood can stabiliz— fuck. This doesn't matter, look at your fucking eyes. Glazed over, fully fucking lost. Let me start over.

Magic. Anomalous Science. Reality bending, thaumaturgical rituals, fucking blood oaths, curses and even metaphysical manipulation. What do all of those things have in common, other than the fact that the Foundation is desperate to keep it under lock and key? Everything we see, everything that is modified, manipulated, it's all just thoughts. Ideas that our minds perceive, contextualize and associate, turning into the world we see around us. Without ourselves, reality doesn't exist.

Shit. Let me clarify. Yes, a metaphor can end the world, but no, not because of you. See, it's not just how a single person interprets something, it's about the collective human understanding of an idea. Like with 'originality', every new researcher walks in here assuming that they know best, and have a brand new idea; to them, it is original. But when you go in front of a panel of your peers and start to explain the concept of 'magic but using words', they all know that nothing you are saying is original. Old? Maybe. Outdated? Most definitely. To that person, 'magic but words' is believed to be original, but in reality, the concept of 'magic but words' is no more inherently original than another weird theory.

My point is that a single person is not enough to redefine a concept, you need an entire culture. Okay, well, not an entire culture, there is no way to get total consensus, other than mind control, maybe. You just need enough of any given culture to redefine consensus.

Let's take another example: pedestals are inherently nothing more than a box that something is placed on top of. But when you start to look at the ontological connections, that is, ideas that are fundamentally associated with one another, a pedestal is considered 'important' to the average person. Think about an art gallery — pieces are either suspended, hung on the wall, placed on the floor, or sit on top of a pedestal.

A metal can sitting on the floor of a gallery is stupid, right? Clearly. But place that onto a pedestal, and suddenly everybody starts to debate on the meaning, how it can be art, and treats it completely differently, despite being the same metal can. Still stupid, still meaningless, and yet — it's on a pedestal. That must be important, right?

As a society, we see a pedestal as important. A grand, classic, Roman bust, those are always displayed on pedestals. We put trophies on pedestals, relics, fuck, look at tech stores. See how the newest phone is always placed on top of a pedestal? Because no matter what the object is, no matter how little it intrinsically means, we as a collective human consciousness have viewed pedestals as important for so long that the ideas have become ontologically overlapped within the Noosphere.¹

Ontological overlap is pretty simple, that's when two ideas are connected. We actually do this a lot at the Foundation. Take any anomaly, literally, any fucking anomaly you can think of. Is it contained? Well that must make it dangerous in some way, right? Containment and danger are ontologically overlapped; we assume that anything that needs to be restrained, restricted or imprisoned is dangerous. We assume that, because that is what we were taught, what society believes, what the Foundation defines as 'normal.' Our cultural norms are the ontological centers of an idea or concept, each one deriving meaning from 'consensus reality'.

So why the fuck am I explaining all of this? We shape the world around us, and we reflect ourselves in how we define others. We contextualize who they are, based on who we are. We change the meaning of what we see, what we hear, the books we read; those are all connected to each individual. Everything is about perception. When you understand that, you can control anything.

My deadname was forgotten because I made it 'nothing'. Sure, seems harmless enough, so what? Well, I would love to introduce the concept of 'memetics', which you should already know about, and if not, why the fuck are you here?

What if a memetic image changed how people associate an idea? How could we use that, in a practical way? An anomaly, released in a population center, memetically concealed so that each viewer associated that anomaly with the idea of being harmless and normal. Imagine the danger and destruction that could cause — on the other hand, imagine how easy it would be to contain minor anomalies by giving them the 'I'm normal' memetic tattoo.

An agent in deep cover, surrounded by enemies who know who you are? What if we re-associate their Noospheric identity from the known one, to an entirely different mental idea, a different individual, with a different appearance, different history, different role? Nothing has changed about the agent themselves, but who they are seen as is a completely different person. They could walk right out, their enemies believing that not only should they be there, they better treat them with some goddamn respect.

If you can change the world with magic, if you can change reality through sheer willpower, what is stopping us from changing reality through ideas?

I have given this orientation multiple times, and every time I give it, it feels original to me. Hell, I've given it three times today, and I'm still not bored. I know this presentation by heart, so how can I find it anything but monotonous? Pretty easily, honestly. I just ontologically linked this orientation with the idea of 'originality'.

That's Anomalous Ontology, and that's my specialty. Memetics are just a vector, cognitohazards a way of rewiring your brains, changing how you perceive something. This goes a step further. We change what that very idea means, and the world is none the wiser. Just, you know…

Don't fuck up the Noosphere, okay? I don't want to have to clean up after you.

---