What we put 'here', is inescapable 'out there'. When we confront it 'out there' in the form of microwave radiation, it interacts with us as a quantum wave. We're bombarded by its flow at the speed of light. It blasts through the classical mechanic universe of walls and windows creating a boundary-less environment. The stage of life is therefor directed by everyone involved in our architecture and what we tend to everyday!
Eventually, the networks will respond to our temporal reality as easily as it works with our quiet contemplations online, so multi-tasking every operation and fielding every response will not be necessary, and what we intend will be made manifest by the will to do so, but we are currently limited by our sense of self as we are portrayed by ourselves and others.
In the United States, we advocate for thinking as you like, and speaking as you are, but we are thinking out-loud without adequate awareness of the consequences of our activity. Our thoughts are integrating into a public experience without response, and what we say on-line may have more impact than what we say to each other precisely because we are unaware of its impact. Please see: Survival Tactics
In our temporal reference frame, we act out of fear to outsmart the inevitable and find that life's response will defy us to abandon our tools and methods and concede defeat rather than continue to arouse threats that exist and live with the resulting danger. Better to have faith in ourselves and our practices than to put the adaptations of life to the test.
If we prevent the impending catastrophes we can see developing instead of failing to save ourselves from what we cannot see, we are much more likely to be useful! We cannot save ourselves, or expect 'the network', or even God Himself to solve all our problems for us. If we do, we ought to at the very least tell Him what's wrong! Until then, we can act to prevent problems we can see developing from becoming crisis'. Please see: Consent, Boundaries & Treatment Plans
We're lucky to have collective intelligence to work with in this space, but it won't save us from ourselves, or even others from our own ignorance. We must see how what we do, or what we've failed to do influences others, and do what needs to be done.
Please see: Parsifal
There will always be variations of traits that by great blessing, or by great riches, are better than others, but the blessed are not likely to value their gifts anymore than we value ours. We will not all enjoy a trophy wife, or physically beautiful features, or they wouldn't be considered 'special', and if we did, there would be nothing special about them. What biology bestows in one place it takes away from another. We all have our own special contributions, and we need to cherish and appreciate the diversity we have available to work with.
It might be better to fail the suitability of our own designs than to keep evaluating our work, but if what we do has integrity, the draft we left behind will be a logical and rational development of the sequence we're continuing to develop, and the various transpositions another opportunity to be finished; that it is never finished is not a problem. If we are on the path, there is less to do every day.
When evaluating the capacity to do harm, we're likely to manifest the very thing we're afraid of in order to determine the magnitude of the threat. Would it surprise you to suffer the consequences? [i]
I believe that it is the nature of the evaluator, or the purpose of the evaluation that leads to the capacity, or lack of capacity of a subject to respond. In clinical settings an evaluator has more influence over the subject than the subject does over themselves. Please see: Medical Model on consent.
What is determined only reveals what is true at the time of evaluation by the methods employed, and cannot predict with any certainty another discovery at another time by other means. Differing evaluators, methods and observations themselves determine outcomes, and only general conclusions can be formed based upon each.
Evaluation is made complex by human nature. Much like the story of creation itself, God begins with only one rule: not to partake of judgement, but when Eve is questioned about the rule she adds, 'and neither shall you touch it'. Her statement reveals the fact that either she has done so herself, or has witnessed it done. and that she also believes the consequences of that behavior to be deadly, confirming the boundary God began with. Was she foreshadowing the fate of the serpent, or referring to the death of another, and her suspicion of a more innocent kind?
I believe God's first rule was based upon His experience with man, and that fielding input from the feminine was just as important, but we may be overlooking the most obvious result of the act of creation which is of course to recreate ourselves.
Though God did not put it that way, and she was not made to say it....God allowed her admonition, making her self-determining. Please see: Jacque Lacon: That One Word [iii]
What we've confronted by her assertion is that creation occurs not only as a result of conception, but also as a result of knowing what is felt, seen, and heard in our environment (In order to have a name, one must also be recognized and be called by it).
Perhaps the most difficult challenge of all, is to maintain the distance she expects of us in this connected space we share! As Black Elk Relates in his Vision, "I saw....the shape of all shapes as they must live together like one being." Please see: Black Elk's Vision
We cannot do pure science on each other without violating ethical boundaries, and if as one study suggests: [ii] frustration leads to aggression, and evaluations are inconclusive for reasons I've cited above, or others, then perhaps they should never begin. Our problem now, is that living with erroneous conclusions may be even worse. And, due to the ever increasing complexity and intelligence of the Internet, without building and assimilating with a human basis, we may not be able to evaluate the ambiguities at all .
Judgmental thought is unavoidable due to the ever expanding structure of the Internet, and how we accomplish what Eve set out to do may not even be possible anymore. Loss of faith in our own processes, inaccurate conclusions, poor results, or the use of tactics like the Historical Treatment I refer to may confound our ability with conflict.
We believe the way to overcome these barriers is to be better adapted to the new environment, rather than to be isolated from it. That is, we must find a way to cooperate and adjust to what is becoming more intelligent and powerful than we are, or we will be left behind.
Each life is an unstoppable force - a juggernaught that adapts and progresses to prove that it is necessary to creation - that without it, creation itself would be flawed, or incomplete. The Illustrator of 'The Little Prince' puts it well. Dana describes the problem of doing this kind of work and how to get it done for others. [v]
Even if you think you know what you want, wouldn't you be a little disturbed by the fact that someone else is the creator of your reality - that you are the created, and not the creator or controller yourself?
Lacon uses a dialectic that allows one to speak for themselves, to develop a language specific to ones own perception and understanding of reality, and insists that our very existence depends upon the constancy of an unambiguous identity.
Please see: Jacque Lacon: That one word... [iii]
We really need to have faith in this process in order for it to work. Creation has already built into its design natural selections and preferences that work. For us to assume we know best might preclude the wishes or intentions of our ideal partner for example, suggesting that perhaps we don't know what's best. Given any particular term or concept one might try to articulate, there are perhaps 20 - 25 meanings.[iii] It is not possible to anticipate every interpretation.
For a transposition of the original design to remain intact, it must contain the original within itself. As in music, it is only a key shift that results in different notes relative to the original score. The first note, and all resulting notes are shifted up or down, but still positioned with the same meter and relative distance from each other, so the change is only heard relative to the original. If we modify the original score, we might return to the principles of composition, but we cannot deny that the music is already being played, and unless what we compose is truly a harmonic addition to what already exists uniquely our own, we are not likely to be satisfied. Please see Žižek: [iv]~A meaningful and purposeful instance of creation that manifests through all our travails and difficulties - not an imitation, but a unique instance of 'God, that truly is evolving in creation - me, as I am', as well as who I choose to become.
It's clear that we don't always know what is best for us, or what we want, and that in an effort to get what we think we want, we may be very destructive. To condemn the violence that results is to ignore the fact that we may be causing it.
1. Robert Steigerwald. 2000: Materialism and the Contemporary Natural Sciences (Important research on the reality of perception.) Nature Society and Thought vol. 13, no. 3
2. BROWN, FERRIS, LIANG, KEEPING, MORRISON, LIAN H. 2014: Abusive Supervision and Retaliation
3. Lacon J. Vimeo publication 2012, Original documentary by Francoise Wolff: 42 minutes and 40 seconds into this Vimeo presentation Jacque Lacon Speaks, Lacon describes how to achieve individuality. 1972: Jacque Lacon Describes Individuality as a Manifestation of Language
4. Žižek S. YouTube publication 2014: 28 minutes into this talk, in less than 5 minutes, Žižek describes how we do Genetic Engineering by using language as an example. Žižek on The Hegelian Wound
5. Dana ASMR. YouTube publication 2014: 11 minutes and 20 seconds into this reading Dana describes 'The Author's Problem' by referring to difficulty of illustrating the sheep for the Author. The Little Prince