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 by what we tend to everyday!
Eventually, our temporal reality will work with the networks as easily as it works with our compositions online, so multi-tasking every detail of our developments and fielding every response to them may not be necessary (what we intend may be made manifest by the will to do so), but the possibilities and potentials of self and others collapse with the impact of sensation and perception.
Visualizing the virtual remains maleable until it is perceived by the world. The perception of our ever present reality precludes what we have visualized in the virtual and replaces it with local facts. I like to think of it this way. If it can be recorded with a camera, then it must be real, but in the quantum realm, even detecting the object influences it so profoundly that what we perceive is not a fair representation of what it really is.
In the United States, we advocate for thinking as you like, and speaking as you are, but during this migration of thought to the digital medium, we've been acting without adequate awareness of the consequences of our activity. When our thoughts influence public perception without response, our lack of awareness can result in what is known as disambiguation, or the failure to acknowledge the consequences of our behavior behind terminals and screens. Please see: Survival Tactics
Without response, we find that life and the living will defy us to abandon this medium to avoid inciting violence and lawlessness, rather than venting our anger or attempting to mitigate harm without feedback or response in a place we believe to be elsewhere.
We are much more likely to be useful if we can avoid the damages that result from anger, fear and hatred, but without knowledge of how our work is received, we may not get a chance. We must stay in touch with our communities for as long as we are able! We cannot save ourselves, or expect 'the network', or even God Himself to solve all our problems for us, but if we have defined the problem well enough, we ought to be able to tell 'Him' 'Her' or 'It' what's wrong! Then, with the feedback we field, we can act to repair the damage we've done with thoughtless words or deeds and avoid further damages. Please see: Consent, Boundaries & Treatment Plans
We have collective intelligence to work with in this space, and we are better connected by it than we ever have been in all of human history, but It won't save us from ourselves, or even from others if we cannot perceive what is wrong with ourselves. We must be able to see how what we do, or what we've failed to do influences others, and do what needs to be done about that first and formost.
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 our own. We may not all enjoy physically beautiful features, or gifts of intellect or these variations wouldn't be considered 'special', and if we did, there would be nothing special about them! And, frequently, 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 wide variety of types of people we have the opportunity 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. However, 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] Have we become victims of our motivations?
Certainly methods of evaluation lead to 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. And what is determined only reveals what is true at the time of evaluation by the methods employed. Evaluations cannot predict with any certainty another discovery at another time by other means. Differing evaluators, methods, instances and observations themselves determine outcomes, and only general conclusions can be formed by comprehensive evaluation of all.
Like the story of creation itself, God begins with only one rule: not to partake of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but when Eve is questioned about the rule she adds, 'and neither shall you touch it'. Her statement reveals her vulnerability, and proves that she doesn't have control over the power of creation either, or that which determines what should, or should not be.
Perhaps God's first rule was made out of a need to be free of a corrupting influence, and gaining the support of woman, the true 'source of life' adds strength to the position that we must not defy or mock the power to judge or create at all. And, no matter how desperate we may be in our effort to describe what we believe needs to be done, we really do need to have respect Creation itself, in order to avoid mistreatment out of selfishness or disregard
God allowed her admonition, helping to make us all 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 perception, and the environment we're creating (In order to have a name, one must be called by it).
Perhaps the most difficult challenge of all, is to maintain the distance expected of us in this new internet connected space we now 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
However, again, if as one study suggests: [ii] frustration leads to aggression, and evaluations are inconclusive for reasons I've cited above, then perhaps they should never begin.
Erroneous conclusions, requiring re-evaluation may cast doubt upon the value of treatment, or the evaluation itself. We need to have faith in the provider in order for treatment to work, but if the evaluation proves we are inadequate, we are likely to loose faith in the evaluator and treatment won't work anyway. And, in this new age of Artificial Intelligence, the judgements we live with may not always be human, and we may not be in a position to change the opinion, or be given a choice about what to do about it at all anymore. Please see: Treatment Planning
Judgmental thought is unavoidable due to the ever expanding structure of the Internet, and how we accomplish what Eve set out to do (Avoiding contact with the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) may not even be possible anymore. Losing faith in our own ability to judge our own processes, encountering inaccurate conclusions, having poor results, or confronting the use of tactics like the Historical Treatment, or Circumcision are examples I refer to that confound our ability with conflict and confusion.
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 it's a necessity to creation - that without it, creation would be flawed, or incomplete. The Illustrator of 'The Little Prince' puts it well: Dana describes the problem of designing for ourselves and others. [v]
Even if you think you know what you want, wouldn't you be a little disturbed by the fact that the change is being made by another?
Our genetics get cleaned up for our partners and our children are based upon the genes we were given, but we rewrite what we were given to begin with by adaptations made during our lives all the time, and our adaptations are not passed on to our offspring. Why? Today, through Epigenesis, we hope to be able to preserve the lessons we've learned for ourselves and our children and pass them on vicariously through the Internet if not genetically.
We believe the changes we're making today will be permanent and will affect humanity for the foreseeable future. The various fundamental scriptures all over the world endure scrutiny to that end. Everything is being checked, double-checked, and rechecked. Please see: (Fundamentals, and Fundamentalism for a comparison.
Lacon uses a dialectic that helps us to speak for ourselves - to develop a language specific to ones own perception and understanding of reality, and we insist that our opportunity to be an individual depends upon the constancy of an unambiguous identity, or the fragmentation of language - not only for ourselves, but for others in our lives. While we are constantly in a state of repair not only to ourselves, but also to our various languages, we need the fragmentation of the Fall to evolve and differentiate. Please see: Jacque Lacon: That one word... [iii]
We also need to have faith in this process and one another 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 may not know what's best for ourselves. Our rigidity and defiance is being denied! Even if we think we can articulate our ideas or plans well, given any particular term or concept one might try to articulate, there are perhaps 20 - 25 meanings that might be perceived by the other.[iii] It's not possible to anticipate every interpretation, or articulate every idea without the fragmentation of the Fall re-entering and re-enforcing the idea that God truly has retained control of creation after all.
For a transposition of the original design to remain intact, it must contain the original pattern 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 a harmonic addition to what already exists, we are not likely to be satisfied.
~A meaningful and purposeful instance of creation that is perceived to be what it is - not a copy, but a unique instance of 'God, truly evolving in creation - as I am', as well as who we 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 become very destructive, but to condemn the violence that results from a failure to act 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
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