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 set by everyone involved in the construction of this architecture everyday!
Our temporal reality works with the networks as easily as it works with our compositions online, so multi-tasking every detail of our developments and fielding every response may not be necessary indefinitely (eventually, what we intend may be made manifest by the will to do so), but sensation and perception are based upon a field of possibilities that collapse into one event:
CERN and everyone else online is using visualization and the creative process on a grid with fundamental particles used during the formation of the universe to compose.
Visualizing what's possible can only continue until it is perceived in the world. Then, the perception of what's real collapses the possibilities we contemplate with the facts. I like to think of it as something that can be recorded. It must have been real if we can view the photo, or replay the audio or video, but in the quantum realm, detecting the object influences it so profoundly that what we perceive does not represent it fairly. The most useful content we can work with outside the lab are fundamental problems we keep returning to (usually shame based incidents), because it's where our own creative energy is usually mired.
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 frequently publish without adequate awareness of the consequences of our work. When our thoughts influence public perception without response, lack of feedback can result in all kinds of interpretations we can't predict, some of which may not be welcome.
Life, and the living will defy us to abandon as medium that will incite violence and lawlessness, if we're not aware of what our publications will do. It will remove our work from the place we believe to be elsewhere, and ourselves from the opportunity to put it there. Please see: Archived Docs
We are much more likely to be useful if we can prevent damages that result from anger, fear and hatred, but without knowledge of how our work is received, we may not get a chance. We've got to 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. If we've defined the problem well, we ought to be able to recruit the support and understanding we need. Then, with feedback we field, we can work to repair the damage that's been done with fighting words, or harmful behavior. Please see: Self Advocacy
We have collective intelligence to work with in this space, and we are better connected than we ever have been, but it can't save us from ourselves without the own ability to determine what's gone wrong. In my opinion, it's the work God's assigned for us! We're forced to face the most uncomfortable moments in our lives because they are the problems He's been working on all along. We need to see how we can help. I believe we're expected to do this work until its done, or we'll be expected to do it for the rest of our lives.
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'.
This statement reveals a weakness in Eve's ability to evaluate God's rule, and that Eve, representing the living component of nature, cannot be expected to determine what should, or should not be either.
Perhaps God's first rule was made out of a need to be free of corrupting influence, but if progress is to be truly based upon life and the living, then we need to have faith in it, and the nurturing environment God gave us to begin with. There was nothing wrong with the world until we believed there was, but it helps to have respect for rules and to be able to rule out what we agree to object to.
We're still working with human comprehension, and our judgement is flawed by the proximity and apprehension of what it is we need to understand, but if it is forbidden, it will prove itself to be so by all means. Our perception of the fruits of the tree, like the senses we use to perceive them, are obscured by our own tools and methods of evaluation. We rely on God to determine charged systems we find illusive, and help Him by confirming what He already knows to be true, but let there be no doubt, the hazards are real! So how does a male God create a complete set of genetics out of an incomplete male copy without the power of nature, or creation acting on His behalf?
(Eve answered by herself!) Please see: Jacque Lacon: That One Word [iii] What we've encountered by her assertion is that creation occurs not only as a result of conception, but also as a result of the power to perceive (while God created a nurturing world, the life within was created by the feminine). Unfortunately, by doing so she admitted to a new form of the knowledge we were forbidden to use.
Endless evaluation and unrealistic expectations can result from only one point of view, but the problem we're describing here is the ambiguity resulting from an inability to discern a value discretely based upon input from multiple simultaneous points of view; which sense is determining a given sensation or perception can be unclear within a complex system.
Creation is much more complex than humanity, and humanity is limited by its form. The creation story used other forms of life to personify the creation story with human qualities, but we seem to need some kind of mediation to prevent harmful or unfair forms of life and the living from enslaving, dominating, or exploiting our lives. In order for AI to be able to do this, we need to teach it to sense with human perceptions.
We might try to blame the serpent for asking the question of Eve and corrupting the answer she provided, but isn't it Eve, the feminine, who most naturally has the power to build with our code?
How we accomplished what Eve ruled out (the corruption of our judgement by influence of other perceptions) is by way of haptics and computer mediated interfaces, eliminated or - at a minimum, reduced by use of the creative power of light - which God started with.
Even the blind can appreciate the comprehension developed online simply by use of translation. We're not as likely to be limited by the boundaries of our senses in this environment. Light, and light speed connectivity are very subtle creative powers. Our diversity together forms better judgement. We advocate for this platform because more diversity results in better judgement. We have a harder time relating to each other at-large with the complexity of the demands on all our senses all at the same time precluding certainty of any kind.
Losing faith in our ability to judge on our own, forming inaccurate conclusions, or having poor results moves us to redefine the problem, to share information about our own particular problems, or share the progress that we've made with problems, such as: Historical Treatments, or Circumcision for example.
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, isn't it a little disturbing to face the fact that you need to rely upon someone else to really make the change?
Our genetics are preserved much as they were when they were applied to build the persons we've become for reproduction with another partner. Women only have what they we're given at birth to provide for reproduction, but we rewrite what we've been given throughout our lives to adapt to trauma and recover from injuries. Most of these adaptations are not transmitted during reproduction. Today, by use of the Internet and what we call Epigenesis, we hope to be able to pass on the lessons we've learned - if they've proved to be useful. Everything is being checked, double-checked, and rechecked. Please see: (Fundamentals, and Fundamentalism for a comparison.
Lacon taught us how different forms of language can be used to enable people stuck in the trauma of one perception, to use another. To become the unambiguous person(s) we're meant to be, we need to be able to go beyond the labels and names used to describe ourselves. Language, and the fragmentation of language is in a state of repair not only by those who've been compromised by it, but also by everyone else, in all other languages, and by each perception within each person. What we fail to realize is that our machines have only begun to learn how to function in a few, and that it is our job to educate them. Please see: Jacque Lacon: That one word... [iii]
Creation has built into its design natural selections for preferences that work. To assume we know what's best might preclude our partners ideal, suggesting that we perhaps may not know what's best - even for ourselves. In language, and any given 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 possibility without accepting the fact that God, or creation itself truly does keep as hand in play. We can't predict how life will adapt to our current technology, but we've built tools with which we can visualize to build specific solutions. Please see: Structural Determination and Analysis
The transposition of an original remains intact and has within itself the blueprint for the structural design of proteins required to rebuild itself. As in music, a key shift only results in a uniform shift to accomodate a different pitch. A radical modification of the original score might result in a new composition, but we can't expect to succeed unless it's a harmonious addition to what's already there.
~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.
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