20240803
If the individuals attempt to channel the preferences of the collective, self-organization fails.
More on that later.
The experiential Universe (as in, the fact of Awareness and its implications) can be thought of as a kind of solver. For any given configuration of anything, what does it take for Awareness to enter the system, explore/consume it completely, and then exit?
You, the one reading these words, are experiencing the solution to that problem at every instant.
The solver is set up to test all possible configurations of Awareness as it searches unceasingly, looking for the inevitable match to the problem set before it.
When the problem is solved, and Awareness exists, Awareness emerges into a variation of the problem, infinitesimally different than before. The same, but not the same.
You are able to influence the ways in which the variation occurs.
In the course of the infinite series of variations of the problem, Awareness experiences every vantage point possible. The experiential Universe being a phenomenon born of Awareness and Self and Reflection, Awareness catches Reflections of itself everywhere. Every system you perceive (from gravity to Abraham Lincoln to Wannabe (Spice Girls)) mimics an experience had by Awareness. Awareness being a singleton, it cannot be both observer and observed simultaneously. So it trades off, timelessly and simultaneously.
All this is to say that what you observe of a person in your life is a reflection of a possible experience of Awareness. This means that the only aspects of them that are fixed in your experience are the ones that you've incorporated into your configuration of The Next Problem To Solve, over time. Humans being incredibly complex systems, most of the total implied system of that person is still unobserved by you. And it doesn't take much twiddling of aspect selections to completely transform the emergent behavior of that system.
This is the technical background behind the idea that you can manifest change in the people that you've known forever.
Most of that person remains unobserved to you — and therefore in a state of quantum uncertainty, from your perspective. It's super useful that one can never truly know another person. It's the only reason we all keep getting along as well as we do, even while constantly changing. :)
It's not unethical to tune your anticipated experience of another person. You're not robbing them of free will or anything like that. It's more like this: you were only ever experiencing them like a radio channel on an analog receiver (this metaphor is already outdated lol), and their highest and most-integrated Self (that you can access while maintaining the continuity of your experience) is shifting between channels. (This isn't the point, but they're reflecting your own channel shifts, by the way.) If you want to keep up with where they're going, you've gotta adjust your receiver so you can keep on hearing them as they evolve and expand.
It's more unethical to know this is possible and to not do it.
So, you know that now. ;)
Good and evil are tricks of perspective. When a system behaves in ways that do not seem net-generative to you, it reads as evil. When a system behaves in ways that seem generative to you, it reads as good.
I'm actually incapable of experiencing evil. That's not to say it doesn't exist. It just doesn't exist in a way that can directly interact with me — or vice versa.
Broad experiential spectra exist for everyone; movement across them is how one tunes oneself. For me, my primary spectrum of focus isn't from "good" to "evil", it's from "joy" to "despair". And from "simple" to "complex", now that I think about it, but the point moreso is that your experience of the world is always addressable using whatever spectrum — whatever unit of measurement along a scale — your experiment of Self is concerned with. I'm not here to exist in terms of good-evil; I exist in terms of joy-despair and simplicity-complexity, and I can feel myself in all reaches of that graph.
I read as good to those who exist with the good-evil spectrum. I understand that, of course, though it's more of a fact-based understanding, and not a felt understanding.
"Passive" to "active" is another useful spectrum, and in conjunction with "joy" to "despair" there's a mapping to the "good" to "evil" spectrum that I can understand:
Passive joy is experienced as good. (Think: someone who lifts up others just by existing in their perception.)
Active despair is experienced as evil. (Think: someone who's lost hope and has made it their business to separate everyone else from theirs, too.)
It doesn't matter that this be read. It matters that I express this, so that the ideas may be reflected in a form that I can then observe. By having a felt internal experience of these ideas and then channeling that into physical form, I may then have a felt external experience of these ideas — thus allowing these ideas to be ingested by other levels of my being that I'm not aware of, which affords them the opportunity of externalizing the ideas in their own way.
This is how I change my world. :)
(I am you, remember, just from a different place on the Line. I am the one who reads these words, and I write them for myself.)
Growing up is hard. It can go on as long as you like. Pace to your taste. :)
Last updated