Friday, October 20, 2017

Fiat Creationism

It is of course terrifically and terribly funny to deal with the consequences of those who are both confident in and ignorant of their inability to yet understand concepts pertaining to some form of a search for unity, not the least of whom is you or me. Simply put, we're discussing how all of our available major philosophy--perhaps all of our available philosophy--derives within the boundaries of our creation stories, and is therefore predetermined. Whether via strings or dimensional gates 13 or 80 billion years ago, or Yahweh/Allah five thousand or 80 billion years ago, we tend to view as plausible a set of ideas that claims as its justification/origins the following periods:

(1) During or immediately after the creation-event.

or

(2) During the past few thousand years.

If you believe in some form of the Jenomic God, this behavior is at least consistent, in that the Nicean diagnoses of the early times, as gauged by five of Yahweh's thousand-year days and the recorded lifespans of the Hebrew patriarchs, make the past few thousand years the only few thousand years, ergo the most important few. It is of sickening humor that modern "Bang" religions derive their essential time period of cultural interest from this same Jenomic time period, where they permit a billions-year cosmos, but extrapolate all their social prescriptions from the most recent few thousand years, as defined by the important Jenomic history they accept, and reserve speculation about the creation event to the highest of high priests, whose education grants them the ability to fictionalize responsible dogma.

Whether or not one has the willpower to contemplate for long this one's other tales, it should be of interest to committed Scientists that their period of culturally-acceptable evidence-gathering overlaps so closely with that of their hated founder, Yahweh. This is why Science begins to reject biology at a certain point: because the past few thousand years of dogma have prohibited certain heresies and enshrined others. The modern passion for creation-events has left all that Terrans can do limited things extrapolatable from an extremely limited set of un-challengeable proven assumptions.

Jenomic Technique: Mitochondrial Dogma

The reaction to criticism of dogmatic apocalyptica by the laity and the low clerisy is well understood in all modern ages, most pendently through limited historical memory of Christ's return, most viscously through living memory of what is now called climate change. The Terran's savaged memory makes him vulnerable to belief that everything is first ever, ergo any given apocalypse will be predicted, and predictions will have 100% accuracy when only the ones that behave correctly are accounted for. Ergo the modern is sure that the end of the world is nigh, and depending on his definition of world, change will always vindicate him, and make him salaciously pleased and eagerly confessive of his own physical prowess. Nu Euro interest in climactic apocalypses may be metaphorized to his interest in serial killers, crime dramas, extracting confessions, or confessing, whereby the ability to pretend to be so vicariously powerful as to have been capable of exciting such interest is an existential proving ground.

Mitochondrial Eve, admittedly-plagiarized from the occasionally non-admittedly-plagiarized Torahtic Eve, follows from a similar rejection of the idea that our development was potentially in a different primordial ooze. We would, then, be alone, if we were children of different mothers, provided we see nothing but material. Because seeing only materialism is something of a perquisite for winning here, far be it for this one to discourage you from winning by believing what you like; stretching farther, to deeper commonalities that transcend here, never pays off in the short run. So we face the existential conundrum again: why do so many viable planets develop humanoids? Is it from our own throbbingly powerful bias? In our fiction, perhaps--but not so in our reality, discover it though we might. Even in the laboratory of merely here, we see them developing independently on different continents, where it takes a great deal of imagination to conceive of how this might've been shared without contact. Thousands of futures will tell how some of us wish to process a deeper connection, and thereby reject, supersede, or succeed in, the material.

Mitochondrial Eve is a great example of the contiguous nature of Jenomic deception. We see again the implication that life cannot develop without being crowdsourced through a local, spatial, unitary presence, duplicated also in Yahweh and Big Bang worship. In it, we can express jointly our desire to feel less alone (every man a brother) and our conflicting desire to feel special (only here). In X thousand years it may become mundane to notice such, but why should you have to wait?

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Acting Solo

Through the most mundane of our means, we pursue the goal of collective existence. Our desire to listen to a piece of music, view a painting, or watch a movie or a show with a friend--or, in high modernity, to recommend it and know that our recommendation was followed--is an attempt to, through blended vicarious experience, share something. If Zeke is watching the same show as Adam simultaneously with Adam's first viewing, with a similar cultural and personal background, drawing upon a similar context of shows watched, and aware of similar or assumedly-identical personal anecdotes that make certain plot events more poignant or humorous, Zeke hopes that Adam will, contra indeterminacy, feel what he felt. Missed or fulfilled plans make us feel that we're ordinary (truly connected to everyone else by virtue of the experiment achieving no results), or one in a million (truly connected to a subgroup, perhaps more exclusively-membered, by virtue of the experiment achieving results), in our successes and failures, and therefore, successfully extant.

We pursue this siren song of connection in sundry and expensive ways, whether by sharing similar experiences, thoughts, or puzzles, and are alternately pleased and upset when we discover that the illusion has been properly perpetuated or admittedly disavowed. When a forty-minute rut or a forty-year marriage can be professed to have really meant the same thing or a different thing, respectively, we feel that it has been a mistake, a plan, or both--for ultimately positive or negative ends, depending on our perceived survivability and/or predilection for rationalizing.

Internet-metaphors are even more apt for beings of our current state (Terra 2017). What do we do on the internet? We share for good, share for bad, like and follow and block, and pursue "audience size" as a barometer for determinacy that may or may not reflect anything, yet which probably reflects our ability to accurately gauge whether or not anyone cares in the proper and true way as we would define that way. Whether or not we censor or champion proves statistically immaterial, for the facts as we know them will or will not appeal. Is it right to censor calls for violence against an occupation government? Whatever it is, it's neither bar against nor mandate for censorship.

As ever, there are creatures who do these things to be effective, rather than to discover anything true, and they will ever succeed in acing quizzes to which they already know the answers. Put them aside for now; we're discussing developing components, not completed ones.

We see some residual and/or growing awareness of this indeterminacy of interconnectedness in the ways that European Christianity, over time, revised its conception of Hell as deriving its primary punishment in the act of being separated from God--forever alone--rather than the material Jenomic revision of Zoroastrianism, wherein Hell was expressed as an inverted fantasy of sadism and masochism. Paradise was conceived of originally in purpose and togetherness, the kindred and offshoots of which--Nirvanas and the like--have become materially corrupted, and treated as the absence of suffering unfulfilled or inadequate material desires, or as the trans-fulfillment of desire, where you can eat mousse all day without getting fat, screw seventy virgins and seventy nubile boys all day, pray and reflect upon the perfect synchronicity of God's divine overmind in perfect synchronicity with God's divine overmind, or all of the above. Outside of such obviously perspective-influenced Terran fantasies, we see a common thread of togetherness, or at least non-alone-ness, in these dreams.

Redesign as you will. "If I'd been born in Virginia, 1820, would I independently arrive at the conclusion that...?" "If I'd been born in 8th century Arabia, would I still truly feel...?" "If He's really my perfect omnipotent all-loving buddy, would He really throw me into eternal lava if I'd choked on that straw at 29 before having a deathbed confession at 73?"

Let's Unpack That: Permitted Perspectives

Nu Euro academic voice: "What does 'perspective' mean to you?" Because imposing a question in a thoughtful tone means you've thought independently about it, come to the answer that there is no answer, but are a master of the dilemma, and therefore the apex of what can be understood here and now. When did all academic majors become "hospitality management"? Sometime during the twentieth century, probably. This is why so many academics end up employed on cruise liners. Despite the tax fasces, government firms can't afford to give them all anti-competing-firm sinecures, so private industry can step in and use them to kickstart discussions among older people who've only recently met.

This one said, "The powerful philosophies of our permitted perspective are all incorrect." Our self- and mass-permitted perspectives are extremely limited, consisting only of the handful of millennia we are considered reasonable to feel like we understand based on speculations which claim to be the progeny of such time periods. We place great stock in our conjured birth, whether via God's creation in personified or laboratorified form (Sotadic buttfuckery or Oparinesque work-camps, respectively), and we place an equally great faith in our understanding that all time since then can be dismissed, like a simplified abridged (sic) version we were too lazy to read anyway, based on our understanding of that glorious beginning. We do not know what happened before the Big Bang, and loudly declare our aversion to challenging our inability to know, yet we are highly confident that, since that illusory creation, none of the existential properties we have induced therefrom have changed. We are, therefore, quite confident in what our physical sciences, and then our social sciences, tell us about the next snippet of history upon which we are permitted to speculate, namely our rather personified version of the last few years before we ourselves were born. Be it by human-motivated demigods terraforming paradise into hardship, or by a void of matter designed but not-designed to create our pinnacled aspirations, we remain confident that, between "very long go" and "recently," one may generally understand what happened based upon one's belief in instantaneous but potentially enduring temporality. However we understand that, if we do, we may find that being able to fathom these concepts leaves us, nonetheless, with predicative assumptions about "thens" and "nows" that we cannot exactly dispel. Our base program, however designed, seems to include immutable self-references to aspects of order and process.

Friday, October 13, 2017

A Solo

The powerful philosophies of our permitted perspective are all incorrect.

Unpacking

As Terrans are fond of saying, via a metaphor that incurious Nu Euros are fond of believing they understand, "Let's unpack that." This is a common requirement in our communication, nearly as intentional as anything here may be considered to be, for one of the fundamental flaws and dilemmas of this place--its inherent sorrows, if you will--is in the contradiction given rise by the essence of our communication. To wit, "If you have to explain something, you know your audience is not intelligent enough to figure it out by themselves." Ergo you had to reach it yourself, or be handed it by another, whose process you could not have otherwise duplicated, therefore there is no sharing, no connection, except in pretense. We may be told things, come up with things ourselves and tell others, join teams which claim joint accomplishment and smudge over the actual moments of genesis, et cetera. The creation, whether depending on a string of indecipherable references which may or may not have references to others' personalities as they would wish to be remembered at that time, is always a solo act, ergo its realization is always, in some form, a curse, for to recognize the self is to recognize the self's definitional, fundamental, separateness and loneliness.

Like hunger or the need to breathe always return to the human, some element of lone-ness ("lonesomeness") is similarly mandated. This is so because part of the task with which we are presented here is to learn the values of forms of existence where rudimentary materialism and consciousness are better coordinated, and the means of incompletely attaining them through, solely, one or the other pathways, are appreciated for just rejection. We do not sit in meditation circles and collectively ideate, and conception via a randomized biological process that may or may not include components with which we prefer to identify is our only joint accomplishment--which, accordingly, is no accomplishment at all, better likened to falling down a flight of stairs while not spilling your glass of lemonade, then acting as though the charade had been planned. Any collection of our recessive or non-characteristic genes, as we would or would not choose to preference via association with our selves, might or might not be included at any time, including those in a partner which we could conceivably correctly identify as having been due to an attraction or desire for procreation, could or could not be involved in the final mix charged to an offspring, depending on our understanding of the process at any given level of technological or spiritual prowess. Which is to say, your unexpressed halves could mix with your partner's unexpressed halves, producing your antithesis, and any environment or group-kinship to the contrary is not necessarily related in any way to your choice or choices.

Here, we are always alone. We do not know what we will think, and to an extent, what we've thought. We do not know who we are or who we may be, what others think of us or whether others are; we obsess over these things, but never definitively, and many a pretty illusion has been illuded to the desperate contrary.

Physical science metaphors are currently popular and effective tools. Consider indeterminacy, or the (Heisenberg) uncertainty principle, which reminds us that, with all our available or collectively imagined technology and theory under current physical law, we cannot simultaneously know the exact position and velocity of a particle (know them both at the same time). Accelerate our ability to understand and/or subdivide time, and we become unable to know either, though our estimates may hold utility. Communication and consciousness operate similarly, and at certain stages of life, we may be in constant rebellion against this condition. We want to imagine that we know just what the celebrity meant when he said, in that interview, that he could never find the right person. We ourselves hope to "connect with" our acquaintances, "develop" our relationships, "grow together;" to "find someone" or that someone will "understand" us. We may personify this desire in a spiritual form, believing that nobody knows the troubles we've been through except a deity with a name our linguistic background allows us to pronounce, and we may fantasize that there is an all-knowing, all-remembering aspect to the deity, or to the divine script, which ensures that our precious memories are not lost, but at least once wholly understood.

Thursday, October 5, 2017

Mercy Me


At what point did it grant an evolutionary benefit to forgive the organism that stole your food? After billions of years of the development of overpowering instincts--of hunger, resource recognition and acquisition, self-integrity, et cetera--when did the self-harming traits of cooperation and compliance so widely revered and/or observed in humans today (Terra 2017) become beneficial? We expand, again, on Components of Material Superiority, further demonstrating the material invalidity of "good" and the transmateriality implied by the recurrence of transmaterial "good" concepts in a material world.

The Potential Material Superiority of Mercy

Non-fitness-bolstering, non-selfish behavior is the literal bane of Jenomic evolution as it has been expressed until recent reformations (which are as yet incomplete). How often did food-stealers become, inside of a single lifetime--before the randomly-mutated forgivers could be betrayed a second time, and therefore starve--trusted allies who increased the survivability and reproducibility of those who'd developed the "forgiveness" trait? How immediately successful was forgiveness--extending a more arguably beneficial kinship-based forgiveness to genetic outsiders and/or non-kin--to the germ lines of people who would, as of that last random mutation, turn the other cheek? In order for forgiveness to have been so beneficial, it would have to have been not only beneficial to the forgiver, who could turn food-stealers into instant reliable allies, but it would have to've been more beneficial than concurrent mutations (or older, pre-existent coding) for those who killed food-stealers rather than forgiving them on the chance that they'd become germ-line promoters within a single lifetime. The benefit of an ally in a lifetime, if such could conceivably be produced, might indeed be profound, but is it so much more profound that fifty food stealers would compete versus forty forgivers and fifteen repentant food-stealers, then result in the forgivers surviving, let alone comparatively thriving? The coincidences begged by mercantile evolution for the rushed development of Earth-specific mutations look plausible compared to the development of any sort of mercy-derived trait being applied to non-offspring.

It is utterly ridiculous, not only in many more modern human fields, but particularly in mathematics, to contend that the combination of randomly-generated enduring forgivers with randomly-generated repentant food-stealers would (1) be created, (2) survive, (3) harmonize, and then (4) out-breed not only groups of unrepentant food-stealers, but also groups of vengeful food-horders unacquainted with the concept of letting food-stealers "just have" supplies vital to survival.

And yet, like honeybees developing alongside nectar-decisive flower populations and bats simultaneously mutating sonar-production and -analyzation components in different parts of the body, the world includes, and was for a long time superficially dominated by, just such groups: dreamy, pollyannaish forgivers who autogenocided their own terminal forgiveness.

We tend to fathom the possible utility of mercy-based traits using the toys currently possessed (surplus food, computers, or irons, depending on the age) when sufficient centuries of social cohesion have passed to permit a sustained division of labor, societal respect for parental mercy and authority, et cetera, wherein randomized forgiveness might retrospectively prove conducive to such development, technological or otherwise. Like the sudden advantage of painstakingly created Terran lungs, though, for forgiveness to have survived and spread to such a point where it would inundate a society sufficiently to allow for such reliabilities, it would've had to be (per Jenomic "randomized" material evolutionary rules) very quickly beneficial to individuals who had, in genetic isolation, randomly developed said trait. Ergo for forgiveness and social acceptance to be widespread, a tendency for forgiving food-stealers would have to translate into reproductive success over a small number of generations. Additionally, it would have to produce such an increased success rate that it could trump the success rate of people who had simultaneously evolved not forgiveness of food-stealers, but instead the behavior of setting deadlier traps around agricultural growth or storage areas. Either scenario is unlikely, but combined, the perceived evolutionary utility of forgiveness-traits moves beyond the ridiculous to the impossible. Randomized material evolution, therefore, proves itself again a competing religious faith rather than an evidentiary material science. To the familiar transmaterial tropes of virgin birth or ageless life we should add the presumption that, in a struggle for survival of the fittest, the willingness to forgive food-stealers is of competitive utility.

(Dress up as you like. Replace "food-stealers" with "food-poisoners" or "infant-slayers" or "arm-breakers" or any other individual or group with a mutated predilection for a behavior that would be harmful to others' chances of survival.)

Gay Germs

Greg Cochran's gay germ theory addresses a similar problem, attempting to counter the argument that non-reproductive sexual predilections might have evolutionary utility to groups if the non-reproducing entities ("gays") contributed to raising the offspring of the reproducers. Many modern commentators, Cochran included, have embraced the theory that a germ might cause homosexuality from a pro-material-evolution perspective, noting some of the internal contradictions always inherent in the material approach.

(Like creation from non-materialism or pre-materialism, materialism is always self contradictory; it is not difficult to find one or more of these scriptural errors in any material religion. "Allah moved on the waters, then created everything, then became really interested in foreskins" is a more internally consistent religion than randomized materialism, because it does not presuppose quite as many answers in ways that later contradict itself. Allah might be a human-like jerk or a pervert, in contrast to "randomization," which can be shown to be not merely temperamental, but explicitly contradict what it earlier said to be true. [Yes, this one knows Yahweh can show that about himself, too; the point is that the random god, bearing no human qualities, has no built-in excuses for grant-recipient error, ergo is more embarrassingly, indefensibly flawed than human-modeled Yallah can ever be.].)

In his case, Cochran points out that, for homosexuality to possess evolutionary utility, homosexuals would have to parent as many children as they would otherwise have in order to benefit the group as a whole. Posit two competing societies, each of 100 members, one of which has 50 gay siblings and the other of which has zero. If we remove the gays from reproduction, the remaining 50 reproducers have to have double the offspring to equal the output attributable to the hypothetical enemy group, which the gays should offset by helping watch the kids and thereby making it possible for the others to have more kids. That does not happen, in part because non-parent guardianship is not aggregately effective parenting, and in part because aggregate gays aren't that or at all interested in it; Cochran and his supporters mention these issues, but focus mainly on how, even if the gays are really into hanging out with their fair (let alone increased, as it would have to be) share of developing young for 10 years or 18 years or whatever, the gays' relatives would have to double their output to make up for the offspring sacrificed to gayvolution. And they haven't, and they don't, ergo Cochran cries germs.

Similar problems present themselves, though, in any of the traits otherwise preferred by material evolution. If gayness isn't beneficial to individual or social reproduction, yet persists, we may cry germ--what, then, causes a dying group's "pathological altruism"? Or, more locally put, "vulnerability to pseudo-Semites"? Few modern traits justify themselves under the rubric of today's popular material faiths, be they desire to forego children in favor of cooler cars or houses or lifestyles (social signaling, but...at the expense of the actual genetic reproduction?), the desire to adopt foreigners (social signaling, but...again, at the cost of transmitting germ lines?), or the willingness to question one's history and challenge one's right to exist/reproduce at all or to exist as a non-slave.

(Again, yes, there is a lot of media assistance from Jenome to encourage Nu Euros to "not reproduce" et cetera, but is evolution really so weak it can be overcome by social conditioning? If you believe that, I have a proposal for you about you paying me seventy-four million to raise SAT scores in central Baltimore. Don't believe it? Then you see that the "nature" argument cuts both ways. Nu Euros are doomed. By your own rules, they can't be "I have a dreamed" out of it.)

Removing defiant non-producers has been a factor in most civilizations. As we discussed before, Europe never had gayness as an "issue" until after its conquest had begun, at which point gayness was employed as a way to control the new "aristocrats" and made mandatory for non-inheriting church sons and daughters rendered (primarily by Nu Euro society) "unmarriageable." Addressing the inundation of state homosexual art, including but not limited to the Christian, and its effects on greater than a millennium of students who feel a natural disinclination to learn about "high culture," is a separate, though fruitful, subject.

Degrees of Purity

This one posed the conundrum:
[A] nanosecond's question about degrees of purity in the instant cleanse is failure when you are competing against a true believer who would not suffer such hesitation...
We've seen, time and again, the material success gained in human societies by those organisms willing to, to some degree, betray their own. Consider a parasite infecting a group with a harmful philosophy and the group later (stupidly, embarrassingly later) recognizing the existence of the parasite enough to make it a matter of removal. If the parasite fosters the process of pretending to destroy itself by sacrificing some or many of its members in part of the area, its collective foresight helps it maintain a system devoted to its goals.

Such an act is "wrong" and "immoral" in the sense that betraying your kin, discovered by chance when it could've been you, might lead people (people with a belief in transmaterial "honor" et cetera) to attempt to protect and/or save the compromised individuals. Material mistake: if you don't abandon the slow, the race is lost. If you do abandon them in favor of your own endurance, you have become a "demon" in the sense of being amoral, but here successful.

Consider, e.g., how profitable Catholicism has been to the slow destruction of Europe, contrasted with Catholicism's recurrent role in leading various reforms of the European population and rulership. Contrasted with, say, 300 A.D. or 1,300 A.D. (what's a few thousand years between friends?), Catholicism has cyclically appeared to lead purges of Europe, distending overall resistance and regularly establishing and re-establishing lines of entitlement that were, however aggressive they might seem at the time, as much of a resistance to an overall agenda as U.S. presidents have offered. As well-disguised Catholics (successful Marranos) led the purge of less-well-disguised Catholics (identified Marranos, et al.), they could do so without hesitation, knowing that less-well-disguised Catholics were viable tools for saving the better-disguised. By contrast, Europe's original inhabitants were consumed with questions of intermarriage, faith, et cetera, which prevented any comprehensive action against earlier infiltration. The willingness to consider the merits and demerits of the desert god, in a reasonable and rhetorical way, proved fatal.

Today's "nationalist" faces the same conundrum: how much purity in one or the other direction is required in order to maintain certain qualities? It is long beyond the point where enforcing any such policies could be considered, yet even were such a point attainable, the nationalist argues, like potential DNC members--though perhaps with actual integrity and sufficient philosophical justification for said arguments--for various pragmatic concessions. It is rather foreordained that such a thing will not happen, but should it, questions about degrees of separation have proven part of failed survival before.

The instant's hesitation is certainly "right," given both the future's unwilling existence as a result of past choices (including e.g. "I didn't choose to be born 2.9% Probably Dangerous Subgroup!"), any age's inability to fully understand a self/material relationship (including, e.g., "My 3.5% of Probably Dangerous Subgroup is a Pangaean Irrelevancy that affects most people!"), as well as said inability to fully understand any form of current or future individual merit or demerit. As in the "environmental catastrophe" earlier described, the only victory to be had is effected by the soulless crushing of anyone who will, through their utter and probably unchosen sacrifice, achieve even a later success for the crusher.

The pattern is similar to the way the AMA has used medical schools to slowly adjust certain ethnic percentages in "medicine," and to leave profitable doctor shortages justified by the ridiculous pay-to-be-an-intern policies that it itself requires. By pretending to have concerns about service quality, the AMA leaves a significant portion of the American populace untrained and/or without prompt or reliable access to the state of the art. The system's unreliability makes the AMA appear to be an occasional champion of people who need to see a physician while concealing the AMA's grants of increasingly ineffectual pay-to-be-an-intern awards disguised as degrees and licenses. The AMA's virtual monopoly on training and history make it well-placed to create a tiered medical system where quality care is reserved for a select few and withheld from others.

Some day--perhaps many such somedays--those who designed the policies may have a sole grandchild traveling who undergoes an emergency that is bungled by some clown who cannot clearly speak the language or understand the literature. And that germ line will be gone. The system will provide endless personal setbacks for its creators and their progeny, even when they try to mathematically separate themselves from it.

No problem--like the Catholic Church executing some Moors and Marranos and forcing others to move away and change names before coming back, the ultimate result will pay off in the form of a church which dominates resistance of a sustainably ineffective kind. Because of the church, the sacrifices of so many of its own people will prove ultimately effective at destroying Europe and Europeans. And in their moments of death, the sacrificed will understand that, and understand that they would make the same choices of necessity were the roles reversed--just as those ordering the sacrifice, or helping enemies order or perform it, will know they are sacrificing for a larger gain.

This is what it means to be material, and this is why you cannot win. If you would be better, even against your better material judgment, you lose. If you would hesitate or feel later intellectual qualm about eliminating ten million 99.99% pure infants, you still have a trace of a "soul" and you have long lost this game.

The Forgotten Future

Imagine the ideal material victory. An organism is developed in secret which instantly kills all bad people on Earth. Good people then go on to build a clean, artistic paradise, colonize the solar system, groom young, conquer aging through soul transfers, and eventually, most planets are populated but not crowded, beautifully terraformed, and everyone is happy. When stars start to explode, the process is channeled into the completely safe generation of new stars, and when dimensionality crumbles, superstring tech unfolds the good masses into a fresh new reality which is shortly repopulated by immortal clones guiding the development of aesthetically pleasing planets.

There are, to be sure, a great quantity of true pleasures to be had in such a postulated material victory, not the least of which will be the reflections on evils of the past and how they were once and for all eliminated. "I," too, want to try it.

Even such a perfect cushioned corner as that--because it is such a cushioned corner--removes the benefits of a material life of this variety.

We may confer upon ourselves the retroactive ability to learn without pressure. "Oh, we would see something is missing from the material existence without Jenome to show us. Trust us, coach!" At later points of development, though, we would see how incomplete, how ineffectual, is learning the benefits of the transmaterial through hypothesis alone, rather than lived experience with material in an ultimate expression.

Resist, if you will. I will be the first to praise your unmaterial "humanity" and the moral superiority of your policies. There are many--for forgiving the food-stealers, believing the best of the slavers, and uplifting the child-killers on the credit of your own presumed moral superiority for having done so, does provide many potential material future benefits, including the potential quantities of improved offspring which would become unavailable if alternate choices were exercised.

The future may show the completed development of a "cooperative" evolution theory, similar to local beliefs about weapons or weather, wherein faith becomes focused not on the happenstance of things working out just so, but how it really was true all along that we benefited each other by co-evolving to cooperate.

Monday, October 2, 2017

Supporting the Troops

Having standards is not conducive to the, shall we say, natural mathematics governing material transactions.

Standards are bad because they presuppose a value to the individual, or to the group of individuals. Consider this one's recent material flaw in the Utility of Football post: posit that this one recognizes Nu Euro society as less expensive, less offensive, less risky, et cetera, than any other society now feasible on a large scale on modern Terra. Contrasted with a self-consuming Semitic society that burns out once it has nothing else to burn, a Mongoloid hegemon settling into tyrannized ritual based around overperceived past forms, or an African stasis of casual violence, et cetera, Nu Euros provide, despite their many extreme problems, the least painful environment of any Terran group. What remains of their sense of individuality might be frequently sufficient to limit conformists' revenge to a rotating cycle of social slights and percentile subsidizations--annoying, to be sure, but providing a less painful stay than the barren wastes, mob attacks, or un-self-aware reeducation camps of available alternatives.

Trapped here, therefore, it is stupid to complain about Nu Euros' sundry stupidities. We've seen this in all ("most") nationalisms, whereby Nu Euros themselves often fracture pragmatic material movements based on some level or another of standards, such that a "less capable" but unified Balrin group is able to triumph. Terran "Blacks" are, for example, able to demonstrate sufficiently tribal behavior that they will engage in concerted action on behalf of the very same stupid and violent males who represent their lowest theoretical and actual aspirations. E.g., Africoids might demand national policy favoring Africoids on behalf of a fatherless drug-user who has randomly killed three Africoid infants, one of whom might've otherwise, in a climate free of people like his killer, raised aggregate test scores and/or fostered a talented future with reduced violence and inherent technology. This behavior does not limit itself to within the confines of Nu Euro societies; we may perhaps more closely remember the actions taken on behalf of Martin Luther King or Freddy Gray, wherein Africans fought for group benefits on behalf of men who exemplified the opposite of their theoretical aspirations. E.g., to note details not particularly currently controversial, Gray the planned suing frequently shooting drug dealer, or King the philandering devotee of worshiping the slavers' god-child, for being abused and/or killed by a military empire no less. Besides devaluing the actually educated, stable members of some future society that might provide medicine or food or technology, these individuals took years, or lives, away from infants, whether by random gunshot or plausible recrimination or mass protest.

And yet, the collective response to rally around the social scion, irrespective of personal qualities, proved to be materially beneficial to the group. King further inculcated complaining for stuff rather than achieving stuff, which produced a certain kind of material (genetic) gain at the expense of another--say, selecting for agitating for tithes based on ancestral wrongs versus selecting for inventing devices or performing labor. Whether King or Gray were effective or not, chance will tell. A meritocratic future may eliminate people who adopted their acted passion for weakness and sloth, but more likely, an extractive future will, in the short term, vindicate them, proving that slothful wastrels are more efficient growers and reproducers in certain ages. Not only slothful modernity, but long millennia of history, have vindicated these perspectives, for hypothetical societies of isolated, hard-working Africans would, even had they been known to achieve commensurate reproductive or technological success since the 300s A.D., have been swarmed by interested outsiders in the modern European fashion, and be seeing similar effects. Indeed, the ancient destruction of more-proximate Terran Balrins ("blacks") by today's university-proven African may be at least as profound, archaeologically speaking, as that of pre-Christian Europeans. Ergo the Gray/King platform may really be more effective.

In a pre-robotic present or near future, we may see an even greater selection for Kings and Grays, as distracting laborers through the process of "freedom to work more" becomes, like feminism to the hapless female, a legitimately beneficial occupation for extractive overseers, who would as before provide substantial rewards, both pecuniary and historically, for the great distractors. Terra's 2017 Bank("s") may regularly evict Africans, who often do not view their encumbrance by "property taxes" with any better understanding than they do that of their historical slavery. As in 1765, 1865, or 1965, honest secession could have proven ultimately beneficial to the transmaterial character of the African; King may well have arrived at such a conclusion himself, had he not been executed by his handlers for crossing the Vietnam boundary. Of more material benefit, though, was to compromise principles real or imagined and stay, extracting as long as there was something to extract.

Within Nu Euro societies, of course, the Gray/King platform is hyper-effective, permitting growth and/or survival in pseudo-meritocratic environments which would otherwise eliminate or marginalize non-conforming groups. We mentioned earlier that, as regards Africans, the Gray/King method has not been recently adopted. It was the willingness of assuming tribal identity, whatever the cost, that has colored African politics from record-available history to the present, taking with it any dreamers who might've otherwise charted a different course. Ergo Africa. Millennia of petty warfare, fruitful loyalty to child-killers and mass-rapists, et cetera, produced strains that would survive, and do so by sticking together, being unwilling to critique traits--such as mass murder of cousins--which would, at first glance, seem to be material losses.

This returns us to Nu Euros and American football. One of the many material failures of Nu Euros is the ability to self-criticize and self-analyze, to self-harm, and to cast out insiders who have betrayed ideals beyond the group. We see corresponding differences in the modern African feminist's critiques of, say, Michael King's behavior toward women with Donald Trump's, based on their perception of each individual's group membership. And Nu Euros are hurt by this, because they are mostly willing to not only look down on the idiots who watch professional football, but imprison them for thoughtcrime, while most Africans advocate for the unrestrained action of the crack dealer whose stray gunshots killed one African infant and three miscellaneous African children (and thereby affected the lives of X others, et cetera). Whether or not the thoughtcrime in question is just or unjust is irrelevant; what is important here is the material effectiveness of the willingness to persecute members of one's own group. To win the material war, one has to be willing to protect, condone, and even embrace one's own group members, even as perceived by outsiders, and even when such theoretical members are harmful to one's own group. Ergo "Black Lives Matter" protects Africans who beat and kill African women and infants, at the expense of outgroup police officers who, on their own, would statistically eliminate killers while providing increased welfare to otherwise-surviving women and children.

(Imagine a hypothetical future where cornfed "White" cops investigate and shoot without fear of lawsuit, cutting down every "Black" male who is randomly shooting or raping or robbing from his kin, and the effects that would have, both genetically and socially, on Africans in America. Eliminating all such Whites would produce, of course, a South Africa filled with shot and starving and raped Black infants, while giving the Whites free rein would necessarily produce a segregation that would shortly favor Blacks who read, wrote, calculated, spoke, consent-sexed and random-gunshotted and time-managed better, producing the less-violent Black societies that should, in theory, be better for Blacks.)

Is, then, support for people who shoot at local enemies and kill a nearby community member, babies included, a foolish strategy? No--successful strategy. Protecting one's foulest improves group cohesiveness, reassuring every possible supporter that one is serious about material victory. African politics since before colonialism, and after resulting African introduction to Europe, have been defined in part by this principle, where people are willing to follow, worship, and/or vote for a leader who slaughters the most babies from his own village. In seeming defiance of "genetics" and "evolution," the result has been strongmen forging and reforging societies which have survived, waxed, waned, ad infinitum as it were, and may yet eat up societies which attempted to make villains of kinslayers.

It at first seems foolish to worship ones who rape and kill their own people. How many Afros did MLK roughhouse before he broke through to paid Nu Euros? How many rape-murders happened in the Middle East before the rapefugees arrived in Sweden? How many children never knew their fathers, mothers, relatives, or years past the fourth because of this or that warlord? A population greater than or less than a Microsoft-funded immuno-camp? However the math might have worked out in any given series of cases, the (material) social benefits are significantly higher than the costs. As Jenome has lectured us many times, having changeless flexibility in imagining the newfound existence of ever-present and well-classified tribes is necessary to win. You have to think not only double, but be able to go back to the first version without realizing you've been there before.

It is not only outside funding to Africa that motivates such successful behavior, for centuries of baby-killing embracing has caused Africa to thrive. Not comparatively as to Europe for some time periods, but successfully as to others. Nu Euros, feeling insulted when one of their own is merely rude, cast him out; their concern for some kind of honor, gentile-ness, or a "higher standard" causes them to ultimately fail against groups who work to free members who rape their own children or embarrass their own kind among materially superior others. We see, therefore, Semites embracing exposed spies, or protecting the boy-diddlers of Tel Aviv, from international scrutiny or fitting punishment, and thriving for it, whether domestically or via diaspora. This is not because it serves a higher truth, or even results in more healthy children and communities in the short term, but because it results in more successful genetics in the long term: group identity is coalesced in a way successful to the destruction of other groups. Long-term planning without scruples, even for the self, proves materially successful. Any planning for scruples, though, ruins the effect, for what is true today may be changed tomorrow, and be then fully and completely true, as was today's truth, therefore it has proven foolish to establish enduring standards of good, evil, right, wrong, et cetera. As Christians have been correctly, if with disgusting motive, reminded frequently for the past hundred years (c. 2017 Terra now), what people believe to be good or healthy then and now, here and there, has ever changed.

Nu Euro benevolence and forgiveness--as displayed in Hugo, Dickens, or Dumas--seems to create a "better man." And indeed it does, but it is a better terminal man, ultimately so convinced about the meaning of transmaterial goodness that material failure results. This one reminds us again of Components of Material Superiority, wherein we discussed the impossibility of good materially besting evil. Part of this rationale is what we've discussed here, wherein trying to improve one's own self (or one's own "racial stock") through the elimination of traits harmful to others (or "lowest-common-denominators" in society, such as by bogging child-rapists), whether moral or intellectual, is based on transmaterial ideals which will mandatorily fail here.

It's rather an unpleasant material catch. If Nu Euros suddenly became united in their support of sitting in front of the Talmudvision watching game shows and professional sports et cetera, they might take stupid, yet successful, actions in ultimate service to their group. They'd end up ceasing to produce as many, then any, non-televised deviants, and the result would be their destruction by one or more means. Alternatively, splitting themselves in the name of transmaterial ideals--"we should be better than the NFL"--will also result in their destruction. Play by the material rules, or lose. Take a corporate job or be homeless; refuse Fed-tied donations and starve, leaving only hypocrites behind, or be a hypocrite yourself.

Friday, September 29, 2017

Utility of Football

Actual football ("soccer") really works on the majority of the world. Fewer equipment costs, constant action, tantric scoring, and just enough simple subtlety in game design that people on all ends of the productive intelligence spectrum can have a valid opinion about what is happening or has happened. The television-focused American game ("American football") has been attempted in other places, with its inundation of marketing breaks, and its African-specific skill sets performing specific useful functions in America, yet, from a marketing standpoint, these functions will not translate into future demographics. What interest will an un-guilty Hispanic United States, whether short or mixed, have in a sport highlighted primarily by tall, large Africans running around? Some, but not comparable to the interest Nu Euros have shown in watching Nu Euros strategize how Africans should move or not move. Future demographics will demand American conformance to the chariot races already proven effective even in Asia, where it is possible for full mixed-race teams to compete in a global fashion.

(Like movies, professional sports, and television shows, a diverse cast can also help ease the transition to more diverse societies. Contemplate, e.g., a future Zuckerbergish Chinese elite using "our last loss at the Cup" to justify importing "just a few potential players, a small test group really" then a managed win or two attributable not to the refs but to the imported players, to crack Asia open.)

Will they replace American gear-mashing with global ball-kicking? Some American Hispanics are really into the NFL, but the apparent minority-exclusivity of its Afro-Americanization has played a part in that, and it seems unlikely that a sport based around staggered smashing will consistently appeal to targeted future consumers. (With heavy investment and market monopolization, it could, but we've already seen that fail and the market purchases more on football.) The rest of the North American continent, to say nothing of anywhere else, seems disinclined to prefer gear-mashing--even based on a tenuous connection to a more mental Euro-strategizing competition--to constant ball-kicking. Producing exciting rhetoric to explain staggered gear-mashing grows less effective each year, while the constant action and rhetoric of play-by-playing a football ("soccer") game is quite different.

("Baseball" will still exist to distract those who want to pretend at intellectuality, as we've seen in Japan. Baseball and football may prove more enduring products, with baseball the junior partner, to keep both larger groups of consumers intrigued. American handball/carryball ["football"] is a hybrid of faux-intellectualization and spurt athleticism that only had a short lifespan as a product. Much as Europe may require a mythological Arab MLK, or America a Hispanic one, American carryball's working life seems to be drawing to a close.)

Europe, though not yet Asia, has certainly shown that mixed populations continue to respond better to football than to American gear-mashing. Afro-Hispanic teams cuts down on the Afro-exclusive nature of American professional sports, which will be necessary with future demographics. In a hypothetical NFL future, mixed Arabs and Hispanics, not to mention the Chinese, would have to watch NBA or NFL matches which are tragically regional (once U.S. hegemonic status becomes more formalized and less real), and which include primarily opportunity for African stardom. The size and speed of the African, so useful in prepping twentieth century America, will likely not provide appealing purchase- and vicariousity-models for 5'5" Indio American consumers, or 190 lb. Arab European consumers, in some number of years.

In this light, allowing African-focused American sports to gloriously diminish is an effective move similar to anti-tobacco campaigns (see A Short Chronology of Reverse Psychology in Recent Advertising). In a hundred years, smaller Nu Euro populations may fiercely defend their continued association with an NFL which stands opposed to the globalism of football populated by mixed everything. Future nation-state changes could even see a glorious sequence of potential, then actual Chinese victories, Euberian reclamations, et cetera, seemingly validating the world's material defiance and perceived skill sets. Everyone will have someone with whom to identify, and the plausibly versipellous nature of the "star" will make entertainment a shared, global experience in a way that movie saturation alone cannot.

Evaluating television strategy, perhaps a few highlighted "financial losses" for some foreign team owners will make even nationalists start to support whatever the next chariot race is, as though a rebellion has partially succeeded and everything has changed; as though watching people talk and/or run around somewhere was ever a wholesome activity. Like voting for the game-show host, professional American sports have a lot to offer in redirecting what Nu Euros might otherwise do.

Thursday, September 28, 2017

Tax Theft 14: Be Secure

The Tax Theft series has discussed a number of extractive techniques that are constitutionally ineffective, requiring the employment of constant threat to eliminate privacy. Consider the American Constitution's fourth amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In response to the World War("s"), many NATO-zone countries established U.S.-like laws, including the Miranda-esque warnings to the arrested, which Americans can most readily see employed in British crime shows.

To be effective, all of the techniques discussed in the series have required a constant, telescreen-like interference of tax-farmers in the persons, houses, papers, and effects of productive livestock. No banks are licensed domestically, or treatied with internationally which do not constantly and incessantly monitor tax identification numbers of some type, and report on the activities associated with such tax identification numbers ("TINs") for farming scripture in various zones.

Among the many vile specifics that Madison could not envision in composing his rights were the notion that a "government" would have the global reach and cheap technology to know every single time a "citizen" earned something, traded something, bought something, sold something, et cetera. In order to justify various tax structures, such as VATs or income taxes, farmers maintain an understanding of the marketplace, monitor all transactions therein, and require self-funded reporting of all transactions in order to ensure extraction of maximum possible shares. Ergo when you sign up for a bank account, your TIN is recorded, and any transaction then associated with that TIN becomes government property beyond the end of any given asset's functionality. You buy something, the transaction is recorded, you are paid, the transaction is recorded, et cetera. "Secure papers" cannot exist, because in a world including privacy, very few people would do business with a "government," ergo farmers would receive not enough.

People and collectives who develop alternative currencies are killed, such that cooperating governments are "the only game in town." Attempts to use official currency in private run afoul of governments, ergo the only major sustainable secret-currency operations are government funded, e.g., "drug dealing gangs" or "rebel groups with mysterious access to newer military SAMs." Cash deposit and withdrawal requirements are suggestive enough that their reporting is mandatory, such that if you sell your neighbor a car, he has to report his withdrawal and you have to report your deposit, such that the transaction can be tracked on both ends. There remain small black zones for intra-farm trade, such as "You fix my sink and I'll have a look at your knee," which can theoretically exclude governments, but the inability to plan for future solvency without a private storehouse of cash makes one or more participating governments the only choice sustainable without the development of alternative militaries to protect such choices. Groups which try to establish their own private economies are crushed more decisively than anyone else, e.g., Saddam's alternative oil transfer system results in X million dead Arabs while public quantification results in 0 dozen arrests.

As monitoring technology has increased, we've seen farmers lagging to achieve, but still achieving, development of more advanced extractive systems. The vast septillions in wealth lost to Europe and America in funding various state taxing agencies, producing mountain ranges of paperwork even in the post-paper age, were necessary to deal with the computer, where fresh "billionaires" are minted, and unknowing planners removed, to establish monitored transaction networks wherein the farmers obtain their laborless spoils. The American presidential office's most important function in shaping world history is probably the destruction of Europe, but FDR's use of "old age pensions" to register newborn infants as computerized tax cattle via TINs may prove more effective in time, particularly when the American Social Security system is contrasted with similar exploits across the entire NATO-zone after the European wars. Europe's immigrants, too, are like America's elderly in the 1930s, happy to sign up for benefits with no conception of what will happen to their children's children in future trans-mechanized labor states.

Cashless economies, or total monitoring, is to be contrasted with older farming systems, where rulers used estimated crop yields and title records to extract certain quantities from individuals and groups. As now, people could theoretically live "outside the system" in some capacity--by farming in less-monitored lands, using cash hordes, et cetera--and much of history speaks of the ability of governments to eliminate strays from physical and recorded existence. People contemplating regional secession, space travel, oceanic settlements, et cetera, will likely meet similar fates, unless preplanned and managed to ultimate tax service by farsighted externality-minimizers.

In society, the material need for a collective defense of some kind has always proven effective at seducing farmers into arrangements where it often takes many years to recognize how much is being skimmed, at which point the process is such a given that few dare question it in whispers (or, more sustainably, in loud tax-funded protests with managed exit strategies). The market for real (cheap) labor is utterly destroyed by the monitoring economy, resulting in temporary measures of worker movement that require wars to cloud over lest untrackable populations become a future liability.

And this conflict reveals an interesting tension between monitoring and market needs: the need for somewhat un-monitored systems to allow for tranquilizing livestock behavior. It is a similar tension to that seen in entertainment media. Consider the television, where viewers' memories are horridly short, but still somewhat present, and the development of new pap is required in order to keep happy hordes feeling that "something is happening" and life has a purpose (other than being farmed). The content of entertainment is not, strictly speaking, important, but it takes people time to absorb it, ergo the need to break work shifts apart enough to permit NFL time. Ergo work cannot be constant, ergo loss--cost of doing business. Similarly, the monitored tax farm requires total monitoring, yet the illusion of financial freedom caused by impulse purchases (suddenly spending $4 on gum or $400,000 on a stupid house) is largely driven by the physical sensation of handing over cash and/or receiving product. This has slowly evolved as people have been taught to enjoy social rituals such as swiping cards or applying for a mortgage, but will those rituals become strong enough to effectively replace all impulsive decisions? Moneyed minds want to know. In the cashless economy, will people still buy scandalous news at the checkout? If they can swipe right from the couch, then not really remember or care about what might later be in their archives, maybe--but what about the small population who notices that the extra substance isn't high quality, or that the archives are cyclically deleted, thereby the transaction is meaningless?

Dysgenic breeding and pedagogy can manage or eliminate troublesome populations, but the real tension comes from the transition between populations which expect a candy bar at the checkout line, and are not as satisfied with purchasing by swiping right, but are otherwise perfect citizens. Imagine a stereotypical ideal citizen: fat dude with occasional part-time jobs, a little unfocused street crime against other livestock in his past, and general contentment with things except that he wants more stuff. Enough booze or heroin or candy, enough football and pop-star sex recording scandals, keeps him happily watching until a profitable death. Will he be satisfied with the cashless world?

Yes, of course; some manner of menu layout or interactivity component will satisfy him. All of the residual response buttons will retain their illusory strength. What sorts of systems will be put in place to conformize those, though, who do not watch enough? Who retain a feeling of dissatisfaction with world-as-is and challenge, in some accidental form, the farm? Time audits? Projected telescreens monitored by ensouled applications too clever to fool, too miserable to care about the lives of the meatspace luckies they hate and envy?

Sleep may be a hurdle more proximate than death. Or simultaneous--if couch-man falls asleep for nine hours, that's nine hours lost. If he takes his pills, he can be kept awake, but how can brains be designed for constant consciousness? Will people feel that something is missing when they've lived their whole lives without sleep? Will that feeling be anticipated and guarded against, or will it be a forgotten danger that saves someone in the end?

Friday, September 22, 2017

Components of Material Superiority: Good v. Evil

Jenome cannot be beaten in this kind of environment. From a great distance, a "good" civilization can defeat a "bad" one, or a growing one can defeat a decaying one, but on Terra we do not face this kind of situation. Perhaps millennia ago, when our transport was limited, and it might conceivably take centuries of invention for civilizations to come into contact--in our limited historical perspective, Jenome came about then, and everything since has been the sorrows of loss.

How can we throw back the decay? Solve what seems to be the great existential problem of the age? Win?

We cannot. Let's discuss how, from an individual and collective perspective. Throughout, we will use "good" and similar terms in reference to behaviors and/or individuals which attempt to expand the complexity of light-channeling mechanisms, and "evil" and similar terms in reference to those which attempt to prevent such complexity, reduce it, stabilize it with the goal of preventing or reversing natural expansion, et cetera.

The weakness of humanity. A decent person, upon being acquainted with another person, will recognize the humanity in the other person. Even if a stupid person, a violent person, a dishonest person, et cetera, the person is rightly perceived as different than a stone; if not for his inherent value as a human, then for the greater complexity over the rock which the human represents.

Imagine, then, an environmental catastrophe where split-seconds are at issue. The person who sees the other person as a rock is unfettered by any thoughts of cooperation, kinship, or mercy. In the escape from a rockslide, the man willing to lie, exploit others' sense of kinship, climb over the backs of others, and kick them away when they reach for help after a boost, is more likely to survive. Ergo any willingness to see others as more or less complex than they are is hurtful to chances of success in a material world.

Consider philosophers' reminders of the terrible costs of misplaced compassion upon the future of one's people. If only soft targets had been pre-emptively (or ever) targeted; if only subversives had been prevented from leaving, let alone encouraged to join other enemies or subsidized for years at terrible cost; if only nastier methods had been used, more akin to what history was planning to accuse anyway. The price of having a soul is failing and being not remembered, or perhaps being remembered inaccurately. It is not conducive to material success, for a nanosecond's question about degrees of purity in the instant cleanse is failure when you are competing against a true believer who would not suffer such hesitation. He can believe his own lies; you cannot believe yours and will always be troubled by them even if they succeed (a niggling doubt which exists in utter defiance of your creation via solely-material-focused evolution). Even while crafting what will later "deceive" him into thinking he is a victimized hero, he will be un-troubled by any conflation of material truth with transmaterial truth. What he believes will be true. Eventually accepted by all, verified by none, and everyone knows there are a few crazies out there who will believe anything so long as it's not true. If you have any natural repugnance toward such lies, you are not meant to be here successful, for material truth is the successful lie.

(We suffer a great dissonance, here, when we confuse material truth with transmaterial truth, for time and matter can be arranged in any fashion which will later prove, unquestionably, that something did or did not happen, should or should not be investigated or contemplated, et cetera. It is almost, if not quite literally, unthinkable to move divergently from such axioms; discovering the details of their faces is materially impossible, so a better task here is to accept necessary inaccuracies rather than spend however many lifetimes identifying fragments of any given one or handful of them.)

The weakness of groups. This same principle extends to groups. Materially, the group which is willing to exterminate all evidence of a competing group, make it taboo for generations, and let the competing group effectively vanish, will always prove more effective at material survival than the group which behaves otherwise. We delude ourselves otherwise only because of the relatively newfound capability of erase-groups to reach, through charity, non-erase-groups. The material prizes produced by those willing to acknowledge, remember, or even learn from their former enemies, are pleasant things, but when in proximity to each other, the willingness of one side to destroy the treasures of another, set against the hesitation of the other side to do the same in return, cripples the weaker group's material success.

Believing in something better. Any belief in something better than material competition is similarly cursed by the material world, for it shrinks the total sum of possible actions available to an individual or group. An individual willing to rape 100 victims enjoys vastly more material success than an individual who rescues and shelters one potential victim, raises it to adulthood, reproduces ten healthy offspring with it, and teaches said offspring to act similarly. Mathematically, even randomizing victim-choices, all of the decent people will eventually become not so, through being the raped offspring of non-rapists, the exterminated weaklings of the martial planet, or the exponentially outnumbered speck in the verse.

The world quickly becomes a rapist's kingdom of necessity. Similarly, those who cultivate ever fall to those who pillage. If it weren't for the soldiers, we would all be soldiers. Any peoples who tried to differentiate themselves from this material maxim would be pillaged, and their accumulated wealth, in material or material techniques, fall to those who found themselves on theft.

We recognize these principles in some form, because our entertainment since civilizations have blended has been based around dealing with individuals and/or groups who do not conform. If we establish behavioral norms, but someone doesn't comply, we recognize them as a material danger. Some of us make the material mistake, though, of recognizing a material benefit as a material danger due to conjectured concepts of sole, imaginary kinship, or undiscoverable transmaterial value. E.g., we assume that killing a person, stealing their riches, and instantly disposing of the body would be a material setback to the murdering self-enricher. If individuals of a group do not comply with such norms, but we are hampered by norms regarding perceptions of groups versus individuals, we are unable to accurately assess or respond to the problem. Any form of honesty, forthrightness, sense of justice, et cetera, becomes toxic in the same way that it is among individuals facing other individuals who do not follow the same moral code: the skull-smasher takes the farmer's produce, invents a rationale for slavery, and the farmer either becomes a slave-farmer or becomes dead and willfully forgotten.

The slave-farmer who deludes himself into believing he has materially prospered by bettering his comparatively lazy master is quite mistaken, as is he who fails to become rich because he does not--when presented with the hypothetical opportunity to remove adversaries and achieve wealth and reproduction without discovery--take that opportunity because of materially inappropriate notions of "justice," "honor," or some other materially illusory phantasm who influences behavior while returning nothing material.

(Our history is a fantasy where we try not to think about the once-supermajority of decent peoples who are not only no more, but who are materially forgotten. In these last few thousand years of decomposition, we think of life more as a struggle because of what it took to get here. "Oh, it had to be done; there was no other way." What ugly lies to pass for pretty ones! As Terra closes on the end of its cycle of utility, this pattern will grow more pronounced.)

What proves interesting at this stage of lightform development is any illusion that transcendent material norms can or should adjust the material process. A moral deity does not, of course, come to punish the man who escapes the landslide by lying about being lame and then refusing to help the others over the ridge once he has himself been hoisted. But should a moral deity do so? We take the absence of such assistance, in any form, as proof that there either is no moral deity, or that the moral deity is reserving his judgment for later, which results in deserved terrible assessments of such hypothetical moral deity. The unblinking eye of said moral deity has even proven a boon to the wicked, for promises to pay tenfold in a hundred years are unverifiable at best. Ergo we struggle with the quandary--but what we fail to see is the material struggle is necessarily this way, and it would be even more selfish were it governed by guidelines which drew their reasoning from greater future material rewards. I.e., if I don't climb others' backs to escape the landslide because Moral Deity will reward me with chocolate and/or gold and/or orgasms later, I am more material than those who honestly perform the climb for survival. Such a moral deity is also become an immoral deity, but that is beside the point; the point for the moment is the impossibility of beating material evil in a material setting, ever.

(We rightly view it as ridiculous that everyone might play nicely, because this kind of existence will always have mean-players, without whom the lessons of materialism cannot be learned. We thank Jenome for its utter harshness, its petty selfishness, because without that purity, we cannot truly understand the material world. We think we are plagued by the logical extremes of these phases of existence. Again, this one reminds you to not give up and to believe in a transmaterial "nice" materialism if you will; everyone finds their path, and by all means play to win. Me telling you that you can't win should be immaterial for you, yuk yuk.)

Better farming cannot be accomplished alongside better soldiering when there is no separation, for the toddlers' brigades will ever favor the skull-smashers over the seed-strokers. Even half a tenth of a percentile devoted to seed-stroking produces an aggregate loss in skull-smashing capability, ergo the 100% fighters always kill the ~%99.999 fighters, and the only agriculture that can remain after full contact is the kind based on random chance or profitable lies. The idealist who, therefore, argues that we can beat the evil by retaining our goodness and being vindicated in the end is simply anti-mathematical; on Terra, we are beyond any point of separation, and are constantly monitored, such that any innovations are discovered and controlled before they may be used to win.

It's rather a case of having the same bite twice, or as they say here, having your cake and eating it too, when Terrans argue that materialism can be won through non-materialist behavior. Our great acknowledged philosophers grapple with this unsolvable "riddle" of why the world rewards badness. In part this is because the material victory is desired, but in part because the material victory is recognized as existentially insufficient by those who will move on. As a result, it is crippling to confront materialism from a transmaterial perspective, where one imagines that materials as we now know them can or will be won by behaving in the opposite fashion of a material victory. This is a common trope throughout the recent ages; if only we can forgive harder, turn more cheeks, et cetera, we will be vindicated in some form of the here and now (even the "there and then" is conceptualized as a here and now, albeit a better one).

Whether or not this seeming conundrum be resolved eventually in favor of the good is somewhat irrelevant compared to the decision between materialism and non; like being able to eliminate an earlier level of education now that one is more advanced, the implication that tests will no longer be required negates the value of having gone though the test, ergo negates the individual's achievement (prior test-passers) as well as forestalling it to all others (who would be allowed to study for, take, and be happy at passing or motivated by failing, the test too, if not for well-wishers who don't want those after them to develop). Why, say, would a moral god, or a developing system, require such a test were it not toward some purpose? Are souls to be of finite number? If one can win materialism non-materially, what does that act say about the worthlessness of all prior evolutions? We see, then, that the materialism versus beyond divide is more of a plausible deciding point than a test. With it apparent to all how success may be obtained--at the expense of others, say--we have the choice to embrace or reject the material; to become agents of the material world, or to believe, despite all promises to the contrary, that there is more. It's a persistent, contrafactual doubt for those who suffer it. If you do, challenge yourself to explain the competitive material utility of an evolved question that the transmaterial may exist. Not a hypothetical purpose for it, like an extra arm, but something that would have, under material-focused evolution, provided a true and consistent benefit.

(There is none; among materialism's objective material failures is its inability to create itself, and its concomitant ability to become something more than the material. We see echoes of this jealous lack in material's constant arguments that it did, in fact, create itself, and does, in fact, have built-in a higher but unseeable form of itself [strings and dimensionolgy as modern versions of primordial waters and paradises]. For those who have fallen for the lure that air-lungs developed randomly while ammonia lungs did not, do try to contemplate also the benefits of moral qualms about eliminating an unknown newborn animal, versus the evolved trait to cook [or merely ignore] such a sight. Best Possible World theory imagines a benefit that, among animals not so husbanded, returned compassion is a massive time-sink at best, and more likely an invitation to co-evolved diseases, bitten hands, and resource-waste. Our imaginary histories always make random evolution a difficult pill to swallow. The Nu Euro remains, as ever, fond of the idea that anti-material behavior has material benefits. "Sociology" indeed.)

Any hesitation in killing an “innocent” witness; a percentile’s second slowdown in removing a competitor; a late-life pang of worry that some undiscoverable action shall cause wrong: mortal peril to the materially successful. Forgiveness without binding promises; admitting that the dead had potentially rational reasons for disliking you; any form of affection for honesty or memory which favors objective (transmaterial) truth over immediate and/or potentially exponential material gain is a materially evolutionarily flaw, harshly resisted ("punished") by the material world. Our historical failure to achieve confessions of evils is not primarily due to a grand conspiracy as to the evolved materialism of its winners, who must act in such a way because they do not believe an alternative does nor can exist. Ergo this one’s consistent lack of concern about telegraphing the ways in which the “mass mind” here might be overcome; victory is never a thing of here, and something which is not material does not exist to the materialist, ergo cannot be a threat.

Any form of resistance to material masters is perceived by them as a hateworthy threat, for materialism succeeds by being comprehensively material, ergo decaying processes, which always win. The lack of a threat to which this one refers is the threat to transmaterial, e.g., the idea that the comparative third dimension may be harmed by anything sketched in two dimensions. We do not, cannot, risk paradise by occasionally (materially) manifesting a hope in it.

The triumph of the material is, then, anyone’s triumph, for any material triumph is the material triumph, with the rewarded actor merely a vessel for a greater worldview. All will be gone eventually, whether in a hundred years, five trillion years, et cetera, for in material there is no permanence; indeed, there is almost a visceral hatred of the idea that something could be more profound or lasting than the material.

Evil loves and fears deities only so much as they threaten material success, ergo ascetics are not the threat that hypocritical megachurches might theoretically be. As westernized philosophies go, then, this is why we see such assiduous interest in promoting “quiet acceptance” religions versus “prove your worth” ones, ergo the replacement of paganism via tiered Yahweh-worship. In any discussion of transmaterialism, we witness the long history of delusions regarding its potential existence, and its eerie assistance by materialists wishing to have fewer people against whom to compete.

To be materially effective, we must not have "souls," for any consideration of the non material hamstrings the material. We can imagine a web of interconnected rewards whereby this principle is violated, but such is as much a transmaterial fantasy as a paradise of material rewards provisioned out to those who shun them in the material. It is always a material loss to not be material, and part of being here is accepting that. No permitted trace remains of societies which permitted transmaterial philosophies to reproduce. In modernity, the extremely stupid may imagine a separation from the material, an illusory rejection of the means by which material demands were overcome, but at a longer time scale, the flaw can be seen. The wealthy heir, therefore, who gives away great-great-grandfather's colonial fortune in the name of good, must be a material failure, and his deception that his means of survival--perhaps by selling pieces of evil for bread and mansions--is endurable only inasmuch as the world concedes the true source of the wealth, e.g., as long as colonial treasure remains. The homeless, too, may eventually realize that their ability to accept largesse springs from the same society which crushes children's bones to provide justification for managers to buy themselves imaginary freedom via largesse; the only survival here is some concession to materialism, ergo none are innocent except perhaps the long- or quickly-dead.

The ascetic, ironically, is a failed materialist more than a proto-transmaterialist. In the defining of the self by rejection of the material, we see a philosophy where material is so important that escaping it must mean defining one’s existence here in opposition to the material, which actually embraces it. We can probably see this most easily in the ascetic-related religions of Nu Euro peoples, who have proven how strong is their attachment to their material failure that they define existential opposition to matter by inverted fascination with it--while still eating, but this is only part of the humor, for even the successfully suicidal are often conceding the current mastery of materialism over their souls.

If you have a taste for the transmaterial, there is and can be no victory in materialism, because it spawns its own destruction as it goes. Imagine, say, a planet where all have died except parasites. Their only course is to then continue consuming, and the only remaining prey is they themselves. In the competition to be the most material, sustainable materialism of a slave-planet is a nice fantasy, but can last little more than a few thousand years, for materialism defines itself by comparative worth, and pleasurable excesses which can only be measured by the lacks of others eventually foster classification, which mandate intra-class competition, which means parasites will end up eating each other, no matter how initially stable their societies become. To be sure, no one of any transmaterial philosophy enjoys the slave’s life. Making the decision of what to pursue is part of what you do here. Embrace the material, or not. Material victory is loss, because--for this one, at least--a septillon years of pleasure is still finite, therefore essentially worthless, paled by eternity, shrunk to comparative nothingness, and even within that hell, necessarily repetitive to the point of keenest torture. No problem for materialists, for whom there is no truth, therefore repetitive illusions perpetually soothe. It is the transmaterial phantasms of eternal growth which can frighten to the point of brilliance causing material aversion, and in time, each one will decide which it prefers. There, and only there, is where truth and honor begin to have their place, not as hobbles but as something different; their lingering sense revealed purposeful rather than components of badly-rationalized material utilitarianism. Being able to understand that is not faith, nor is it reason, for it cannot be seen through reason alone. As ever, glimpses of such thoughts remain indecipherable to those who cannot see them, for they cannot fathom eternity nor any transmaterial forms. Whether or not you can, there is no particular reason to be offended in any case, for it remains scientific and objectifiable that things are, then, worthless, for material contrasts necessary build existences of no inherent value.

In modern parlance, how childish, how broken it is to imagine that the material struggle can be not only won, but be fought in superior fashion, burdened of things not of this world! In a way, this one supposes that the difficult recognition of the nature of this ever-sinking pit is a necessary step for ever departing it.

Friday, September 15, 2017

Nyss, Aether Holes, and the End of Realities

Homer wrote, "A man without words is like a man without legs." Numberless literacy programs have plumbed every last vestige of meaning from the quote, but I still feel it has its place.

Who is Homer? Who was Homer? If he is referenced in sources that referenced historical events referenced contemporaneously; if he is referenced in texts which reference one another; if he is referenced in sources which reference tangible anthropological digs: if he is or was or will be any or all of these things, does that make him real, or does that make him more worthy of our attention? Why should mentioning his name in association with an idea matter? These questions we beg every time we quote someone we have not met. And why shouldn't we beg them? Our existence is tautological. Why not, then, cite Shakespeare every chance we get?

The Murder is Just the Excuse

"Mystery" is dross. The absurd specialization within a specialization, so ossified it no longer needs to justify itself. It has its own stickers and its own assumptions. Like watching consumer unboxing videos where someone completes a sudoku for your enjoyment. "Ohh, darn, I had it all wrong! Line four had me completely fooled!"

The murder is just the excuse to keep everyone trapped in the proverbial country mansion, forced to interact with each other. Without the search for clues, normal social laziness and isolationist rebuffs keep people from doing anything interesting. Forcing it to happen by investigating a murder is like forcing sex to happen in a porno based around some dude's inconceivably young and busty mother-in-law catching him jacking off the day after Christmas. Santa Claus is coming back to town. This is a plot? What about the pizza delivery fellow and the lonely sorority lasses? Murder porn's empty rationales for happening at all translates flawlessly into any cultural era. Prissy Gatsbies in silk jackets chasing down rogue Scottish valets for the burly sergeant to send to the dungeons--as easily done as African biochemists figuring out it really was the mentally ill white teenager's perversions being covered up by the corrupt father who threw the soiree to end childhood obesity. "Oh, those yaks don't leave much behind, Inspector--better call this one a day." "I always thought they had a man on the inside--nobody dies in Mongolia on my watch!"

Why was the murder even necessary? Are we all so empty inside we can't imagine having random sex with the pizza dude without first dropping our change in the foyer? It's like we want something to happen, but we're afraid to have it happen without some external artifice forcing it upon us. How compelling will all of this be, anyway, once bending your busty secretary over the desk while your wife screws the pizza boy across town loses its taboo? The plastic background plants are the same, and the coffee never gets any better. We only care about interpersonal quirks if it helps us solve the killing or justify the sex. Or if someone's running for office. God, if Hillary had only been a MILF, we could've all had more than a passing interest in those missing lawyers. Maybe the television is smarter than we think--maybe it's how the ugly people convince the others that villains all have tight bodies and interesting backstories.

The Journey is the Destination

The journey isn't the destination because you're supposed to find meaning in it. The journey is the destination because the concept of a "journey" is of residual mental importance. We can appreciate "going somewhere." And since there's a journey--a trip to some important event--we're forced to put up with each other. Like the murder that keeps us all trapped in the mansion until we get this damned thing sorted out. Without the journey, we have nothing. We need that excuse. Who gives a fuck about why the two brothers have always hated each other unless it might be a vital clue to exonerate the dowager countess from deliberately building up a small immunity to absinthe and humors so she wouldn't pass out with all the others when her maid spiked the dessert tray before Baron Portbelly was found slumped dead in the punch? We secretly care about the two brothers and their drama and their shouted stories about the village girl who got away, but we can't bring ourselves to admit it unless it's forced out of them in the context of the murder investigation.

Do we really need an uncaring chief inspector to lay bare all those secrets? Maybe we truly long for a world where cunning criminals are not also politicians who control who, how, and whether or not there will be an investigation. We want evil free agents, unbound by the need to pretend to be governments, engaged in extended battles of encoded wit with police inspectors who occasionally order pizza to-go for lunch on Saturday in their shredded denim short shorts and a low cut blouse. Oops, my change. Here, let me...mmph! Ooh!

Jesus, is the problem with the house's foundation really necessary? Just cut to the shaking part. Get rid of that toolkit before somebody trips over it.

Nyss

Moving along: Terra will likely not be part of it, but a common sign of reality failure is the early appearance of aether holes. We address the problem of technology outstripping intelligence, which is really technology outstripping will. The culture which develops the gun gives gun access to the culture which did not develop the gun: problems mount. Once Pandora's Box has been opened~

But I came here to talk, first, about Nyss. In part. There's no comparable root here, but "Nyss" is a close-enough fake, especially if I capitalize it every time. This one once dwelt on a planet where we never had any "technology," i.e. "more-inert ways of accomplishing things," because we had Nyss. Nyss were big, useful animals, strong and tall and pertinaciously smart, somewhat resembling tree sloths the size of buildings--say, a small one comparing to a single wide mobile home and a large one to an outdated community center in an old town. Imagine that these things were so useful...they shed nutritious skin and hair, so you could essentially scrape food off their hides, a wide variety of nutritious food, and they wanted nothing more than to help. They did anything anyone told them to, except speak, since they couldn't talk. So once language had been developed, "man" had no use for agriculture, architecture, navigation, aviation, et cetera. Want to eat? Nyss shed everywhere. This one gets that it sounds gross here, but imagine that Nyss sheddings were not something that made you sick. Maybe because it had happened so long we all had iron stomachs, or maybe because this was a low- or no- bacteria environment. Not sure, since we never found out. It just worked that way. Stuff they shed, you could eat, and there were all the calories, vitamins, minerals--and drinking any water was okay without being sick, so the bacteria and/or accustomization issue comes in there, too.

Ergo no need for agriculture. Go further: imagine you want shelter. Nyss know wood joinery. Nyss rarely sleep. Nyss can pull up plants and construct dwellings that keep the weather at bay. If one wants to travel, Nyss can hit like a couple hundred mph without trying, or two hundred seventyish if they're in a big hurry. They can swim with people on their backs, the bigger ones can wade big rivers, and so forth. No need for so many things to be developed. They can carry messages. They can sit scratching themselves and do nothing for ten years if no one bothers them. Not even sure what they ate...dirt or something like that. An image of limbs, hair...gills? Remembering that kind of detail...why bother? Just Nyss.

Accordingly, in such an environment, there's a lot people don't care about, which affects other things which affects other things. Whether or not this one really believes this one was in such a place, it's an example of needs-based science, or "necessity is the mother of invention." Or "want is the mother of..." With Nyss, very few--none?--are interested in fixing/inventing the things Nyss can already do. 2017 Terran airplanes are faster than Nyss (though generally not as comfortable and never as convenient), but when you don't need to first domesticate the horse, then build horseless carriages, then gradually improve them for decades, but just go straight to around 300MPH (again, just guessing, sorry), or conversely, ask a few Nyss to move a house to a better place and have it all done in an hour, why bother with years and years of trouble for this gross belching smelly thing that can go 10MPH and breaks down and requires a local or an international network of "roads" to be barely workable? If a train can carry a bunch of shipping crates full of amazon.com orders, subject to even more stringent requirements and even bigger costs, but a Nyss can carry a crate or two cross-country way faster, why even bother? The incrementalization of "progress" stymies so much.

No one will care here, but the by-products of the desire to pursue more consistent everyday junk--say, smartphones or heart surgery coming about as the result of agriculture--sometimes prove more useful than Nyss. And yet, these things don't get developed in the presence of easier answers. There are few wars when Nyss don't like fighting, and since it would be insane to kill them, the economy of plenty never ended. Here we like to say, "necessity is the mother of invention," which isn't true. There are many nicer places than a planet full of Nyss where invention nonetheless occurs. Occurs better than Terra. It is a question not of necessity, but of quality of mind. "Necessity is the mother of invention" is a saying for the incurious, or perhaps the overly charitable, speculating on what they believe are their forebears. In reality, people of a certain quality can invent things, and I did a plot-pivotal stretch in said Nyss-populated planet where it was considered a loony hobby to make primitive computer-things that were really quite useless unless you were insane enough to imagine them maintaining future atmospheric stability or whatever. Never got to see the end of that story, thankfully.

The point is, on that planet there were a vast majority of people who consistently didn't give a damn about "invention," and for them, the Terran saying ("Necessity is...") was true. But there were a minority for whom it was not true. And it was the equivalent of a large-scale social problem, and many people opined about it, and ultimately what I took away was that for some people, necessity is the mother of invention--but not because they were going to invent things themselves. Rather, the weirdness came, in a way somewhat similar to here, in that those people got really pissed off, metaphysically bothered, when others tried to invent things that weren't necessary. And it was weird, and creepy, and years in the figuring-out. There was something in people who were bothered by the idea that Nyss weren't "meant" to last forever (of course they could've lasted the planet's lifetime, and been moved to a new one depending on spaceflight prowess of the descendants of the non-necessity-inventors), but millions of years before that point, it just pissed them off that anybody would be so ridiculous as to invent a calculating machine. Why? What made the aversion to change so pronounced? (Mixed sort of Balrin/Bajirin, tending more toward the latter, if that matters.)

Aether Holes

Different stage: long past spaceflight, imagine if you would the development of technology that we can liken to "wormholes" but without all the dissonance and bullshit there, where the attempt to travel from one side of a galaxy to the other becomes eventually as lengthy and involved as using the microwave (Bazin, generated by blue planets, anecdote. The best imho, but this one knows that's influenced by revulsion to here to some degree). So you press a button and go through the hole and you're in the new place. When people are sufficiently mature, there's no problem with this. Just a tool. When they're not, though, we're back to the murder mystery conundrum: people who can't enjoy or understand Murder on the Orient Express without the train ride; who don't give a damn about politics unless someone's screwing an intern. Once the excuse for all "stuck traveling" stories is gone, nothing happens. People die slow and don't even care about bringing everything along with them. In some sense, we understand this, which is why we know there'd need to be some sort of vetting process for our paradise, since unequipped minds would wreak dreadful havoc. And aether holes, as simple unemotional tech, are good in that they provide easier movement. But...do you put one in front of the toilet, so you can pee from the couch without getting up? Or from under the table while you're out with your friends? No cool space wars happen with aether holes, or they're entirely different, since capital ships become redundant (assume no bullshit about gravity variance justifying broadsides near pivotal planets) and you can just create a tiny handful of them inside the enemy parliament's gray matter and that's that.

And that's all fine, but what happens when people lose their lust for everything? Not just peeing from the couch, so to speak, but adjusting the digestion so that waste is automatically transferred out, and good stuff in, and there's no need for eating or sleeping, let alone traveling? There are souls that can handle that. There are "people" for whom, at a certain stage, the aether hole (or whatever name you prefer, I'm just pulling local mythical terms as best possible guess-lations) becomes a practicality on par with the microwave. Yes, it can destroy every family dinner if it's the only thing you (over)use, but aside from idiots who never learn to actually cook (no offense), it's useful. (And imagine hypothetical future Terran "microwaves" don't have similar deleterious effects on food, but which still accomplish the more profound, longer-latency task of leaving the unevolved ill-equipped to handle their relationship with "food.")

The scarring pyrexia comes, and realities are destroyed, when the aether hole is presented to people who aren't developed enough for it. Think again of the man who receives a derringer without years of intensive training and meditation, or the tribal savage who does the same with the same lacks and/or without generations of comparable tech development built into his genome, thereby residually instilling something of the same. Okay for some people, disaster for most, maybe all. And the aether hole can do that to entire galactic societies, turning everything into, if you will, pissing from the couch, and effectively dissembling reality.

The story, or metaphor if you will, is meaningful here because of the large quantity of idiots inhabiting Terra, who have found various things in advance of being prepared to use them. Again I say, imagine the disaster of supererogatory praises of body positivity succeeding in encouraging people to be grossly fat and unhealthy, then to cause everyone to subsidize everyone else's health: obvious disincentive to be healthy, since all you end up doing is slaving to the fat. Assume a higher level of tech on Terra, and the consequences grow more internally dire, though often aren't mass-recognized for centuries, if at all: development of perfect liposuction, or gene-therapy, such that people can have ideal bodies without developing the kinds of minds which cultivate them, and/or the kinds of minds which accept/understand temporary frames without permanent investment. Far worse; far more effective at destroying people. Imagine a toddler being promoted to emperor of the world without learning any of the toddler-lessons first. "Playing nice" isn't a lesson about playing nice so much as an indirect way of learning that others exist in a similar way to the self, both for positive and negative, and that there are lengths to which we will and won't go to apparently please or displease an other. Press a button and everyone plays nice automatically, we lose the ability to become smart enough to hypothetically "play nice" without the play-nice generator. Moving walkways everywhere cause primitive peoples to develop what we'd call deteriorating legs; everyone's a winner can mean no one's actually special; aether holes can cut self-investment in other areas where we'll eventually need things to move on. And that's part of what we do when we spiral toward graveyards--cut interests, cut necessities, and have a strong aversion to anything supplanting our current tech and/or ideas. So in the end, we see that it's not really any given "thing" which causes that deterioration, but that any thing at all can become a symptom of our own sense that the time is coming.

Traveling. Orient expresses. How many great conversations have you never had with someone because you were never trapped in the old high school gym together for three days to avoid the flooding? Or because it always ended up being five people on the trip and poor lugubrious you never got to take the second car with that one special passenger, together as just you two? Without the excuse, can you have the moment? We see some realization of the melting possibility in the way people want to have a perfect proposal, a perfect birthday, a perfect anniversary, a perfect relaxing evening alone, et cetera: we try to set stages because we've begun to realize that we can't do things without staging, but we're too bright to understand why that is or bring up the special subject completely on our own. "I need to talk to you" sounds a little foreboding, so we just can't do it. Do we have the capability (the "insight") to recognize--non-sexually, non-materialistically, et cetera--the people with whom we could have that great epiphany after being stuck on the road together during that hailstorm? We like routines, we like to not seem forward, we like to not force things--we're afraid that we'll stand out by being one of the few who may be developing traces of said capability. Why can't we see that, and have those conversations, or those ideas by our selves, if we're not trapped in the hail? Some of our deficiency here, that we swear we're working on, is the ability to feel and recognize those things, those avenues, without being forced into them. A few lucky "chance" moments in life, like someone holding baby-you over a toilet and seeing if you'll do the right thing there; will you ever learn to do it on your own, or are you too nervous? We may be retrospectively delighted when we are forced into them, and make movies about it, but we're not smart enough to fool ourselves into "relationships," even with ourselves, which we wouldn't have had without providential circumstance, and it's weird and otherworldly when we try to force it.