Theory: Unconsciousness and the Shadow-Network

I began explaining this theory at the end of my notes about the Lost dream. I felt it was too generic and important to be a footnote, so I've moved it to it's own post.  I almost explained it there because, in the case of that dream, I felt it necessary to attempt to "align" the dream reality I was living in to that of the one I reside in now - that is - to reunite this kindred feeling I had in discovering "Andi" behind the counter who was completely unaware of me with the memories and bond we shared in the other life.

I have a theory (completely unfounded of course other than gut-feeling and educated supposition from the works of other men whose intellects on these subjects far surpasses what I could hope to achieve) -  that when we dream, our unconscious "checks out" of the current body and is somehow allowed to pass in the shadow, like a sort of internet comprised of all the unconsciousness of all its inhabitants, into other locations.

I use the term locations very loosely. I believe that the construct that the unconscious operates in has very little restrictions by way of traditional bounds of reality:

• I believe that it has no time concept, in that we can visit aspects of our past and future events seamlessly, or even combine multiple aspects of time within the same construction (dreams in which people meet or co-exist that would be physically impossible chronologically).  
• I believe that it is capable of crossing the barriers of the multi-verse, producing dreams with the peculiar feeling that you are you, but not you. A sense that you recognize yourself within but there are details about the situation, or your appearance in a mirror, in a photograph, etc, that clearly do not align. 
• And finally, because sometimes we can half-consciously impose our wills upon the dream (lucid dreaming), that this place we are in is an active simulation, a negotiable interaction, and not simply a pre-recorded sequence that we, the observer, are merely stuck watching. 

Assuming for a moment, at the very least, the idea of a multi-verse - and assuming that within each universe, our species has the similar requirement of sleep or meditation time where we become unconscious for a period of time relative to how often we are conscious, some interesting "what if" scenarios begin to surface.

The overall theme, I will present plainly -

What if the various incarnations of our selves in each of these universes is merely an avatar, behind which exists a core being that represents our true selves behind the veil of our current manifestation?

To help illustrate my my point - I will relate the concept to two easy-to-understand concepts in modern technology.

The Hardware

First, many people understand the concept of "Remote Desktop" or remote computing.  I sit at my current machine, and via remote connection over the network / internet, I "log on" to a machine that is not physically in front of me, and assume control of everything short of physically touching it.  Even certain controls, like opening the CD drive or powering the machine down, are achievable via remote commands.

This is the first level of understanding I arrived at in my theory of the unconscious - that I am but a terminal, a machine that thinks it is being operated in the first person, that all that exists around me is merely a reflection of myself and what I can perceive. Certainly, much of that is true even in the computing world. If we personify a remotely controlled machine, a few statements are true:

• Upon logging on, the remote machine has little awareness if they are being managed in person or remotely. The only way it can tell is at a lower software level, where it can perhaps realize that certain background software services are in effect, and communications across certain ports is taking place. Thus, we operate under the same general awareness, assuming that we are autonomous as individual human lives.
• This line becomes further blurred if the control is not behind remote desktop, but perhaps a KVM switch instead - where the physical hardware inputs and outputs are routed to a hub which allows a single user to "switch" between the various machines with a single mouse/keyboard, making it more difficult to determine if you, as the machine, are being controlled elsewhere.
• The outside perception of the machine is limited by it's physical manifestations - not necessarily by the operator. The operator may, for instance, log onto a particular machine and realize that it does not have Adobe Acrobat installed, whereas the other machines he has access to do have the client software installed. Thus the perceived reality of the machine is that Adobe does not exist, and can only exist if the operator decides to install a plug-in / driver which allows the machine to interpret pdf documents in the same ways that his other machines can.  This concept is in line with Jungian psychology where reality is relative - and nothing truly "exists" outside of our interpretations of them, and concepts only become real, true, or false after we learn them.

In the hardware of the computing world, all matters of ailment affect the machine's ability to operate properly. Technology available at the time, proper software maintenance, or simply hardware performance. All of these things have very human psychological and physiological counterparts - but what I would most like to point out is the concept that in the event of catastrophic failure (CPU, hard drive, memory, motherboard aka heart, brain, nervous system), the shell of the machine may perhaps "die" - but all this really means is that the machine, or the body, is no longer accessible remotely.. thus the operator simply retreats back to their local environment, and a determination has to be made as to what it means for the remote machine to be "down".

This parallel offers a lot of commonalities, but for me, it wasn't quite enough. Something about it simply being a remote desktop system felt too.. hardware, too finite, omitting all of the visual and personality characteristics  that are in play in our lives. It also makes the barrier to self-awareness a tad oversimplified, as if any one of us "machines" could easily "realize" that we are being driven by simply analyzing our running tasks or calling an  operating system procedure to determine if there's an open direct connection to us from somewhere else.  

I would perhaps go as far as to surmise that perhaps the machine-level understanding is encapsulated within our genetics - our DNA code - which, while not "personified" or "alive" within itself no moreso than the hardware of a machine is, within it still is contained the details, the blueprints for how this machine is going to run, and what its capabilities are. But, certainly, genetics and hardware alone are not all that a machine, or a human, is comprised of.

The Software

Thus I turned to another area I'm deeply familiar with, and that's gaming.  Specifically, gaming in online, persisted worlds otherwise known as MMO (massively multi-player online) games.  Unlike traditional games, when you turn the console off, the entire universe doesn't cease to be, much like "real" life. When we sleep, events occur outside of our presence, time "continues", and when we awake we must discover what, if anything, was missed, and what the ramifications of not being present had on the outcome. This is the same as online games, as the characters within it, and the game itself (to a certain degree), also evolve and progress even if you choose not to log in or even play at all.

Lets ease into how this relates by starting with a single universe theory. If this reality we know is the only reality that is, then our analogy becomes a single machine (aka reality construct) that is running a single instance of an MMO game called "Life", wherein we are avatars that are created into this world and only this world.  

Notes that there is still the concept of the computer being controlled by a core user (i.e. that we are not the computer itself and that if we should fail, poof, that's it), but that now another layer has been added (by way of virtual-world software) that abstracts the knowledge of the computer system from the observer, which we'll call the character, or Avatar. 

Through the characters we play, we develop a profound knowledge of the environment we play in, our avatar grows and obtains more skills by way of "experience" and eventually rise to a particular powerful hero status that performs various helpful or self-serving tasks in day-to-day existence. 

On a different avenue - another common behavior pattern within an MMO is the idea that the character you create and drive isn't the character that you will ultimately become or enjoy the most.  The "reroll" concept is one in which a person decides their current character isn't appropriate to their style of play, and so they re-make or re-roll a new character with (hopefully) better traits to suit what they ultimately wish to do. In many cases, the character may even collect any useful items they have acquired with their original character(s) and set them aside for the new character to use. 

Sound familiar? This concept is not unlike modern Buddhism reincarnation - particularly in the practice of Phowa, wherein the mindstream is transfered into a new living body - allowing a new Dalai Lama to be located who is capable of identifying his belongings of the previous life (previous character).  Granted, not everyone in our reality is capable of such a feat, or believe it to be real, but if possible, it indicates that the body, much like the avatar, is simply a vehicle for a faceless, shapeless conscious entity which is capable of embodying a new avatar.

Another key concept is our personalities, specifically in the way we behave and interact with each other. As many people who play MMOs know, not everyone who plays a character behaves in the same manner that they behave in "real life".  Certainly some do, but in many cases you see a spectrum of difference, running the gambit from the very similar to almost complete opposite, particularly in the areas of introversion vs. extroversion. Our behavior patterns, as Freud and Jung explain, are tied to not just our conscious functions and values (ego, id, etc), but also inexorably linked to repressed or unconscious reflections that manifest, in most cases the opposite, of what we put forward. 

Thus, another what-if comes to mind. What if, as we turn our psychological studies within, as we face our shadow to better understand ourselves, what if we are not simply understanding ourselves as one contained unit within the confides of a machine, but instead we are also looking through to something deeper on the other end - our core selves, the user behind the avatar behind the machine?

Who's on First

A distinct image of a police interrogation room comes to mind. Our conscious perception sits at the table, observing its surroundings, and is at first struck by the ominous surveillance camera sitting up in the corner, watching.  This is the undiscovered modern man, constantly worried about external judgement of his actions - always wondering what the lens is capturing and who is sitting behind the monitor deciding what the outcome will be.

Then onto the existential man, who begins to focus less on the camera in the corner, and instead diverts attention to the massive mirror within the room. Left there, with nothing but his own reflection staring him down, he begins to reflect on his own actions, his own visage, facing the sometimes terrifying or ugly faces he sees in the mirror, until eventually he masters himself, and with a certain calmness, is capable of sharing the silence of the room with nothing but himself, and the enlightenment and understanding that he feels when he brings his conscious and unconscious minds into harmony and no longer represses the feelings that lie beneath in the shadow.

And... then there's me, and perhaps others like me who, after a certain time spent feeling complete, understanding, and harmonious, we begin to notice certain... peculiarities... about the massive mirror in the room...

Why is it there, anyways? Why not simply 4 solid walls, the camera, and a piece of paper on the table saying "Forget the camera, it's not them, it's you"? Wouldn't that make things easier?

So I start to become aware of the mirror itself, defocussing my eyes from my reflection, noticing what I perceive to be a faint haze - a secondary light source - a layer behind the mirror - and I wonder... is there really nothing but wall behind this mirror? Is it really just me? Or is this some kind of.. one-way mirror.. and if so... who's behind it?

And thus, why the shadow? Why dreams that have topics outside of our own lives? How so the idea of reincarnation? If all we are is what we observe, what importance then are any of the relationships we hold within our waking hours if nothing comes of it when we pass? Why the deep-seeded, instinctual need to leave a lasting impression? Is it really merely a function of primitive survival - or are we each avatars of a core being who's goal is unknown in this massively multi-player Earth we inhabit? 

m-Avatar Theory

Now lets say that we do live in a Multi-verse, only this time the constant that exists between all of the variations is indeed our "core beings" which embody us as avatars within this reality.

This would be analogous to a person who plays multiple MMO games at once. No two games are created equal, although several games may have common themes, even common avatars.  Thus, I can have several "warrior" type characters in multiple games, although each version of this archetype will play differently in their detailed versions. Additionally, I may have certain appearances that are similar between games, or I may have a variety in what I play. For instance, in Warcraft, I'm an Orc, but in Aion I'm a Daeva (angel), and finally in Age of Conan I am Khitan (similar to Mongolian).  Now, all of these versions are vastly different than what I personally am (human Hispanic-American), but I embody them all remotely and each one takes on aspects of my core personality when I play them.

Furthermore, while I might (technically) be able to run all versions of myself in these games simultaneously, it's fair to assume I can only really "focus" on any one character at a time. Realistically, I will only have one character logged in and the other games won't even be running.  Thus, you could say that my other avatars are "unconscious" while I am logged into the current one.

As it is in our reality, my characters being offline in other games has a passive effect because, as I noted earlier, those worlds persist and continue to progress even without my involvement.  Now, I realize that our bodies are unlike a game avatar in that they cannot simply run ad infinitum. Physiologically our bodies and minds must rest to regenerate, so I cannot present my theory from this angle, but what if - knowing that our bodies must undergo "scheduled maintenance" - our core beings don't simply multi-task and shift their focus to another avatar that isn't currently resting.

Let's take it a step further - now let's say that while Avatar A is resting, I begin to play Avatar B in a different game dimension, and in that dimension I develop a close bond / relationship with another Avatar in that realm. We become friends, etc, and I become very familiar with their personality traits, their goals, etc.  We'll call this other person Avatar C.

Well, Avatar C has a "core being" behind it - who like me - is also playing on multiple MMO dimensions. Thus, I don't necessarily know the core being (unless we meet in real life), all I know is this aspect of the person as personified by Avatar C in the game.

You can likely see where I'm going with this... one day, while I'm back playing on Avatar A in my original game, I run across an individual in my travels who strikes me as familiar - we've never grouped before, we've never met in this game, and yet we both have the distinct feeling that we have met before. 

In the game analogy, things are much more straight forward - as users we simply "break the fantasy barrier" and begin to compare games we play outside of this one, and discover that my Avatar B knows their Avatar C in the other game, and the mystery is solved, albeit it a wonderful coincidence that we should find each other in this game too.

Unfortunately for us in our current reality, we are the avatar, not necessarily the core user, so without a miraculous revelation, the best we can say is "We must have met in another life" . 

Dreams & The Unconscious Gateway

So what of Dreams, then - this idea that while unconscious, it's not always a lapse of time, a blackness that is in line with a game character not being online?  How is it that we continue to "think" on a different level, and in many cases observe situations that are so completely foreign to anything we have experienced ourselves?

I offer that sometimes, these dreams are more than just repressed self reflection sessions of the shadow between our conscious and unconscious minds attempting to achieve awareness and thus balance - I theorize that sometimes these dreams are, in fact, breakthroughs to other dimensions, glimpses into the conscious, parallel thoughts of other avatars, other versions of our "core being" that are currently being focused on  in their own environment...by way of our personal links to the core being.

I'm not quite sure how to describe this concept - or at which level it becomes a cognizant, if at all.  The closest I can come to approximating the behavior in the gaming analogy is this:  many times, as players become accustomed to multiple games at the same time, there is a bleed-through effect that occurs where the player attempts to perform an action or technique that is not compatible with that game, but in fact actually comes as muscle memory from a different game.   (For instance, in most games, the short-cut for responding to an in-game whisper or "tell" is to hit the R-key (R = reply). However, in Aion, the act of replying is actually done with the T-key, so players often complain "Ug, I keep wanting to hit R instead of T when I get a whisper...")

Now, while an example such as that is rather overt and obvious, there are many more that are subtle that a player may never consciously realize they are bringing over - and if it is possible for the core user to have some degree of difficulty separating the games (realities), then perhaps that bleed-over affect has unknown effects elsewhere, particularly in the dream state.

Thus my conclusion; what if, to put it plainly, avatars could dream - what would they dream about? And what if the embodiment of an avatar, particularly in our multi-verse, creates a permanent bond between the creator and the avatar that is not simply a one-way mirror that offers immunity for the core user? What if that psychological link starts to manifest itself more strongly as the avatar becomes more self aware?

Furthermore, what if our avatars, though the practice of lucid dreaming, can somehow break the barrier of simply observing the events of these other realities, and actually affect the outcome of them in some way? Does the core being even realize that his avatar is aware and capable of such things? Is this the goal, as with the purposeful development or Artificial Intelligence, that we eventually gain this capability? 

And what if it's not a welcome outcome, as in the case of the machines in the Matrix, who do not particularly like the awakening of their avatars or their ability to wake others? Perhaps we simply walk the path of the sentient programs - the Oracles, the Merovingians, the Agent Smiths - now self aware in an artificial world and fighting for our survival and independence?

And, of course, the most selfish of questions an Avatar like me could have: When I pass on - when my motherboard crashes or when my game subscription ends - was the purpose of my existence merely a way to pass the time, or did my "play time" contribute to something greater? 

At the very least, I hope that through me, my core being was able rack up a ton of achievement points they will look back upon fondly and recount to his fellow gamers :)

Dream: "Lost" and Found

This dream occurred 2 nights ago (5/30).  In the dream I'm walking through some kind of public place, either a hotel lobby or a mall, and there is some kind of counter with a woman standing behind it, attending it.

I walk up to the counter and get her attention, and it's my fiancée, except, she has no idea who I am and I cannot say that I had met her before.  I get this overwhelming sense that I should speak to her, and so I do - and as we chat, I further get the distinct sense that I should ask her out on a date, and so I do.  At first, she doesn't seem very interested - the details are fuzzy but she may have even mentioned already having a boyfriend - but at some point I am struck with a light, a flood of memories that rushes through me, drowning out everything around me in a vision.

After a rapid flash strobe of images - I "come to", still standing there, and she's looking at me oddly. I tell her we really need to try and see each other, she asks me "Why? Why are you so sure?" - and from the vision I begin to recount: "Because in another universe, right now, we are together - we're happy - we have 2 beautiful Great Danes, a beautiful house, and every day we make each other laugh and feel loved and complete and - knowing all of these things -  how can I not try?".

I believe it had some effect; as about halfway through when I mentioned the dogs a tear rolled down her cheek as if she was listening to something that was familiar within her - but sadly I was not able to get her official response / reaction as I was woken up by, coincidentally enough, my fiancée.

The dream was not unlike the sensation that the characters felt off the island at the end of Lost as they "rediscovered" their memories - and likely had an influence in the stylization of my dream - but in another sense, if you subscribe to the multi-verse theory, perhaps Jet-Li was onto something in the movie "The One" where, if, somehow, you can change your persona's in these other universes and have it alter the sum of the whole of all your instances across all of them.  Except in this case- I'm not really looking to "kill" the other versions of me so I can become stronger in my universe... instead I'm wondering what would happen if all versions of me embarked on the same quest to discover the same soul-mate, the same spirit that, in my universe, takes the shape and name of Andi?

Recurring Dream - Hotel

Much like the dream in which I am in high-school, confused about what class I should be heading to - at some point in my late 20s this dream shifted to a variation that is distinct enough, in my opinion, to warrant a separate account.

Rather than a school, the dream begins in a hotel. Sometimes I am in what I assume to be my own room, others I am in the hallway outside of what I perceive to be my room. There is a trigger: but rather than an internal trigger (i.e. the sudden realization that need to get to class) there is an external trigger, almost always in the form of my cell phone ringing.

I answer, and someone I know is on the other end. Sometime it is a friend, sometimes it is my girlfriend, sometimes it is a family member.  They always describe a situation in which I need to go meet them, nothing urgent really, and I agree to do so.

This is where it begins. It usually starts with a trip down an elevator that has many floor options, and I press what I assume to be the logical choice for making it to the lobby, but it never works out - from here there are a few variations:

• In one such dream, the elevator doors open and I am presented with a subway system, only instead of a small number of tracks and car options, it is literally an enormous underground area of dozens upon dozens of tracks in all manner of directions, each track only separated by the slightest bit of gap. The various lines are unintelligibly labeled, and I must rely on asking the attendant which one I should take.
  
  Doing so almost always leads me to a new junction, with a new attendant, but I never experience the actual travel from one place to the next. I simply emerge, ask the next attendant which hop I should take next, and I step aboard. After a few iterations of this, however, I begin to grow anxious, much in the same way that I did in the high-school dream when I realized I wasn't able to make progress towards finding my class.
• In another version, rather than an underground subway, I exit the elevator and am presented by a series of tube-slides. Not quite as large and ominous as the dozens of underground tracks, the tubes are less in their number of choices, and appear to be built into the very hotel itself.  The other key is that there is no attendant, as I emerge from one tube there is a seemingly logical or self evedent next choice of tube that I take.  Just like all the variations, I do not experience the travel through the tube itself, and after a few iterations, I begin to grow anxious with the inability to reach my destination.
• In still yet another version, the elevator only goes down as far as, say, the 50th floor, and forces me to exit. When I exit, I am presented with several other elevators choices - each one appears to service a particular set of floors - one might service upwards, reading 50-100, another dowards (50-25), and so on.  The loop then is created where I select a seemingly appropriate elevator to continue downwards (50-25) towards my intended goal (Lobby), but I can never quite find an elevator that claims it will go all the way down.  To make matters worse, sometimes I will enter an elevator that claims one thing (50-25) and emerge to find myself somewhere worse off (floor 70).
  
  It should be noted that when the latter happens, it never occurs to me to get right back in the misleading elevator and at least backtrack to where I started and try a different approach - I simply accept that I am now further off track and attempt to pick a different elevator that might get me closer. And finally, as with all the other variations, a few repeats of this same process and I again begin to grow frustrated that I cannot seem to accomplish the simple task of leaving the Hotel to meet the person I promised I would go meet.

All of these variations express themselves to the same final conclusion - that is - I never actually make it to a destination and, just like the High School dream, I always just wake up feeling unsettled, but never really angry or scared, per se.

As with the high-school dream, I usually wake up and wonder why the simplest of troubleshooting techniques didn't occur to me, like asking someone else which set of elevators I should take to make it to the Lobby.  Particular to this dream, it never dawns on me to use my cell phone to call for assistance, nor does it dawn on me that I should probably call the person back that I agreed to meet and apologize for taking so long, or even ask them for help - the idea that I even have the cell phone on me becomes lost the moment I hang up with them at the top of the dream and I begin my attempted journey to meet them.

Recurring Dream - School

I don't have this dream anymore - but it was prevalent from about age 20 to age 28.

The dream always went something like this -

The first thing I remember I'm already at school - always high-school. I'm standing in the hall between classes, there's students walking around all around me, but no one interacts. I immediately realize that I should be heading to a particular class, but I cannot for the life of me remember which.  In some versions of the dream, it is merely this - not knowing which room I'm supposed to be heading to.  In other versions, not only am I not aware of where I should be heading, but I also realize that I have not done any of the work I should have been doing along the way, so there's the added anxiety of feeling that I really really need to make it to class so that I can hopefully understand what is necessary for me to "catch up" on so as to avoid failing.

After the realization, the dream shifts to trying to devise ways to figure out where I should be heading, but I don't make any rational decisions about how. For instance, I could attempt to scan the crowd for a friend who might know what class I'm in, but I never do. I could go to the office and ask the office attendant to pull up my schedule, but I don't.  I check my pockets for any kind of papers or notes, but nothing.. I look around at the various doorways and hallways hoping that one of them will strike me as "familiar", but none do.

There is never a resolution to this dream. There is no abrupt end, either. It was always simply this climax of wandering about, trying to figure out where I should go on my own, and then I simply wake up along the way - at most feeling somewhat "displaced" by the feeling, but not necessarily frightened or panicked.

And then, as I mentioned earlier... at some point I just "stopped" having that particular kind of dream, until recently when it was replaced (for lack of a better term) with a different kind of dream that is similar only in the sense that I am again faced with being lost and trying to figure out where to go (covered in Recurring Dream : Hotel)

Observations on Complex Problem Solving in a Group Dynamic.

Some of the competing factors in progress towards problem solving are design, feasibility, immediacy, and execution. These notes attempt to reason through some of these factors and draw understandings based on experience and observation as to how these factors can be minimized while maintaining a sense of self-checking decency and balance that corrects and improves a society over time.




Design



After capability is determined, solution designs are then created. In a group dynamic, many designs can be submitted for a single problem. Logically this has one of two outcomes: The group can decide on one and only one solution to implement, or they can decide on multiple solutions to implement, either in parallel or by designating additional solutions as contingencies.



Design is slowed then by two core factors (amongst many): Complexity in arriving at potential solutions (some problems are more difficult than others) and the review & refinement process itself to determine which, if any, solution(s) to implement.



Speaking for a moment about a single-minded dynamic- that is- a single person attempting to solve a problem rather than a group. Individuals also tend to create and review several potential solutions when approaching a problem. Certainly, some individuals seem wired to simply go with "the first thing that comes to mind", but it's important to note that the group dynamic is more than just the sum of its individual parts- each person represents an idea factory that is capable of quickly & subconsciously drawing upon many internal designs to arrive at solutions they deem viable. The benefit of a single-minded solution is speed of creation - each internally evaluated solution does not need to be expressed to a group to "bring them up to speed" or align thinking. The detriment and thus the lack of focus on this topic is that the presented solutions, no matter how internally refined, offer all the subjectivity and flaws inherent to a single consciousness (id, ego, technical expertise, etc).



Additionally, as complexity rises, the ability for a single mind to comprehend all the facets fully and arrive at a comprehensive solution or set of solutions decreases. Thus the phrase "two heads are better than one", or concepts like multi-threading, multi-core processing, or multi-channel throughputs exist in the computing world. We should always, then, strive for group-minded solutions when we approach problem solving.



Design.Complexity



Complexity is solved by adding more minds (multi-processing) or increasing the capabilities (via education, training, etc) of the minds already on hand. A group may quickly arrive at a solution if they happen to be fully trained on the subject matter and feel comfortable and confident in the design process, but the same group presented with a different scenario may fail to efficiently arrive at a design.



The potential failing point of Complexity then is directly related to the minds on hand that are attempting to resolve it. Technical gaps (I don't know how this works), lack of consequential evidence (I don't know what will happen if I/we try this), and lack of precedence (This has never been done before) are risks that must be accounted for, and should be taken with a high degree of responsibility and ownership.



In many cases, these failing points are socially excused- as it is human behavior that only some feel true regret and are compelled to resolve short-comings in a design while others attempt absolve responsibility. At its ugliest, this leads to concepts like plausible deniability and negligence which destroy progress by allowing solutions with dire consequences slip through into implementation. Without a sense of vested ownership, there decreases the chance that fallout or short comings will be addressed. A good expression of this concept is the Chicken and the Pig fable commonly mentioned in project management circles.



Finally, the assumption is that all the minds tasked are morally aligned to create solutions that drive for a genuine betterment of the system as it relates to the symbiotic whole. Failures of this can be as benign as technical gaps (understanding that gasoline can power an engine, but not understanding that the byproduct is harmful pollution) or as malicious as sabotage (proposing a solution you know will have ill effects but disguising it as being beneficial).



Both of these issues are related to education and transparency. Education is easily solved through the constant drive to observe and learn, and thus why all ideas and solutions should be considered emergent and not static- as what we learn tomorrow could greatly alter the design of what we know today. This too plays into uncovering the malicious intent of individuals who seek to exploit. In almost all cases short of overt coercion, the only thing separating the exploited from the exploiters is ignorance to some fundamental truth or understanding and a lack of transparency into their actions and intent. Complexity creates this uncertainty, especially in new realms of science, and it is usually these safeguarded secrets that are leveraged to gain control while the majority is still naive to its true nature.



Design.Review & Refinement



Like many animals, humans are capable of reflecting upon actions and reactions and using outcomes to adjust future ideas and behaviors. Unlike animals, however, humans display (almost) precognitive capabilities- or at least advanced reasoning capabilities that allow for design conclusions based on probability, experience, and forethought.



This valuable tool is sometimes misused, however, in the realm of problem solving. True precognition can only occur if you believe in clairvoyance, and even in a 99.9% probability scenario, there's still that 0.1% chance that can (and often will) manifest under the right conditions.



This is important when we talk about feasibility in later sections, but for the sake of refinement and review, sometimes we create a false sense of doubt by adhering too closely to deductive reasoning, or incorrectly applying weak inductive reasoning as a way to "shoot holes" in a design.



This can be done for a number of reasons that should be carefully avoided - passive/aggressive aspects of our personality may look to discredit an idea because it would require too much effort or stress, or our lack of understanding may draw naive conclusions (weak induction). In truth, all ideas are valid if they adhere to the genuine betterment of the system as it relates to the symbiotic whole. And even if some ideas appear to be less feasible than others, if they are at least within the realm of possibility and capability, they should be remembered and revisited at future states for re-rationalization just as the "winning" solution should be reviewed for consistency and relevance.



There also seems to be another slippery aspect I cannot personally identify in human behavior: When faced with a multitude of ideas to review, or a multitude of potential refinements to a particular idea, there often times grows an anxiety within some individuals during the process that creates a sense of exhaustion to additional ideas. You may have heard the phrases "We can play the what-if game all day long, but we aren't getting anywhere" or "I don't really care anymore, just pick one and let’s move on.” I'm noting this here even though it seems to overlap with the concept of Immediacy because I have observed this phenomenon even in situations where there was no outside pressure or urgency to quickly arrive at a solution. There simply seems to be a threshold within each person, at various breaking points, that can only stand to carry out or undertake so many iterations of review and refinement.



This is, sadly, dangerous to the ideal emergence and transparency necessary to create a self-checking system by which problems are solved, solutions are revisited for improvements, and potential exploitation is kept to an absolute minimum. Examples of this are constantly expressed in software development. Be it banking software or video games, testing of the product is limited only by the capability of the testers (reviewers) and the developers (creators/refiners) over the duration, creativity, and tenacity of the tests performed (what-if scenarios). No amount of review is ever sufficient to claim a solution to be perfectly holistic. Testing and refinement of code only creates an illusion of confidence that the system will behave properly. Once this confidence level hits a certain threshold, the solution and product are deemed "sound", and usually no new forms of testing are created, only existing methods of regression testing occur to ensure "nothing breaks" during other development.



This is the realm where exploitation lives - if the designers don't play the "what-if" game, someone else will, and they will invariably discover gaps in the solution either accidentally or purposely through their own methods of testing or vulnerability probing. At that point your design is subject to the will and morality of the individual- will they approach the solution creators and alarm them to the potential problem so that it can be solved? Or will they keep these vulnerabilities secret and attempt to leverage them for personal gain/control?



Logic should, of course, be to assume the worst as it is within the realm of possibilities, and why a constant, ongoing review and refinement process is necessary to (hopefully) prevent or uncover design short-comings before they are leveraged. Creative examples of this in the real world are situations where computer hackers are caught and, rather than punished, are actually employed by security firms to safely and purposely help them test the systems and uncover vulnerabilities.



I say then, with every fiber of my being, that one of the cornerstones of a society that attempts to solution any problem, or aspire any feat, be them technological, social, spiritual or otherwise, do so under the constant and unhindered, uncensored moral and technical scrutiny that its citizenship can offer through emergent, strongly inductive and existential review.



Finally, during these processes, rationalization should be kept to a minimum, as it tends to cloud affairs with inconsequential excuses for why rather than root-causing the gap. Identify the root, determine the gap (education/understanding/technical) and progress to refinement.



Feasibility



Feasibility is the weak force that, like gravity, pulls the other factors together. Once problem solving creates potential designs, feasibility is then weighed (often closely with immediacy) as one of the determining factors for which design to implement. Say the problem is determining the best way to cross a river. One person may propose bridge be built using lumber from nearby trees. Another may suggest sending a strong swimmer across with a long rope to secure to the other end, allowing the rest of the people to cross using the guide.



Both ideas are feasible, so the process of evaluation begins. Is sending someone across safe? Will using the rope be safe for the others? Do we have the tools to create a bridge? Does anyone know how? Does the way across need to be maintained for future crossings?



The answers to these questions begin to rank the feasibility of the presented solutions, either actively or subconsciously, and the group (or those in charge of deciding) begins to gravitate towards one solution over the others.



If the perceived feasibility of one solution seems to greatly outweigh the others by high margin, the other solutions may be scrapped completely within retention or further discussion. If two or more solutions seem marginally similar, both may be attempted to determine which will be the ‘official’ solution as they near completion. Finally, one solution may only be more lucrative than the others because it circumvents or alleviates one of the core design hurdles (and usually at the expense of some accepted risk). In this situation, the less-popular “wishful” solution may be attempted while making the dominant solution the contingency should the wishful attempt fail.



In any regard, it is the manner and outcome of this ranking which introduces the first key level of negative human behavior in a group dynamic: Pride. Sometimes, the passion and originality that goes into a plan brings with it personal attachment to the idea. If the idea “wins”, this elevates to a heightened need to rationalize and defend the idea from scrutiny and reform.



There are countless examples dating back through all of history that illustrate this. One that stands out is China’s Great Leap Forward. One aspect, the advent of the backyard furnace, was put forth by Mao (without a metallurgy background or support) to boost China’s industrialization through the production of steel from scrap metal.



This solution was implemented, and a large scale effort was carried forth to install these steel furnaces throughout the communes, and production began. The result was mass production of pig iron, not steel, which was hardly suitable for construction and low value to export. How did it get that far? Pride, and Censorship. Mao distrusted intellectuals and often carried out movements without the input of trained engineers (many of were killed off anyways during the Hundred Flowers Campaign). It didn’t stop at the failure to produce steel, either. Admitting that it was a terrible idea to the masses would diminish their support, so instead the project was only quietly abandoned after some time.



Personal attachment to an idea or design goes the other way, too. The rejection of one’s submitted idea can prompt resentment, depression, or aggression which negatively impacts the measure of a design’s feasibility. They may immediately scrap support of their idea at the first sign of opposition or scrutiny “It’s fine, it’s a stupid idea anyway” or feel as though they are being personally attacked – “I was just trying to help...”



As sympathetic as a group could aspire to be to the feelings of those who contribute, it should be the personal goal and development of each and every contributor to set aside their personal attachments, pride, and insecurities in lieu of objectively reviewing ideas.



It will be natural that some people will contribute more feasibly sound ideas than others- these people aren’t to be shunned as “know it all’s” but should be kept in check to make sure they don’t try to dominate the design sessions simply for the sake of vanity or over-achieving . It will be natural that some people are better at pointing out vulnerabilities in plans, but not necessarily as capable in formulating their own concepts- these individuals should be valued as safe-guarders of quality, not “negative” influencers or opposition.



Put plainly, there is no room for a sense of direct, human competition amongst the people for feasibility of ideas. Each idea must be weighed of its own merit, in relation to the ideas before it, the other ideas being weighed, and the symbiotic consequences it holds in relation to all things affected by its implementation.



An example to illustrate this concept of direct and indirect competition could be this: If I write a computer program today that calculates a large sum of items in the span of 30 seconds, tomorrow there could exist a computer program that can do the same calculation in only 10 seconds. Whether it is that I created the new program or if another person or entity created it is irrelevant, the fact remains that an improvement was made and should therefore be considered.



Evaluating the change itself reveals that the new program does not feel a sense of direct competition with the old program, as neither is determined capable of feeling “competition”.



My language is carefully chosen because there exists a gray area as we as a species continue to weave the notion of unconscious, unfeeling automation into our daily lives. The factory worker, the telephone operator, the elevator man, the mechanic, the gardener, the photo developer, the accountant, the banker, the line judge- as new designs look to make human labor obsolete, greater care must be taken to evaluate not only the emotional attachment to the idea itself, but the attachment the idea itself may contain when faced with feasibility ranking.



As a humanitarian, I believe much of this can be avoided with some simple, general acts of sympathy that is not beyond the realm of effective problem solving. We incorporate many of these aspects already- be it thanking someone for their contribution or proactively calling out the benefits ones ideas provide even if it is not the candidate for implementation. I believe also that designs that don’t make it to implementation should be retained indefinitely as a historical marking of other paths considered, something that hasn’t happened nearly enough in the history of the world. The truth is, in the realm of anything being possible, sometimes an idea that is not feasible today, even an idea that seems completely irrational, can take on a completely new form in the future as our thought processes, technologies, and evolutions continue.



Thus, if everyone who contributes ideas feels that they can freely do so- and if everyone works towards becoming self-confident enough to discuss those ideas and refine them in the face of criticism, and if people pause to do so in a generally positive way with a degree of patience and understanding, you can then unlock the truly explosive, renaissance potential that is human ingenuity.



Immediacy



Earlier I mentioned immediacy in relation to the review and refinement process. Time is always a factor, but sometimes our perception of its passing skews the objective conclusions we should be drawing about when certain things should occur. In short: the time element of all emergent systems must be weighed objectively and cannot be subject to the typically impatient will of man.



Is the problem at hand dire? Are we avoiding procrastination or are we simply impatient? Are we frustrated that there are no solutions yet? Frustrated that there are too many solutions and we can’t seem to agree upon one?



All of these factors play in, and much like the personal growth required to correctly weigh feasibility, I feel we must also constantly strive to correctly identify immediacy objectively.



If the situation is dire – a life is at stake with only moments, seconds, or minutes to react, this will obviously affect the problem solving process and there may not be ample time (if any) to create multiple solutions, review them, refine them, and then carry a one out. In many cases, even in a group dynamic, the entire process may only even occur as a single-minded process as each individual instinctively “reacts” to the situation. Emergency situations are a topic for another time- for now I’ll focus on strategic problem solving in situations that aren’t quite so immediate.



Peace, love, and understanding is all well and good- but stress, urgency and imposition can also create advancement though pressure-based ingenuity, right? Wrong. Behavioral psychology has shown time and time again that creating pressure-based immediacy for no real reason is actually detrimental to progress, yet somewhere within us, again unclear to me, there exists that conditioned threshold I spoke of earlier where, for no other sake than progress itself, we create timelines and deadlines and other artificial forms of immediacy when solving problems.



To some, the perception that no actual, tangible work is being done towards the goal, so the elapsed time is perceived as time wasted or laziness, or procrastination- perfectly viable explanations for the anger or anxiety that comes with envisioning or planning to solve a complex problem. Laziness and procrastination are also topics for another time, as I’ve always wanted to investigate the group dynamic as it relates to motivation and participation in the individual. Suffice to say that personal development in the areas of patience should be applied to correctly separate truly negative “lack of urgency” situations from the benign “lack of necessity” situations.



Some immediacy, valid immediacy, can be determined from objective sources. Perhaps shelter needs to be resolved before nightfall because of the cold, or food harvesting and storage needs to be completed before the winter. Perhaps a particular resource is becoming scarce, or a particular solution of old has now been found to be affecting the positive symbiotic whole in an adverse way… these considerations, again tempered by feasibility, can have an effect on group problem solving in somewhat of a “positive” light (for lack of a better term) by providing external observations… consequences, reactions, which bring about change.



Three ways that can positively affect Immediacy is forethought (preparation), available options (technology), and experience. Experience, being, the least quantifiable as many (but not all) theories can be practiced ad nauseum, but usually differ in their actual occurrences.. thus many experiences cannot be expressed and therefore instantly and intimately understood, they must be experienced.



Forethought and having available options are things that we can directly affect and plan for. Pursuing several solutions for power generation as opposed to one gives us options if one or more individual options become unviable. Creating a new “hovering” prototype vehicle that has never been driven but taking the time to add safety features which prevent crashes or protects the passengers in different ways traditionally found in ground-based vehicles shows forethought in planning which indirectly saves the potential immediacy having to recall the vehicle because it is unsafe.



It can be said that many of these aspects evolve rapidly over time as we perfect the art of creation or expand our knowledge and technologies which increases our capability. Coupling this capability with a constant re-evaluation process and the retention of other design solutions poises us to make less near-sighted decisions along the way, avoiding the pit-falls that come with rushed design.



Execution aka “The best laid schemes o' mice an' men.. “



At long last, the plan for action has been decided upon, and it’s time to implement the culmination of all the review and brain power. People eagerly work on their parts, the prototype is built and… nothing happens.



Failure, as we all have hopefully learned by now, is an inevitable outcome in this the world we live in. We can count on one hand the number of times our designs have worked flawlessly out of the gate, and we have, at least once in our lives, abandoned a perfectly sound idea or endeavor simply because we were not successful at it the first time we tried.



Execution plays on two key elements in human behavior: Fear of failure, and perception of competence. Internally, we want to present ideas and perform actions correctly (unless we are maliciously motivated to do the opposite). When our attempt fails, the reaction dives into a number of negative behavior patterns more suitable for other discussions (perfectionism, self-deprecation, anxiety, depression, stress, OCD, etc), but it can also prompts various other positive responses (optimism of progress, furthering knowledge, gaining understanding of the nature and interdependence of things, motivation to continue)



As with all the other aspects covered here, there is again personal growth that is necessary to cultivate the positive motivators in trial and error while reducing the negative anxieties which can hinder refinement and ultimately progress.



Edison said it best: "If I find 10,000 ways something won't work, I haven't failed. I am not discouraged, because every wrong attempt discarded is another step forward".



Execution drives of all the theorizing and all the “what if’s” that occurred before it to refine a solution to its elevated states via observation of failure. While I mentioned this should not be something that is feared, care is needed to evaluate the actual cost of each attempt as it relates to everyone and everything else. Failure to do this, in the blind name of scientific progress, is in part what leads to things like devalued perception of life (mass scale animal testing), un-necessary depletion of resources, or unknown, permanent damage to the environment or ourselves (nuclear testing).



The final, and often overlooked, portion of execution is the feedback cycle or the self-reflection cycle. So many problems in our current society exist only because there is no “closed loop” in the cycle by which the outcomes of implemented ideas are evaluated against the source for a root cause.



Instead, we ignore these cause and effect relationships, treat them as inherent “cost” for operating the solution, and begin to develop new ideas to serve as workarounds for the flaws inherent to the original system. Sometimes this is unavoidable, but often, these workarounds or band-aids are rarely removed at a future date for a better original design without scrapping the entire project or going with a completely different solution.



It is important that we are constantly reviewing already implemented solutions and comparing the results to the original intent and design and determining if either is inherently flawed or has become flawed. This is how we end up with “Frankenstein” processes and legacy systems that get to a point where no one is left that even remembers how they work or what the original intent was, but they cannot be so much as touched for fear that they will irrevocably break.



Bringing it all together



• The ability for a single mind to comprehend all the facets fully and arrive at a comprehensive solution or set of solutions decreases. Thus the phrase "two heads are better than one", or concepts like multi-threading, multi-core processing, or multi-channel throughputs exist in the computing world. We should always, then, strive for group-minded solutions when we approach problem solving.

• All ideas and solutions should be considered emergent and not static- as what we learn tomorrow could greatly alter the design of what we know today. This too plays into uncovering the malicious intent of individuals who seek to exploit. In almost all cases short of overt coercion, the only thing separating the exploited from the exploiters is ignorance to some fundamental truth or understanding and a lack of transparency into their actions and intent. Complexity creates this uncertainty, especially in new realms of science, and it is usually these safeguarded secrets that are leveraged to gain control while the majority is still naive to its true nature.

• It is human behavior that only some feel true regret and are compelled to resolve short-comings in a design while others attempt to absolve responsibility. At its ugliest, this leads to concepts like plausible deniability and negligence which destroy progress by allowing solutions with dire consequences slip through into implementation. Without a sense of vested ownership, there decreases the chance that fallout or short comings will be addressed.¬

• One of the cornerstones of a society that exists to solution any problem, or aspire any feat, be them technological, social, spiritual or otherwise, do so under the constant and unhindered, uncensored moral and technical scrutiny that its citizenship can offer through emergent, strongly inductive and existential review.

• During refinement, rationalization should be kept to a minimum, as it tends to cloud affairs with inconsequential excuses for why rather than root-causing the gap. Identify the root, determine the gap (education/understanding/technical) and progress to refinement.

• As sympathetic as a group could aspire to be to the feelings of those who contribute, it should be the personal goal and development of each and every contributor to set aside their personal attachments, pride, and insecurities in lieu of objectively reviewing ideas.

• There is no room for a sense of direct, human competition amongst the people for feasibility of ideas. Each idea must be weighed of its own merit, in relation to the ideas before it, the other ideas being weighed, and the symbiotic consequences it holds in relation to all things affected by its implementation.

• Designs that don’t make it to implementation should be retained indefinitely as a historical marking of other paths considered, something that hasn’t happened nearly enough in the history of the world. The truth is, in the realm of anything being possible, sometimes an idea that is not feasible today, even an idea that seems completely irrational, can take on a completely new form in the future as our thought processes, technologies, and evolutions continue.

• If everyone who contributes ideas feels that they can freely do so- and if everyone works towards becoming self-confident enough to discuss those ideas and refine them in the face of criticism, and if people pause to do so in a generally positive way with a degree of patience and understanding, you can then unlock the truly explosive, renaissance potential that is human ingenuity.

• Time is always a factor, but sometimes our perception of its passing skews the objective conclusions we should be drawing about when certain things should occur. In short: the time element of all emergent systems must be weighed objectively and cannot be subject to the typically impatient will of man.

• Three ways that can positively affect Immediacy is forethought (preparation), available options (technology), and experience.

• Execution drives of all the theorizing and all the “what if’s” that occurred before it to refine a solution to its elevated states via observation of failure. While I mentioned this should not be something that is feared, care is needed to evaluate the actual cost of each attempt as it relates to everyone and everything else.

• It is important that we are constantly reviewing already implemented solutions and comparing the results to the original intent and design and determining if either is inherently flawed or has become flawed.

Shadow. An Interpretation.

This is a piece based on Edgar Allen Poe's Shadow -- A Parable - which stands as one of the inspirations behind the creation of this blog.

As my interpretation goes – the narrator, Oinos, addresses the audience in the past tense, recounting a tale of a night in Ptolemais, from which he indicates that sometime thereafter he has “gone [his] way” into the region of shadows. He continues to describe the revelations of his journey- that there are secret things to be known, indicating that there are things of which many others will want to disbelieve- but that a few will find “much to ponder upon”. I feel great identification with the weight of the introduction of this passage, and as such decided to use Oinos as a pen name for the blog.

In the story itself, Oinos is an aware figure, at first to the goigns on of the time. He speaks of the plague (542 a.d.), and an astroligical event which seems to indicate impending change- altering the very "souls, imaginations and mediations of mankind". In reasearch, I found a book with some historical analysis which offers a few interesting historical notes -

"The action takes place in the twilight of Greco-Romand civilization in Egypt, where even older cultures had flourished and were no more. The scene is appropriately laid in the city of Ptolemais, where the Sun casts no shadow at noon during the summer solstice; what better city could have been chosen for the ever-present Shadow, Death, than that in which the Sun himself casts none?"

There Oinos sat... aware of the figure of Zoilus, dead, within the same room staring intently upon them. Zoilus was a greek philosopher and critic who was famous, in part, as an early critic of Homer.  An interesting note with this is an apparent proverb that existed at the time- "Every poet has his Zoilus". I imagine Poe may have seleted this figure to be the scrutinizer - symbolic of a figure who, essentially, made a life and a career out of criticizing one man harshly.  Although Zoilus criticized other philosophers at the time (Isocrates, Plato), Homer was supposedly his primary focus of scrutny. This is perhaps conveyed by the narrator describing Zoilus' interest their merriment, but the un-nerving feeling that he "felt that the eyes of the departed where upon [him]".

It is in this work from Poe that I found the personification of the motivation for this blog. I had already started down the path of learning about the disclosed histories of other great empires- Russia, China and the like. I had begun to venture outside my own beliefs to explore the histories of not only other religions- Hinduism, Buddhism, Muslim, Scientology- but the re-visitation and the re-evaluation of my own Christian-rooted understandings.

It was in these two key areas- government and religion- that I began to piece together some common repeated themes of deception, control, and corruption of original values and ideals for the express purpose of not just self gain, or ambitious domination, but furthermore to completely fabricate and cultivate entire generations of thoughts and beliefs that were founded upon terrible lies, terrible atrocities, and an underlying desire for control.

Now, granted, I am not (nor was I) completely naive as to fall completely surprised by much of what I read. I’ve known for many years the capabilities of man in negative pursuit – but it was when I started to realize that some areas that should have been grossly astonishing to the people at the time or the world at large – areas that should have been obvious to the complete laymen with any shred of common sense or decency, but wasn’t- that I began to feel that same twisting anxiety that people feel when they hear the story of Kitty Genovese and the perplexing “bystander effect” that it coined.

I remember reading about things like The Great Leap Forward in China, and the famines during the Collectivization periods of Russia, where body counts in the tens of millions (dwarfing those of Hitler), ended with a historic footnote that people like Mao and Stalin were generally regarded by the people as heroes despite it all! “How could this be!”, I thought, in periods of time when media existed, where information could travel fast enough to not be able to altered or suppressed 100% of the time!

It was somewhere in understanding the concept of Cult of Personality that I realized one key thing – we are in part engineers, sometimes willingly, of our own deceptions- even on a grand scale. Certainly, there are individuals out there, working hard day any night, to create those deceptions and attempt to sell them to us, but we certainly are liable if not in some cases culpable to these actions. And once these cons have taken enough of a foothold on the people to become enforceable, or at the very least defendable, then we have doomed ourselves to partial responsibility for the results that follow.

And this, then, is the catchphrase for the blog: “Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur.” – The world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived. The blog url exists as a play on words along similar lines – “decipi revera”, loosely translated to “Ensnare in reality”.

Foreword

This... blog as it were- is not the first of my hands. I had previously held to keeping a journal or blogging as a sort of therapy of organizing the infinite mile-a-minute thoughts that whizz around my mind on various topics, at various stages throughout my life. I tell you this as a confession and a warning, that my writing style is, at times, hard to follow because I tend to take on a “stream of consciousness” narrative as I type.


Although this narrative mode is regarded in literary criticism, I tend to believe that it captures my thoughts in their purest, most passionate form- thus unaltered by the dulling/weathering effects of constant review and editing. After that, it is what it is, left to your interpretation, your validation, your opinion. Suffice to say- I have no agenda beyond personal growth and understanding. I have no motive other than to (read: attempt to) perceive whatever Truth I can discover about the world around us as I journey through this existence.


In past, my writings were quizzically optimistic, often times finding interesting new technologies or white papers and expounding on the concepts to theorize on their future importance or how they could be expanded upon to do something really cool. It is undoubtedly a passion of mine to take ideas and expand them, just as it is a passion of mine to take seemingly disparate concepts and find their commonalities and relate them.


It is this engine of curiosity and philosophy that fuels 80% of my daily mental activity.


If my writings of past didn’t focus on topics of science, history, or technology, they dealt with personal psychological growth- interrelationships with people in my life, mostly within the realms of love and friendships, and usually only when those relationships came under stress. Through those years I learned a lot about myself and others, and became an avid student of human nature.


So what is this then?


This is part of an overarching exercise - an effort- to grow beyond the narrow limitations of how everything relates to me, and widen my gaze to areas of the universe that exist outside my id/ego. It is though this progression in existentialism that I hope to gain knowledge and understanding of my relationship, our relationships, to all things. “Yo soy yo y mi circunstancia” – Ortega y Gasset


There is, however, a great hurdle that exists, and thus what sets the tone for my dark and ominous blog design. You see, it’s not just the challenge of knowing yourself, overcoming personal prejudices, overcoming experiences or circumstances within our own realm of thinking. It’s not just the challenge of absorbing new information, the process of discovery and working through the equations of our lives to achieve harmony... there are external forces that are in direct opposition of these processes.


There are, at all levels (religious, government, social, etc) individuals… organizations… movements… that have existed since the dawn of history that have artificially (and purposely) altered those realities as they are presented to each of us. In some cases it is analogous to “rose colored glasses”, designed to make things appear more pleasant than they actually are. In others they are not unlike 3d glasses, intended to create a complete fabrication of reality that our uninformed senses take as reality.


In fact, the more I learn, the more I realize just how thick the veil is that surrounds the things we perceive to be “true”. More so, there are individuals who seemingly need these veils because they use them to quantify their lives, rather than taking a step back to first qualify these doctrines.


As Leary put it:

“Throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening, terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are, or where we are going in this ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities — the political, the religious, the educational authorities — who attempted to comfort us by giving us order, rules, regulations, informing — forming in our minds — their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question authority and learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable open-mindedness, chaotic, confused vulnerability to inform yourself.”

This, coupled with my “mental engine” I described earlier, has created a sort of inspiring, horrific, embarrassing angst that I have made it so far past the first quarter of my life without caring more to investigate. It is this mental image that created the theme for this site – a theme I’ll discuss more in a future entry.


I’m harder on myself for this because I have to accept responsibility for inaction. I cannot say that I didn’t have opportunities to think and explore on these concepts earlier than now– I was never overtly “oppressed” in youth from questioning things, or coerced under duress to think any certain way.


But while, of course, “civilized” societies of today tend to condition and engineer a false sense of thought-freedom, I cannot claim total ignorance to these veils over the past many years either. As early as freshman year in college I was already given material to start with, such as a philosophy course which introduced me to works like Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. It was all there, around me. I understood the concepts. I was, interestingly enough, not shocked to find the truths about many of these things. What I lacked, and regret, is the capacity and motivation to care.


I think, for a time, that I must have felt somewhere between insignificant and selfish. Selfish in the sense that I had my own life to deal with – my own personal growth to work through – to worry about the world at large. I felt insignificant in the defeated sense that even if I was given the keys to the grand library of all truths and secrets, that my knowledge of such things would mean absolutely nothing without any kind of power to change the outcome or change the history books or even change current popular beliefs about those events.


And thus, those thoughts were merely thoughts- dancing around in the back of my mind without direction or purpose. Or, perhaps, I’m merely justifying my inexcusable ignorance. 


But I digress – in the spirit of “never too late”, this is where my intent rests. I have found a sense of responsibility that has grown over the past few years. I feel that I have come far enough in my own personal growth and understanding of the interdependencies of human life to hold a genuine care for our world and our species, and a desire to qualify and help progress to a state of clarity and transparency that I believe is necessary to transcend the dated and corrosive version of reality most of us live in.


Finally, I feel that it is as important for you, the reader, to take what I say with a grain of salt, as I always have and will when I read or listen to others. Do not simply allow me to inform you with my discovered views of reality. For one, I am no scholar. I do not have access to ancient tomes. Most of my research is limited to what I can find out there on that vast internet: videos, interviews, manuscripts of works, etc.


In the end I imagine there will certainly be things that I did not think of or facts that I was not aware of, and that is primarily why my work is on such a public domain as an internet blog. It is my desire to have my work scrutinized and corrected where necessary. It is my philosophy that I do not fear the investigation of ideals, no matter how terrifying they may seem on the surface.


See you on the other side.