# What Collective?
What is a collective? We already are the most complete and inclusive collective before using the word, and suggesting that some may be or not be a part of it.

To even announce its existence is to exclude from it. There previously was no line / barrier to consider that it even needs to be declared or defined. If all are included then no action need be taken and no announcement made. But now that it is declared, how does anyone become a part of it?

## Announce It
To even announce its existence is to exclude from it. There previously was no line or barrier to consider that it even need be declared or defined. If all are included then no action need be taken and no announcement made. But, now that it it is declared, how does anyone become a part of it? They must recognize it and agree to its purpose. So, though we had not this distinguishing association to consider before, we now hav ea new way of separating people.

## Becoming A Part
You must recognize it
You must agree to its purpose
You adopt a new way of separating people

## What Now
And what if you state that all are included, and that people are a part of it because they want to make the world better. Then, all who agree and change their debt of virtue and tell you about what sort of guilt they believe exists in this world.

But what if they don't want to be a part of it?
- They either don't want to introduce particular activities into their realm
- They don't accept the ideas you proclaim in the description of your collective or the view of the world it relies upon
- They don't want to associate with the ideas they deduce as being inherent in the collective or that which the collective symbolizes

In any case, it is an inelegant proposal for enslavement, marketed as liberation, and standing as asymbol of your ideology, yet you insist it is altruism devoid of ideology. This makes no sense because:
a) It is an enumerated set of ideals, and;
b) You leave yourself with no defense against ideology, in taking the default naive view - that you are not subject to the very things you are concerned about. Without consolidation, it would appear as a lack of awareness, or a demand for obedience and even worship - "Behold, I am the example"

# Tendency Towards Disorder
September 2, 2022
- To live a disorganized life
- To deviate from the acceptable path of progression
- To remain unbothered by loose configuration
- To consider advancement before foundation
- To reject the assumption that the foundation need be configured as a precedent
- To accept the scatter of unplotted bits
- Low superficiality

## Disorganized Life
Living a disorderly life is a well-known, infamous indicator of leftism, but we need to consider whether this is a bonafide flag. You see, women tend to be more organized, especially with how they configure the domecile (microaggression!), but they are also more commonly regarded as left-leaning. This appears to be a poor indicator, because it says nothing of how one reacts, biologically, to their disordered state. Some are overburdened, whereas others organize to become disorderly.

Too many variables and disparate formulations which appear as disorderly but, in terms of personality, which says the most about why someone chooses or accepts something, it would be seen through the degree to which they are conscientious.

Perhaps also most telling is the life trajectory, wherein it can be observed that one went about approaching activities and life circumstances with little regard for how each segment was conducive to providing an organized structure from which to conslidate resources. This does not mean that resources are necessarily even being acquired, but that a system was put into place to account for and manage the resources that were available.

## Deviate From the Path of Progression
The belief that there is one set path to progress through and that the nature of operations associated with one's activity be factored insofar that the materials can be seen to accrue one's supply of wealth and the degree to which one is consumed by and concerned with that. For many who are truly left, they understand that it invites criticism and abandonment by society to present unique development that cannot be neatly interpreted based on accepted progression within one known system. Even the consideration of hybrid or multifaceted approaches is generally viewed as frivolous and unnecessary/sub-optimal, and this may even be the case, but nevertheless, the point is that one must accept the risk of outcast from society associated with such strategies.

It requires that one's openness to unknown and undefined patterns be greater than their desire for comfortable and stable positioning within the system.

# Loose Configuration
What is meany by this term is the degree to which values or expectations of values must be assigned to known paramters of a system. Or even that each known parameter has an assigned value.

What makes a loose configuration useful, desirable or preferable? And, furthermore, is there room for loose configuration along Marx's path of history, especially at the perfected state?

There is no room for uncertainty in anything absolute, and nothing can be perfected unless it is absolute. The way around this argument is to say that there doesn't have to be an escaton or a perfected state, but that the period of liberation continues history. Is that not a type of deflection, though?

Certainly, the conception of a perfected state is still active and now the operative object, which acts as our own interface to the perfected state, is liberation or the process fo evolving the state with that purpose of liberation. It doesn't really matter is there is no unifying descriptor of what that looks like.

That's really the point of why collectivism can never resolve the paradox of how any one participant truly understands that they are part of the collective. That msut always remain an act of faith and something for which it becomes indefensible to demand participation of other potential collectivists.

## Defining Loose Configuration
September 6, 2022

Why might a mind wish for some aspect to remain unknown? It is simpler to receive the perfect configuration, ebcause you can enjoy the next part of existence.

What is wrong with having an aspiration to create as much of reality as is possible? To have such comprehensively defined configuration that one becomes the creator of reality?

The aspiration itself is not so problematic. The probelm arises when insisting that you understand the true nature of another. That is, your declared aspiration fo ranother is already intrinsically a form of projecting the self into them, but now you threaten to remove or negate or weaponize the surrounding environment - particularly what is referred to as infrastructure, but this is itself a loose term which may refer to anything from civil infrastructure (buildings, technology, water distribution/sanitization, etc) to people and even abstract concepts like culture.

You can only perceive reality as per your senses, so if creating reality, it would have to be assumed that you are creating the reality that you imagine you would perceive in the world - this can never be a process of creating the reality that you assume another would perceive, for you would have to assume that they would perceive what you perceive. Even if you envision a disparity, it would be in the form of adding a modification to a frame of perception that you correspond with.

To simplify, you create reality based on what you eblieve you would perceive or you create the reality you believe others should perceive. This is fine, unless you insist a moral failure for anyone else to fail to facilitate or actively bring about the reality desired. You are forcing them to take your beliefs and help transform reality accordingly.

But back to the question. Why prefer a loose configuration at all? Why not enforce the use of absolute until a robust configuration is amassed and refined and the perspective is something completely transformed?

The loose configuration allows for continuous transformation. Any specification is a limitation and, though there is utter chaos without constraint and limit, one must be wise to know which allocations should be kept dynamic and able to oscillate, aberrate, coalesce and dissipate such as to make room for energy to modify the structure.

Evolution is possible because the spaces between things get occupied with otherwise unseen and unnoticed entities and artifacts of the environment and this invitation for contribution brings harmony and context to the process and brings about eovliution whereby the resonant forms yield greater sympathetic forces and, ultimtaely, reach higher levels of expression.

The loose configuration is compatible with the fact of our terms and figures being infinite, with the difference between any two terms having infinity between them. The fact of there being configuration allows us to say that we wish a foundation from which to flourish and that we believe some concretization by choice is possible. It requires an innate senes, cultivated through experiencing resolution of chaos, to understand what components are to be permitted to breathe and allow fear of unseen dynamics to take place which will establish pathological ranges and that these transformations are worthwhile and even essential to our continued presence and development.

# The Lovingest Trans
September 13, 2022

The story of the transhuman who loved humans more than any mere human. They even became a transhuman purely as an act of altruism so they could test the waters and pave the way of saving their fellow man. And it is, of course, truly selfless.

But how could it be selfless if they believe it is the path to being saved? Are they not at least, even just in the material sense, saving themselves? Extending their lives? Augment capability? Maintaining capability that otherwise degrades?

Did they expect certain death or a biological/experential regression of some sort? Did they have such angst or none at all? Surely, the mind represented this path of action as a solution of sorts. Much in the same way, we have the self-less COLLECTIVIST.

The Selfless Collectivist goes about the lands, at great personal expense, and makes sure every person gets the opportunity to join "The Collective". Which Collective? Any At All? Well, of course not. It must either be their collective, or it is to agree with them that ultimtaely the "right choice" is to join a collective of some sort. So, now we must have the implicit collective of people who believe the emancipation of mankind rests on everyone being in a collective (though, taken to the logical conclusion, it would have to be one collective, for the need for a mutiplicity of collectives implies there is not a property of co-continuity between them).

And, then, what does it mean when someone agrees that the solution is a collective? That they have contemplated all the aspects necessary for one to come to this opinion? They spent their N hours of contemplation time? Now everything is solved, or will be solved, once everyone is confirmed as being in?

Does this solve energy distribution? We can just have those who have joined the collective uphold a pledge to not make a fuss about energy, so they won't present conflict or contradiction. And farming and food? Global conflicts?

No, if the collective is intended to solve anything beyond the problem of having people declare agreement about having a collective, then you have an infinite set of problems to which:
- a) A collective solution may be possible
- b) An unknown number of collective solutions can be formulated
- c) all members must agree to the chosen approach/solution
- d) All members should have the same reasoning and structures of thought surrounding the issue at hand. Unless a conflict becomes visible, all members of the collective presume alignment on what was mentioned, but if just one conflicts with the solution being sought, they become the impediment/obstacle to the progress of all humanity

# Concerns of a Left-Right Paradigm
September 12, 2022

## Introduction
- Patterns deduced, expected, unrealized, unrealizable, familiar, foreign, appropriate, permitted, forbidden.
- Centrality - to be centered - to be at the mid-point - furthest from chaos
- Safety and danger: Safety means assurance of known, familiar, low-entropy, modest transformative patterns
- Authority, no authority, free-reign, enforced structure, complete obedience and submission.

*People get confused trying to analyze and characterize what has been presented and named as the left, but we are particularly interested in:*
When older privilege becomes overly concerned with the patterns of the day and having assurance that it is:
- a) a controlled pattern, or;
- b) a pattern to which one conforms

Ultimately, it is impossible to be aware of every pattern, or to be aligned with every pattern, but our elevation is not specifically to see who is the most aligned, though strong correlation is to be expected.

## Objective
We are identifying someone's proclivity towards particular positioning along the left-right spectrum, therefore we are looking to understand their neurocognitive reaction to phenomena which informs their natural, biologically-mediated disposition along that spectrum.

In short, we wish to understand the relationship between emotional / psychological / parasympathetic stress and the perception of mysterious or uncontrolled/unfamiliar patterns.

## Groups
Codifying a set of known patterns is the precondition to each form of folk nationalism, particularly if the patterns are being promoted through a process of celebration, praise, and even evangelization. Proliferation through activism becomes a defacto imperialization at a less familiar scale.

"You must adopt this functionally and morally superior pattern. A pattern which is more correct. A pattern that demonstrates the proper way for us to become integrated."

Part of the way through which this is done is by declaring marginal status and the need to center the marginalized. But how is that a good distinction for saying one is "left"? Nazis are outcasts from society, contrary to what Blue Anon might claim, yet they are known as The Far Right, which they certainly are at the level of philosophy. But they are not the far right through a propensity to reproduce the center of society. To reproduce the structure with all of its oppressive consequences.

The fundamental distinction is that it is a drive to organize and preserve, but that this same drive can rationalize a desire to move the margin towards the center, or to make such a transformation appear to have been evoked by declaration alone. But you can't rid the effect of having a prevailing narrative which incentivizes and terrorizes society. If this narrative brings to attention the oppressor/oppressed divide, then many incentive structures are effected or erected. The ensuing interactions modulate the incentive structure, and so the complexity of understanding rationale at the level of the human, though it can be endlessly theorized, also becomes infinitely complex.

But, yes, Nazis. They wish to proliferate their folk nationalism and bring about a utopian era where a new man lives in a new age. Marginalized identities, like Queer or an ethnic minority, when championed as an identity to be enabled, praised adn celebrated, are exactly that as well: a folk nation-bearing symbols/people/familiar patterns, that wishes to be made more widespread, which brings about a society of new people who align with the theory, and who, upon reaching a infection point, will bring about a period of prosperity on the Utopia itself -> liberation.

Now, let's step back for a moment and examine the dimension of privilege

## Known Pattern of Privilege: Eternal Privilege
Women are constantly and continuously oppressed by everything in reality as a whole, as all of reality has been usurped, appropriated and consolidated into the desires, wants, aspirations, designations of the structure of human society which was erected for men, and is thus a patriarchal structure.

Of course, any desire for basic survival defaults to the conflict between the human most able to expend themselves in the pursuit of its resolution, as the ultimate representation of action to survive: reacting to the unforseen threat of nature. There if is no more telling an event of the fundamental axioms of human community, then what occurs when the unplanned destruction of that community is suddenly manifested as a real proposition. There is no exception to this, as everyone is aware of it innately: everyone expects the man to sacrifice his life, his time, his well-being, and his existence for those who are not men.

But that is a misrepresentation of the real lives and experiences of people living in society, historically and currently. Those who were once oppressed must live knowing that what was made precedent can always be made the case again. And, more importantly, we know that since asymmetries existed before, the material conditions, being asymmetrical then, bear a direct relationship to the conditions of today, thus making material conditions the appropriate dimension by which to indicate whether the oppression and privilege have been valenced differently. We speak of how it might be something other than material conditions now, such as how Marxists have gone into Culture and Knowledge. But that doesn't mean we aren't dealing with material conditions in order to make the claim that things must be transformed to be more equitable. The material condition will continue to be about whatever disparate matter can be identified and, for now, it remains to be composed almost entirely of a comparison of resources and finances, making it an endless and lifeless battle.

Ultimately, these conditions move them to and keep them in the margins of society. Only when centered have they the capacity to affect the creation of society and the world.

OK, but why is that all to be taken at face value? Can't it just be the case that if we simply keep it:
*The history of material conditions, shy of revisionism, are just that - our recorded history. If we are to regard them as chiefly responsible then this becomes a question about eternal hierarchies and the eternal placements you champion.*

## Covidism As a Subset of Gnosticism
Thrust into a world where:
- people die early
- people die unnecessarily
- people suffer unnecessary infections
- people are told illness is a normal part of life because they are so predisposed to perpetuating the ideology of capitalism and the growth myth
### Unnecessary Death
- Elderly but before their time
- children and young people because there is always some quantity of healthy people suffering
- Any death is unnecessary, but some deaths are acceptable because it's just a statistical anomaly.
  - What's most important is how the death affects the process of history