short_notes.md 6.0 KB
Perceptual Archetypes
Perceptual frame, finitude, all things leading to contraint and suffocation, visualization of all threats lead tio enclosed conception -> moving inwards, restricting possibilities, governs our behaviour at a fundamental level.
Our unique form -> bringing in or rejecting out. How we react must surely awlays consolidate this.
Coupled with our social desire and history of manipulating groups through the types of stories which we naturally formulated archetypes around:
- Religion, wokeism, covodianism
- how to conquery this?
- master the individual pursuits, training, visual freedom, learning a system of expression
Long Term Implications
It was always about long term implications. Certainly, it could be that the jab works to prevent some severe disease, but then one would be choosing it to save themselves. Long term effects be damned, as well as any consideration as to how one's immune system is primed to behave differently. Long term fertility, cancer risk, neurological effects, immunity, cross reactive immunity, and so on -> these cannot be known, and any could take precedence over the benefit one might have in terms of mitigating severe disease from the target pathogen.
Profit
So is it all just for profit, then? How does all this come to pass? Is it an explicit theft?
Profit: Depends on what you mean
Obviously, none of these undertakings are even viable if they cannot yield a profit, or the productive capacity wouldn't exist. These types of mechanisms are all set up as part of emergency preparedness planning, which is achieved through intergovernmental agencies at the global scale. That these agreements constitute a form of evidence supporting profit motive is akin to calling it a conspiracy. These are all things that can be organized in plain sight, therefore there are plenty of common sense reasons to excuse whatever formulations and agreements they produce.
We have already heard key politicians declare that covid is a unique opportunity to initiate and advance operations otherwise unfeasible and unviable - we should stop our habit of failing to criticize demands and proposals under general fear of being labeled conspiracy theorist (CT), because we can see that there needn't be a conspiracy when those who stand to benefit garnish their bias with hubris as they gloat in open sight without the most minimal semblance of self awareness necessary to acknowledge the risks associated with gamefying situational response (in all its terms -> disaster relief, emergency preparedness, sustainable development, etc)
So this brings us to the next question: why are we so uncritical? Who are we talking about?
- Do you support it?
- Conesquences of public visibility on the matter -> for each of previous response
- Means by which one is affected
- Aggregate effect towards overall bias
In theory we could encode an algorithm to evaluate bias and capability towards forming opinions on matters, and one might say that that is what this totalitarian transformation is promising, and that that is actually a very good thing, because we can finally be granted a procedure for living our lives that is fair and ethical, but that is so obviously doomed to failure - perhaps best described as a position of faith:
- They have faith that whoever produces the algorithm is objective
- Faith that the algorithm will do precisely what it should
- Faith that an algorithm can be created for this purpose
- Faith that the algorithm written isn't one of several, any of which might be better, or they are all the same (functionally, or otherwise)
- Faith that there is only one algorithm possible
- Faith that writing an algorithm for a specific purpose produces the one intended and that our understanding of it does not change after its fruition
No change in our depth of understanding of something which changes a macro position/fundamental position. Many of these things we pursue are of a quality such that it commits great cost to some (even all) in order to see it fulfilled - When are we being clear about teh costs of these things? About the fundamental restructuring of being itself? We are not just specifying our conditions of comfort and safety, we are specifying conditions of life and death at a time when these have largely been virtualized. Even just the manner in which we discuss these terms and learn / receive information.
Now that we have have the opportunity to repeatedly see the matter being expressed in zero sum terms and do so ourselves with a virtually-derived aspect of anonymity, this all leads to a setting which more readily permits a virtual conception of the human mind, the human body, the human life and even the human soul. Should we not consider that this effect serves to make the value of life more arbitrary? Should we not ask ourselves:
- Why is that?
- Is that something we (I) are aiming at?
- Is that what should be targeted?
- To the exclusion of what? Human life? Net greater loss of life, for the benefit of order and predictability? Or the same loss / same distribution?
You can't realy escape it - we need to be evaluating life with our every breath, and that value is itself a breathing phenomenon which aberates and oscillates and saturates and recalibrates a dynamic range of potential whose possible points of value / observation are themselves expessed as a permutation whose configuration is set by calibrated, permutated ranges of potential factors with possible weights of coefficients that are themselves evaluated by similar constructs on the order of infinity. So who downplays complexity, or acknowledges it while pretending to offer a solution which adequately resolves these concerns?
It takes fundamentally consistent positions to maintain coherence in such systems of transformation. And fundamentally consistent positions can only be specified and ahered to by relying on terms and datum that are themselves as fundamentally concrete as possible.
In most cases, however, it is impossible to keep close observation of the most fundamental scope upon which a system functions.