participating_in_what.md 1.7 KB
What we have here is some effort to coordinate the entire population into being committed to participating in a process which maximizes the rate at which we produce solutions for all enumerable diseases.
The size of the voices of the proponents in the dialogue, or I would even just call it a narrative, which decribes the problem being solved and the solution which best befits - and this is especially because of the war on words which attempts to control the most universally accepted expressions and make them more malleable - enjoy an enormous advantage in terms of the platform being afforded them, and the preferential treatment they are given by states and investors. It's the same old story which purports through naming the vastest array of human interests and replaces the process of refining the dialogue. This is because, when you serve Theory, you serve something which can be taken prematurely, through the frantic panic of the populace, and made into laws that dare not be challenged, it sells humanity short. Perhaps some would say that it's better to have some action than no action at all, but that's obviously false, for we all know of malicious actions. If we need for children to lay out battle of semantics in order to inform a decision that must be made - an action which must be performed - then all efforts to limit the process, for though it may contend that it is limiting processes that are negating other forms of human perception - its limitation is inherently one which limits human perception. The dialogue which evaluates the legitimacy of the claim that those processes that are suppressed were indeed suppressive, is one which is itself suppressive, and which achieves its aims through censorship.