The important thing that memory itself tries to forget

Many of our articles are not only about identifying problems, but also always making sure there are solutions to it. Since, if something is identified as a problem, but no solution is given, then that’s already a semantic lie.

Something either has a solution to implement, which would then mean we can keep calling it a problem or if you have no conceivable way of finding a solution to something then that would mean it’s a fact to accept and dwelling on it further serves no other purpose but not being busy with finding a real problem or executing a solution to it.

Since it’s certain there’s something else for which a solution could be implemented in that situation where time and effort is spent lamenting and debating a fact that needed accepting.

There is a major difference between a process that seeks to identify the difference between facts and problems, and one that simply wants to forget the difference between facts to accept and problems to solve.

Human societies depend heavily on the technology they create. And the definition of “technology” should always be considered immensely broad actually.

Communication in itself is a technology too. And everything that is born out of it.

And all forms of life use this technology, from single cell amoeba’s too everything else we see crawling around including ourselves.

Creativity is a more advanced technology that is not employed by all forms of life. Many forms are restricted to having to repeat the same patterns over and over again, and for those forms it’s basically the environment they live in that determines the chances of their survival. In most cases like that, the ideal persepective to look at that form of life would then be to observe the emering property of the entire group that is made up of those units that all untilize the same core patterns of reactions to certain external stimuli. Since they’re all limited to doing the same thing, you can make calculations on what the entire emulsion will do, how fast and where it will lead.

That’s just basic chemistry right? Here is a jar with so many of these little kinds of ping-pong balls… and in that same jar is a bunch of marbles… and if we throw then throw in a lot of heat in that environment to make it all jiggle around a lot then we already know what’s going to happen to the entire contents of that jar. That you can’t completely and accurately predict the precise movemt of each little ping-pong ball is not even worth trying to figure out , since that is just too chaotic and we now know exactly when this reaction will explode … so that’s good enough.

So it’s not that hard to see that when you consider that all business entitites in a modern economy need to adhere to stricts rules of behaviour for all external stimuli that the business could encounter… that means that you can basically look at something like “managing an economy” as “chemistry”.

But it’s a science of chemistry that so far has only discovered toxic elements, and is trying to maintain the illusion that it’s possible to keep adding toxic things to make the sum of it something good again.

• Add poison 1… mmmm the emulsion is toxic. We are going to fix this.
• Add poison 2…. mmm… the emulsion is still toxic. We are going to fix this.
• Add poison 3… mmm… the emulsion is still toxic. We are going to fix this.

Replace poison 2 with poison 4… mmm… the emulsion is still toxic. We are going to fix this.

etc… etc… etc…

The despiracy of economical theory. But then again, we’ve been there before right?

The despiracy of economical theory : Socialism Vs Capitalism

Having to choose between left and right always leads to dumber.

Dominic SedraniDominic Sedrani

And usually , when we come into the landscape of debating what would then be better to introduce into that emulsion than the poisons we know… 2 kinds of answers come up, and we’re going to expose the complete illogal insanity that both present , and that we just keep ping-ponging between those 2 obviously defunct modes of thinking is what your very mechanism of memory is always trying to forget.

And if you bring a few people together that keep reminding each other of what we shouldn’t forget , and that group of people pool their resources and time to create an environment and organisation that simply can’t forget this by design… Then we would have created a completely stable emulsion that is completely immune to those poisons and even actively repels them.

The process of experimenting with the chemistry of that emulsion would then go as follows.

• The emulsion is stable… We want to see what possibilities there are to expand it’s functionality.
• Add element 1… The emulsion rejects it , which means element 1 is toxic. Cease experimentation with element 1.
• Add element 2… The emulsion rejects it, which means element 2 is toxic. Cease experimentation with element 2.
• Add element 3… The emulsion accepts it, and after an observable, measurable and reproducable effect… the resulting emulsion is stable.

We now have 2 completely different emulsions that are both capable of solving problems. We now have 2 solutions , and have also identified 2 toxic elements.

That would be a whole lot better in a whole wouldn’t it?

So how come we keep failing to reach that situation when a very large group of humans try to organise themselves? Because they have all been thaught to stay stuck in those 2 kinds of responses I talked about before. And we are know going to break both of them down , which hopefully will expose the 3’d option that will always lead to better , in stead of leading to just giving up.

(And that giving up , is again part of that very important thing that you very process of memory wants to forget)

So let’s get into it. The 2 kinds of answers that always keep the actual solutions locked up.

Option 1 : Devolutionary

There are 3 subvariations of how this one starts , but that can be savely ignored since all 3 ways lead to the next leap of faith into pure fantasy after that… so we’ll skip those 3 and reduce them to one again.

The problem is humans, so the solution has to be technology!

The problem is technology, so the solution has to be technology!

The problem is the environment, so the solution has to to be technology!

Which is just always saying .

“I accept that how we’re using this technology is bad, so the solution is to apply more of this technology this way. Or other technologies , but definintely always in the same way! ” .

Option 2 : Revolutionary

This is an easy one. And you know many examples of it.

“The problem is everything, so it needs to start with destruction! “

Now, these two choices always irrecovably lead to the same situation which has only one simply possible solution to being resolved. Which it will invariably do , since that’s just causality.

Revolution has always been fomented by the ones devolving, to try and stop evolution, since from the perspective of a devolving cognition, evolution is the absolute enemy of it’s reason for existence.

Devolution creates revolution to hide the obvious direction of evolution.

So in a way, unconsciously, revolutionaries and devolutionaries find themselves unconcious accomplices in the war against evolution.

Left Vs Right is therefor always down.

And the direction of up and out of that is it’s only answer that makes sense. Which is something neither revolutionaires nor devolutionaries want to hear.

Unstoppable force, meets immovable object. Resulting in a cascade of unpredictable destructive explosions of consumption leading to a new collection of more basic reagents.

High energy particles becoming more reactive on the one side… but in an ever diminishing volume over time , and low energy particles becoming less reactive on the other side… but in an ever increasing volume over time.

A chain reaction with a feedback loop built in.

The process is addicted to itself, and has only one mode of responding, one answer to the same situation and that answer creates the same situation again.

The difference between a fire and an explosion is only it’s speed compared to the relative volume of reagents in it’s environment. And that applies wether or not you’re talking psychology, sociology, chemistry, physics … or economics…. or politics , which is sort of the overly summarised summary of the summaries of all those other things. But then summarized into soundbites. And then the summaries of the summaries of those soundbites.

And then that is called “Socio-economic theory and Government”. Which are all just neccesary to do in that.

But it’s that hard to summarize the issue they all share which is that all of those things are based on one single piece of technology that’s being used the wrong way from the bottom up.
That “wrong way” is actually also just the fact that it’s being used in the wrong direction, which makes “the wrong way” both the name and the definition of itself. :)

True, this works, but it’s being used in the wrong direction now.

That wrong way is the behavioural sink problem grown out of a misconception when it comes to the concept and direction of communication. And the difference that needs to be employed when communicating with self-similar entities, or heterogeneous entities.

Option 3 : Up and Away

(You can sort of think about it like adding the laws of physics and biological chemistry to how best to create cooperative models that have positive effects. It’s only based on a thing called reality. Silly, isn’t it?)

Which can be achieved simply by using the components we have, but in the opposite direction, causing the resulting vector of gravity to change from down to up.

I mean… that’s just basic particle physics people. You know… the thing you all say everything is made out of? Like, literally… everything! So perhaps this basic property has something usefull to remember… like, literally… everywhere? Maybe?

Anyways… I digress.

What does all this mean in practice we now have to conclude. Theory and talking and writing is all fine and dandy, but that’s not the same as doing stuff.

Alllllrighty then. The doing part.

(Using important vocabulary of analogy constructed firsthand, which is why all that other stuff had to be read before this could make sense.)

The solution is building a cooperative model that does not make the “wrong way” mistake when it comes to the technology of communication.

To be able to do that a distinction in types of communication needs to be defined, and then strictly monitored in everything you build, and do, and think about.

Self-similar communication is what you’re all used to today , and probably the only mode of it you can imagine is possible. That’s ok. Go with the flow.

That’s really easy when everything is predictably the same as you in how to respond to which pre-defined things of being allowed to happen.
Automation , as you will.

Heterogenious communication is anoter mode where the direction is reversed , since the thing something is trying to communicate with is actually totally different from the first thing.

That’s really difficult since everything is unpredictably different in how to respond to which undefined things of not knowing what will happen.
Chaos, if you will.

The simple fact that you are communicating with something different, means you have to change how to use communication there.

Internally, a human’s internal communication is in complete openness and honesty at all times. There are no firewalls or gatekeepers between the nervous system and the musculatory and sensory systems at all. Everything is completely and utterly specialised in total and complete honesty.

None of our organs or systems in a human body can ever knowingly, or purposefully try to “cheat” in that.

And we even have a name for when that happens due to accidents and pollution and violence and such… that’s called cancer.

When single cells that refuse to push their built-in self-destruct button when sensing they can no longer be a positive contributor to their environment group together and start to grow together in that cannibalistic extractionary mindset , that it’s called cancer. There are many names for many kinds of it, from many causes , but that one’s true for them all.

What that cell didn’t “forget” though , is that it’s still “switching” the communication mode on the event horizon between “inside” and “outside” from the perspective of the single cell , which is part of a larger organism.

Before , when the self-destruct button mechanism was still operational… it worked in complete honesty and oppenness for all mytocondrial machines floating around in a liquid free-for-all space of slimy goo where random machines and random raw components float around. Leading up to the functional result of maintaining a synchronized force that creates an event horizon of resistance against it’s environment which we call, the cell membrane.

Whether cancerous or not.. internally the “truth and trust” paradigm inside the cell doesnt change. It still operates in that same totally open, and totally honest blob of goo. But now there’s something floating around in there that changed the direction that this particular blob is taking.

The one in the direction of “no limits” … since there isn’t an operational self-destruct mechanism available anymore. Since none of the internal processes going on have a panic button anymore… each and every singular process within the blob could become a chain-reaction with a feedback loop.

You need a universal “loop-cutter” mechanism baked into the thing, or the cell cannot remain alive.. because turning into the cancerous cell strategy is just slower failure , by first consuming the environment untill it bloats itself into the explosion.
It’s only delay… not a solution. And the blob that does have a universal “loop-cutter” built in every subprocess… that one is a living cell that contributes positively to the larger organism. Which could also just be part of an larger organ, which can be part of a larger body.

But even in the “Electrical and hydraulic” moosh on information call the human body… that same communication paradigm applies. Only organs that have built in “loop-cutter” processes , based on the only input they can know, which are electromagnetic and hydraulic. Once one of them isn’t completely truthfull in each and every tiny transaction , the organism made up of the rest of them will literally “reject” that organ. And to do that, it only has to change one thing , which is turn the communication with it from self-similar to homogenous. You’re different, so you’re not me. You’re the same, so you’re me.

Now let’s apply this way of thinking to how to create a type legal entity called a business that we could inject into the current legal , economic and political reality in which now all citizens on planet earth live in.

If we would call this “Organic Economics” , then we could use this story for it.

This type of organisation would basically live like a virus that gets eaten up by cancerous cells, but survives the digestion process and once inside in the blob, it reintroduces a “self-destruct loop-cutter” into each and every tiny little process it can find within that single cell. After a while the cancer cell will return to normal constructive behaviour for it’s environment again and also create new offspring of the original virus that it was infected by.

How to create this kind of organisation?

That’s the sort of thing I want talk about face-to-face with people a lot now.
Since after debating and finetuning it for many years… It’s completely finished and that’s what we’re trying to get going so that we can just show this.

Sadly… The host body really really really really wants to stay sick at the moment but that’s a fact we accepted so we’d have time to work on solutions to problems we can fix.

But that’s something we’ll write about tomorrow.

maybe… ;)