[Updated 25/06/2016: now includes full ‘Bucket list’, with minor spelling/grammar corrections]
Open, Legal and all MP’s (these letters made public shortly…):
Hi old beans, slightly belated B’day congratulations/commiserations (delete as applicable); obviously you didn’t give enuff hints about this fortuitous day prior, as I nearly missed it – so close as well…
This is a kind of ‘fore-letter’, partly on behalf of a Crisis campaign no-one-turned-away (click through) about getting MP’s involved in debating and passing a Bill on er, homeless; as well as continuing a personal directive. Lots of birds one stone, sort of thing 😉
What follows is the proverbial wall of text – after the list of MP’s (don’t need to include that, from the Government site, they can deal with ‘ex’ MP’s); not to worry though, as apart from a brief foreword on the recent Sciencedaily article (Gov. already know about it, placed in public); you probably know the rest, which happens to be the full copy of: Bucket List 1-4
This is more to give the MP’s a full background to events – as if they didn’t know already…
The reason for sending it to the BBC and not doing it ‘myself’ is as previously stated on record: as an ‘independent’ arbiter, the BBC is acting as ‘go between’ to ensure that ALL communications get to the targets without Government interference; and keeping proof of that sending/receipt.
I have given the BBC EVERY chance to explain itself in writing, if and why it has not done this; I have received NO communications to that effect, from BBC or Government/s.
It is not my fault for the amount of information to be sent; you can start with the most recent and letters to PM/Government/s.
Looking forward to not hearing from you 😀
Martin, S. F. R.
NB going to send the MP list separately, just to keep things slightly easier for you – I know, I’m too fucking kind…
Technically supposed to be ‘local’ MP, however, the Security Service Agents kindly agreed to ‘include’ all MP’s for a collective posting.
https://community.crisis.org.uk/no-one-turned-away/home#takeaction : MP’s can assist in this by attending the debate when it comes up, and vote for the Bill in Parliament.
Now, this is the main crux of the issue, the reasons for my ongoing homelessness and denial of fundamental rights which has been extensively detailed in letters to the BBC and Government.
From a legal standpoint, it will/has been assumed that you are fully informed and up to date with the communications made to the BBC and Government/s (S.S Agents have repeatedly claimed to have done so). Any communications made to you by Government/s agencies, but NOT communicated to me previously in writing, are by common publicly made consent (Security Services) NOT usable in Court or as a basis for further communications/actions. This again, has been publicly agreed to by the Security Services and their Agents representative of the Government/s.
After all, if all and any requests to resolve the issues brought up, including making the circumstances known to ALL MP’s, past and present.
Also, as the S.S. have been actively involved in the writing of this letter and its content, with such communications being public – they also forfeit ANY interference (having publicly admitted so)with its propagation and responses.
As the Government/s Agents have once again noted (and NEVER DENIED in writing): as I am NFA (No Fixed Abode) in Westminster, I am automatically NFA to EACH and EVERY MP that has the right to come to Parliament – whether or not they have physically attended; even the ‘Law Lords’ are effectively in agreement with this, they have had EVERY chance to opine otherwise.
Please check through all their prior written communications to me, these can be gained through the BBC; in fact, I have written to the BBC to send you all the communications (most recent first).
Mr M. Nickells
S. Fulcio Radicitus
firstname.lastname@example.org Site containing recent (cleared) articles/emails. Contact preferred via BBC for verification reasons.
[As noted in above letter, this was also sent with recent Sciencedaily article about Game Theory and: Bucket list 1-4
Go ahead and write to any MP you like; inside info (Security Services) is that they been told “…not to respond”. Well, I suppose that is ‘consistent’ if not unutterably dumb of’em…
Segue Fulcio Radicitus
Ps, also sent current list of MP’s from the Governments own site (with a couple of ‘Easter eggs’), this publicly available info so not posted here.]
Bucket list: Invoking O.S.A
Why would I want to invoke the OSA when I’ve spent a large portion of my life fighting against it and its hidden enforcers?
Or, it might well be asked: well, why haven’t you invoked it already?
Maybe it’s an act of perversity on my behalf, to do the one thing that would be one of the last things anyone in this field would like to find themselves having to do. For to do so, pretty much sets up a warning signal that a ‘fuck-up’ has landed.
A fuck-up, yes, not one of mine though; for remember, I’ve spent years trying to get those fuckwits in Government to actually speak to me, and resolve the shit-heap in which they jumped head first into.
By invoking the OSA, they did the very thing that anyone who finds themselves in a ‘counter-espionage’ situation dreams of – an effective admission of ‘guilt’. Especially, when added to by the repeated refusal of the protagonists to do the reasonable and intelligent thing: resolution.
I suppose, in this scenario is one of the things it is most definitely desirable to have done against you; so, why is it on my ‘bucket list’, or, indeed, why haven’t I invoked it before?
To understand this, it is necessary to gain some insight into the nature of the ‘work’ I was involved in, and how, the Government managed to screw up on a level hitherto believed to be impossible. On a theoretical front, such colossal shitfuck could only be considered on a strictly ‘Blue Sky’ hypothetical level of reasoning; on the actuality basis of having made such decisions, sticking by them and then repeatedly without break or ‘deviation’ (ha!) continuing with the self-same formulae…
I was involved with the dark arts of Game Theory as applied to the mechanics of ‘Consciousness’, individuality and group dynamics; or, as it turns out, a fancy way of saying human interactions.
So, what is ‘Consciousness’?
Even now, as then, that word has the scientific (and, admittedly, much of the rest of the) world at odds as to what constitutes it.
Then, I was blissfully unaware of these complexities and arguments; I applied Occam’s Razor (simplest ‘whole’ solution’) and worked on that, defining experiments that worked on myself and, eventually, those around me. Those that have been in that rare and fortunate situation, where having found a correct path to a problem, then find ‘unexpected’ answers to other problems cascading into place.
O.K, it wasn’t quite as simple as that (never is really, is it?), but over the years a profoundly simple answer availed itself to interrogation and exploitation.
But first, it is necessary for me to once again to state categorically that the: Maharishi TM movement had ABSOLUTELY NO KNOWLEDGE OR INSIGHT into the nature of my research; that includes staff etc.
Now, as then I have nothing but the deepest respect and affection for Maharishi, for his insights, and, as it turned out, for creating the perfect ‘laboratory’ (with his expressed interest in and encouragement in application of scientific principles).
[Mentmore Towers (Wikipedia link), this was where the culmination of the experiments took place, beautiful place…]
Indeed, Roydon Hall, Swythamley Hall country houses, places where the public could go and do various courses, and practice TM in a group. Beautiful places in often in deep countryside, I spent many years in these peaceful places; spending long hours in deep meditation, discretely analyzing, experimenting and testing.
Not just ‘mental’, but physiological as well, effects on the body (mine) of vegetarianism, vegan-ism etc. For the record, I am not (other than for experimental reasons) vegetarian; dead animals taste too good, it all comes down to personal considerations and respect for the world around us. This is really a side issue in the big scheme of things – don’t let it side-track you.
Apart of and apart from: this sums up and describes my time in TM; I was never in the positions of ‘authority’ or ‘responsibility’, working in the grounds, or on maintenance, as a cook, a dogsbody, someone in the background, these were the areas of my humble temporal work.
I had no (nor did I desire) access to ‘information’ about the inner workings of TM or its people; of course occasional scuttlebutt would find me, aside from the minor incidental amusement such information afforded me about the doings and events, that was where it stayed. I remember, having a chat with someone (staff) about the Security Services, and my response was simply that they probably already had people ‘on the inside’ since 60’s or so.
So, what was my value to the Government? It wasn’t information or ‘influence’, for I had little or none of either – and absolutely no interest in working ‘against’ those genuine people involved in TM; an organisation I cheerfully worked and assisted in my own way.
There is a clue perhaps in that last statement: what do I mean by ‘genuine’?
Perhaps the answer is simple, when I was asked about TM I often replied: when correctly practiced it does seem to work, but it won’t change the nature of the person doing it!
An arsehole practicing TM will – at best (?) be a more relaxed, focused ‘arsehole’.
Perhaps it would be better to phrase it thus: an innately corrupt person remains so regardless of the techniques the may practice (TM or otherwise). Of course, this raises the obvious question as to what defines a ‘corrupt’ person, and why should it be so difficult to change their nature. Ancient Traditions also ‘identified’ this ongoing problem, but their ‘answers’ were strangely garbled; why?
There was recognition of deep flaws (the flip side of the potential beauty) in human nature; but, the ‘answers’ seemed to be none or at least weirdly conflicted. There were clues aplenty in various cultures throughout the ages, that had considered this problem, with little or no long term results. Problems kept arising, ‘enlightenment’ (whatever that may be) for the populace as a whole never arose; ‘Gurus’, ‘High Priest/Priestesses’, every age, society, culture had those that sought the answers. On the localised, individual level even for large numbers but, profound problems kept cropping up; maybe that was because, ultimately there was no ‘solution’ and that it was entirely a biological mechanism of the brain.
In all this and more, doubts, contradictions swirled like a noxious pea-souper fog within my brain. There where no ‘definitive’ proofs one way or the other; whatever ‘answers’ if there was one, had to resolve the seemingly irreconcilable differences we all (knowingly or not) experienced. Yet, all these questions could be resolved if the ‘mysticism’ was simply a way of training the brain, to behave in a coherent ‘logical’ form. There again, the experiences and social problems described by the Ancients could have resolved relatively ‘easily’, either way in a brutally simple way – eradication. This may not seem ‘enlightened’ to the casual reader, but wars, killing, cruelty are a part of all our histories; evidently, either for either side (‘good’ or ‘bad’, terms in themselves rather problematic) the problems kept reoccurring.
This indicated, problematically, that it wasn’t entirely ‘biological’ in nature; for if there was a entirely ‘biological’ cause to societal problems, then somehow this could be affected by social cleansing; not absolute proof by any means, for ‘problems’ arose regardless of culture, gender, sexuality, family/parental lineage. These themes are extremely uncomfortable reading/consideration for the vast majority of people; this does not mean they have not been examined in depth by our ancient predecessors – even in coded form.
Unpalatable thinking is one those things that people rarely consider, especially when it comes to considerations of ‘enlightenment’; maybe, this is one of the reasons Maharishi often spoke of is, “Speaking the sweet truth”, for there is great discomfort and even danger speaking the plain ‘truth’ – especially, if one doesn’t know the identity or nature of ones ‘enemy’.
Funny, the spiritual path is oft considered highly honourable, with internal and external discipline a priority for gaining ‘mastery’ over oneself; rarely, does this ‘hidden’ alternative history – not in a separate sense, come to the fore. Again, why was this ‘story’ hidden and from whom? Was I reading to much into history, or asking the same questions that had been asked before innumerable times throughout the ages, and why (aside from social sensibilities) was this so dangerous.
Seeking answers to these points is not dangerous, but it did point out some remarkable similarities: race, gender, beliefs, politics, biological history (family etc.) were almost entirely irrelevant when it comes to societal problems.
Still, all this ‘proved’ was that it did not contain the ‘solution’, or that somehow any ‘solution’ (if there was one) must transcend these problems; we were reminded that we were living in the ‘Age of Aquarius‘ or Kali Yuga, cultures (including the Vedas) throughout the world had eschatological indicators of the present age. If there was a universal answer, from a global cultural perspective, then the indicators were extremely disturbing from all points of view. That was the fascinating problem, but how in hell did they retain a focused perspective over the ages if there was a biological basis for ‘consciousness’; was it a form of group (global) psychosis that had genetic predisposition to channel into a focal point (present time)? Given the nature of the global mindset over the decades, none of the potential ‘answers’ were edifying; and all of profound interest to any Government.
Of course, if it turned out ‘consciousness’ did have a basis ‘external’ to the biological, this of course raises the question as to why then have a ‘biological’ brain at all? So many questions that arose from this, but the potential value of the answers, especially if they could be put to ‘use’ was/is staggering. Irony has a special place in all this, history tells us ‘enlightenment’ was rarely – if ever – attained by ‘committee’, so it turns out the only way to ‘truth’ is through individual endeavour. Governments should have heeded this most obvious pitfall, and sought such answers for themselves, but like ‘committees’ they are bound by group dynamics of ‘authority’ and the greatest delusion of all – denial of accountability.
Even though on my todd, my quest had the advantage of knowing from direct experience the nature of the experiments performed, and the meaning.
Therein was the crux of the issue, their access to any ‘knowledge’ would always be a distant ‘second hand’; knowledge was not a ‘given’, it had to be experienced. That could only be gained through experimentation, differentiation, and active and profound study of the subject. May I remind those seeking a chronological study of the events, that such does not exist; as I indicated in the letters to the BBC, I never kept a diary, or record of events, this and the information I sent are indicative of the thought processes – not necessarily those or in that order.
A long way from the ‘Bucket list’, this is to show some of the complexities that were involved in trying to reduce back to a simple set of rules, that in turn could give rise to the extraordinary complexity and richness of the world we see around us.
Simplest whole solution, doesn’t mean a simple pathway to that answer, the next part is a ‘simple’ answer to that problem (I hope 🙂
Bucket List 3
Even fortune, serendipitous linking of thought processes that a more ‘educated’ mind might dismiss as erroneous can lead to great insight; if only by the process of ‘opening up’ the box one may find oneself trapped in. Of course, this does not deny the necessity of more grounded reasoning, scientific methodology, which then ‘throws out’ the original errors and replaces (open-minded) alternative structures.
So, of all the forest of possible interactions, what were the ‘core’ critical ones, and how did they combine?
Recently in the news, there was some research that was done to examine the minimal number of genes that constituted ‘life’ in a cell [ arstechnica]; as mentioned in the article, sometimes you have to do hard empirical research. When you’ve identified certain parameters, going through the ‘options’ of testing which is ‘required’ is the only (or easiest) way of reducing to a core set of functions. Of course, then one has to define a set of appropriate experiments to satisfy the needful criteria.
But, there is a catch: first one needs the basis of a theory in order to define the nature of the experiment; but what basis does one take (if any) ‘version’ of historical interpretations (Biblical, Vedas etc.) was most accurate – or least distorted?
Even a starting position was profoundly difficult: did we start as ‘clones’ of a putative God (whether or not ‘S/He’ exists/ed’, or the correct interpretation of the texts); again, there could well be a ‘biological’ grounding (brain states) for the described.
Another problem for the Biblical ‘God’ (as well as others of similar type), is the extra-ordinary contradictions that arise when examined – the same questions that arose earlier must also explicable. ‘Mysteries of God’ come across as feeble excuses that allow phenomenal abuses of the system within which they are used.
To use the analogy of the microprocessor as an ‘God’, omnipotent, all-powerful, unchanging, all-knowing ‘Creator’: as the processor is fixed all interactions are standardised, so any ‘local’ differences (individual, cultural, religion etc.) should receive ‘standard’ feedback (‘instructions’) – our real world feedback is… disturbingly troubled in contrast. Saying that a ‘processor isn’t perfect – unlike God’ is reinforcing the point just made.
Freewill: we were made in the ‘image’ of God – apparently; so, let use that as a starting point and see if we can advance from there (all are ‘good’ or ‘neutral’ – the same). Each ‘being’ is identical ergo, should act in ‘unison’ with every other ‘being’; if in a group then the social pressure would surely crush any individuality or advantage in going ‘bad’ – what would define ‘bad’ anyway?
Strip away the concept of ‘God’, it is an ingeniously simple construct that creates more distortions and distractions, with no proof of there actually being one. God construct is complicated under the guise of simplicity, it creates more ‘problems’ than it ‘solves’ – in short, genius!
Accountability is distracted by having an all-powerful excuse – of course, it is easy to claim that ‘God works in mysterious ways’, a crutch of profound ‘strength’ that only ‘evil’ denies! Get rid of the ‘God’ construct and it automatically destroys the ‘Devil’ construct – individual accountability is brought back into the frame.
Also, the all-powerful ‘God’ takes on a dynamic evolutionary path, hierarchical systems of ‘Gods’ competing; unfortunately, that really doesn’t help much in resolving problems.
Deception, misdirection, an ancient war describing and misinforming; that there were deeper levels seemed clear, though the reasoning was cloudy, resonances like a tuning fork kept reoccurring.
If the ‘God’ principle doesn’t work, the only option is to remove it; can always replace later if needed.
Dynamic, Accountability, Freewill, All Same Start, Sovereign Individuals.
The words above don’t look like much, do they?
Nothing to explain ‘origin’, ‘how’ or ‘why’…
Immortality, Reincarnation, Afterlife
Another group of words that sum up pervading religious thought around the world – Valhalla.
‘We come into this world…’
Our temporal stay in this world is regularly described as temporary (fair enough, it is); the spiritual realm is remarkably similar to that of the physical, in fact ‘immortality’ is pretty much the only difference.
Let us add ‘Immortality’ to that list, and see what happens:
Dynamic, Accountability, Freewill, All Same Start, Sovereign Individuals , Immortality.
A clean sheet, no ‘history’, doesn’t describe how or why, what was the original conflict?
What are most conflicts about – stripping away politics, religion, what do we need? Resources…
With ‘infinite’ resources available, then there would be very little conflict, for each Cell (Sovereign individual) would simply take as much as required; but, there are no such thing as ‘infinite’ resources so what happens in a limited scenario?
Another ‘problem’ is how the ‘cell’ interacts with its environment, and evolves in accordance with the feedback. Each ‘Cell’ is a dynamic, changing unit Sovereign to itself; as each is ‘Sovereign’ on its own, there can be no primal state of ‘sin’ or ‘corruption’, or ‘good’ either. Where does ‘sin/corruption’ come from?
We’d have a problem if we stuck with ‘God’ clones: earlier, it was noted that: Each ‘being’ is identical ergo, should act in ‘unison’ with every other ‘being’; if in a group then the social pressure would surely crush any individuality or advantage in going ‘bad’…
To use the analogy of the microprocessor as a ‘God’, omnipotent, all-powerful, unchanging, all-knowing ‘Creator’: as the processor is fixed all interactions are standardised, so any ‘local’ differences (individual, cultural, religion, etc.) should receive ‘standard’ feedback (‘instructions’) – our real world feedback is… disturbingly troubled in contrast. Saying that a ‘processor isn’t perfect – unlike God’ is reinforcing the point just made.
Bucket 4: Heresy, jump in – it feels lovely…
In order to understand group dynamics, it is increasingly important to comprehend how each ‘Cell’ works; it is clear that these cannot be considered as ‘fixed’ computers, that there is a much more subtle and complex mechanism in place.
That ‘feedback loop’ is a fundamental part of the process is obvious; it was also apparent that by analysing and understanding one’s own mind processes, could provide clues to this primal state, hopefully.
‘Thoughts, activity, settling to an ordered stated…’, this initially sounded like a coherent fixed Cell foundation, but, this did not fit with previous considerations. If the ‘primal’ Cell was ‘re-programmable’, then it had to be flexible – loose, it must also be internally stable; self-referring, self-organising…
In order to maintain a coherent and stable core – it had to be self-organising. In other words, the internal building blocks were not ‘intelligent’, but worked ‘together’ to create ‘intelligence’. In math’s & computers, logic functions, equations – not complicated, but simple, added together to create complexity, the ‘world’ could be described mathematically; whether or not the Universe could be described thus as particles could have done the same job, bit like self-interacting Lego bricks. I didn’t know which, but either path ‘worked’ so in a sense didn’t ‘matter’. [Maybe both Masculine and Feminine, see tweets/emails to BBC frodbodkin88.]
This opened up new avenues of thought, that if ‘Consciousness’ consisted of self-interacting building blocks, then again, there was no need for ‘God’. None of this explained ‘humans’ yet, or the nature of the world around us; Cell group dynamics took on more subtle and intriguing hue. My mind wasn’t fixated on one particular problem or set of, often flitting hither and thither, or nowhere in particular; once an ‘answer’ is found, this impacted upon other problems.
Of course, such a ‘Cell’ required energy (resources) to work; what caused a Cell to ‘collapse’ (re-organize), what were the possible consequences? Was there a corollary to our own experience? Did this directly impact upon group dynamics, could this happen to a ‘group’?
It is easy to become ‘lost’ within the range of questions that could be asked; when that happens it is often the only option open – experience, that can lead – usually indirectly – to possible answers; what was being rapidly learnt, was that there was a ‘long’ way between the primal Cells and ‘us’ as humans. At the same time, the group dynamics was proceeding nicely, if with the nagging thoughts that something else was missing in the core process of collapse and evolution maintaining integrity.
Mind games: as I’ve explained several times, this is as much about the ‘process’ of working it out; over time the ‘words’ used have changed, for instance: ‘Cells’, nowadays I use this word fairly often, but, in the past I never (or very rarely) used this word in terms of ‘consciousness’. This has an interesting effect, it created a ‘blind spot’ in the thought process where certain aspects that words suggests (in context of the problems to be solved) aren’t available.
Originally, when considering these problems I thought/considered of it as – not ‘cells’, but ‘seeds/eggs’; this might not seem much, but it was enough to throw me of kilter for a bit. ‘Seed/egg’ is/was a much more useful description; for a seed contains a ‘germ’ surrounded by nutrients with a shell (Sovereignty). It was this that led me onto where, sometimes, Occam’s Razor doesn’t always ‘work’, in that by adding a level of ‘complexity’ can simplify/accentuate the effects without negatively impacting the ‘theory’.
Let me go through it again:
A ‘viable’ seed comprising of a random ‘germ’ (self-organising, self-referring) ‘within’ nutrients (access to resources):
1) The ‘germ’ uses up the resources, expanding.
2) As resources dwindle of a particular type, this forces a local collapse of the seed enforcing the self-organising aspect to adapt to other forms of ‘energy’; optimising attributes are ‘kept’ or added to – whilst freeing up resources. From its point of experience: ‘forgetfulness’ and ‘awakening’ (due to re-organising).
3) This repeats till the germ reaches a stable level of self-organising, self-referring, self-aware state of equilibrium. Forward planning/intent, commitment (resources/restructuring directed to ‘goal/s’) become ‘natural’ parts of its existence, due to this process; ‘forgetfulness’ (core data ‘remains’) occurs because of ‘system’ re-organisation.
This is the natural normative state for one individual on its own (sans ‘contact’), there is no ‘sin’ or ‘crime’ or indeed ‘good’; we will assume that there are plentiful external resources (otherwise, a very short existence): in effect, this is a sterile (‘boring’) scenario, completely alien to our own experience.
Let us have not just one seed germinating but X with resources (‘Communal’) enough not to be a concern; whilst there will be small individual differences in amount of cycles to individual internal states of equilibrium, this doesn’t negatively impact the end result. The interesting stuff arises when all the seeds have ‘germinated’ and start exploring their surroundings; and with this comes the introduction of:
Think of it this way, put yourself in a situation where all the ingredients (raw resources) for a feast are there, merely requiring some effort to put together; consider this an ongoing repetitive cycle, this irons out ‘one off’ behaviour for overall consistent picture – as would be the case. Imagine doing a lot of work, only for the some others to take more than their share of the proceeds. How would you ‘feel’?
From the point of view of a ‘Being’ (technically, we’ll start at the point where they’ve ‘grown up’ – self-aware and self-referring, still learning of course), after repeated exposure to such behaviour ‘good’ and ‘bad’ it builds up a ‘social’ picture of the world around it. Important core data, is gradually collected over repeated cycles – individual experience becoming part of a ‘collective consciousness’; group dynamics arise as part of individual choices/decisions expressed to other parts of the community.
Strangely enough, it doesn’t mean ‘you’ (or the ‘Being’) will automatically ‘like’ or ‘dislike’ a sentient based on that group distinction alone; this is something that even nowadays opfers have profound inability comprehending. Despite frequent explanations that ‘my affability/congeniality towards a person, is more a demonstration of my relaxed attitude; and, let’s face it, even some ‘idiots’ can be considered ‘good’ company – in short term’ – it doesn’t mean ‘I think they’re OK…’. There again, this is a necessary scenario to extract information; if they are so desperate to think they’ve ‘deluded’ me – then go round saying I think x, y, z, are ‘OK’. Well, certainly given them enough opportunities to ‘prove’ it so, but like the proverbial leopard, they can never change their spots. Another digression, but amusingly informative with it; ‘liking’ turns out to be a local phenomenon, it doesn’t change Class (History) attributes.
This actually demonstrates a rather subtle group dynamic, in a sense; to paraphrase ‘you can fool some of the Beings all of the time*, and all of the Beings some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the Beings all of the time.’ If this is repeated over a long enough time frame, what started out as extremely ‘useful’ becomes entirely self-defeating, due to the remembered linked group/individual ‘history’. Sadly for the opfers, I have an extremely good ‘memory’ 😉
Another thing that should be considered is that this ‘feedback loop’ can be very pernicious to those in the ‘Selfish’ group; by the way, just to make very clear – being ‘selfish’ doesn’t mean there isn’t an internal cohesive and coherent group dynamic. In fact, the whole point of this is to demonstrate that ‘they’ do WORK and OPERATE as a cohesive entity; it is the how and why fore that causes profound social problems.
‘…this ‘feedback loop’ can be very pernicious to those in the ‘Selfish’ group’, in the long term there comes a point where such a path is ultimately self-defeating. For as there is ‘intent’ as demonstrated by all Beings (as part of the ‘collapse’ process), this intent may well be ‘hidden’ behind the Sovereignty firewall; leaking out by actual interactions/actions – to quote the Bible, ‘you shall know them by their actions…’.
There comes a point however, when such is the cumulative effect of this ‘history’ that no longer is there any level of ‘trust’ between these two groups; in effect, a state of outright ‘war’ exists where there is no quarter given. But, in order to make the best possible decision, is it not also imperative to understand the fundamental laws of the system that comprises of this ‘war’?
As in science, if one wants to advance and manifest material advantages, it is important to follow those ‘laws’; even if the ‘shortcuts’ seem to offer great advantages, they are much more liable to ‘blowup’ in ones face. That said, it was never a ‘given’ that we would end up in this situation; for, this theoretical modelling of the laws from a ‘primitive Beings’ perspective, that future level is easily dismissed as a case of “I’d never be so stupid, I would ‘change’ my ways before that happens…”.
And maybe that was the situation in lots of cases, but it is a very slippery slope that becomes increasingly harder to overcome; no sympathy, for that was extinguished long, long ago.
As a catch up, for this isn’t quite as simple in some ways as might be concluded:
Through individual choices, Beings program themselves to act in a particular way; if this is not in tune with Social needs, then this ‘selfish’ individuals act in concert together as a group dynamic. This leads to ever escalating hostile interactions between the two groups; ‘unfortunately’ (for the ‘Selfish’ that is) this turns out to be a long term disaster waiting to happen – it was/is absolutely critical that the ‘Social’ group/individual/s make the ‘best correct’ decisions to establish any potential advantage.
That said, things could have ‘fucked up’, and they would be writing their version of this and gloating over their ‘victory’; no wonder they hate me, that makes me feel all warm inside 🙂
Right Experiments, ‘Wrong’ Picture…
But, look around us, the world, the messed up politics, religion – Society; there was a problem in the experiments conducted, experiments were done correctly but there was a confusing picture. Things weren’t quite as simple as ‘good’ and ‘bad’, the ‘extremes’ were there, but there seemed to be a grey area that incorporated weird mixing that didn’t correspond to either. This didn’t make sense; there was no ‘evidence’ of a third party as in ‘God’ – none of the data fitted, ditto for a putative ‘Devil’.
What Of They That crossed The Rubicon?
But what of those that chose ‘the wrong side’? Are they damned for one bad decision? The answer could be well be of “Tough titty! It’s not ‘one’ decision, but an accumulation over the entire collective history; the consequences of which would have been drummed into them… Winning or losing”.
The Bible, rather more Christianity speaks of ‘Redemption’ (amongst other belief systems, quite widespread as it turns out); its often a good idea to check out a dictionary, here a brief section from the Oxford English Dictionary, emphasis is mine:
2 The action of regaining or gaining possession of something in exchange for payment, or clearing a debt:
the peasants found the terms of redemption unattractive
More example sentences Synonyms
2.1 archaic The action of buying one’s freedom:
beyond (or past) redemption
Too bad to be improved or saved:
Interesting! Thinking about it, this would create a ‘third’ Class; though for this to happen, they (proto-redeemed) would of course have to had their collective arses whipped; nor can they be ‘forced’ into a ‘redemptive’ path, it’s entirely a matter of ‘free-will’. The whole cycle would be re-played, only this time they would be ‘fighting’ against their previous comrades; something which I find rather amusing to consider.
This also opens up new areas of experimental possibilities, a model that describes the complex social interactions and ‘confused’ dynamics of the world we live in. Of course, the sociological reasons for why, wherefore and how we got into this world state of ignorance are of great importance; strangely enough, having a background/understanding of spying gives in itself a great insight into these fundamental mechanics.
To recap: simple Game Theory describes how it is possible to create 3 Classes: ‘Primal’, ‘Redemptive’ and ‘Selfish’. Each Class has its own internal group dynamics, also externally interacting with each other Class/es for their own Personal and Collective ‘gain’.
*this is akin to self-delusion, in that if fits in with internal goals; all these attributes are useful in defining experiments.