Good article. Guess what? If people can still think, after being treated like lab rats their entire lives, we do not "have" to participate in any of this. Unfortunately, they will probably kill you, or just let you starve to death if you do not. People have very few skills on how to care for themselves and their families, like feeding yourself, without a grocery store. Or building a shelter, etc. Didn't the UN or the WEF make a cute cartoon about the ghetto's that people will live in who refused. The eugenics, and transhumanism push in this technological prison is another aspect of this nightmare. I plan to grab my pillow, and walk into the woods on an extremely cold winter night.
At the moment we are hurtling towards a technocratic, authoritarian society without much public discussion.
I read the following which gives some interesting ideas to determine whether technological advances serve humanity:
“ The Test
Does this improve, preserve, or diminish what it is to be human?
That’s it. One question. Simple, but powerful.
The four outcomes:
• Positive — strengthens what it means to be human (Pass)
• Neutral — does no harm to human continuity (Pass)
• Negative — erodes, fragments, or replaces our humanity (Fail)
• Unclear or unknown — monitor closely until patterns emerge. If it cannot be shown to protect or strengthen human continuity, it must be treated as a potential threat until proven otherwise.
This is not about whether something is efficient, profitable, or popular.
This is about whether humanity survives with its essence intact.
If it fails the test, it should be rejected—no matter how convenient or inevitable it appears.
Why This Matters
Today, many policies and technologies are sold as progress, but lead to:
• Less freedom
• Less meaning
• Less memory
• Less contact with each other
• More abstraction, standardisation, and control
The Human Continuity Test gives individuals, organisations, and communities a clear standard:
Will this help us continue as recognisably human beings—or subtly make us something else?
It is grounded in the core Continuism principle:
If nothing of us continues, it is not our future.
This standard may open a can of worms. It will provoke disagreement from those who have never had to answer this question. But that’s part of its power. It shines light on what has been hidden, ignored, or assumed. It doesn’t shout—it simply asks:
Where is the continuity?
And if there isn’t any—what are you really building?
That question alone is a moral revolution.
How to Use It
You can apply this test to any new or existing proposal, system, or trend:
• A new app or platform — Does it increase connection or erode it?
• A public policy — Does it preserve freedom and agency or reduce it?
• A cultural shift — Does it deepen human meaning or replace it with slogans?
• A school curriculum — Does it teach continuity or break it?
Ask the question honestly:
Does this improve, preserve, or diminish what it is to be human?
If the answer is “diminish,” then it fails the test—no matter how well-packaged it may be.
If the answer is unclear or unknown, proceed with caution and monitor it closely. If it cannot be shown to support human continuity, it must be treated as a potential threat.
Rules for Human Continuity
To make the Human Continuity Test even clearer, we propose three guiding rules for all systems, technologies, and policies:
1. No system may diminish human continuity, or through neglect allow it to be diminished.
2. Every system must demonstrably protect or strengthen what it means to be human—unless doing so would cause greater harm to humanity.
3. Any system that cannot clearly be shown to preserve human continuity must be treated as a potential threat until proven otherwise.
These rules are not technical. They are civilisational.
They ensure that anything shaping our future is held to the most basic standard: Do we continue as human beings, or not?”
I hold that everything proceeds FROM what 'human' is judged, defined and accepted (taught and learned) to be,
This can as well be said of self, life, world, reality.
'For as a Man thinketh in his heart - so he is. Not in truth but in his experience of himself, his world and the life that he then shapes in its frame.
The idea of hurtling to doom is archetypal to an underlying script that for all its variants, runs archetypal or signature to the ego structure.
It is possible to see life as born to die, in a frail body easily broken and impossible to protect from inevitable change and eventual destruction as death.
It can also be said that all vested illusions are temporary, but that the experience of limitation, division and struggle in adversity is its own exploration of becoming - rather than a structure to be perfected and defended against perceived or believed risk. Perception and belief are open to bias, distortion and fundamental errors by which cause can be assigned to effects, by which truth—or self-honesty is framed as threat.
A basic understanding of the idea of 'sin' is of attack on truth as defence of self-illusion - or in the vocabulary of psychological perspectives; internalised definitions and beliefs by which a sense of self is effectively hacked and hijacked by the modus operandi of its own thought.
If you want to change reality, you want a reality that changes you - but the judge doesn't see that they gave power to such an idea.
The realm of change is not without order holding balance points for patterns of communication or recognition-resonance and exchange or transformation, but the idea these can be forced onto a living reality is what is being given power or priority in our minds.
We literally perceive concepts, that over-mask and substitute for a wholeness of receiving and giving as one (in all its parts).
The liability of sketching articulations of truths that are one with Life - is that their forms will be used to boost and bolster the mask of separation and attack as 'saving' a mindset of control - that MUST limit mitigate or forfend the 'inevitable' .
Truth is inevitable - but love waits on welcome, not on time.
Giving truth, meaning and power to lovelessness will mask in the self-justications of grievances given worship.
Shall I align with the essential wholeness of who and what I am created (to) be? Or shall I persist in a-tempts to make a self-made self, real?
"I Want it Thus!" is easy to notice in any moment that others, world, and life fail to support. Tantrums for the most part give way to the growth and development of more sophisticated ways to manipulate outcomes.
I'm not suggesting that shaping our experience and our world is 'wrong' but that - as you are intuiting - there needs to be a grounded reference point for discerning service to living, which is also reflected in law as moral integrality. The framing of life in shortcuts, symbolic representations, theory, model and projections of inherent conflict within such a 'systemic' structure of blindness to That You Are - effects an abnegation, denial and progressive erasure of the Living Will - that can not BE defined, patented, claimed as proprietary and controlled.
This can only be gain 'permission' to run on an adjusted copy.
The adjustment filter is the mind set in a focus of exploration as experience. There is a basis for recognising You are your whole life -not in story - but as a giving and receiving set in disequilibrium.
'Zero Trust' is not a solution to misplaced faith - for trust is simply given to 'control' framed by the environment it gave rise to!
Self-honesty must open trust in life as Is - and release from what I thought or assumed to serve a 'me' that is now open to question rather than internalised judgements, beliefs and definitions.
It can also only embrace the moment or situation at hand - yet where else does a past, stamp on the face as a linear narrative continuity of mutating 'solutions' by which to 'save the 'little that we hath'?
The idea of 'saving' like so much else has become inverted.
"Should we be fighting for a bill of digital rights".
Be under no illusion that no bill is in place to protect the individual. How would any bill be universally deployed across every form of digitisation? And deployed across all cultures & languages?
Be careful with the notion of a digital bill of rights, one that is global & universally applied, this is not far removed from the UNs overall aim.of one world government & religion.
The answer is less and minimal digitalisation. Just like there should be less and minimal government.
I agree, however the digital genie is out of the bottle.
I am also for minimal legislation, but at the moment it is a digital Wild West.
Some examples of legislation is the ability to pay in cash and now Denmark has put legislation in place that you have the trademark to your biometrics, including voice. So these are only yours only.
This can only collapse under its own weight, certainly in terms of its initial implementation. I spent decades around IT projects at one of the largest Fortune 500 Companies in the US. I worked in product development. The executives were constantly debating the intricacies of the real world versus the aspirations of the new systems(IT projects!) that were intended to change it. Most IT projects during my career were cancelled or descoped somewhere along their project timeline between launch and implementation. In 35 years I did not see one that implemented its vision, meaning realizing a set of requirements that were successfully coded, beta tested and implemented per original specifications. Not one. Quite often the result was somewhere between a mitigated and unmitigated disaster. In spite of this there was, of course, progress, if you measure it in terms of a digital world replacing an analog world. But upon closer examination the progress always came in pockets, some dramatic, like the ability of digital designs to create near perfect fit and form for all manner of physical products where analog designs struggled mightily in this area. But if we pan out and consider human progress and human happiness there are many, many questions and so many areas where the only real measure of progress was money and career progressions or the creation of a new elite. As to the impact on society and long term implications, these things were rarely debated.
So now we have the Mother of All IT Projects, by many, many orders of magnitude. We have no human system of management that can pull this off without a very large increase in the timeline and massive collateral impact and cost. This is guaranteed. We know from decades of experience how much smaller projects, tiny by comparison but considered massive in their day, have gone. We are not now more capable as a race. Quite the contrary.
I agree, but the incompetence to pull this system off is both a blessing (you will be able to dodge the system) and a curse (the system is so crude that nuance and humanity is lost at the expense of the individual).
I agree with you. Our lives are going to be totally disrupted by what a mess this is going to be. It has already started, with AWS and Azure going off-line recently. Best approach . may be to go off grid. The Data Centers are the heart of the plan. They have already caused power outages. More to come
"The corporatization of medicine has reduced many physicians from independent professionals to healthcare workers—employees who implement corporate policies rather than medical doctors who heal the sick. Electronic health records have transformed us from healers into data entry clerks. Prior authorization requirements have made us supplicants, begging insurance companies for permission to treat our patients. Quality metrics have reduced the art and science of medicine to checkbox exercises that ignore the complexity of human health and disease.
Perhaps most insidiously, the financial pressures and employment models have created a generation of physicians who have never experienced true clinical independence. They’ve been trained in systems where protocol compliance matters more than patient outcomes, where productivity metrics drive decision-making, and where questioning authority is discouraged or punished."
"The corporatization of medicine has reduced many physicians from independent professionals to healthcare workers—employees who implement corporate policies rather than medical doctors who heal the sick. Electronic health records have transformed us from healers into data entry clerks. Prior authorization requirements have made us supplicants, begging insurance companies for permission to treat our patients. Quality metrics have reduced the art and science of medicine to checkbox exercises that ignore the complexity of human health and disease.
Perhaps most insidiously, the financial pressures and employment models have created a generation of physicians who have never experienced true clinical independence. They’ve been trained in systems where protocol compliance matters more than patient outcomes, where productivity metrics drive decision-making, and where questioning authority is discouraged or punished."
Shelley's Frankenstein sketched out the portent of a scientific intent to recreate life.
While extremely crude in concept - the idea has not only developed as a predictive or prophetic convergence, but as an already accomplished dystopian replacement.
'Matrix' as an emulation or simulation of life as the battery or energy source for a 'machined-creation' of projected human 'programming'. Risk management
The externalisation of thought to systems of 'agreement' runs an extension of the mapping of life and world as an identity complex. We can thereby extend reach over our environment, but at risk of losing integrative alignment as indigenous power to a corruptible surrogate power.
I find it useful to draw on David Bohm's concept of Implicate and Explicate orders.
The focus of a projected identity in the explicate order can become 'disconnected' from the implicate order that is 'projected' to experience. Not in reality - but in the concept of reality mapped out to its 'body politic'.
Bohm notes that proprioception applies to an alignment of inner and outer body sense and perception but NOT to thought itself. Thoughts are internalised frameworks of 'agreement' that coalesce as order and ordering. A key insight being that much if not almost all of such thought runs beneath what we take to be our mind - as a focus or consciousness of ruled and filtered results - or the 'fruits' by which we know and verify the Word we give as truly aligned desire or consciously accepted purpose.
It can be easily verified that if we don't accept and align in self-responsibility, something 'else' will frame and shape our choices and outcomes - and where that suits a personal wish - there can be a sense of self-inflation or empowerment relative to the wish. But will be experienced negatively when running counter to such a wish or initiating counter-consequence to such a wish.
Wishes are not true willing, but rather a willingness to distort or mask a private domain; a pet project; a bit on the side, a self-imaged creation, a narrative identity complex. But can only be maintained as mutually agreed definitions or 'agreements' that can only serve such temporal and private functions as internalised or 'subconscious habit' - programmed behavioural responses to a 'world' of private gain functioning as masking rules and filters over true or integral Communication.
The mind we think to think with was invoked to effectively defend against Communication. Hence a filtered selective and fragmented alienation drive to regain a 'lost' wholeness.
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king’s horses and all the king’s men
Couldn’t put Humpty together again.
Well don't let vanity and futility put you off! (sarcasm)
The drive to make life in our own image is blind - and literally knows not what it does - for its blindness is protected in a false claim to knowledge running as gain of fiction acted out on bodies and a world of bodies - thus framing the use or function of body (and world) for possession and control - by which a mind set over and apart, can never have or be truly fulfilled. This then frames a world unworthy and treacherous - and teaching this—we learn it. Risk is no longer a balance of desire seeking paths of an unfolding fulfilment, but a perpetual defence continually seeking and finding offence.
That this collectively winds up to such a compression of denial and conflict in deeply nested 'defences' is a logical outcome of persistent disregard of the Call for Renewal.
Leonard Cohens' last album was called "You want it darker".
Defences raised against the light of a true or integral awareness are not rooted in evil but in error, that then gives rise to evils when actively defended against correction. This will engender experience as a split mind, that will be taught and learned or suffered real. Until you decide or recognise and accept that you do not want what it offers.
To see thought, meaning, and communication as an offer rather than as has already transacted by contract of 'agreement' to engage, cannot assume to run private thinking so much as listening, looking, feeling or discerning. The communing element to any relationship is the field that shapes the outcome. If we give power, priority or creative cause to 'judgements' they operate in our 'service'.
Judge not lest you be judged is not calling for control over thought, but for bringing our thought to an integral awareness that of itself aligns Communication -such as readiness and willingness allows - for truth is never coercive.
I don't write for a machine intelligence - but sketch poetic diction - not in the sense of a discipline of forms, but of felt meanings of a truly shared with-ness
'Joining in hate or fear' is not a true basis for living.
Free association is free to be our selves - not free to mask as something or someone else and thus be subject to—and mouthpiece for—its dictates.
Good article. Guess what? If people can still think, after being treated like lab rats their entire lives, we do not "have" to participate in any of this. Unfortunately, they will probably kill you, or just let you starve to death if you do not. People have very few skills on how to care for themselves and their families, like feeding yourself, without a grocery store. Or building a shelter, etc. Didn't the UN or the WEF make a cute cartoon about the ghetto's that people will live in who refused. The eugenics, and transhumanism push in this technological prison is another aspect of this nightmare. I plan to grab my pillow, and walk into the woods on an extremely cold winter night.
Good article and frightening. How can we get these thoughts and discussions mainstream?
Should we be fighting for a digital bill of rights, to include the guard rails you mention.
there's an outline of suggestions in the more academic version, which also includes detail on PPBS as an early implementation of this.
https://escapekey.substack.com/p/kabbalah-system-theory
Thank you for the link. I will have a read.
At the moment we are hurtling towards a technocratic, authoritarian society without much public discussion.
I read the following which gives some interesting ideas to determine whether technological advances serve humanity:
“ The Test
Does this improve, preserve, or diminish what it is to be human?
That’s it. One question. Simple, but powerful.
The four outcomes:
• Positive — strengthens what it means to be human (Pass)
• Neutral — does no harm to human continuity (Pass)
• Negative — erodes, fragments, or replaces our humanity (Fail)
• Unclear or unknown — monitor closely until patterns emerge. If it cannot be shown to protect or strengthen human continuity, it must be treated as a potential threat until proven otherwise.
This is not about whether something is efficient, profitable, or popular.
This is about whether humanity survives with its essence intact.
If it fails the test, it should be rejected—no matter how convenient or inevitable it appears.
Why This Matters
Today, many policies and technologies are sold as progress, but lead to:
• Less freedom
• Less meaning
• Less memory
• Less contact with each other
• More abstraction, standardisation, and control
The Human Continuity Test gives individuals, organisations, and communities a clear standard:
Will this help us continue as recognisably human beings—or subtly make us something else?
It is grounded in the core Continuism principle:
If nothing of us continues, it is not our future.
This standard may open a can of worms. It will provoke disagreement from those who have never had to answer this question. But that’s part of its power. It shines light on what has been hidden, ignored, or assumed. It doesn’t shout—it simply asks:
Where is the continuity?
And if there isn’t any—what are you really building?
That question alone is a moral revolution.
How to Use It
You can apply this test to any new or existing proposal, system, or trend:
• A new app or platform — Does it increase connection or erode it?
• A public policy — Does it preserve freedom and agency or reduce it?
• A cultural shift — Does it deepen human meaning or replace it with slogans?
• A school curriculum — Does it teach continuity or break it?
Ask the question honestly:
Does this improve, preserve, or diminish what it is to be human?
If the answer is “diminish,” then it fails the test—no matter how well-packaged it may be.
If the answer is unclear or unknown, proceed with caution and monitor it closely. If it cannot be shown to support human continuity, it must be treated as a potential threat.
Rules for Human Continuity
To make the Human Continuity Test even clearer, we propose three guiding rules for all systems, technologies, and policies:
1. No system may diminish human continuity, or through neglect allow it to be diminished.
2. Every system must demonstrably protect or strengthen what it means to be human—unless doing so would cause greater harm to humanity.
3. Any system that cannot clearly be shown to preserve human continuity must be treated as a potential threat until proven otherwise.
These rules are not technical. They are civilisational.
They ensure that anything shaping our future is held to the most basic standard: Do we continue as human beings, or not?”
https://continuism.org/the-human-continuity-test/
I hold that everything proceeds FROM what 'human' is judged, defined and accepted (taught and learned) to be,
This can as well be said of self, life, world, reality.
'For as a Man thinketh in his heart - so he is. Not in truth but in his experience of himself, his world and the life that he then shapes in its frame.
The idea of hurtling to doom is archetypal to an underlying script that for all its variants, runs archetypal or signature to the ego structure.
It is possible to see life as born to die, in a frail body easily broken and impossible to protect from inevitable change and eventual destruction as death.
It can also be said that all vested illusions are temporary, but that the experience of limitation, division and struggle in adversity is its own exploration of becoming - rather than a structure to be perfected and defended against perceived or believed risk. Perception and belief are open to bias, distortion and fundamental errors by which cause can be assigned to effects, by which truth—or self-honesty is framed as threat.
A basic understanding of the idea of 'sin' is of attack on truth as defence of self-illusion - or in the vocabulary of psychological perspectives; internalised definitions and beliefs by which a sense of self is effectively hacked and hijacked by the modus operandi of its own thought.
If you want to change reality, you want a reality that changes you - but the judge doesn't see that they gave power to such an idea.
The realm of change is not without order holding balance points for patterns of communication or recognition-resonance and exchange or transformation, but the idea these can be forced onto a living reality is what is being given power or priority in our minds.
We literally perceive concepts, that over-mask and substitute for a wholeness of receiving and giving as one (in all its parts).
The liability of sketching articulations of truths that are one with Life - is that their forms will be used to boost and bolster the mask of separation and attack as 'saving' a mindset of control - that MUST limit mitigate or forfend the 'inevitable' .
Truth is inevitable - but love waits on welcome, not on time.
Giving truth, meaning and power to lovelessness will mask in the self-justications of grievances given worship.
Shall I align with the essential wholeness of who and what I am created (to) be? Or shall I persist in a-tempts to make a self-made self, real?
"I Want it Thus!" is easy to notice in any moment that others, world, and life fail to support. Tantrums for the most part give way to the growth and development of more sophisticated ways to manipulate outcomes.
I'm not suggesting that shaping our experience and our world is 'wrong' but that - as you are intuiting - there needs to be a grounded reference point for discerning service to living, which is also reflected in law as moral integrality. The framing of life in shortcuts, symbolic representations, theory, model and projections of inherent conflict within such a 'systemic' structure of blindness to That You Are - effects an abnegation, denial and progressive erasure of the Living Will - that can not BE defined, patented, claimed as proprietary and controlled.
This can only be gain 'permission' to run on an adjusted copy.
The adjustment filter is the mind set in a focus of exploration as experience. There is a basis for recognising You are your whole life -not in story - but as a giving and receiving set in disequilibrium.
'Zero Trust' is not a solution to misplaced faith - for trust is simply given to 'control' framed by the environment it gave rise to!
Self-honesty must open trust in life as Is - and release from what I thought or assumed to serve a 'me' that is now open to question rather than internalised judgements, beliefs and definitions.
It can also only embrace the moment or situation at hand - yet where else does a past, stamp on the face as a linear narrative continuity of mutating 'solutions' by which to 'save the 'little that we hath'?
The idea of 'saving' like so much else has become inverted.
"Should we be fighting for a bill of digital rights".
Be under no illusion that no bill is in place to protect the individual. How would any bill be universally deployed across every form of digitisation? And deployed across all cultures & languages?
Be careful with the notion of a digital bill of rights, one that is global & universally applied, this is not far removed from the UNs overall aim.of one world government & religion.
The answer is less and minimal digitalisation. Just like there should be less and minimal government.
I agree, however the digital genie is out of the bottle.
I am also for minimal legislation, but at the moment it is a digital Wild West.
Some examples of legislation is the ability to pay in cash and now Denmark has put legislation in place that you have the trademark to your biometrics, including voice. So these are only yours only.
Yes the genie is out of the bottle, it is therefore an unstoppable beast, every day, reliance on digital connectivity grows.
I didn't know about the legislation in Denmark. Bear in mind, legislation can be changed. But its good to see.
Mike,
This can only collapse under its own weight, certainly in terms of its initial implementation. I spent decades around IT projects at one of the largest Fortune 500 Companies in the US. I worked in product development. The executives were constantly debating the intricacies of the real world versus the aspirations of the new systems(IT projects!) that were intended to change it. Most IT projects during my career were cancelled or descoped somewhere along their project timeline between launch and implementation. In 35 years I did not see one that implemented its vision, meaning realizing a set of requirements that were successfully coded, beta tested and implemented per original specifications. Not one. Quite often the result was somewhere between a mitigated and unmitigated disaster. In spite of this there was, of course, progress, if you measure it in terms of a digital world replacing an analog world. But upon closer examination the progress always came in pockets, some dramatic, like the ability of digital designs to create near perfect fit and form for all manner of physical products where analog designs struggled mightily in this area. But if we pan out and consider human progress and human happiness there are many, many questions and so many areas where the only real measure of progress was money and career progressions or the creation of a new elite. As to the impact on society and long term implications, these things were rarely debated.
So now we have the Mother of All IT Projects, by many, many orders of magnitude. We have no human system of management that can pull this off without a very large increase in the timeline and massive collateral impact and cost. This is guaranteed. We know from decades of experience how much smaller projects, tiny by comparison but considered massive in their day, have gone. We are not now more capable as a race. Quite the contrary.
I agree, but the incompetence to pull this system off is both a blessing (you will be able to dodge the system) and a curse (the system is so crude that nuance and humanity is lost at the expense of the individual).
I agree with you. Our lives are going to be totally disrupted by what a mess this is going to be. It has already started, with AWS and Azure going off-line recently. Best approach . may be to go off grid. The Data Centers are the heart of the plan. They have already caused power outages. More to come
CONditioning 19 - the gift to the new normal pushers, that just keeps on giving
By way of juxtaposition...
"The corporatization of medicine has reduced many physicians from independent professionals to healthcare workers—employees who implement corporate policies rather than medical doctors who heal the sick. Electronic health records have transformed us from healers into data entry clerks. Prior authorization requirements have made us supplicants, begging insurance companies for permission to treat our patients. Quality metrics have reduced the art and science of medicine to checkbox exercises that ignore the complexity of human health and disease.
Perhaps most insidiously, the financial pressures and employment models have created a generation of physicians who have never experienced true clinical independence. They’ve been trained in systems where protocol compliance matters more than patient outcomes, where productivity metrics drive decision-making, and where questioning authority is discouraged or punished."
By way of juxtaposition...
"The corporatization of medicine has reduced many physicians from independent professionals to healthcare workers—employees who implement corporate policies rather than medical doctors who heal the sick. Electronic health records have transformed us from healers into data entry clerks. Prior authorization requirements have made us supplicants, begging insurance companies for permission to treat our patients. Quality metrics have reduced the art and science of medicine to checkbox exercises that ignore the complexity of human health and disease.
Perhaps most insidiously, the financial pressures and employment models have created a generation of physicians who have never experienced true clinical independence. They’ve been trained in systems where protocol compliance matters more than patient outcomes, where productivity metrics drive decision-making, and where questioning authority is discouraged or punished."
from: https://brownstone.org/articles/how-to-protect-patients-and-medical-professionals
Shelley's Frankenstein sketched out the portent of a scientific intent to recreate life.
While extremely crude in concept - the idea has not only developed as a predictive or prophetic convergence, but as an already accomplished dystopian replacement.
'Matrix' as an emulation or simulation of life as the battery or energy source for a 'machined-creation' of projected human 'programming'. Risk management
The externalisation of thought to systems of 'agreement' runs an extension of the mapping of life and world as an identity complex. We can thereby extend reach over our environment, but at risk of losing integrative alignment as indigenous power to a corruptible surrogate power.
I find it useful to draw on David Bohm's concept of Implicate and Explicate orders.
The focus of a projected identity in the explicate order can become 'disconnected' from the implicate order that is 'projected' to experience. Not in reality - but in the concept of reality mapped out to its 'body politic'.
Bohm notes that proprioception applies to an alignment of inner and outer body sense and perception but NOT to thought itself. Thoughts are internalised frameworks of 'agreement' that coalesce as order and ordering. A key insight being that much if not almost all of such thought runs beneath what we take to be our mind - as a focus or consciousness of ruled and filtered results - or the 'fruits' by which we know and verify the Word we give as truly aligned desire or consciously accepted purpose.
It can be easily verified that if we don't accept and align in self-responsibility, something 'else' will frame and shape our choices and outcomes - and where that suits a personal wish - there can be a sense of self-inflation or empowerment relative to the wish. But will be experienced negatively when running counter to such a wish or initiating counter-consequence to such a wish.
Wishes are not true willing, but rather a willingness to distort or mask a private domain; a pet project; a bit on the side, a self-imaged creation, a narrative identity complex. But can only be maintained as mutually agreed definitions or 'agreements' that can only serve such temporal and private functions as internalised or 'subconscious habit' - programmed behavioural responses to a 'world' of private gain functioning as masking rules and filters over true or integral Communication.
The mind we think to think with was invoked to effectively defend against Communication. Hence a filtered selective and fragmented alienation drive to regain a 'lost' wholeness.
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king’s horses and all the king’s men
Couldn’t put Humpty together again.
Well don't let vanity and futility put you off! (sarcasm)
The drive to make life in our own image is blind - and literally knows not what it does - for its blindness is protected in a false claim to knowledge running as gain of fiction acted out on bodies and a world of bodies - thus framing the use or function of body (and world) for possession and control - by which a mind set over and apart, can never have or be truly fulfilled. This then frames a world unworthy and treacherous - and teaching this—we learn it. Risk is no longer a balance of desire seeking paths of an unfolding fulfilment, but a perpetual defence continually seeking and finding offence.
That this collectively winds up to such a compression of denial and conflict in deeply nested 'defences' is a logical outcome of persistent disregard of the Call for Renewal.
Leonard Cohens' last album was called "You want it darker".
Defences raised against the light of a true or integral awareness are not rooted in evil but in error, that then gives rise to evils when actively defended against correction. This will engender experience as a split mind, that will be taught and learned or suffered real. Until you decide or recognise and accept that you do not want what it offers.
To see thought, meaning, and communication as an offer rather than as has already transacted by contract of 'agreement' to engage, cannot assume to run private thinking so much as listening, looking, feeling or discerning. The communing element to any relationship is the field that shapes the outcome. If we give power, priority or creative cause to 'judgements' they operate in our 'service'.
Judge not lest you be judged is not calling for control over thought, but for bringing our thought to an integral awareness that of itself aligns Communication -such as readiness and willingness allows - for truth is never coercive.
I don't write for a machine intelligence - but sketch poetic diction - not in the sense of a discipline of forms, but of felt meanings of a truly shared with-ness
'Joining in hate or fear' is not a true basis for living.
Free association is free to be our selves - not free to mask as something or someone else and thus be subject to—and mouthpiece for—its dictates.
Appreciation and blessings from Sydney Australia.