Up and Down streams.
i)mutuality places the truth is question.
ii)actually to be honest it really buggers it up, by ensuring that the truth does not matter as such.
iii)The world is peppered with lies which you and I belief, and which the polling of that belief make true.
iv)The problems comes then how do Relate to aspects that are other that the mere flow of trust of the mutual- that is how do I find what might be true within all the noise and waist.
v)This question is made all the harder by another fact- perception is a possessive quality. I possess by perception, and yet I never simply own them. that ownership is always external to myself – and is so even if at another time I acted to cause those perceptions.
vi)So that to perceive is to be n the grip or embodying or giving the reality of something rather different to oneself. It is o be caught up in the maze of a beyond.
vii)This desiring maze is tricky enough, but o ors the logic of mutualities that it captures meanings between two sets of perceptions.
viii)That is I see the cause, I see the result (the actually causing is itself of course hidden- it is a mere assumed of the mutual).
ix)I know then that there I cause and an effect, an action and a result, and in a mutual universe where I assume and can assume that we are all matter (at least together) , I am right to assume this. I can understand the universe because I am within and through it. I share in it as a part of it. A understand it better the more I am caught, and the more I share – but this causal level is always the base level.
x)But then in spite this understanding, I do not break thought he veil of perception. It still wraps up actions within the supreme I am effected – I have something caused in me, a something which I am necessarily downstream of .
xi)I only therefore begin to be able to be that which is sharing as something which is already effected, and effected at all points.
xii) I am therefore doubling downstream when the case concerns me and my actions. Am downstream of the action itself (in that I am a caught up in its effect
xiii)), but I know that effect only in a perception – only as hat effect is conjured into my mind in the first place.
xiv)Even I am the actor, I still lonely know the actions in perception. What actually happen and what I think might happen are either very very different. I know what is happening only because I am acted on.
xv) My actions, and the thought that leads o those actions (and is the memroeis0, become then latter or even as
xvi)I am thinking a point which can be perceives like all he others. Perception therefore creates a plain from which mutuality’s that is real pattern are present, and will emerge, and yet which can merge only within the context of a single plane that can easily hide what is actually happening. That is the causes and the effects becomes curiously blended within the same set or series of perceptions.
xvii)I drink 60 3penceworths of rum and get the horrors. I feel that everyone and everything knows – paranoia like the poison of alcohol enters my mind.
xviii)Mutuality’s erupt across my actions: the poison of the rum, becomes also or rather echoes into the poison of selfishness in drinking it in the first place (and so using up the money).
xix)My addiction o the rum and inability to stop drinking in spite of these poisons, then make me look askance at others. I feel they must know what I am 9after all in a hidden place I do) They must see me for the toe rag I\ am, and I feel that I will be found out.
xx) I look then with an odd shame- I am not ashamed but express what others might feel in same in paranoia.
xxi) The paranoid them grows and blends back into the poison. I felt that as I am suspected I better un away run into the rum bottle. I dink some more. The mutual in this tale the ingest rum, selfish paranoia, the horrors, guilt, and death is equal measure.
xxii)Or to put it another way in a very complex way feedbacks and sharing back the path of cause and effect, and the domains of what is mine and yours so very complex.
xxiii)The thoughts that you thought ought to be yours are in fact mine – while my ones might or could be yours. I cannot feel my poisoning myself apart from your anger: I cannot tell your greed for money apart from my suspicion in regarding a friend. A cannot tell your lust apart from my loneliness. We run together and are together.
xxiv)In this running then it is not so clear what a cause itself might mean. That is all might be effects and all might be causes.
xxv)In a sense a cause is that odd monster which falls from the outside, and demands that certain actions cannot be heard.
xxvi) I have heard therefore something I cannot except- some utterly foul set of words or a series of action I cannot forget and forgive. A cause has announced itself. It in a sense announces itself in a diaginonal space. That s at another point and in another head this is not a question of something illegal which has come to pass. It is not then something ;wrong’. It is rather that a level of disruption room one orbit has fallen upon another obit.
xxvii) The facets of one reality have been forced upon another.
xxviii)As if in the burning lass the realities of one world have been destroyed or are in the process of being destroyed from outside.
xxix)The problem is then that this diagonal, Is then the eruption of a more general world (debts need to be paid to atoms make molecules) into a complex specific world (these debt here, and these molecules).
xxx)But the problems at this eruption all to often has a case, That is poisons come from somewhere and go to somewhere. The act of posing or enforcing a debt, the act but which the simple grapes at and controls the complex will need o be understood in the complex world as well.
xxxi)The bio-eco-chemico –knowledge of how or where the simple came from is not enough. The causal patterns of that led to that simple occurring must also be their.
xxxii)The mutual word therefore become paints a force or an element of force beyond and yet not outside of it. That is it speculates upon a domain which operates according to its complex ways (or some aspect of those ways)m and from this complexity or in the context of this complexity is creating or somehow responsible for what then followed: that is it is responsible for the poison itself.
xxxiii) We look the to evil men or to viral to explain eruption in the world. We do not blame the general elements which disrupt the complex, but rather the vectors, understood in complex ways, ways often akin to us
xxxiv)9or as evil version of us, or parts of ourselves made abstract which introduce these disruptions.
xxxv)The cause in the sense of this agents then becomes the person of thing outside the system, which somehow from a complex domain over flows the system.
xxxvi) That is we create a cause in that we create a agency that is caught up in making these poisons these disruptive generalities and does so from their own complex position.
xxxvii)We therefore assume in the other their own complexities and export part of yourself to them.
xxxviii)In doing so, in assuming that somewhere there is a like us point which is operating into the world, and citing what destroys us, we create a beyond; an action in this way is something beyond anything we re. It is always then another people who destroy-. It is always he depiction and deep motives or schemes of the other.
xxxix)And yet this others not so very other. What hey are, and what actions are attributed to them are not so very hidden. Their power is in a sense that we understand h y they do it. It is this understanding that allows us to define or think we can define their causal nature.
xl)That is it is in distending a pointer of ourselves into others that we wrap up causes, and set them up.
xli)We therefore pose an individual or a force which somehow ct in a domain beyond us and ye according to elements derived from us and the wrapping cause of what would otherwise be so very disruptive.
xlii)The therefore warp up the odd diagonal moves of the world and see them as caused by some other agency which simplifies us to complexity elsewhere. An yet then of course we look to see that agency with our own yes. That is we assume that elsewhere or somewhere or somehow we can see it (even if we merely infer that cause).
xliii)In thinking them of such a complexity we also assume that this very complexity this being more than the generalizing of the specific, means that elsewhere we can see what is operating to disrupt.
xliv)Here things get even more complexity empower which disrupt is of course as invisible as a cause. In a sense there is nothing actually doing it( as Spinoza would say God is not here). It lacks then a realty. The some other we are after, the one who is responsible for this cause, who overarches it, is then not directly to be seen. They must rather be inferred from their being caught up in someway with the disruptive process.
xlv)We are then caught in the situation where we have the knowledge or a sequence of perceptions that tell us something is being lost, something disputed, a direction is then taking us from complex worlds to more chaotic ones. We know then that there is an agency somewhere. or better we know that it there is rally much an agency at some level it is already here. The problem is finding exactly which hone it is amongst all the hullabaloos things.
xlvi)The world simple or complex is full of possible such agencies. It might even of course be the case that it needs many of them. Our problem of finding which perception can be especially likened to the force whose actual causing cannot be perceived is therefore a highly complex one.
xlvii)It is so very easy to mistake that which owns the perception hat the wrapping agency for a mere perception within the agency- that is a mere element all innocent.
xlviii)It is likewise easy to invoke a history and follow a present pattern and simply assume that the matter of the process is something or someone who is a mere facet in that process.
xlix)Or gain it is very easy to assume that the perception immediate upstream of the disruption, or the agency in whose name the disruption is carried out is the actual real cause, and not merely its agency.
l)Here of course the argument is rather subtle. In a real sense the immediate agency is the cause. They are the ones doing the disrupting And yet if they are caused or driven to it from a point elsewhere, f their removal does not spot the process happening or if they are not the ones which gain, e would not think of them as the complex cause we see for.
li) Although of course removing them from the scene might sop the process the disruption being so effective: they are not therefore simply blameless.
lii) The game of telling then which are the enwrapping causes and which merely its feelers is highly complex. We are likely to make mistakes and the truths oscillate around us, and drive to look here or there for what we seek.
liii)The only real way we can approach this is caution. Trust perhaps ones instincts and take time. If one ruses in or lets one be bamboozled in schemes one risks of cause being caught up in the dispersive webs oneself.
liv)That is the danger to any one in this process, in the presence of some malign ensuring force is that they will be their very caution or by their incaution be also caught. The nearer is a powerful animal, and needs to be treated with caution.
lv)One knows there is a trap somewhere…let us hope we are not already caught!
lvi)What then resolves this action? What allows one to define the problem?
lvii)The answer can only be a force or agency from outside and yet one that is caught within the same vortex.
lviii)We need then the control case, the agency who presence was before only a word we had heard, and yet whose reaction to the web we can perceive and perhaps trust.
lix)This other then, form outside of us and everything we are, shared with us only the fact that we are caught up in the same basic prism. That is that we are caught in a trap somewhere It serves then in its own reaction to that trap, in watching in us that reaction to define the traps nature.
lx)We follow its suffering to learn about our own.
lxi)At the base level then it is our beagle o rabbit- the element that we experiment upon.
lxii)However we might then well take this further. This is not merely the experimental control – it is also the comrades in suffering.
lxiii)I reaction to the webs its attempt to resolve them becomes a thing we turns, a thing we might want to share within.
lxiv)That is maybe we say to ourselves it is right in the way that it responds o what is happening. Maybe we should become a part in that response.
lxv)The response then of the control cause and the lynch mob, run together.
lxvi)We all so desperately want to share its reaction. We see a sense or at least a power in it.
lxvii)We are therefore tempted by it. And why not – as the violence of it reaction to what ensnare it without pity, strips both our college and ourselves of all pity ourselves. We respond therefore in action and through acing. We strive against it together and share our lack of pity for the persecuting element.
lxviii)Who feels pity for a flu virii? Who feel pity for a witch?
lxix)The problem is that his question from the point of view of myself and my colleague the same basic question. That I the fat that we share more with the witch (and they are innocent anyway) is not really enough. As we feel we have been caught in a web w react and react without mercy in either case.
lxx)Where in after days we think of that lack of mercy is happiness in another matter – and will of course itself be subject to feedbacks and mutualities of its own.
lxxi) To resoluble perceptions therefore is no simple thing.
lxxii)Our perceptions are always hooked into elaborate feed back mechanises.
lxxiii) The effect and the cause are taken in one glance or reversed.
lxxiv) I will therefore in the name of a present say that these perceptions which exulted in my saying your name, which caused then the idea of a you (as the their effect0 in me, were really caused in a you all long (the truth is of course more complex than that).
lxxv)Or again the trail of feelings and perceptions that resulted in my mood being formed will then belong or express the body of the mood itself. They will become merely the way the mood feels itself to be, as if it were always there in its inception.
lxxvi)Or again the random series of even which led to some hapless individual being raised o political power and another even more clueless being dismissed will very easily be seen as meant and intended. They become the operating of individuals and caused by them, and not merely the random flow of event.
lxxvii) We then look for causes, that is enwrapping elements amongst the very effect of perception within us. We look or privilege certain of those effects, which we set up as the cause. That is the force which holds then entire patter together. The one that was emerging all the time.
lxxviii) Effects feed back into causes. The problem is that though this is a natural process –and a real one, it is a process which is necessarily blind.
lxxix)That is although there are indeed such mutuality’s there are such point in the universe effects that are really causes, it is not in the nature of perceptions to allow us to simply know which ones they are. We merely know that they are. That I we know that somewhere something is effecting it to itself, something is unpicking somewhere therefore there is a cause Exactly who then get framed within that cause made why is a far more complex affair.
lxxx)It is all to easy to get the wrong person.
lxxxi) It is also all too easy to follow a mob an get perhaps the right person, and yet not necessarily. The act of sharing then the suspicion s often enough to assume that one is right.
lxxxii)The mutualities therefore over spins the feedback and makes us assume we now what is right and what is wrong.
lxxxiii) One needs then so much care here. One needs to expect the double headed nature of this operation.
lxxxiv)One the one side is the fed back – the effect that is a cause. This feed backs impossible if the universe where not with shared elements. Because them we share something with the element that we experience in this feed back, we move beyond the simple allusion which inverses cause and effect and describe something actual real in the world.
lxxxv)We are therefore able to attribute motives in our fellow humans will passable accuracy. We know indeed that their pinkie blobs are human in the first place. We share then a something thing them.
lxxxvi)And yet there exists a more complex something else, a more specialized set of mutualies, which in sharing with a set of humans creates itself a reality. This reality is then often as not merely given in the sharing. It does not relate then to any not in the group.
lxxxvii)This second orbit of the mutual – which it must not be confused with the first. He firs drags one beyond oneself – the second defines the rules within which one splits ones in the context of a group.
lxxxviii)Both are necessary-: without the former perception of others is impossible We need therefore o assume that we share in meet genuine other in the world.
lxxxix)Without the latter we could not become our own other. That is we could not in the context go a group (it might be a group in our own mind) we become able to pull out different futures o ourselves and live otherwise and differently.
xc)The problem is though that these two process (the former owning the latter possessing) become easily confused. We react then the outside elements in the violence of the group which feels itself threatened – or we treat a group or a society as something external o ourselves o b used.
xci) %he problem is ten at this point what force allows one to move between these two models of being? that is what hooks myself as other and others and myself together? What allows us to define ways that are complex to navigate their loops (which must surely exist). What save the affect, given language (which it has not yet been given).