31 08 2012

True horror is considering the negative implications of your actual course of action but from the vantage point of the future when those things have happened. Whether this is sexual decisions and behaviour or economics decisions and behaviour. That is, if it does impinge negatively on your children’ children, effecting intergenerationally perhaps seven generations into the future in a negative way as best you can see it — and you have looked at alternatives as they arise throughout your life — then now, how can one say one is doing the best one can?

Nope, because the best one can do, can not be compared to what one has been able to do.

(Breaking the negative, using a single stroke for negative “-“, and splitting it with a space “-  -“, a double negative?)

Socially, we have a lot to do if we wish to solve major global problems and that is through our individual, mature decisions and behaviours. It is not enough to be doubly negative, in the sense of trying to avoid making mistakes. Two wrongs – – doing what one is doing aware that it has negative repercussions, and trying to ascertain to the best of one’s abilities the course of action which has the least negative repercussions – – do not make a right.

Mathematically, if there are several wrongs and only one right given certain conditions, the probability may look small. Imagine a junction with a million paths and only one takes you to a happy world for the rest of our lives. We only get one pop at it and if we fail to manage this as a cross-generation engagement, the opportunity of the right path will pass and we end up on one of the many roads to disaster, environmentally, socially and so on.

The probability may look small but probability is not what we are interested in — we don’t want to make a blind guess. One sustainable solution out of a billion paths that end with disaster ——— that’s just way too stupid a way of looking at it! We need to increase the chances so that to all intents and purposes there is no choice but the one in front of us that happens to be the right one. Thus, the probability is 1, certain.

So, in order to get to that probability of certainty — that is, we’re doing it — we need the person reading this to take their reading seriously. Why? Because there is a similarity (perhaps fractally) between the “decision” made socially as a human collective in the future as the decision now made by a human individual while reading this.

That is, how you are reading will determine the success of our future lives together on this planet in a sustainable way for a few millennia at least. You meaning anyone as an example of all of us. And to be specific, you, reading this article right now, today, right smack bang in the middle of your life.

“then we need the person reading this” which was you back then you now reading and the you at the end of this article — we need this person to hit 1, certainty, basically, so that you actually do something about it.

Further, this decision by the individual may increase the probability of getting us on the right path, starting from a very very low quantity, a quantity that most individuals are not capable of seeing. That is, most of us as individuals may not see the possibility, the tiny one as it stands in 2012, turning into a large enough probability let alone that probability hitting certainty for us as a social collective!

Shall we turn to faith, then? Or belief? And if this fails us… a pure guess?

Nope, I prefer to use mathematics.

The probability is 1 at some point in the future if that is the future in which we exist, that we manifest. From our perspective now — this demands attention! — the probability at their time is 1. For us to get from where we are now, which is zero and we can represent as 0, we must rely on something we do not yet know.

That is, this thought-experiment is based on something we do not know.

That is, we are not basing it on anything we know — we are basing it on what we don’t know.

That is, necessarily, basing it on my trust of someone or something else, whether that is god, nature, science, money, planetary motion, words in the scriptures. But this basis of our belief is insecure, it slips because the very foundations of christianity or islam, or democracy or capitalism or what whatever institution that has formed has been because people base their decision on words, images and so on.

Our only alternative, if we are to trust others, is to place our faith on people we know, on living people, in those about us. But the consequence of this is that we are more easily swayed. Can’t really say this is fundamentalist, since what is trusted in not a word, not money, not institution, but the person.

(Things get a little confusing if we think too critically. For example, our minds might come up with more complex cases such as trusting an individual in an institution (I trust my friend who is a *anker) or trusting an individual because of the institution (I trust the clergyman with my child because I believe in jesus).)

Note, negative negatives, or not negatives, or double negatives are not bad, they are just stuff of the mind, scaffold constructions, based on logic and reasoning, whereas we need to actually be imaginative and make up stuff and try stuff out. We can’t just look at the alternatives in a “negative-minimising” way. We must be courageous and do new things together — trust faster and deeper and thus make deeper decisions. For us all collectively, we must be positive, but only slightly so. Non-zero in a positive direction. Perhaps it is best to say it is simply experimental. Not positive, just willing to see what happens, allowing, enabling, being responsive.

Thus the decision is a test, a true test to our selves and our children and their children’s children because such a test will be asked of them for this system that we enable must be capable of existing for millennia. A sustainable planet and all that this entails means a living participation, which means wholesale consensus as we have seen. This is less to do with probability as we know it and more a way of dealing certainty in a subjectively integrated way. And for this to happen we need equal diversity in terms of behaviour and moneyflow

And, isn’t it true that money is probably the most influential factor on human behaviour? Which means, altering the basic math of money will generate a completely different effect on social behaviour? Part of which will involve introducing people who are following the money, to examine the thought experiments you’ve just read. And thus, to be invited by someone trusted and recommending to someone trusted. That is all, just one person.

The catch, if there is any catch, is that it must happen this year, and if that was fun, two invitations the following year and increasing by one each year (and this is related to another post which involves the math of social unity).

Given the info, your decision is all that matters. And collectively, your decision is all that matters. This is a test of adulthood, for us as human individual beings, and for us as a whole species since we have grown from civilised babies to young adults.

What shall your decision be?

What is your decision?

What is your decision to be?




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: