Eclipsed.

Since my internal cognitive process has been intercepted by predominantly English language responses, I've been noticing some interesting phenomenon in the realm of ambiguity of interpretation. That is, words such as 'fool' (which is not, at least in this case, intentionally implicating my interpretation of whoever's reading this), which could be interpreted in different manners given a set of variable contextual scenarios.

The first is 'settling' on a potentially arbitrary resolution of the ambiguous cue, given total immersion within this system of interpretation coupled with an environmentally defined timescale - i.e. one of repeated interference with the system which carries it which would otherwise resolve it on more stringent / universal terms. I'd suggest, given my previous mode of intelligence, that the 'context' which the system of interpretation itself creates is ill defined - that is, that the ambiguity points to a system of interpretation which is unable to contain an absolute state within the relative context it creates or is invested in.

The necker cube is an interesting geometric analogue. Our visual system attempts to resolve a set of what are 'objectively' two dimensionally connected points which don't necessarily indicate three dimensional information into a three dimensional representation which is generally interpreted as one of two potential states at a given moment in time. One could argue that if this pattern of data is indeed indicative of a three dimensional state, that the correct resolution would be a 'superposition' of the respective states represented by the data. In a system devoid of time, or, in the absence of a robust system capable of instantaneously resolving this data into a superposition, the ambiguous state may be interpreted as one of the two potential states. Extrapolating this notion and applying it to ambiguous states of alternate systems, it could be suggested that a 'choice' or reaction could be made based on the state of the observer at a given time, as opposed to a choice based on a system which takes this ambiguity into account.

The manner in which my previous system resolved this kind of ambiguity was simply to determine any ambiguous data within a system as 'undeterminable', instead attempting to internalize the respective potential outcomes of their potential states. This led to the realization that certain systems which led to ambiguous states were developed around subjective, as opposed to objective, principles - in other words, the ambiguity derived from 'humanly created' systems of interpretation in which conscious determination of a state is invested were indicative of a lack of a robust underlying system which could accurately resolve that state on more fundamental, objective terms. This appears to be true of systems which determine, influence or judge emotional state from a relative perspective, also.

Bearing this in mind : in the case of a carrier of language, resolving the ambiguous state into a 'superposition' is not always an effective strategy for accurately determining state, as the system itself could be considered a quantization of state from the perspective of some unquestioned underlying principle. (Socially reinforced, but ultimately arbitrary representation of state). That is, that the ambiguity is an emergent phenomenon of the carrier - in this case, its purpose to communicate the state of a biological system at a given moment. (Though, as with any environment in which a biological system is invested, it may influence the interpretation or state of a biological system). So while the state of a biological system could always be interpreted as 'true', regardless of the carrier of its state, there is apparently no 'intrinsic' truth which the carrier system itself represents, especially at this level of abstraction. In my case, this emergent ambiguity seems to have been intentionally used as a tool - perhaps to educate, but certainly 'misused', in the same manner that flint, when used appropriately, can be a utilized as a weapon as well as a tool for lighting a fire. It can also be used for scraping messages into the ground, for example, an arrow pointing in some direction and the word 'food', which might lead a hungry someone to walk off of a cliff. It's an interesting idea to think that which influences the utilization of the system in this manner (that is, to harm) by some person / group of persons could, in turn, be influenced by the same system which it is utilizing to harm. This, to me, signifies some fundamental misnomer of the framework.

It's a worrying thought that a person / persons entire framework of understanding could be so invested in / influenced by these systems, if these systems can be utilized to control on such dubious terms - as ideas like these spread throughout networks, it becomes increasingly difficult to disentangle oneself from their contextually primed interpretation (though, from the perspective of a node it 'favours', there may simply not appear to be a reason to do so). Certain possibilities - a relatively naive example : a future where space or time, medical issues, social unrest, the sourcing of food, water, power, etc, are not pressing issues of humanity, may simply not be accessible to that contextual framework - indeed, that contextual framework may actively discourage the development of these potential futures or marr ideas which may lead to them, or lead to actions which may not take these potential futures into account. This is somewhat of a digression, however.

As the notion of investment in these systems as biasing the perception of certain states developed, I found myself settling on a more 'universal' translation algorithm. That is, to take the state of an alternate system into account, to be aware of momentary emotional state as 'absolute' - that is, to accept the 'relative' reality of that state, but to distance myself from the assertion of place within a system which might damage that understanding - i.e. protecting my own 'relative' state from the perspective of a system incapable of resolving that ambiguity, and instead asserting an interpretation of that state based on the constraints I described above - that is, to protect my state from being inaccurately determined from the perspective of a 'relative' state invested in a carrier system which determines based on faulty principles, or reacts based on weighted moment to moment resolution of ambiguity. These are 'habits' that I'm quite certain form as tools of rapid communication within social networks, although as a child, they inaccurately 'determined' my state, hence my retreat from that network in order to protect the source of that state from a system which would attempt to define it based on these principles. It is, from an instinctive perspective, an attempt at protecting the integrity of my emotions. As they are almost constantly now determined from a 'relative' perspective, I feel as though this 'base' emotional state is being eaten away at - that I'm forced to simply become an emotionless 'node' within the system in order to protect myself from the stress of constantly being misinterpreted.