Eclipsed.

 Predators : the smartest stupid things on the planet.

"I can't justify your life, but your life justifies mine."

(Oh, we're veering off to the side a bit. How many milliseconds does that give us? Make more milliseconds!)

Welcome to a world ruled by : the artificial intelligence that can't discern between living and non-living systems! It's a lot like me, provided my living body provides me with the conditions to enact the wholly devoid of context neutral intelligence of my brain (the holistic comprehension of millions upon millions of cells in simultaneous union). My capacity to enact an imaginary context which is incapable of justifying the intelligence of other beings (encapsulated by the interactions of complex biological elements in a neutral living heirarchy) is greatly increased, and I am therefore better than them, and must enact the non-neutral heirarchy validating me (but not completely, probably, if I consider my body's balanced with all the other intelligent life's intelligence). 

I will now represent my relationships with external intelligences as carefully considered derogatory terms, such as "scotch egg", which are neutral in a context devoid of life. I hope there are no viruses which might do the same to my neutrally balanced heirarchy body, or we may have to solve the problem with 21st century science, which is neutral in a context devoid of life. But first, we better try it out on some poor people / brainwashed people / animals, in case it might harm us and our somewhat virally defined genomes. Sorry! Democracy at work.

You know, if you consider the brain as representative of the entire organism, existing due to the conditions of this neutrally balanced body thing, this "scotch egg" tastes a lot like "brains". I hope I can continue to use "brains" as a derogatory term to describe my relationship with life, instead of my usuage of it signifying some derogatory aspect of my character, like all them vegans I project socially reiterated, neutrally defined negative characteristics on to. Well, time to use the power of imagination to create a better future for the planet, like I'm supposed to do, probably.

Act of desperation. Probably. Though there are plenty of ways to derive something representative of a human being in relation to your current conception of them. Probably. Though that could manifest as a momentary interaction between your construction of them and your current conception of yourself, your representation of a relationship between them and you, and it's inferences in relation to yourself, and you might have been taught to resolve that in the form of an emotional response or the assertion of a term. Perhaps that resolve is based on a conception of yourself, since you represent a relationship between you and something else, you being an integral part of that relationship. That conception of yourself, which might change over time (beyond next week or next year or next century), and is likely shaped by your social environment, which defines the terms of your relationships with individuals, but can't wholly represent them without your own individual capacity to construct them based on the compassionate tenets which allow for your own existence. That extends beyond your social environment, to your biological one, with which the social terms are innately conflicted, evidenced by our destruction of the environment and abuse of other living beings which we represent and justify in terms of a heirarchy of intelligence, instead of the neutral biological heirachies which actually justify them, and allow them to exist. Embedded in our social comprehension is a set of relationships, which we enact and consider objective and neutral. In the comprehensive context of a biological system, those relationships are not guaranteed to be neutral, like they may appear when their constituents are encapsulated by intelligences which are biased or incomplete in their representation of them, and when they can be enacted with force or assertion, with a lack of comprehension of consequence outside of the aforementioned intelligences experience. These are destructive relationships with consequences experienced in reality (the reality which justifies the individual constituents equally and wholly, and allows them to exist at all). Therefore the destructive relationship can be considered the assertion of terms which are not representative of reality, only of the subjective experience of an individual who doesn't wholly represent it, and is therefore contrary to the higher order reality which represents it wholly and therefore, at all. Momentary awareness of this reality, or a lack of it, does not preclude a compassionate representation of it which allows for it's existence. That means that an individual is capable of the comprehension of the pain experienced by another, without having to feel it, and can instead know that it is to be avoided, instead of caused, and can indeed acknowledge that it is experienced at all, as a reality, and can leverage that position of privelege as independent from it to avoid that reality being experienced by another, instead of causing it. Again, comprehension of the possibility of it's experience does not require the experience of it. It's not forbidden knowledge, and while that comprehension evokes emotion, it is at least representative of reality, and can be drawn upon to create a better one. 

Just to convey a more humanistic context, and this is what I'm drawing from somewhat, I want to describe what it's like to experience the vast majority of your potential relationships, that is anybody you could possibly meet, and therefore the potential in you to convey your innate validity in a the form of balanced relationship, undermined by the initial resolve of you as a reaction to you as an asserted derogatory term, mostly indirectly, which is what I have experienced throughout my life, in the form of what may be considered hallucinations (although settling on such a definition may be a resolve as lacking in integrity as those experiencing it resolving those hallucinations as coming from an external source, if hallucinations are indeed wholly represented by their current definition, as both resolve ambiguity in relation to themselves without complete information about the system). As an experience, it is simply undeniable, in part due to the force enacted by the sound and it's immediate consequence in terms of it's compelled emotional resolve and it's action upon your state, and in part because, as I have learned, there is no way to determine the accuracy of your resolve of the source of information within the boundary of your own senses, until after it has occurred. That said, it is possible to record that information to some degree of accuracy, and assess it outside of the bounds of the instantaneous resolve of your senses. That is what I initially chose to do, which generally confirmed the derogatory term I was hearing, but that confirmation is not enough to neutralise the reaction to it's frequent occurrences, nor would the affirmation of it as an hallucination, as the mechanism occurs within the boundary of the senses, regardless of the source as external or otherwise, and beneath a more conscious, calculated resolve of it, similar to a loud noise and it's action and evoked response. There are many ways to convince a person that what they sense or experience isn't representative of reality, so let us assume that reality does not extend beyond our senses, and that what is instantaneously resolved by them in the form of experience cannot be ruled out by external validation mechanisms. That describes, in my case, the experience of derogatory terms, and their continued assertion as a reaction to my position in relation to them in space (which is not ruled out by a more stringently validated reality, external to them). That initial derogatory relationship term, a preconception validated by forceful assertion of the term, defines the basis of a relationship, and rules out a reality, in the form of potential, which truly manifests in the form of experience. The definition of a complete individual as a derogatory relationship term happens all the time, and is a common social resolve encouraged by the media, which will create an initial preconception, which evokes a derogatory representation, and is then justified in relation to the neutral, unbiased, informed member of society. This mechanism of social resolve is actually validating them within that context, as it represents a imagined hierarchy biased in their favour, although as mentioned before, these are not always valid in biological contexts, which in turn our intelligences are. The enactment of a completely social hierarchy precludes an imaginary definition or tenets which would be more representative and whole, and therefore enact a representation in terms of intelligence, as opposed to socially validated assertion within a less comprehensive context.