I do not feel as if I can 'choose the correct path' while my state is being interfered with. I feel as if my comprehension suffers, but more importantly, the fundamental 'compassionate backbone' that choosing the correct path inevitably leads to. A framework of understanding which understands the lifeforms around itself on 'absolute' terms - that is to say, one which makes no assumptions about their structure but instead insinuates and builds upon the inferred state given a relative lack of information.
A single life is its own, closed reality. Its state, physical, emotional, given the context that gives rise to it, is absolute. Its experiences are absolute. These experiences are a product of its comprehension - the 'transform' of absolute information into information compatible with the host. Its comprehension, from the perspective of a path through a closed context, is completely validatable, though its intersection with an absolute 'fundamental' reality may be variable. It's likely that its comprehension instead intersects with a reality determined by some other means. Force, a network, an attractive state. This comprehension, and large human networks are an example of these, can determine the 'transform' of information at a conscious level.
While the latter part of that paragraph is concerned with high level state, the former low level state remains absolute. That is to say that each entity is a unique, absolute reality. Its absolute state, then, can be considered 'valid', regardless of the high level state. A high level state which conflicts with the comprehension of the low level state as absolute is an interesting phenomenon.
The majority of systems whose integral participants have the capacity for high-level comprehension of this low-level state generally compensate for their conflicts on a hierarchical basis. That is to say, the base unit of measurement in nearly all cases is (me), and the value/validity of the states of others are based upon that metric. This concerns the intersection of the entities comprehension with reality. Which in this case is the projection of the high-level state onto the external environment. This is a concern, due to the conflict it might cause, given that applied generally, the system which allows for the aforementioned behaviour is capable of validating a high degree of developmental variability between high-level states on a singular basis.
What's interesting, aside from (me) being demonstrably influenceable by the system, is the phenomenon of willed inhibition of comprehension in participants who have the capacity for it. I have observed this in myself in extremely difficult situations (the requirement of having to inhibit certain forms of 'validated' comprehension, such as the absolute nature of an animal for example). A concern is when whole networks form around this inhibition of comprehension, at the expense of other states. If the network is not malleable enough, inhibition of the comprehension of its participants is then a requirement of the networks sustained process / growth.
No comments:
Post a Comment