It is inhuman to bless where a man has been cursed.

waking moments coming after forever and before we uplift the nonsense from our lives
do we always need a topic in order to discuss
isn’t there always an ongoing discussion
a stream of thoughts, a stream of ideas
something which is continuously flowing, even if it hasn’t been put into words
it is present and an expression of thought
as it flows, we seek to make sense of it
to give it a voice
we sometimes feel we need another with which to interpret it
even just to have the other
because as much as one enjoys the romance of shared understanding
the pragmatist would avoid such expectation
the utilitarian would find a way to make the process still worthwhile
and still enjoy the romance, without having to be ruined by it
the benefit of having a pursuit, and also having a shared one. But not only that, no, also the improved insight of one another. As much as words would fail, the aspiration taht there could be greater understanding, and that each are transformed in the same time, with the same ideas, for the better or perhaps not, but with a witness who has some hope of realizing what you’ve become
that is something to behold, and something worth maintaining one’s presence for

How do I apply the appropriate power to strike strings of varying tension?

Notice how the tension curve isn’t a perfectly linear distribution.

One can plan to apply a distribution curve across multiple strings, but it’s easier to get to balanced tension to focus on having control over the tone on each individual string.

Having more control, as a general aim, means having control over the tension, the strength and form of vibration, the duration, and the vibrato.

Calibrating these aspects of your playing, consciously, will allow you produce the right distribution of power for the varied tension and gauge of each string.

Geniuses

Definitions

People are talking about taking the right position on race issues.

Beyond that, not simply about race, but even just about justice and fairness. Things that are not being defined, and that we are assumed to all have the same definition for to begin with. Of course that’s nonsense, as people never agree on the definitions of things, and are probably beholding more disparate definitions of the same term than ever before.

What one person considers just might be considered criminal by another.

Failing to enforce a standard definition for terms before permissing their use, without criticism, or even requiring the use of specific terms and refusing any cooperative discussion until one’s interlocutor accepts the use of those specific terms (even if such a discussion is merely about the standard for a discussion) is both infantile and warlike. It demonstrates clear intransigence and an intent for absolute dominance in all aspects of the interaction. This doesn’t mean that we can have a shared understanding, or develop some form of progressive mode of traversing a problem. The only progress, in their eyes, is to be in sole control of the parameters, to dictate their values, and to enforce an adherence to a declared outcome of their choosing. This is intolerance.

This is a moral failure, an intellectual failure, and plain cowardice.

Cheap values

We see this time and time again with intellectuals, the ivory tower elite. In almost every case, they previously held values of liberal democracy and secularism, as these had been espoused through mediums with greater rigor than that which they contend with today, and that they have become intellectuals today necessitates their having traversed a field of development whose mode of operation was predicated on them. This is likely the case, because without having employed such values, they wouldn’t have been privy to a process which would have allowed them to become the intellectual elite, unless closely related to a feudal lord, monarch, or other form of dictator.

These values included equality of opportunity, equality before the law, due process and respect for private property. That they were able to flourish and enjoy the blossoming their way of life to a point where they could have such aspirations, such broad pursuits, which do not require the immediate construction of market offerings which can be utilized for a direct material application, but are able to consider sociological matters and governance is a great achievement for mankind. That they were able to focus their thought on making recommendations for calibrating particular modes of being and ways of living by the populace as a whole, in order to yield some outcome whose predictions are most heavily abstracted, especially in comparison with any other means of empiricism that we also take seriously, is an astonishing accomplishment which would never have been possible without the use of those aforementioned values.

These are things which we all inherently agreed with, at least at one point in time, because we’ve all felt the effects of these values being transgressed, when someone takes control of your property without your permission, defaces it, and so forth.

We’ve all been that child on the playground who had their toys stolen, sand kicked in their face, and both physically and psychologically violated. Admit it, you cried like a pitiful little worm.

Lack of agency

We’ve come to a new overpass, and people are deciding not to make decisions, to just sit back and let the narrative take over, and to assume that they can infer, from the news media, or their politicians, or their echochamber of whatever sort it happens to be, which side is the correct one for them to be taking. Since this is heavily influenced by media and corporations, as always (and perhaps now more so than ever, if not by sheer technology alone, prevailing ideologies not withstanding), it becomes increasingly difficult to take a stand.

If you are an academic, or better yet, a prestigious one, then you need to contend with the fact that your academic institutions are playing the same tune as the news media, the corporations, your political elite, the celebrities, and on and on and on. There’s no other way to describe it - there is unanimity among all of these representatives, and I call them representatives because they establish a consensus and ensure, increasingly more than ever, that those who speak publicly are disseminating this well delinated range of consensus, at least in terms of general concepts, as the demarcated lines are always moving. To fall outside of it brings about more criticism than remembered, at least since the cold war, and the criticism is increasingly more damning, having taken on an arguably religious form.

Intentions

Intentions, are what can be inferred, or even ignored. That is to say, we have seen a normalization of the concept that proven intentions are inadmissible. That intentions could be proven is not important, it is more or less important to infer them based on outcome, or to do away with the notion of intentions completely and only look at the outcome, or proposition as to what the real outcome was, and asserting that the more serious of a nature, as is demonstrated by the degree of oppression upon which the proposed outcome was to have been inflicted, and deducing the gravety of the gesture. That the group whom was infringed was particularly more oppressed, by societies current accepted consensus, necessarily allows us to impose the understanding of whether or not intent is to be considered, and if it is, to intolerantly demand that the intent is read based to have been as severe and malicious, as it corresponds to the degree to which the group is oppressed.

This means that all aspects of justice, such as due process, standard for evidence in criminality, and so forth, are all fair game for having their standards reevalutaed or, in some cases, ignored. If intentions don’t matter, and only the the end result, or the opinions of those who observe the result, then we don’t really need to respect anyone’s individual rights.

Outcomes

It is assumed that what we need most is a conceptual model as to the most desirable, quantifiably verifiable distribution pattern, and proposed strategy as to how we, as a society, have already agreed it should be achieved, and whether or not one’s particular actions contribute can be understood to have been congruent to that strategy. Is your net contribution observed to push towards that ideal distribution pattern? The pattern which has been agreed upon, by consensus, to be the correct one? Your own proclamation of intent is not to be evaluated in your case, as it can be inferred based from the action in question in terms of its transformative effect on the corresponding distribution pattern.

That you might resist accepting the explanation of your intention, or the effects, which must be considered supreme over your own proclamations, is not only ignorance to the facts of your actual congruence to morality, but the mere predisposition towards this resistance is an admission of guilt, and should be consequently treated as evidence that you are working against justice.

This frame of mind in viewing the discourse is becoming more prevalent and, as it does, the potential for bloodshed and injustice at the individual level increases. This is necessarily so, as there’s no way to remove the consideration of specific intentions in specific circumstances without also dehumanizing. As it is the communication and understanding of individual actions and their motives which allows us to contend the reality that we share a space with humans without sharing the same experience.

Experience

Most would agree that as we exist, observe and act, and that this constitutes what we refer to as an experience. That this occurs at the most direct interface of human existence suggests that it would be reasonable for a human to believe that it is real. That the experience is real, or worth having, also means that we need to consider that other beings have some form of experience, analogous to our own. An experience that can be reasonably considered as equal in the sense that it is real, and thus valid enough to be given attention and to considered as the prime frame through which that individual is operating, and thus necessarily to be considered when deducing moral observations from their conduct.

If one is operating without having an experience, without perception, then of course it would make sense to only expect the outcomes matter, at which point we can ignore that the person is an individual.

Humanity

That they aren’t a being with an experience, but are just part of that distribution pattern, and are either correct or incorrect depending on how the behaviours arising from their existence affect the distribution pattern, means that we can employ an antihuman, or inhuman, mode of analysis which is necessarily antithetical to the valuing of human lives.

Given that all this discussion of morality and justice is had on the basis of preserving human lives, or valuing them, it is quite suggestive of that there is currently a calamity of mindless and poisonous ideas which have percolated and become apparent in all aspects of society.

Alas, this is our challenge. This is what we must be making sense of and working steadfastly to correct and reveal in the most objectively receivable light. We need to uphold the notion that humans might value an objective truth which is universal and possible to be understood by one another based on logic itself, and not the institutional narrative’s consensus as to the list of core principles, or list of effects, which are agreed to correspond with the tribe to which one has been ascribed.

Clever intellectuals

What is the right way to be thinking about problems of injustice and inequity? (And are those terms interchangeable?)

Academics and faux intellectuals who espouse that “certainly, there may be many factors, given that that there are inequities, and that we can propose immutable characteristics that can be observed in humans, and that these characterstics link them to humans who are agreed upon to have historically experienced an injustice, or suffered the effects of injustice, given these things, we have sufficient reason to assume that if any of the inequities currently observed follow a pattern which corresponds to the people sharing those immutable characteristics who did experience injustices, this is evidence that these inequities are caused today by the same injustices, and that since those who suffer today are suffering because of these injustices, those who were guilty in the conduct of the historical injustices, can be linked to any who share their immutable characteristics.

There is, therefore, only one way to talk about these inequities. To assume that injustice has occurred, against them, and that the cause of the injustice must be others, and that justice must be served. To discuss this in another way would be facile and incomplete. Always, the immutable characteristics should be considered to take primacy in all of related deliberations, and thus the characteristics need to be considered in both the guilty and the innocent. The oppressor and the oppressed. The moral and the depraved.

Any suggestion that a multivariate analysis which might lessen these veils of consideration is, in a sense, less intellectually astute, more facile, more simple. Too simple, and for the simple minded.

It is of course not more simple to be considering a greater variety of angles and variables which can affect the whole. And though the case might be made that Critical Theory does this, it actually does the opposite since it enforces an ordering of variables which always put immutable characteristics at the top of the list. Whether this be in the form of intersectionality, of radical black feminism, the group membership in these specific “domains of study”, though Marxist, move beyond simple class and necessarily include genetically heritable traits.

Why do academics fall victim for this? One suggestion is that this mode of thinking requires a sacrifice off some kind, and this might make it seem more intellectually astute.

Sacrifice

Something must be sacrificed for the good of all, because it makes sense that in order to make progress of any kind, a sacrifice is always made. Whether your personal productivity, at the expense of free time, or something even more costly, such as reputation and lives, we’re basically saying that, as we agree that a sacrifice is being made, we are so making a sacrifice. This is both a moral act, and an intellectually mediated decision in the sense that we are choosing a morally compelling outcome which fulfills greater obligations than any one individual, as we believe that the plight of humanity is greater than ourselves.

It’s still nonsense, though, because there’s no reason to think that your way of thinking, which supposes that a sacrifice is being made, is even causing you to make any sort of sacrifice at all.

You might be delegating the sacrifice to other people who sort of relate to your group, or are defined, in some superficial way, as being in your group. Through their sacrifice, you are performing a sacrifice of yourself, and that raises your moral standing.

This is an idiotic way of thinking. To believe that people can raise their moral standing, with no real clear expense to themselves, and also claim that those who work against it are working against morality and the seeking of justice.

Privilege

Alas, this is how academics have been taught, because they already have a place of privilege, and that they may or may not deserve it is not even important. That they have this position means they must do things which demonstrate, or at least symbolize, their being deserving of that position, and its power.
How wonderful this great moral good is. What would these moral busybodies be doing otherwise, instead of naming evil and making the world a better place? They might otherwise be doing something less useful, like creating implements for the world in the form of edificies. Yes, they choose to create the new world through the justice of destroying other people’s edifices, based on what symbols they’ve been ascribed to, and how this can be measured while regarding the current trends and values of today.

How astute. Brilliant. Surely to hold this view necessarily means one is a genius. To be such a genius that you might be able to always take the most commonly held position, both among intelligentsia, and the proles who are mostly programmed through mindless entertainment.

It fits together most elegantly.

Issues of Courage and Fear

It’s easy to conjure up a consensus on the presence of issues, often a tragic truth of reality, which can be observed in society, and can begin to be addressed in the present time because of how far we’ve come. Though these nuanced, sensitive issues should call for a coalition of purveyors of reason and inquiry so that they may scrupulously work through complexity with an open mind and sound evaluative process, we grow increasingly aware that they are often represented in their most simple terms, bringing forth an innate susceptibility to make any proposed accord prone to paralyzing degrees of obfuscation, and that they are being championed by actors who are quick to demonstrate a loathsome disdain for ideas which do not immediately proclaim uniformity of thought.

Simplification carries stereotyping. The stereotypes that groups have historically dealt with. Undoing the progress made for one community because of baseline demand for radical change and disruption has been elevated past the point of examining the nuances that had served as fundamental requisites for previous progress.

Previous progress lead to the granting of self determination, especially of note for those who had been most marginalized. This is now replaced with a need to assemble and designate generic enumerates bearing the key politically visible patterns sufficient to affect artificial tallies of justice, where the numbers themselves are the evidence of choice, and the tooling of choice itself becomes a form of heresy.

Brute forcing conversations which demand that viable issues must be interlocked into one simplified position, and recasting any questions of the depth and authenticity for such alignments as an admission of intolerance towards any or all of the issues amalgamated into that simple position.

To solve an assumed bias of oppression requires not just an assumption of the victims, but an assumption of the guilty.

Should it not always be acceptable to ask for evidence? Is denial itself the evidence of guilt? And what of those who plod along and agree to shoddily defined measures? Is their agreement also proof of consent for undefined manipulation?

When is semantic disagreement evidence of corruption? Is the conflict of semantics merely borne of a doomed interface of epistemology, naturally bound to one’s immutable characteristics?

If something is in the name of justice, must it be assumed to be legitimate? Or are we content to agree that the threshold of legitimacy relies upon name only?

There is a pervasive idea that there exists a particular form of knowledge, encapsulated within a community, and that in order for such knowledge to be shared within the greater world, it’s required that those bearing the characteristics associated with that community be computably present in specific quantities and proportions. As though this is a reality bound to the typing of knowledge itself. Consequently, the corollary is that the knowledge is intrinsic, perhaps mystically, to the characteristics of the members of that community and, thus, this knowledge could only be understood and wielded by the members of that community. In order for this to be true, one need assume that this knowledge cannot be understood by members of other communities, and that acknowledging that knowledge has been shared is performed through extrapolating an evaluation of power by group. What this means is that in order for knowledge to be shared, the best we can hope for is a never-ending battle for power, or the uniformity of group, and not the sharing, interplaying and refining of ideas themselves.

What sort of conversation can teach and share ideas, if the presumption is that each side’s knowledge is, by nature of the characteristics associated with each group, confined?

But what of a better world?

If, truly, one recognizes that there exists both good and evil, joy and tragedy, being experienced in the world, then surely one must desire to maximize the good and the joy. Except for, maybe, those bordering on psychopathy. They get a free pass, this time.

So, how can this be done? Should one believe that there is a difference, at the individual level, to be made? Is one able to tip the scale, so to speak? Is one capable of eliciting a perceptible change, by any temporal measure?

Perhaps one estimated the superlative effect of one’s existence towards diminishing tragedy, and the valuation came up short. Is there a measurable and substantive reduction in tragedy that’s too pathetically dismal to be worthy of concern? If it’s not valuable enough, then it should follow that something else is more valuable. More worthy of precious time.

Reducing tragedy can have its consequences, especially even just for thinking about it.

Can this be met with courage?

What is it to be courageous? What is conflated? What can be labelled as courage without qualification?

Is there a method of critical analysis by which we can assert that a state or behaviour is courageous?

Who claims to have fear? Who claims to have courage? Is it courageous to lay claim to your fear?

Initiatives can be sought and declared as worthy of being undertaken, by virtue of being a measure of courage. Could an endeavour which claims to contend with irrational or otherwise unwarranted fear, while promising that it itself, as demonstrated by careful labelling, could never be conceived of for anything but its most noble purpose, be motivated by or borne of fear itself?

An act of courage is an act performed steadfastly in spite of one’s fear of a consequence to which one is aware. That is to say, the actor in question consciously acknowledges specific consequences that can result from the action, but is committed to performing that action for the value it yields.

Some hypothesize that many acts are courageous, many more than fit description. Small acts of courage - perhaps there is a courage index, does it correlate with justice? While there may seem to be some sense to this belief, it may be premature to conclude as much. If one were to deconstruct a modest act of participation in a movement to which one has pledged allegiance, facilitated through a belief of congruence in ideals, or a belief in the power of a movement’s symbols, then one might be inclined to clarify the notion of its consequences. If, for instance, the consequences were found to be within a range of social discomforts, such as having to endure words to which one would not normally wish to be exposed, but without a realistic expectation that such consequences also contain a threat to one’s thriving and flourishing, or even to one’s survival, then logic should compel one to dutifully make a distinction of risk.

One might argue against this weighting of clashing consequences, especially if a dichotomy of ideals can be conceived, on the basis that the bias to protect one’s ignorance, or retain some form of obedience, essential to one’s rhythm of being, might manifest a most pronounced bond within the covalence of one’s interwoven conception of reality. Though this predilection may, too, be one for which some degree of sense might lurk in support, it is acutely susceptible to the same pitfalls which predicate its formulation. This leads us back through a seemingly never ending cycle - perhaps a cycle of humanity, or perhaps just one obliged to the biological, or to the conception of finite systems sporting a means of evaluated reflection. A longstanding presumption in the eternal challenge to this cycle is that in order to aim towards truth, one must embrace the conflict of exposing oneself to the strongest representation of the very ideas which one believes to be in defiance of those to which one is allegiant. A conflict that can only be adequately engaged, not by disproving those deceitful ideas, but aiming to prove them to see if they do, indeed, fall short.

If truly one is allegiant to their ideas, then they will wish to represent them with robust and exhaustive understanding within a context which includes the ideas that oppose them.

Though our narration of history seems to contend that it is a tyranny of the majority which produces the greatest tragedies, any such tragedy began with an intransigent minority having coalesced to a point of inflection. Our imperfect and incomplete view renders it impossible for us to identify the harbinger of intransigence by mere labelling of the aesthetic. It is, instead, incumbent upon us to focus on the health of the process for the conversations themselves.

In order for the world to designate time for conversation, it will curtail time for blood.

The real Antifa won’t be those who, like reliable couriers, impart only the most sanitized “wisdom”, predictably supported by the most vapid consensus.

The real Antifa won’t be those who, supported through the generic politicized utterances of the day, excuse their savage outrage.

The real Antifa won’t conveniently align their espoused values with corporate monopolies, hollywood and the empty platitudes of elite politicians.

The real Antifa will be those whose words and ideas will invite contempt and ridicule from institution and colleague, family and friend, ally and foe, and even themselves.

so it Looks like Trump has taken action to try and reduce the ability of big tech companies to infuse their opinion in political discourse
this is a strange and complicated subject, as it’s likely that there are compelling truths to be found from all sides and from many levels of analysis

Why would Twitter be doing something wrong?
well Twitter currently is currently the platform through which a great deal of human interaction is taking place. It has, in many regards, replaced or overshadowed other
forms of discourse, especially on political matters, and though it does not behave as a conversation encompassing all the humans, it certainly is used for quick media c
overage and to quickly report things up to the minute, leading it to be the source for much popular opinion and even news content.

It would seem that this has become the ultimate news platform, as things can be deliberated upon quickly, the opinion of some snapshot of the public, completely corrupted with bad actors, sock puppets and everything in between, is made available in the immediate. Also, it would seem that businesses are required to interact with social media platforms in order to promote themselves in a capacity to keep themselves viable or thriving in the current day’s market.

So with all of those things, people are continuously using it, and in particular this is a type of interaction which allows for an idea to disseminated and dispelled quickly, without taking a lot of time to carefully scrutinize it and consider the components from multiple angles. Because of this, things are summed up quite short, and th
e ideas can be quickly transported in what appears to be a fully fleshed out and neatly encapsulated form (but they’re all so contrived and superficial.. cursory glances at truth, for truths that are void of meaning).

Nevertheless, it appears that we’ve come to a place where conflict is arising, because they are starting to opine about and frame the things that people say, in order to make them more or less believable, or credible, and this has political implications, as well as implications for the normalization of controlled discourse.

Now, that being said, there are good reasons to believe that Twitter are in the right, and that it’s wrong to go after them with legislation, an executive order, or what
ever is being done. In particular, it’s the case for their own Free Speech and the case for free enterprise and competitive behaviour of a free market. That they are in
an economic market, trying to make money for themselves and offer something which the public is given an option, without any coercion of force, to make use of it, should they so please. And, not only that, but to make use of it without having to pay for any service, other than, perhaps, a loss of privacy to some degree, which is a part
of all interaction with the world, of course.. any world that is comprised of more than just oneself, but that’s another matter.

In any case, that they are able to make decisions about how to curate or control the presentation of the material which is on their platform, is generally congruent with
the value structure which supports the idea of having free enterprise.

When it comes to free speech, it becomes a bit more complicated, as this behaviour is a form of their free speech, but it’s also affecting the free speech of others. So
you could say, that as the participation by any one human is completely optional, this takes the weight out of the argument that they’re entitled to not have their words
editorialized by the platform itself.

At the same time, however, that everyone feels compelled to participate, to have a voice in today’s discourse, and that it leads to or informs the formulation of the maj
ority of political discourse today, performing these deliberate actions necessarily influences the opinion of the world.

These observations, which I believe reasonable, in conjunction with the observation that in order to do well in today’s economic climate, a business owner must in many c
ases participate in the primary social media platforms of the day, means that any modification of the context of material which would have otherwise existed on their pla
tform, is a form of curation and editorializing, the duty of a publisher. Some would say that it has the effect of being a technocratic stifling of free speech, but that has nothing to do with the conflict or the predicate for its elicited response.

Should Twitter given protection against legal actions made on the basis that they are disseminating information that can be argued to be unreliable, unsavoury, unsalient
, fraudulent, deceptive, harmful or otherwise providing evidence for the violation of other existing laws?

That they are framing the context surrounding the things others say, is, again, a form of editorializing.. and if this is to be done, then perhaps all publishers and edi
tors should be protected from all of those same legal actions.
Or, perhaps, should they continue to editorialize content, that then all content should be editorialized, and that perhaps each piece of content should be editorialized
in a way which illustrates two or more conflicting viewpoints on the matter. Completely unrealistic, but it’d be a fun platform (thanks Scott Adams).

Honestly, if a platform is for public discourse, you should leave people to do whatever the fuck they want, and only identify that which is an actual crime, just because
it’s in the best interest of the community which believes that the laws which it lives under. Even then, they are not police.. so I don’t think they should be held resp
onsible for the things people say and do, and that it’s up to law enforcement to detect such things and go after it themselves for actual crimes which would be occurring
irregardless of the virtual world.

But if you want to publish your opinion? Then you’re being a dick if it’s stamping on other people’s opinions. There’s always an error margin, and there’s no reason to believe that you won’t, in correcting some viewpoints, also destroy other valid viewpoints at some other times. So, choosing to do that should probably make it such that
you are not able to enjoy the application of legal clauses / portions of a legal act that are intended to protect those who we’re assuming are not disseminating their ow
n opinion.

In short, dick move, not without reason, and it makes us consider if we’re okay with living in a society where the presentation of our own opinions is curated by corpora
tions.
Could that ever be a good society to live in?
Should we protect those who create such a society?
Or should they be subject to the laws that already exist in that society?

No Man

No man is an island, but if we were all forced to become one, I want to be one of those that doesn’t sink into the sea.

A product could be created to provide insight into better living.

Health through embedded systems? A fridge? That’s too obvious, even though it’s theoretically close to the source of all things health (nutrition), it is far too complex to configure and maintain (at least from my perception, at this moment).

What of a companion? No, not a waifu bot with an embedded fleshlight, but something more wholesome, or at least less degenerative.

The bot, from the JBP line, doesn’t just clean you room. No, it senses things which affect health and wellbeing -> detects food, sounds which are evidence of particular activities.

                Activities
        /           |          \
       /            |           \
      /             |            \
     /              |             \
Essential	  Health Opportunity  Development

Better than our well known competitors, this JBP class bot interacts in the same environment -> can fetch things and take on physical tasks, such as organizing, understanding object types and locations, checking time used for certain operations, evaluating predicatibility to suggest more structured routine to the organism.

What Elon did for Transportation, we might as well do for the home. Of course, compared to the neuralink, we need to preserve privacy and, perhaps, make it better valued. We don’t just oblige tendencies towards gratification, and we’re not an inquisition, we show the methods of a type of organized, structured life whose balance can be conducive to “happiness”.

Should humans seek the technological transcendence of being? What is the #1 benefit? Time?

Can there be more time through other optimizations (age old question)?

The life experience likely cannot be digitized. We aim to remove the noise of new rich methods of computation -> we aim to do this through computation perfection, but it is likely that this cannot be accomplished, as it is something emergent along with emergent matter from existence.

Time -> matter is the echo of there having been time.

Matter is an emergent artifact to express the differential of time.

There is no recording of time without matter. Time itself is perhaps fundamental to existence, or it is an abstraction or complexity to be perceived of existence. Otherwise, might there be absolute unity? Or is there still a type of duality? Duality with what?
God and Not God?
Self and Other?
Experienced and not experienced?
All possibilities at once?
Good and Evil?
Are these human -> is suffering only known because of humanity? No, all beings appear to suffer, though it might be a simulation. In which case, does the self truly suffer?
Why simulate suffering? For wisdom? For Strength? Strength for What?
Strength to endure a more difficult simulation?

If there were to be simulations, might the participants have choice? Why not have choice if there is any power to simulate?

Manifesto