Do Androids Wet Dream of Becoming Dating Electric Sheep?

ON THE POSSIBLE EXPANSION OF INDEFINITE EMOTIONAL PARTICIPATIVE NETWORKS

I am amidst a social interaction with a member of the opposite sex. The interaction is somewhat exclusive in that it is unique among all my other social interactions with members of the opposite sex. The exclusivity is the product of a full year of communication, interpretation, and physical experience. Through this exclusivity, this member of the opposite sex and I have created an environment of both language and emotional participation. Episodes of events, as experienced by our shared perception, isolate us from others. Our constantly evolving interests, which dictate our activities, remain relevant to us and in relation to one another, we continually remain curious.

The emotional participation between this individual and I records or documents, in us both, a network of definitions and various maps of connections between these definitions that should in theory, perpetually expand. It is often enough the case that individual episodes of events, contain elements that reference these definitions or connections to definitions. In other words, memory creates new meanings for subjects seemingly unrelated to the social interaction between this individual and I. Nonetheless these meanings expand the emotional participation between the participants of exclusive social interactions.

Given that examples of similar social interactions between other individuals seem to be uniform and somewhat characterized by time, comfort, and stability; ours is no different except we substitute stability with consistency. Consistency is a form of stability, true. But in my understanding of consistency in regards to exclusive social interactions, stability is a state that may result due to consistency but consistency is not so much, under such terms, a product of stability. The current social interaction between this member of the opposite sex and I is not stable. Yet, even void of this stability found in other relationships, this individual and I, are consistently engaging one another through ever-changing, unstable channels of attention.

Our language and emotional participation is self-stimulating to the organism of exclusive social interaction. Empathic and at times even telepathic insight becomes present. Consistency appears to keep us relevant in relation to one another. We are theory in the experiment to which no result emerges to prove or disprove its practicality.

I am amidst an exclusive social interaction with a complimentary individual, which stimulates and identifies in me, a consistent curiosity and thus a significant emotional participation. I am exclusively available to define through multiple episodes of events, generative examples of intimate networks subjectively shared between this individual and I. Interlaced and infinitely receptive, there is no reason why these networks cannot expand indefinitely.

Notes on Darwin's On the Origin of Species

Having completed the second chapter to On the Origin of Species (OOS), I have to admit, it is getting easier to understand. I've been jotting down what I feel to be key parts, along with paraphrasing certain ideas in order to follow with my own mind, what Darwin arrived upon. I've also noticed that my knowledge of basic biology is embarrassingly framed in cobwebs and matted by dust, stranded in the same position I originally left it during my high school freshman year.

In order to refresh my memory, I paid a quick visit to wikipedia's entry for Genus (or Genera). It was there that I found a very useful diagram for the hierarchy of biological organization. Darwin, speaks mostly on variation and variety in regards to species and genera in this chapter, aptly is it titled Variation Under Nature.

Of the ideas introduced in this chapter the very first that reached a hand out to me was that of range and dominance of a species and variety over a country or land.

...for, as varieties, in order to become in any degree permanent, necessarily have to struggle with the other inhabitants of the country, the species which are already dominant will be the most likely to yield offspring, which, though in some slight degree modified, still inherit those advantages that enabled their parents to become dominant over their compatriots.

The success of the species and genera can be said to lie in its varieties, according to Darwin, species of larger genera usually produce larger varieties within the species itself. Over an area as massive and varied as a country, a species found throughout this area will encounter variations in nature that select or favor certain complementary variations of the species. Darwin states that species are in essence, varieties of other species that have become distinct enough to permanently become separate from parent-species. And species are continually being manufactured through variations, so evolution is a phenomena without a goal, acting through variations on species, sometimes those variations are significant enough that they give birth to a whole new species.

With enough species contributing to an increase on genus, will a variety exist on genus and later family, order, class, etc.? Life had to begin as a species, or several varieties that eventually became a species.

And it may be said, that in larger genera, in which a number of varieties or incipient species greater than the average are now manufacturing, many of the species already manufactured still to a certain extent resemble varieties, for they differ from each other by a less than usual amount of difference.

We have, also, seen that it is the most flourishing or dominant species of the larger genera which on an average vary most; and varieties, as we shall hereafter see, tend to become converted into new and distinct species. The larger genera thus tend to become larger; and throughout nature the forms of life which are now dominant tend to become still more dominant by leaving many modified and dominant descendants. But by steps hereafter to be explained, the larger genera also tend to break up into smaller genera. And thus, the forms of life throughout the universe become divided into groups subordinate to groups.

The more I read Darwin's words and try to rephrase them, though understanding them better than before--I find that his wording was sufficient and pretty comprehensible when you realize that in these chapters, evolution is acting on variations. Variation on species of bacteria, plants, insect, and animal kingdoms alike. My confusion arose and still arises from the mistake of thinking in terms of only animals or creatures. And though, any species of life is just as good as any other for an example of evolution, I'm finding that once I exclude examples altogether, I'm better at understanding the specific principles at work in general life.

Notes on Darwin's On the Origin of Species

Genesis

The first thing I feel like saying is that Charles Darwin isn't a good writer. I had to reread the initial first paragraph at least three times before discerning some point of understanding from which to continue forth from. The impression I'm drawing from what I've read so far, is that

One: Darwin wrote this publication in a hurry, due to years of sitting on the idea and witnessing others releasing similar works on the same subject. There's almost a rushed pressure present from paragraph to paragraph.

Two: This study on evolution, based on naturalist observation, is mainly written for colleagues, peers, and future naturalists & biologists. On the Origin of Species is somewhat of an isolated work. From the time it was written to the writing style, I feel like I'm reading a book that wasn't meant for my eyes. And finally

Three: (During his time writing this book) Darwin's ideas had not yet been tested and thus not fully established, creating a curiosity in his words that confuse me as I find myself having trouble noting when something is being stated, implied, or proposed. Darwin sounds at times, like an excited storyteller who runs in all sorts of direction of detail; who loses his audience in his overzealousness.

I'm in the middle of the second chapter, so pay no mind to this note. In all likelihood, I'm just too dumb to read On the Origin of Species. I know the basic idea of evolution and understand that natural selection is the mechanism Darwin proposes which moves evolution in all of earth's living organisms. Rather than living things being created in their present form, perfectly sustaining that original design since the dawn of life, Darwin's evolution, hypothesizes that all life is more or less variations of species, all related, tapering backward from complex to the simplest designs as time and opportunity act upon them. I live in a world where that idea has existed from more than a hundred years before I was born; where scholars and scientists have learned, taught, extended, tested, and interpreted Darwin's essential contribution to modern science and thought for decades before I learned to read or write. By the time I learned about evolution it was from multiple sources whose works would surely not be possible if not for Darwin, he and his work were always constant references. Therefore, I've had, much like many others, an indirect exposure to the contents of On the Origin of Species. Still, its been long overdue, that I read for myself what Darwin put down and even if I have to reread this book twenty more times, researching every concept individually until it sticks plain-as-day on my mind--it'll be worth it.

Gnosis

Gnosticism and Awareness

In Gnosticism, the material world and realm are evil and dominated by the demi-urge (lower god) Yahweh. Recently, this idea was reintroduced through the Matrix films. The Matrix program would be like the realm of Matter controlled by the evil, wrathful, and easily jealous deity who's plan is to enslave consciousness. Just like these films, beyond the realm of The Matter exists the true world and the true creator Sophia (Knowledge). It is only through Gnosis (Knowledge) that one may transcend and see the truth. I like Gnosticism for this idea, that knowledge is the only way to get to God--While most of the time we're told Faith is the key.

In the Gnostic interpretation of Genesis, the serpent is an agent of Sophia who helps Man temporarily free itself of Yahweh's dominion by disregarding the demi-urge's instructions to not take from the Tree of Good and Evil (consciousness). As a result of their disobedience, Yahweh casts Adam & Eve from Eden for fear they may take from the Tree of Life and truly become God-like (free).

The Serpent, who is exclusively always related to Lucifer in this story is like the Greek Prometheus, who brought fire to Man from the Heavens against the desires of the Gods who didn't wish to share this knowledge with humans. In fact, Lucifer means bringer of light -- furthering the connection between the two myths.

Sophia, the true creator, wouldn't care whether we were conscious or if we were immortal. She isn't threatened by any way if we were to become as she is. She doesn't care or protect, she simply only is--And everything is Sophia, she is the universe and everything within it. The only issue is that not everything within her is aware they are 1. Inside her and 2. One with her.

I don't believe there is a demi-urge. I am not Gnostic. But I do believe that our gnosis is limited purposely by the design of Nature for biological survival and that this limitation has left us disconnected with Sophia. And further I believe, it isn't necessary to see or know Sophia but if we do discover this need within ourselves then the only way to connect is by expansion of consciousness (gnosis). All religions based on Faith and Worship are a distraction of our senses. Sophia doesn't need love, doesn't need prayer, she is complete and there is nothing you can provide for her that she cannot accomplish herself. She is the true pure creator, destroyer, and preserver of the Universe. It is the Nature of Man that is personified by the Gods Man has created for himself. It is the Nature of Man to lie, steal, and be disloyal if it will improve his chances of self-preservation; it is the Nature of Man to seek love, respect, and power; the Nature of Man is wrathful and jealous and the Gods of Man follow in Man's Image, not visa versa.

If you feel you are in a prison then your desire becomes to be free. Likewise, if you are conscious and realize that the physical world you inhabit is a limitation of the Universe you could experience, then your desire becomes to free yourself of the physical and transcend to the true realm. Following Sophia will bring you nothing if you have fear of the unknown, if you don't really want the truth, if you are not curious. Established religion's biggest ally is fear, namely the fear of death and the corresponding fear of being alone. However, through expanded consciousness, one may experience that death and loneliness are not threatening at all. A peace has been made with the mind regarding these matters. And you're main inspiration for experience becomes to know yourself and in knowing yourself knowing Sophia, The Universe.

The Only Time Society Cheers the Individual

DISCOURSE ON EXPANDED CONSCIOUSNESS

If we were to lower our guard, our alertness--and become aware of what we're "not suppose" to be aware of, I don't necessarily believe that this is or has been set in place by a social infrastructure we live under. I would agree, that such a social infrastructure as the one we live under is inspired by the true cause of our selective sensory perception. I believe our social infrastructure takes advantage of our limited senses and goes as far as to outsmart itself to keep these available senses distracted, so that any awareness of an alternative perception is stifled--So even though, a fuller awareness may cause harm to the organization of society as we know it (or have come to know it)--I believe the true cause for this to be biological.

Our brain is a wonderful example of evolution and complexity--so much that technology has yet to synthesize a software to fully match or replace it. Its the control center for everything you know, will know, will experience in any lifetime. A severe blow to the head can paralyze you from the neck down, completely abandoned by the limbs and extremities that carry out orders from the gray wrinkled, matter that occupies the best parking space in your body. Brain is boss. Among all its purposes, and there are many, you can syphon a single, common goal--keep you alive! The brain is our one trick when we enter the pony pageant. The most important function of the brain, if not its only, is to keep you alive--to help you survive; to defend yourself if need be, in the name of self-preservation. Our sensory perception was designed with this in mind. We weren't overloaded. We have the general minimum. We don't see like a falcon, don't hear like a bat, don't sniff like a dog--its perfectly human to be limited. We've done well to survive as long as we have without any major improvement of our five senses, they've pretty much stayed the same since the dawn of man, haven't they?

That being said, there is no harm in wanting to expand our perception, even if it isn't necessary. This is probably why we will most likely face the same fate that awaited Icarus, deep down below. We should open our doors of perception, must in fact, if we are to fully see ourselves as we really are. One with the universe, that's the real you. The real me. Alan Watts is the universe teaching me what I already knew as Alan Watts. Terence McKenna is something the universe learned through Terence McKenna and connected multiple points within itself to other multiple points within itself--the network of cosmic existence. The only problem with all this is that the universe doesn't need to eat, doesn't need to breathe, or duck when someone yells "watch out!" At least not wholly, only segmentally through you and I. Being one with the universe distracts and even conflicts with being one with humanity. That's why society would prefer you not expand your consciousness. You're of no use at that point, you're cast out as "crazy", they give you a fancy name like "schizophrenic". One of the main definitions of either of these terms is "harmful to self and others." Is it physical harm or mental? Is it harmful for the self's position and status within the social infrastructure? if fully understood by the others, will they too break away from society? If the brain is our sharpest tool, then thoughts must be our fiercest weapon, our most dangerous employment of that medium.

If our consciousness is ever to expand in a collective and collaborative evolution, we will need a new society or even no society but a method of ensuring survival or biologically, we will fall. Our wax wings will melt. And yet, to have singularity--to fully connect all the information at all the points, with that sort of limitless perception will it even matter that we won't survive? Time and space would be experienced much differently through such a mind. Maybe thats what death is, when the Black Iron Prison is lifted and the third eye yawns wide-awake. Successful conscious life perhaps, can only happen by limiting that experience. And as we all know dead people can't buy McDonald's and make awful employees, so society sort of pushes towards limited conscious life.

Because Judgement Day Came and Went

APOCALYPSE NOW!

Nothing is ever a dry black and white. Similarly, reality isn't 2-dimensional. There are times when you are told "you shouldn't judge" or something akin to that nature; and it is precisely because you do not own a wide enough perspective, an overall omniscient view with which you could fairly place an idea, concept, or person in a definition box. No one really has the capacity for true judgment. Only opinions, which vary in ignorance.

With every life decision being the tip of the iceberg, its rather unfair to not consider the mass, submerged in cold, icy waters--the slow or otherwise intense build up of sequences which one by one lead to the resulting consequence. And since I suspect most of us act on what we believe to be the best choices we can make for ourselves, whether the criteria be comfort, conditioning, or culture, what ends up on that tapering iceberg's nexus is, on some level, fundamentally well-intentioned and self-interested. And why shouldn't it? We don't walk around deciding for strangers, nor do they decide for us. Sure some us may be more susceptible to suggestions than others but we still have the choice of whether or not we accept influence.

If every choice we make is driven by the outcome that best interests us individually, then letting another determine what's right for you may be done out of convenience. At times, things like faith and trust are just that, convenient--as they allow us to remove our hands from the reigns and be subject to the mercy of those who we deem qualified by experience, wisdom, relation, etc. Regardless of what they chose for you, whether helpful or harmful--you complacently went along because you believed, as they believed, that this was the right course to take among the vast, open sea of outcomes.

In such a situation the choice is to allow another to make the choice. In an undecided situation however, you are trying to choose a solution, unable to work out which is the best for you. But as you take too long to decide its as if the choice chooses itself. Things just happen, "it ain't all waiting on you." The universe moves, expands, contracts; within it, things change so often that from one second to the next you are technically, physically transported from one universe to another, as no two seconds are identical. In such instances its not a choice to not choose--its the despair of trying to decide and having the moment pass you by, voiding your chance to determine for yourself what's best for you.

Whatever the case, it isn't a light matter, to decide what's in your best interest. Life at times can seem like you're driving an oversized vehicle for which you can either look out the front window at the road or keep your foot on the gas pedal--either/or, but never both. Hindsight is 20/20 but anything before it is fog. Added to which, we don't want to hurt others; all the factors we include in our decisions can lecture the most expert spider a thing or two about webs. To not disappoint, to please, remain consistent, and act as truthfully as we can allow ourselves--the ideal would seem to be, a decision that can balance each affected facet's threshold. In other words, act in honesty without breaking anything. A beautiful thought but not a realistic one. You can't give everyone what they want. There's too many of them and its not worth it if what they want want directly contradicts what you feel is right for yourself. What's right for yourself? So much time and effort exerted on the practice of examining what's right and wrong that not enough emphasis is placed on the fact that a choice has finally been elected. A movement forward has come into light. Essentially, every choice is the right choice in terms of kinesis.

How could you judge the right choice of another? What or whom are you comparing the person or choice with? Your life? Your decisions? Your morality and ethics? You are unique, paradoxically, as is everyone else--you can't even be sure you and your closest friend see colors the same. Nevermind common interests and shared beliefs, you could never understand a person 100% unless that person happens to be you. How do you measure the mass of an iceberg by simply observing its tip? Especially when to take in the entire picture requires the omniscience of a supernatural deity. It only makes me wonder, would we even bother to judge at all if we possessed the true capacity for judgment. If such an understanding from omniscience were permitted, then the phrase "only God can judge me" would be corrected to "even God wouldn't judge me." If I believed in religion I would advise let us be like God--since I don't I'll just say don't judge others when you could be much better at judging yourself.

Clean Living

To the angry little asian man in a royal blue windbreaker jacket, I hope you made it home well. You sat on the morning D train with the two seats to your left, awkwardly unoccupied, as the cart was significantly full. It was with a sudden energy, easily confused for violence, that you appeared a paper towel in hand and wiped down the seat next to you. You then indicated the seat's availability to some of the orbiting commuters who watched you. None sat. You weren't please by this.

Frustrated at having your kind gesture declined, you yelled out more words, foreign to myself and most others around; then you resumed your bacterial purging, this time stretching your attack upwards to include the college advertisement. Perhaps you were sending a message to any of the observing students, those who dreamt of an un-matriculated adulthood

After a few more tries, you caught your fish. Or did you? She was tall and possibly, not a student; her body seemed tense and blossomed by anxious nerves that caused an almost seemingly suspension of breath, as she descended onto the offered seat. No doubt she had seen your crusade at its various spasms, having been witness to it for a good two stations before deciding to sit. Why did she sit? Did you wonder at all? It almost made one imagine her having OCD, or being a mysophobe. A brave one, who thought the morning a perfect canvas for painting a challenge to her fear.

I almost burst into laugh fragments when you turned your head to face her, and delivered the longest awkward-laden glance I've ever seen. It was a look of disappointment, of letdown, and regret. As if at that moment, you had immediately come to the fork in your road. And between having seated neighbors and not, you had finally chosen Not, when she decided to park beside you. Maybe you sensed her discomfort and you felt it defeated your purpose. Maybe, she seemed too obvious about appeasing, what seemed to her to be, your otherwise ridiculous action. Maybe she smelled bad. Who knows? All I know is you reached out over her head and gave the college ad another once-over, maybe stressing to her that you had meant for a student to sit beside you. I again, almost died when she leaned forward to accommodate you. She sat at the edge of her seat.

You didn't mind to stare at the side of her face as she sat forward and began to text. Your eyes fell right into her screen and either read or scrutinized. All the while, I never noticed you had a friend with you, who sat perpendicular and was hidden, to me, by standing and most interfering passengers. It dried off some of the imagined hysteria I previously drowned upon you. You passed comments to this individual who didn't seem as serious as much as worried. At some point, you and the OCD wipe the seat and college ad together--I had to look away for fear lest I rupture.

When you exited the cart on Grand Street, I for some reason imagined you in a turtle costume, with a great big mahogany shell.

You left. Your friend remained, as did your neighbor. I left one stop away. I hope you found a fine day. I hope sincerity and honesty were displayed before you and the way a current runs through a battery--I hope it was as that, that you found use for these things.