Humans are driven by positive and negative feedback delivered to them through chemical and/or electromagnetic signals perceived by the ‘self’ at a level that affects the self’s perception of the consequence of action and inaction.
In simple terms, without any qualifiers or clarifiers, humans do things or do not do things because chemicals in their brain tell them it’s ‘good’ or ‘bad’ to do them.
Humans have preferences. These preferences reflect the body’s biochemical feedback. The degree to which these biochemical structures (the preset negative and positive potential parameters of that biofeedback system upon birth) fully form the range of potential preferences and aversions or, inversely , are themselves malleable structures that can be altered through the intentional redesign by the ‘aware’ part of self, remains an unanswered question, though it is not lacking in certaintarians on both extremes of the question.
The question boils down to this, who’s zooming whom? Do we make ourselves or are we an absolute chemical program playing out in response to other chemical programs?
The question itself s irrelevant to my concerns, and, I suspect, well outside my ability to ever approach having any degree of near-certain ‘evidence’ to support either extreme, that humans can create the human anew or that humans are slaves of chemical heuristics, so to speak.
Like so many other questions in life, this one has been pushed to the backburner in lieu of my confidence to ever get an answer I would comfortably stand solidly on.
The question itself is also irrelevant in that our perception of self-direction, and our perception of the fruit of such efforts, is enough to at least allow for the possibility that some degree of self-direction is possible, but that, it would seem, significant portions of our preferences, their hierarchies in terms of the willingness to pursue them, and even the way we pursue the ones in the highest hierarchical levels, are mostly driven by decisions made within us that have very little to do with the self-aware parts of our decision-making process.
If we are machines of chemical heuristics within us, then quibbling about the machine doing what the machine does, execute the program within, is just, well, silly. Why reject the fantasy that your body clearly rewards you for indulging (unless, of course, it doesn’t, then robot away my friends)?
Hopefully I have sufficiently dispensed with the naturalists among you, save for the stoic naturalists. I’m sure you’re still with us all as I continue.
I hope to have established a couple of central premises critical to the structure I am not building (this will make sense later, I hope).
1. Humans act based on biochemical feedback.
2. Biochemical feedback creates preferences.
3. Biochemical feedback creates hierarchies of preferences.
4. There is a black box of data that produces hierarchies of preferences where the self-aware has little to no access.
5. The self-aware may have some degree of control over the black box within, and could alter the biochemical feedback structures through intentional actions designed to produce new preferences that then drive the biochemical feedback process rather than the other way around.
5a. In simple terms, humans appear to be able to possibly, maybe be able to change their preferences based on new understandings of the world around them (whether or not the understanding is congruent with reality).
Humans pursue preference. The pursuit of preference is the central impetus to the impulse to exist, as well as the impulse to risk or to seek, non-existence.
Humans prefer their pursuit not be impeded by coercion.
Humans prefer to use coercion to advance their preferences.
The pursuit to act and to influence action is called power.
Power is neither negative nor positive, it simply is. Power is the dynamic between multiple entities that affects the ability of each entity to influence or be influenced by the actions of other entities.
Power is the ability to influence action.
As humans take action and perceive the fruits of the actions of others, their biochemical feedback structures send them positive and negative signals fro within the black box and, to much lesser degrees, within the self-aware.
Through this process, humans build an understanding of the reality of power or, rather, a perception of that reality. For the most part, the structures of such perception lie deep within the black box, with very little of it being seen or understood by the self-aware zone of perception.
The perception of the reality of power instructs them on their ability and inability to avoid coercion and to execute coercion.
To the degree to which humans perceive little to no consequence to taking coercive actions, and the degree to which the preference being pursued offers positive biochemical feedback, the human will tend to gravitate toward the use of coercion.
Coercion is defined here as any action that utilizes force or deception to influence the actions of others.
Coercion is neither good nor bad. It just is. Coercion is a form of influence action (more on this later, but the three forms of influence action are coercion, cooperation, and consensus).
There are four main spheres of influence that trigger the biochemical feedback signals we receive internally.
These four spheres of influence are:
Social- Signals from others
Demonstrable- Fruit of action, yours and others
Force- Potential physical alteration of self or others
Ideational- Moral, ethical, rational claims of the values of actions
It should be noted that all four spheres of influence can produce all three forms of influence action; coercive, cooperative, and consensual.
To recap and add to:
6. The existential impetus is driven by preference.
7. Coercive action without risk or cost is the most economical pursuit of the satisfaction of preference.
8. Power is the ability to influence action.
9. The fruit of the pursuit of preference produces an understanding of the reality of power, the degree to which one expects action to reward or cost in relation to factors outside of the self, the self-aware, and the black box of data that is the biofeedback structures within.
10. The pursuit of action intending to influence others is called Influence Action.
A. There are three types of Influence Action:
a. Coercive- The use of force or deception
b. Cooperative- Non-power-balanced exchanges
c. Consensual – Power-balanced exchanges
9. The external structures of the realty of power form what are called Four Spheres of Influence. The Four Spheres of Influence are:
a. Force- Physical Influence
b. Social- External Selves Influence
c. Demonstrable- Fruit of Action Influence
d. Ideational – Moral, Ethical, Rational Influence
The core preference of all of humanity is to exist. There are three types of the pursuit of existence, ideational, genetic, and temporal.
The highest level of existence is to be, now and forever, to eternally have been and to always be. At this level of existence, all forms of existence come in harmony with one another, and can never challenge the existence of the other.
As soon as one form of potential pursuit of existence is negated, an imbalance in the pursuit of existence occurs.
The pursuit of the eternal, what many humans have called the pursuit of the divine, is the primary driver in all humans (maybe).
For most all of us, we immediately encounter limitations of of our own super existence. We receive negative signals from our biochemical feedback structures that tell us we are incapable of fully pursuing our preferences
We instinctively understand that entropy is mortality, and thus our inability to overcome physical impediments to our pursuit of preference lets our black box of data know that we are, in fact, incapable of pursuing the full harmony of our existentiality.
Now we must choose between various paths of existential preference, with an understanding that one pursuit, at least, the temporal, is, by all accounts, one that ends with failure…every….time.
Needs be we must attach more hierarchical significance to the pursuit of the attainable rather than to marinate in the biochemical poison our body delivers to us when we contemplate the futility of winning the war against entropy, temporal death.
For those of us equipped with the perception that we have the capacity to ideationally exist beyond our temporality, this would seem a right and proper pursuit to allow for the satisfactory reward the biochemical feedback structures send you when you percieve you are successfully pursuing this temporal-destroying existential preference.
The cost, however, of pursuing ideational immortality, is the sacrifice of temporal preservation. A pursuit of Ideational Immortality cannot exist if one were to place the value of the the satisfaction of that preference for ideational existence below that of the pursuit of temporal existential preferences.
In other words, no idea preserves us if we do not deem it worthy of physically dying for it.
The pursuit of ideational preference, fortunately, does not naturally clash with the pursuit of genetic preference, to carry on our genetic us into the blood and bones of those who live beyond us, but, in part, enable us to live so long as our kind lives.
As a matter of fact, ideational existence and genetic existence can significantly enhance the perception of the success of the pursuit of BOTH preferences in tandem with one another.
The degree to which humans perceive their ability to influence the action of others is the degree to which humans will pursue first the temporal path of existence, second the the ideational path to existence, and finally the genetic path to existence.
To the last point, I believe I am identifying super aggregates within the human at birth, but not absolutes, as humans come into being with biological feedback structures that produce wide-ranging anomalies, but most likely anomalies at near-minuscule levels, anomalies that lead to humans who do not, generally, pass on their genetic history in significant enough levels to manage to fundamentally alter the super-majority aggregates I believe I am describing.
These super-majority aggregates are a reflection of humanity as a whole, not as particular phenomenon within any particular sub-group of human you can come up with.
It is our attachment to the temporal that produces both our impetus to be coercive and our impetus to be consensual.
Suffering consequence of action constantly reminds us of our temporality, our fallibility.
We avoid consequence of action by either eliminating the actor’s ability to act against us or by engaging in actions that gets us what we want while not offering a reason for the one(s) we are acting upon to remind us of of our temporality.
The degree to which we assume we have the power to avoid consequence (to influence negative action by blunting it or to conceal the truth of an action that could potential trigger a negative action if it was discovered) is the degree to which we will take the path to least resistance in the satisfaction of our core preference, to be, to be temporally, ideationally, and genetically in perpetual states of existence.
The path to least resistance in the pursuit of being is coercion without consequence.
The second path to least resistance is the pursuit of action that satisfies your preference while not threatening the other’s pursuit of existence.
The first path leads to coercion.
The second path leads to consensus.
Coercion without consequence is not, however, the highest form of existential preferential fulfillment.
The highest form of existential preferential satisfaction is to have your preferences fulfilled by others, cooperatively, without having to even make the request.
Taking advantage of that power is what makes this a non-consensual act, even if the other party ‘voluntarily’ not only participated in the inequal exchange of power, but even initiated the exchange.
I should emphasize here that perception is largely reality here. To the degree to which reality can be manipulated by the self, perception alone can produce near or even the same level of positive biochemical feedback as if the satisfaction of the pursuit were real.
This is why we fantasize. If we can’t actually satisfy the preference to win the Superbowl, we can get positive biochemical feedback from that black box of data that is almost as satisfying as actually winning the Superbowl (well, by our perception, which is mostly good enough).
(On a side note, this is one problem I have with the Visualization method of self-coaching, visualizing the success you hope to have. It can have an unintended negative consequence in that visualizing your success can get you the level of biochemical satisfaction you need i pursuit of that preference, de-incentivising you to work hard to achieve the ACTUAL satisfaction of the preference in the realz, so to speak)
Upon birth, most all of us quickly discover our temporal limitations. This immediately creates black box movement within that gives us reason to build structures that alow us to feel we are successfully pursuing some forms of ideational and/or genetic existential perpetuity.
As we come upon a perception of the limits of our ability to act coercively, and thus find ourselves constantly reminded of our temporal failures by experiencing our fallibility and vulnerability to others, our black box of data pursues paths of consensuality that allow us to live in the perception that we chose, for ideational existential reasons, to limit our ability to be coercive in our actions.
Our involuntary inability to pursue coercion, to take without fear of consequence, is a reminder of our failure to overcome the temporal, for surely if we can be limited by others, we are fallible, given over to what we immediately, instinctively understand about the world, that we are all felled by entropy, the grinding down of life.
Needs be we must attach self-direction to that decision, which comes in the form of ideational pursuits of existence.
I am consensual with you because I am living a meta narrative that spans all of time from the beginning to eternity.
This is where morality and ethics comes into play, the claims of absolute values that allow us to take on the perception of the self-directed, self-limited divinity who achieves the highest level of existence, the benevolent eternity.
We are not consensual as a reflection of our weakness, but of our mercy.
This recognition of our fallibility we cannot face is the root of the emergence of the human impulse to be consensual rather than coercive.
The degree to which we believe our own myth of infallibility is the degree to which we will pursue coercion, as it not only offers the least amount of cost (assuming we really have little to fear as a response to our actions), but it also reinforces in us that we are, in fact, winning in the most essential of all core preferential pursuits, to be, temporally, perpetual.
For almost all of us, we are an amalgamation of coercive and consensual actors with varying ‘arenas’ that offer us potential opportunities to, at the very least, pursue the fantasy of satisfying our core of core preferences, to be, across all of the spheres, perpetually.
In some arenas, we act more like controlling gods, and in others, merciful gods, and in still others, like broken slaves.
The black box of data within us, that which gives us biochemical rewards and punishments, is what builds within us structures that allow us to rapidly respond to situations that require a rapid decision (which might be close to 90 plus percent of all human action).
The structures this black box of data builds are formed around the pursuit of preference countered with the limitations to pursue that preference.
The black box of data builds structures that allow humans to come as close as they can to the perception they are either satisfying their preferences, or are on the right path to satisfy their preferences, or are facing impediments far beyond what any quality existentially successful human could hope to realistically overcome.
These structures within us are referred to as heuristic institutions. They are whole forms of systemic categorizations of recurring phenomenon, like people and types of actions, etc.
These heuristic institutions attempt to compel us to action that satisfies preference, but the institutions themselves can exist long after they no longer satisfy preference. They are like little programs triggered by data that cannot be undone or aborted. The program must run its course, and it will run its course so long as the heuristic institution within remains unidentified and unexplored.
Observation is mostly required to give the aware self any influence over the black box of data that built the heuristic institution in the first place.
As preference changes, to the degree that it does, the heuristic institutions that satisfied gone preferences continue to unconsciously affect action.
Heuristic institutions create the parameters that allow one to take coercive action against others, especially when doing so would violate existential pursuits, such as ideational ones.
Heuristic institutions also create the parameters that allows one to take consensual action without sacrificing their perception of temporal existential triumph.
But, again, these little programs can outlive their usefulness. Without a good brain defraggng (a frank assessment of the reality of power and a rooting of why decisions were made, especially impulsive ones), these remnants of past preferential pursuits remain, still influencing your own action, even if it actually works aganst the preferences you are more urgently pursuing at present.
I suspect that the black box of data is capable of ending some of these heuristic institutions itself, but most likely at speeds far below that of the intentionality of the self-aware.
Heuristic institutions emerge where repetition of predictable action occurs. The black box of data, I believe, analyzes the reality of power against the pursuit of preference, many of which are held entirely within that black box (meaning we can’t fully root our own preferences).
Next, the black box of data builds preset values into various stimuli, intenting to produce a rapid aversion from or attraction to the stimuli.
These preset values are intended to give you permission to be the only human in the room, or to be the noble divinity exercising mercy and grace.
Being the only human in the room means you can fully pursue coercion against others so long as you percieve no great risk in doing so.
Coercion is the second ultimate expression of power. The ability to act with impunity coercively to others is the ultimate reinforcement of the perceived satisfaction of the successful pursuit of perpetual temporal existence.
Yet, satisfying that preference requires you to violate consensuality, which makes you an unmerciful god, a lesser.
We work around this conflict by building heuristic instititutions that allow us, without critical analysis (and thus without being confronted by our own limited divinity status), to become the only human in the room.
Thus, when we act coercively we exercise our divinity, our triumph over temporality, without sacrificing our mercy that makes us the supreme of all supremes. We cannot, need not, show mercy to the non-human who threatens that consensual expression of mercy from a divine god through their mere existence alone.
Perception is reality, but only to a point. And so it is we must trick ourselves to not stare to deeply in places that will strip us of our perception of winning the existential war.
We cannot, for the most part, openly, directly, place humans in non-human status, especially when we live among them and see the evidence of their humanity everyday.
So we have heuristic institutions that tell us people in this setting, in this place, with these thoughts, are not really human. We can’t say it, so our heuristic institutions build these scaffoldings within us that carries dark, hateful images of others, deep enough in the shadows to hide us from our own lie, but visible enough to produce the action without thinking.
It is not as simple as creating non-humans and humans within that black blox. Most humans are in multivalent modes, and the context determines the status. In context that does not perceivably threaten your pursuit of preference, more humanity is assigned. In context that perceivably threaten your pursuit of preference, more non-humanity is assigned.
There are degrees of human and degrees of non-human
Thus most white people in America in the 70s felt good about blacks being equal to them, abstractly. They were not threatened by their success in athletics. But when blacks married whites, especially white women, the heuristic institutions within us told us without even thinking about it, without having to look at the ugliness of it, that blacks were non-human. They had to be, otherwise, our coercive efforts to prevent them breeding with our genetic existentiality (the perception that being born white gives you an attachment to the overall genetic perpetuation of the white race) would convict us of being less than magnificent, merciful gods, the apex of being, of existence.
We are the products of our heuristic institutions, which are born from our innate biochemical feedback structures, as well as the signals our evolving preferences (to the degree that they do) send to our black box of data that creates these shortcuts to action.
These institutions may be altered by our intentional reshifting of preference within.
These institutions enable us to escape our lack of existentiality, be it because we failed to be merciful gods or we failed to be gods, temporal, ideational, genetic perpetuities.
They remain largely in place long after their usefulness has gone so long as we are not rooting, or sourcing, our assumptions, our beliefs, our actions (as in, understanding how or why you believed, assumed, or acted in the way you did).
Human beings, in our current form, suffer no great sense of infallibility as individuals. We are, 99.9999 percent of us, far less capable, powerful, resource-laden, etc than the most powerful, capable, resource-laden. The difference between us and the .0001 percent is so significant that one individual in that category wields the effective power of hundreds of thousands of indivudals in our camp, the camp I call ‘The Poor,’ which includes millionaires and homeless people.
The poors are anyone and everyone that cannot realistically act without impunity in coercive ways against their neighbors, on a consistent basis, at the highest levels.
The Gateds are the ones who escape such limitations, but only at the mercy of the Citadelians, the true gods and goddesses of humanity (at least by their perceptions).
Their advantage is almost entirely hereditary in nature, and I’m not talking genetics, I’m talking resources, specifically their mastery over the impediments to their temporality from other humans, control of the means of making violence, a mastery handed down through centuries to the next inheritors of the divine.
Very rarely do new families enter into Citadel status, and then only after perhaps centuries as Gateds before getting the final promotion.
By my reckoning, there are the poors, the gateds, and the citadelians.
The gateds are the vassals, the managers, more often than not the face of Citadel power, not actually, though, the face of a Citadelian.
They make the sausage the Citadelians order.
We, my friends, are the meat, the poors. We who are gay, straight, black, white, millionaires, homeless, Christians, Atheists, Muslims, we are almost ALL the poors. And the differences between us are minuscule compared to the differences between the worlds of the gates and citidaelians contrasted with our world, the world of the poors.
We are all limited by our ability to satisfy our core preference of all core preferences, to achieve temporal, ideational, and genetic perpetuity.
I hope I have made it clear to you that should you pursue non-consensual paths, you serve only the gateds, the citadelians.
Non-consensuality as an acceptable form of governance is the ultimate ideational power base of the gateds and the citadelians. Non-consensuality always favors imbalances of power and enables the power advantaged to consolidate even more power, and to more easiliy pursue that power base.
In the pursuit of justice among the poors, the poors have decided to take coercive action against the poors, with a promise of delivery from the oppressors, who are often the very same Citadelians and gateds I am describing here.
In other words, the poors are doing the work of the gods, the Citadelians, in continuing to diffuse their aggregate, overwhelmingly advantageous, potential power in opposition to the coercion perpetuated and executed by these same Citadelians and gateds.
The poors fight over race and religion, sex and nations, because these battles give the poors as close as they can experience a satisfaction of the pursit of the preference of the ultimate existence, to be in perpetuity temporaly, ideationally, and genetically.
We can non-humanize one another and do something about it because we have power to do so. We have no such power to do something about non-humanizing the gateds and citadelians. We experience the victory, but over the wrong army.
And where do our ideational influences come from that drive us to these internecine wars? They come from the self-indulged and privileged minds of the children of the Citadelians and gateds, who fancy themselves people engineers for the good of all. In other words, the poors are getting their ideas about why they should non-humanize one another from the same people they believe they will defeat by attacking their own, the poors.
It is as if the Americans defeated the British by attacking American farms.
That’s not it, Chief.
99.999 percent of the population find themselves at a distinct disadvantage in continuing to produce coercive solutions to coercive problems. We lack the power to combat coercion at its root, as individuals, and are thus already exposed as non-gods. The best that we can hope for is the illusion of being a merciful god, of pursuing consensuality. The closer we get to exchanges that reflect co-equality in outcomes, the further we get from the power structures that continue to support the siginificant concentrations of power we now experience, and have for as long as we have used coercion as our primary means of governance.
If you wish to experience harmony with your core preferences, pursue consensuality, and build within you a metaphorical merciful goddess, or god, as opposed to the one who requires non-humans to exact their coercive solutions upon others.
You will never be what .0001 percent of this world can hope to be, the fulfilled illusion of the fully existential perpetuity of the merciful god with the power to destroy those the merciful god deems to be nonhuman.
You will only ever be sausage meat to the masters you unintionally serve, whether you’re fighting Nazis or Commies, Christians or Muslims. It’s all the same game with different names, and the winner is never the poors, and the victims are all the poors.
If you want to strike the root, end the coercive power structures and replace them with consensual ones. Your equalities your freedoms, all that feel-good stuff, will emerge from consensuality, authentically, not at the end of a gun as almost all of you imagine it can, because you’ve been trained by material written, produced, directed, filmed, and featuring the musical stylings of the Citadelians, the architects of your dreams and your fears.