Shree: choice

Shree,

Typically a simple task of taking a medicine and returning some item back ought to be obvious.

But it was broken down into several steps from coupon number, waiting, desk clearance, payment, receipt, whisked off to another return counter, coupon (again), waiting, return, receipt (revised), whisked off to the first counter for asking replacement, coupon (third time), waiting, clearance, payment, new receipt (third time).

Each of these steps is a likely point of departure to generate other possible options and output. I remember the permutations and combinations maths behaviour and it therefore follows that if a simple task of imagination gets broken or expressed as an algorithm of sequences, then the probable outputs depend on the number of variables...which essentially means higher unpredictability of a certain feeling of being anchored. 

Further, every person with whom you interact is a variable in the sequence defined. His/her memory is “only limited or responding" to only one variable and NOT the synthesized result. So synthesis is what you are expecting to happen but what the resource person is reading is performance based only on a variable!...both of you are speaking different languages! The conflict occurs there!

Now consider this getting projected for all sorts of experiences - even architecture - and the essential difference then comes to if you are conceiving as a variable or conceiving from the point of synthesis?!

The essential difference as I see it between synthesis done by consciousness and AI, is the process of thinking...is it synthetic or variable prone thinking?...and if it becomes variable prone, then synthesis is like a dream... doubtful to be attained and always dissatisfied....

A simple fact of Truth is required to be simple and “direct” – but in the process somewhere “we” become (mind) and that then complicates the direct message! We then “invent or create” numerous variables to feel satisfied but like the above example, there are so many dependent variables in this equation of satisfaction, that we never really achieve bliss! If God or consciousness is synthesis, then “we” are the variables in that synthesized existence. Since we are variables, then we move (or generate thoughts, perception, memory, desire, expectation, action and so on) and this “cycle of variables” continues since it is always changing and unsteady and temporary and  impermanent and fleeting – this generating an insecured feeling from inside.

Just as the resource person feels responsible for maintaining the sanctity or the identity of the variable and keeps on harping at whoever seems to threaten the variable’s existence, he/ she mistakes the variable for himself/herself, not acknowledging that variable cannot define him/her. Similar fate befalls those who harp about themselves or their doings or character or identity or tendency etc. This tendency has been assigned several names or values such as ego, self absorbtion, binary, polar attitude, tunnel vision, stress, anxiety, blinded, stickiness, defense, justification, anger and so on. Admit that as humans we only know something of a spec of truth. So obviously there are going to be thoughts and emotions- those of anger and pain. The moment there is anger, it is a sure sign of shortsightedness and an indication to expand the mind.

Now there is a relation between shared feelings (affirmative connections) and minimal variables in thoughts. As more and more we become individualized, we tend to create more variables and endanger shared mindscapes or even shared spaces or shared times. We remove ourselves from the Truth of being and appear very eccentric in our thoughts and actions. So the habitation, cityscape makes the shared spaces redundant and what happens is a cocoon of spaces - each one specific for the individual.

The same space of existence either becomes individualized or universal. The choice is ours. We loose a lot by making things individualized even if the alternative may entail a lot of negotioations and struggle.

Hari Om.