LIFE: Love Infinitely Furthers Evolution by Sander R.B.E. Beals (buy e reader TXT) 📕

On top of that, the camera showing cameras surrounding Miss Marple that were actually aimed at making another movie, are showing alternate truths at the same time. But then again, even Truth is a label, and an often abused one at that. Am I on track in my writing? Well, I figure I am, because the moment I asked myself that, the screen faded into two cars and a doorway, where the visible license plate distinctly said: TTT 77 . You may just call that a belief or a superstition, but my life has brought me ample examples of the significance of sevens (multiples even more so). And the triple T was of course highly indicative of the Truth, or rather the relativity of it: Truth is not one label, but rather a Trinity of three facts, which like the other constructs mentioned above form a stable concept which is quite a bit more than the three separate concepts that it consists of. Not your word against mine, if I can find a third person who agrees with me, savvy? Or to stay in the systems realm: NASA used triple reduntant computers to make the decisions in the Apollo project fool proof... Think of it like the two most used color systems used in our reality. Two of those may be combined into a SevenSphere again:

Red, Green and Blue

Cyan, Magenta and Yellow

The two are complementary, as the SevenSphere shows and of course it is no coincidence, that my recently upgraded music library randomly plays Burning Spear with "Red, Gold, Green" out of a total of 38219 tracks... But complementary as they are, both also create the same colors, albeit through different combinations. And which is the truth? Well, you tell me, because I have no idea whatsoever! And neither do Schwarzenegger and his treacherous colleague in Eraser, to my right! I do have an idea about how to proceed, and that is to stick with what works, unless a more relaxed way of working can be found. This is no new idea, because actually, this problem solving chart has been around for ages: I saw it for the first time during initial IT training when I started work back in '88: it isn't quite the way I'd handle things now, but it was good for a laugh back then.

Point is, laughable as it is, this flow diagram is just one typical way of dealing with the world around us. Over time we've all developed our own versions, whether or not we consider ourselves idiots, poor idiots, or anything else. Still, what what we consider ourselves is very important indeed: because our environment treats us the way we treat it, a defaitist view will cause one to be defeated. This effect is quite subtle, and often has no directly visible feedback loop, but if "I expect to be defeated" is what you radiate, then that is what the Incredible Machine manufactures for you with all the Love it has in it! And since it is all around us, the answer can come from any direction, knocking you down when you least expect it.

Now there is an escape clause in there, and that is to adopt (or adapt to) the positivist view. This does not mean the negatives disappear overnight, because we are dealing with Energy here. And highschool science has taught us that where the electro-magnetic field is concerned, we have to deal with the hysteresis curve (on the right) first: if negative behavior was your main MO first, then stopping it cold turkey will confuse your environment, and cause them to still treat you the old way for a while. Only once they are convinced you've come over to 'their' side, will you be treated likewise. Same thing goes for the All: since it is all just Energy, even the All cannot immediately treat you the way your intentions have changed. It needs to balance everything out, and you changing your intentions at the bottom level still leaves you having to ride the ripples of the waves sitting on the green curve to get back on the positive level, or like the unbalanced wheel mentioned earlier, tilting it will cause countering movements that needs to die out first. Of course that only has to happen if you are at all inclined to go there. If you feel great where you are, have a ball. This only attempts to point out that change is possible, not that it is required in any way...

But do we in fact have to change? Only today, I got a sync that showed me just how far my entanglement with my view on life goes: as it turns out, the product I'm working on during office hours has seven disrinct configurations we deliver as installables to our clients:

1 Standalone

3 Concurrent

3 WebServers

It has been like that for years, and just then, a few more realizations began to surface: the Concurrents are called that because they can concurrently interface with the WebServer, and the WebServer includes the Concurrent which it will distribute to clients so they can work with the server, and thus get things done in a distributed environment. The Standalone is a system devised for a single computer, but essentially it has the same core functionality as the Concurrents, and since the WebServers contain a Concurrent, they too have the same core functionality, but they distribute it instead of executing it. To me, this is a very apt description of the society around me...

So we go back to the System analogy, and see how the Concurrents can basically not get anything done without their WebServer, who put them in the environment, and serves them to get their functionality working across System boundaries, over the Web. The Standalone does not need a Server, because it works directly on the Central Archive, where the Concurrents need their WebServer to get their information. They are ignorant of the fact that the WebServer eventually also retrieves the information from the Archive, like the Standalone...

And basically, that looks like my situation: a third of the people out there are Concurrents, fighting each other for supremacy. And since the Cosmos is balanced, the others are WebServers or Standalones, but the servers still have a Concurrent core, or in other words: they serve because of their desire to help their Concurrents. Both work across boundaries, like between people. And then there's the Standalone, working for All...

I too have selfish tendencies, both Concurrent and Serving. But in order to realize my most passionate wish, I needed to be a Standalone too, with as little outward relationships as possible. A Uomo Universalis with a keen interest in every aspect of information and knowledge, but without the need to become a member of any group, if it is not at all needed. Hey, what can I say? I'm already part of the All, so why limit myself to a subgroup of it?... ;-)

But the weird thing is, that Standalone or not, I have the idea I'm being helped from every direction possible. Sometimes it's weird, and leads me to rethinking stuff, but most often it will keenly indicate where I went wrong. And then, the next night, I do a rewrite...

.... or an addition. I woke up this morning feeling I wasn't up for the job of going to work. Last night's heavy rainfall had left me thoroughly drenched, and I woke up coughing heavily, like I'd caught a cold of some sort. Now having watched Species I and II last night, I might be tempted to think disease is DNA-based, but to me that is only half the reality: I was at that time actually in doubt about going to work or not, both in the aspect of 'willing to go', 'wanting to go' and 'feeling up to it'. Now where did we see that before? I guess we are sick not because of our DNA, but because of something more elemental...

Most of us remember the young lion and his animal friends, who I also watched quite a few times with my kids. Now the image on the right lay on my PC desktop for quite a few weeks, because even though the satellites were flamin' obvious, I just couldn't think up the correct label for the center sphere, and thus the total symbol. "Yeah, thinking", you immediately react: "Ya should've stuck to intuition!"

And you are right, which I finally realized yesterday. And then it became perfectly clear that the first chapter I'd be writing during my two week vacation would be this one, on how this very meaningful diagram works!

We start at birth, as if nothing was existing before that. This is a clear violation of the first law of Creation, but bear with me. Originally, the triangle we are on is: "You are born, you grow, and then you die". Cascet Closed? Nope, because during that trip you may have noticed the changes that take the form of evolutions and revolutions, which in turn change You! Yes, the continuous birth of new situations, brought on by the constant stream of changes that surrounds us, immerse us even. True, both evolutions and revolutions lead to new systems, albeit far less different in the case of evolution. Where revolutions are occurring, they do so because a group has decided they are no longer happy with the current system. They will plan actions to rebel against it, and bring it down. Where evolution is gradual, revolution is a radical change, not always for the good. Often the actions intended to bring down the old system may very well damage it quite considerately, without a replacement being planned by the rebels. Still though, even birth may be seen as a revolution against a child too large to stay in the womb any longer....

Nope, the third options seems more reasonable: Sure, the Wevolution back there was a cheap shot at Daffy Duck's speech impediment, but it is in fact the advice Buckminster Fuller was adament about: If you don't like the current system, don't spend your energy fighting it. Instead build a better one together, based on what you already know. Since the new will be a total replacement for the old, it need not depend on any part of the old system. It may be a drastic change, but at least we're not going to be needing to interface with two systems. However, nothing is keeping us from designing a new system that houses our selves, and can survive in the old one without problems.... (Think of a space suit)

Sounds like a once-in-an-aeon happening, right? Well, forget it: many of us do it on a regular basis, but on a far more intimate level: every birth of a new being is in fact the birth of a new system, if I may use this analogy. And once it is an analogy, we can learn from its development: New systems are generally born within the old system, like a child within its mother's womb. You know what 'womb' stands for, right? World Of Moderate Boundaries most acurately shows its function. (the womb idea came from Nassim Haramein, the wordplay is 'mine'...)

Also we see how both child and new system grow even before they are introduced to the outside environment. Heck, even in a revolution there are traces of a new system before the critical point, but where the creators of it focus their intention on what was wrong with the old system, it will only be equipped to interface in a negative way with its environment. In normal births, which are just Wevolutions on a more limited scale, the baby has a period of getting used to outside impressions through the boundaries of its world. Once it is ready, the World of Modest Boundaries makes way for another environment: a World Of Real Live Data! And that it is really, like What the Bleep