This is an excerpt from something I am working on. When you read it I feel certain you will understand why I am unlikely to finish it, but it is interesting in some ways. It has particular set of assumptions that I will not go into. I will say that the future generation imagined is 10,000 years in the future. Some of the time frames need to be cleared up a bit, but the structure should be apparent from this little piece. It is in an unedited form, perhaps even more raw than most of what I post here. I have thought of using it as a loose basis for a web-petition of some sort.
Dear Future Generations;
I am writing this to you by way of apology. I don’t imagine that this is the only such communication you might receive and I have little hope of it being unique or even useful to you. I am writing then with the great sin of most apologists, to console myself in a moment of some despair. I hope that you can understand this and know that even in my failing that my apology is sincere. I am also writing with some hope and fear. My hope in writing this is that you might be able to learn and understand how the tragedy of our perpetuated Subject-Object Enactment came to pass and benefit from that, though I am sure you have your own much clearer interpretations available to you. This is written, after all by one, in the midst of a Dark Time, typified by its own inability to recognize itself as such. I am a creature of such a time. This is also the nature of my fear. I know how hard you must have labored over the millennia to cleanse and detoxify your own Thought Stream and Enactment and I do not wish to be a source, no matter how trivial, of pollution in that realized effort on your part. I also realize that it does not occur for you like this.
If I could write this any way I wished I imagine creating a hypersphere of the story told by this apology. From any nodal moment of that story you would be standing at an interconnected center, maintaining the holistic integrity of all the interconnected relations of the entire sphere. Each of those moments would be self coherent. I can feel how this might be, but I have no hope of communicating to you in that way. I am just too thoroughly entrenched in my own point of view. Perhaps, though it will occur for you in some such form in any case. I apologize for this condition from which I apologize.
There is so much I wish to say to you that I am not altogether certain where to start. Even the nature of my understanding of starting places and consequences are a product of the Thought Stream and Enactment that have brought us to the apparent moment of apology. I trust that you, who are better than I, will be able to sensibly re-contextualize my poorly Framed and inarticulate Thought Stream within the context of your own Nodal Moment. The Thought Stream of this Moment, from which I am writing, would require that my voice be authorized in some way to even contemplate or say such things as I intend. In the absence of such authorization and some degree of agreement from one of the major Social Contracts of this Moment, any speaker is likely to experience various kinds of conditional and consensual agreement and disagreement within the local and general context of their living. Such conditionality can even express itself as censorship. approbation or conversely as material gain and accolade. Our speaking and acting together often takes place within this Frame of reward and punishment, by which we mean things that are variously thought to be of benefit or painful to our localized sense of self. I do not say this to be dramatic or draw attention to the occasion of my writing in some aggrandizing way. I know this must be a strange reflection for you to encounter. I want to be clear that I have no authorization for my words to you and ask that you treat it with the informality of a personal letter of apology to a friend and loved one. Such is our condition that I cannot reliably speak for any “us” and only have my always constructed point of view as reference. You will no doubt hear in this letter to you, my own struggle to speak freely and lovingly from within the Thought Stream and Animation of fear that deeply shapes the Enactment of this moment. In the spirit of a personal letter to a loved one I wish to share some gossip with you perhaps. I call this gossip, because I do not have any immediate time/space referenced ideograph for much of what I am going to share. Even in my fundamental perception and conception, no matter how immediate they may seem to me, I only have access to the flawed tool of re-presentation through memory. These are momentary images of some shared past even more distant, by our flawed way of Linear Reckoning, than the past from which I now write to your present. From within the polluted and fractured understanding of what we call Causality, that I have inherited and actively reproduce, these events seem important and so I will share the shadowy images of them that I seem to have.
The result of all this is that I cannot meaningful Enact the utterance “We are sorry”, I can only say that “I am sorry” which condition, as you no doubt see, is at the very core of the need for such an apology from me in the first place.
As you no doubt know, in Ideographic Pre-History of the Humanity we share, there was a time when the Northern Hemisphere of the genetic planet of origin was mostly covered in ice. This had been preceded by ice coming and going. This was a hard time. The people of that northern clime during the last ice, of which I am a descendant, concluded and instantiated several key Frames that continue to condition the Thought Stream even at the time of this apology. We became conditioned to enact our ‘relationship’ with the world of origin as if it were a hostile place, bent on killing us. I know this must seem insane to you. It is one of the formative events of our shared childhood. We continue to replicate this as ontogeny and perpetuate as phylogeny. You can imagine the Thought Stream issuing from such a Frame and the instantiation of it through an Enactment. We arose in our own conception as creatures separate from the world and from one another. We came to see the Web of Life and Being as altogether fragmented and separate. From this there also arose the first ideographic notion of Shadow Subject, in which we imagined ourselves as separate, not only from Life and Being, but also from Love. We imprinted in our emerging Thought Stream a world of Objects and ourselves as Shadow Subjects in that world. We were meaningfully and structurally coupled as that Framed reality. The temporal events leading to this were very persuasive. All this, and much that follows, can be considered a Fear-Based Survival Enactment continued long after the actual conditions leading to that Framing and instantiation were present, though it does not seem that way to us in this Nodal Moment. It is important to note that this hostility was not originally global and that in many places and peoples the shadowed Enactment of Subject-Object did not arise or at least not in the same way. We, in whom it did arise, have not treated these peoples very well, considering them primitive and unable to perceive the social maturity they had attained in the subsequent 10,000 local solar orbits since the end of that most recent ice. We killed most of them, and continue to oppress the survivors.
I am sorry to say that I cannot give a reasonable account of language, the medium through which this apology must, for me, take place. We have many theories about this, but from our current location, none are considered definitive in any way. It is problematic. We have theories to account for and Frame our notion of development, some of which we will touch upon later. This re-presentational capacity and symbol system we call language, must have arisen coincident with the very first stages of the Subject-Object Enactment, which means by our colloquial Linear Account it was something like 1 million solar orbits ago. This is when, in our colloquial Linear Account we seemed to have started using tools and intentionally breaking apart what occur, from within the Enactment, as Objects, to release energy, for the sake of producing a locally artificial environment and to use in the manipulation of other apparent objects. These three activities of tools, fire, and symbol (as distinct from sign, such distinction itself an interesting application of symbol) seem to have occurred more or less in the same local Nodal Moment. Through our normal way of accounting for such things this would appear to be a long process. What is of note is that 1 million years later we are still using the same basic system of re-presentation, from within the same basic Subject-Object Frame. Our tools have changed somewhat with respect to the scale of application, but not fundamentally with respect to the original Framing. We are still essentially breaking apart the arising Objects within that Frame to produce a locally artificial environment, in a way that now more or less effects the entire planet. We suffer from on ongoing confusion between the nature of fire (as the activity of breaking apart through various means) and the basic nature of Life Force as it is naturally arising in the Web. The same is true of our relationship to the special category of Object called tool, through which we reflect and reify aspects of the Shadow Subject. It is even possible to understand language itself as a subsystem of tool. However this originally occurred and is accounted for, and there are many types of account produced much later, these are the roots of our Subject-Object Enactment. The systematized use of cuneiform, ideogram and other forms of recording our emergent symbolic re-presentation arose either roughly in the same Nodal Moment as the manipulation of the planet-as-separate to produce sustenance, which we now call agriculture, and the arising of the Social Contracts, the Enactment of which we call civilization or some 4000 local solar orbits after that time, depending upon which civilization is telling the story.
We began to tell and still tell many reinforcing stories that express the instantiation of a hostile and separate world and separate, fragmented self. We tell these stories collectively and even tell them to ourselves individually on a daily basis, though they do not look like stories at all to us. We codified and turned these stories into systems of belief that then became an Enactment producing its own evidence of the Truth of our assumed condition as separate. The Enactment provided and provides its own evidence. We began to Enact this in niches, even in the face of the self-presenting evidence to the contrary that is so clear to you. As you know this is how the Deep Frames that shape the Thought Stream work and I am sure you are not surprised as much as horrified and repulsed. Perhaps you feel some compassion, for the evidence perceived and remembered as a result of these Deep Frames was so compelling to us that it had the force of an apodictic phenomena. Prior to this time of localization in Socially Contracted niches we, emergent Humanity, had gone through a long period of wandering the Planet of Origin. Our story telling to reflect and reinforce the fundamental Framing must have begun during this time. After this time we began to organize ourselves into localized Social Collectives based on implicit and explicit Contracts, consistent with the Thought Stream and Enactment of Separation. We began to institutionalize the Enactments we called Farming and Animal Husbandry and Social Contracts that supported these all based upon the fundamental premise that we lived in a hostile place that would kill us if we let it. One way to understand the perpetuation of our Enactment is to imagine that we suffer a kind of confusion about the literal and metaphorical. We became confused about the immediate continuation of particular Embodiment, which we see as the continuation of an autonomous biological system, with the metaphorical survival of the Shadow Self understood as a separate entity and generalized to the constructed Social Contracts as a kind of self. I am sure you can understand this since it is consistent with the Frame we had created and continued through our Enactment. This confusion arose from the enactment itself and has become amplified over what we perceive as linear time.
In our own conception of ourselves as Separate we also separated ourselves from one another, even in the social collectives and contracts of our Enactment. We conceived of the Webs of Life and Being not as webs at all, but as rigid hierarchical structures and Linear Causality. Of course due to our fundamental Frame we believed that we saw this reflected in the separate world that we called Nature. We created complex arrays of Frames and sub-Frames in which the arbitrary gender assignments and local adaptations of Embodiment carried encoded meaning within those hierarchical structures. If someone looked or seemed to act differently, perhaps animating a different stream, or sub-Frame we took this as evidence that they were different and other. One peculiar aspect of this is that when we identified and reinforced such differences, between ourselves and forms of arising Life we tended to place ourselves at the top of hierarchical structures we created. You can see how this might happen. The nature of the Subject-Object Frame itself lead us to define ourselves with respect to that which we were not. This ability to treat negation as actual has lead to much mischief, though from the point of view of literal survival in a meaningful structural coupling with events it was of course extremely useful.
You can well imagine how this might occur and have occurred. That (Enacted as a structural coupling in which that occurs only in its survival utility... I is not fully occurring). That is (Attributing some continuity in the memory processes of conception and perception… then comparatively to indicate similarity and difference and so symbolic meaning, perhaps ascribing quality). That is not (As the potential basis for the emergence of a Shadow Subject I). Of course there is much authorized and technical debate about this. Functionally, as part of the Subject-Object Enactment, we have separated what we call consciousness and what we call matter. You can see how this would naturally develop from a Subject-Object Frame. We continue to Enact an ongoing conflict, even to the point of killing one another, about which of these has precedent. Entire Social Contracts and their civilizations have risen and fallen on this debate, but we will get to that, since that did not occur until much later by our way of Linear reckoning. What is interesting to me as an apologist, is that we had no real debate about having made this initial distinction. We treated it and treat it as self evident. We explore the relation between the two, as if self occurring, but do not even typically reach a place of considering the possibility of them as a dynamically linked aspect of a prior whole. This leads to a further separation of our being and our doing. Again, I know how this must look to you and I am sorry.
I hope you will understand that I cannot really account for all this, since I myself am a product of what I am describing, though I will tell some stories of our apparently linear remembering. Consciousness for instance, can be considered as having to do with what is in Frame. We are conscious of what falls within the Frame we are Enacting and unconscious of anything that does not fall within or is accounted for by the Enacted Frame. This has the result of making the Framing activity itself unconscious, for the most part. You can see the difficulty with this. This condition leads us directly into the debate about apparent Objects, we call matter, and consciousness. In this condition there is no real chance for us to experience these as dynamically co-emergent or to perceive (remember) the Enactment of a Frame that allowed and allows such a distinction originally. There are cases where humans have or are aware of the activity of Framing altogether and therefore can be considered conscious of these things, but since the Subject-Object Frame and Enactment are implicitly a Fear-Based Survival Enactment such consciousness is more or less considered useless, sometimes dangerous. Even at this level we separate and divide consciousness into categories and types, such as waking, dreaming and sleeping, all of which themselves have sub-types and ascribed use orientations.
The dominant Enactment of the Subject-Object Framing in this Nodal Moment is a prioritization of the remembered and re-presentational phenomena associated with waking consciousness. Because I am such a product of this Enactment I am writing to you from what I identify as some form of this, though I experience myself as accessing other forms in the process. There are peoples alive at this Moment on the planet who view all the entire Enactment of the Subject-Object Framing as a dream we are dreaming. Some of them have gone so far as to formally request that we alter our current dream because of the consequences of that Enactment. Of course, it may be difficult for people holding such a view to understand that the ones prioritizing waking consciousness do not consider their Enactment a dream and consider dreams unreal, or at least only participating in a limited sense of reality, according to the waking Enactment of the Subject-Object Frame. There are some other interesting phenomena that I may be able to report as tendencies, leading to an understanding of deeper patterns and so illuminating something about the Framing, but I cannot account for them any more completely than I have accounted for anything so far. An apology is meant to be a kind of account and I am sorry for my continued failure in this.
Social Contracts participate in a kind of shared Enactment of Frame and Framing. To the extent this exists in a shared memory that occurs in the form of stories, that in turn inform and form situated instantiation of the Frame. We call these cultures. The participants have shared stories and act or seek to act in a way that they understand to be consistent with those stories and the perpetuation of those stories. Cultures based on the prioritization of dream states derive the meaning and direction of their actions from the information derived from dreaming consciousness. The actions taking place in the dream state are as or more important than the actions taking place in the waking state and they may understand the waking state as a sub-set of dreaming, when they make distinctions in this way. Such cultures also seem to prioritize what has already occurred in time over what will occur, though they may view time very differently, since the memory we experience as the Linear account of time is mostly a function of the waking state and Subject-Object Enactment. The Enactment of these fundamental states effects the act of Framing itself in a profound way. From within any one of these apparently separate states the other states look very different, if they occur at all. I myself suffer from the condition that even when in dream states I typically have access to what would be considered waking states. Sometimes the reverse is true, but rarely and I can even become frightened by this when it does occur, since it seems such an intrusion into the bastion of apparent permanence and meaning I am Enacting through my waking state as a product of the Subject-Object Framing and Enactment. I do not habitually notice my waking consciousness, but I notice when this happens. You can see why this apology is so hard for me to write from such a fearful and contracted condition. In waking state cultures many of those considered savants would practice the capacity to hover in the liminal condition between waking and dreaming. They would for instance enact something associated with a waking state, such as holding an object, until they dropped it.
I am avoiding the subject of sleeping states since more or less, I who am writing this to you, am not present for those normally.
We saw that our Embodiment did not last and were offended by this. We acted as one who is offended. You see we tended to relate to ourselves as so fundamentally Separate that our accounts for this impermanence were grounded in that same Frame. The temporary and impermanent Gift of Embodiment was seen variously as a punishment for some flaw in our nature or as a fundamental source of suffering. There are several Frames that suggest we are impermanent because of the Subject-Object Frame and Enactment itself. These are mostly considered metaphorically, not authorized and extremely esoteric. I confess I find them interesting. We did not in any way understand our own Enactment of these things, the Deep Framing or Thought Streams involved. These things that must be so clear to you were invisible to us. We began to build bastions and defenses against the simple conditions of change and impermanence integral to Embodiment as such.
I know this must be all horribly alien to consider. Truly you must understand that we considered our separate selves to be in time and space, rather than understanding the simplest ideas of these as manifestation consistent with an Enactment of a particular Thought Stream. The Frame we were Streaming and Enacting was and is invisible to us, individually and collectively. Even more hidden was the activity of Framing and our participation in that once and now. We were, and as of this writing still are, unconscious in a way that may be impossible for you to imagine. Our fragmentation became so pronounced that we were fragmented even within our imagined separate selves. We were offended, afraid and hurt, though this is often so true for us that to say so is also a source of fear and offense. We warred with the that separate world of our conception that we called Nature. We warred with one another between the various Social Contracts we were producing consistent with the survival of some Shadow Self separate from the conceived world we called Nature. We warred within ourselves, creating entire systems of separative morality and such concepts as good and evil, of which I am sure you have heard. It has been a long period of warring. You must think us fools, and you would be right. How did we not see this? How could we not see the enactment of our own Enactment? Were we unaware of the Frames and the emanating Thought Stream? We acted and act in a way that is consistent with a Thought Stream of Separation. So immersed were we in this Stream that we were unaware of the Enactment as such. I am sorry.
I do want to be clear about something, if I can. I am not saying that all of this that I am attempting to describe to you was simply delusional. With out the appropriate structural coupling that inspired this arising I am indicating, the Moment of the Web we call Humanity, of which you are a part and participant, and with which we are greatly concerned in a personal and general way, may not have continued. There was an appropriate structural coupling about all of this in that original Nodal Moment. I suppose what may be under consideration in my deeply flawed and highly inaccurate attempt at an apology to you (which I am sure you neither require nor requested), is the nature of our continued and persistent Subject-Object Enactment, as if this were an always present and universally appropriate structural coupling. Of course, this has to do with our continuance. According to certain Frames and their Streams as long as we are able to continue the Subject-Object enactment, then it is successful. The difficulty is that the success criteria are themselves determined by the initial Framing of the Subject-Object Enactment. From within the Subject-Object Enactment itself it is very difficult to determine the actual success of such an Enactment. The difficulty is amplified by the our lack of proprioception in the Enactment itself. We are more or less collectively unaware, at this Nodal Moment of my writing, that such an Enactment is even taking place, or of our collective role in perpetuating the Frames upon which such an Enactment is based. The reflective capacity of our own Enactment is therefore limited to the bounds of the Frame and the activity of Framing itself. As you know, it is only when we are able to recognize the generation of a particular Frame, see transparently the structure of the issuing Thought Stream and the nature of instantiation through Enactment that we can then make any sort of evaluative determination about the always limiting, and therefore artificial nature of the initial Framing activity. In this Nodal Moment we are more or less incapable of that. My apology has more to do with that and the effects of that on what we might consider immediate generations as well as a recognition that you, a much more remote presence from within the structure of current linear and generative extrapolation, who do not hold yourself separate from us, as we do from you, are immediately effected by our Enactment. I am therefore apologizing to you not only for the violence of our continued Fear-Based Survival Enactment, as Subject-Object, but for its immediate presence and effect upon you, though it does not seem to us as if it actually effects you. I am apologizing for this disposition in our Enactment. Within the scope of our possible structural coupling in the Nodal Moments of the Subject-Object Frames arising and developing we were not perhaps delusional. As a body on this planet now, we are.
I will attempt to make some return to the narrative of my apology to you, who I only vaguely intuit. After some 7000 years of this early enactment a particular Social Contract emerged that I wish to indicate as a point on the Web, though we at this time tend to think of it more as a line and assign a particular quality of Linear Causality to it. This Node to which I am pointing is in part responsible for that conception. From the Nodal Moment of my writing we call the people of this social contract the Ancient Greeks, though of course they did not name themselves such. Though there were many forms of Social Contract that had been arising and dissolving, that we call Civilizations, this particular one is of import because it is more or less the Nodal Moment of codification for the Subject-Object Enactment we call Science. We were already deep into the Subject-Object Enactment by this point. We had Streamed and Enacted the world as separate and ourselves as separate. In order to account for the impermanent dynamic of the Gift of Embodiment we had posited a separate hierarchical system, separate from our Shadow Selves and the separate world. We externalized a morality of Good and Evil to account for the Impermanent quality associated with the Gift of Embodiment and to account for what we could not understand from within the Thought Stream and Enactment of Subject-Object. Typically, due to the nature of hierarchy arising from our Enactment we viewed Good as above us and Evil as below us, if you can imagine that. Good was more or less made up of the things that contributed to our sense of continuity within the context of immediate identification as a Shadow Self and the continuation of the localized Social Contracts we formed also consistent with that sense of continuation, even generationally. Evil had to do with interruption of an idealized possibility of our continuance in those same ways. There were and are ever increasing levels of complexity generated to account for our sense of continuation in the face of our evident impermanence. Of course we also viewed these hierarchical systems and explanations as separate from us, influencing us in all things, and also within us in our conception of a fragmented self, in some cases. These hierarchies were and are consistently Streamed and Enacted in very deep ways. The Science Frame was an extension and alteration of that Codification. In the colloquial tradition of Linear History, the male-Father figure of the Science Frame is considered to have been Thales. There is no corresponding female-Mother figure. Thales is mostly forgotten about or considered irrelevant from within the Nodal Moment of my writing. He posited a Frame which said among other things that “water is the source of all and the difference between all things”. This was radical in that moment, since it did not reference the previous hierarchies of Causality, Good and Evil that we were Enacting. It referenced a different Frame. The particular quality of that Frame was that it put into the hands of our Embodiment the ability to predictably manipulate the perceived and conceived objects of our Subject-Object enactment in a codified manner. By the measure of colloquial Linear History this was some 3500 local solar orbits ago, about 7000 solar orbits after the period of ice I mentioned before and also took place in the Northern Hemisphere.
It may be of some interest to note that Thales was considered a bit of a fool by his contemporaries and jokes are still told about this in some rarified circles. He himself went to some trouble to authorize his findings and way of Streaming by using them to manipulate the objects of the imagined separate world we call Nature for his own profit. The consequences of his Frame are immense, however. This Scientific Frame was a great refinement in the Subject-Object Enactment. It allowed the Shadow Subject to manipulate objects, which of course as phenomena of perception and conception were actually only memories. In this regard, seen from the point of view of utility by a people participating in a Fear Based Survival Enactment, it was a very powerful Frame. It allowed the domain of memory to become a functional domain of prediction, within the separative and linear conception of time. There were two central themes of inquiry for these first Scientists. One was about the nature of the Objects, produced by the Subject-Object enactment. The other was about the nature of Change, seen through the Frame of a Linear Time progression, in which we imagined ourselves to exist. Change was more or less concerned with the underlying forces that seemed to alter and cause to alter the formal components of the re-presentation we experienced in Objects as a result of our Subject-Object Enactment. From the perspective of a Fear Based Survival Enactment this was also very useful, as you can imagine. In order to accomplish this utility, it was necessary to instantiate and enact a further degree of separation. The reinforcing narrative of Science required that we hold yet a third Frame, separate from the already separate Frame we called Nature, separate from the Frame of the Shadow Subject and separate from the sub-frames and Stream of Morality. The nature of that frame is that it must be an inviolate Frame, the utilization of which effected neither the Object, nor the Subject in our Subject-Object enactment. Hierarchically it was above even the previously enacted Good and Evil hierarchy. Of course it did not replace the Frame, Thought Stream and Enactment of the Good and Evil Frame and this also became a further point of separation and so conflict and war. Of course that was dynamically integrated aspect of such an Enactment, as I am sure is much clearer to you. Even in this Late Time Node that conflict continues with various Thought Stream participants attempting to eliminate or discredit other various participants. What could almost be amusing, if it were not so tragic, is the virtuous efforts we have undertaken to resolve such conflicts, all from within a Framing, Thought Stream and Enactment that produced and produces them.
I am sorry, I realize I have used a Streamed Frame with which you may not be familiar. War is an institutionalized form of violence, based on many things we have not yet covered, but fundamental to the fear based Survival Enactment that is integral to the Subject-Object Enactment. War is an essential and integral extension of the Subject-Object Enactment. We are at war with and in the world occurring for us as separate that we call Nature, between the then separately arising Shadow Selves, individually and collectively as Social Contracts, and within the perceived bounded isolation of any particular Shadow Self. Essentially, humans who are Streaming a self-identification as some form of Social Contract, organize themselves to perceive another set of humans, who are also possibly Streaming some form of self-identification as a Social Contract, as other. I hope, by way of apology, to touch upon some of the factors that go into this a bit later. I know it is hard to understand. There are many things I have not said yet and many I will not be able to say.
Let’s call these two Social Contracts, both of which may be some Streamed animation of the Survival and Subject-Object Enactment, A and B. A perceives (consistently remembers and reinforces) B as other. Of course, A is also telling an actively remembered story about themselves, to themselves collectively and individually in each moment, while actively also pretending that they are not actively telling that story, but rather that it is a self evident and passively given truth. B likewise may also perceive or conceive A in this way, though it is not necessary initially. Indeed B may never have heard of A in any way. Both A and B will set out to Frame the other as object, eliminating all possibility of any Frame for Interconnectedness or deep shared structure, apart from what they may understand as causal relationship to B as object and the role B is perceived to have in A’s fear based Survival Enactment. The word we have for this is enemy. When we feel we had shared interests and Frames we use the word friend. When those shared interests concern an enemy we use the word ally. It is important to understand that our understanding and Enactment of a Social Contract was itself a Frame predicated upon the Shadow Self, Other and more deeply upon how we were Streaming the Subject-Object Enactment. Based on the recursive (un)reality of that structure we organize ourselves to manipulate the now human objects of the other Social Contract consistent with our perceived needs in the moment of our fear based Survival Enactment. Since they are now Streamed in Frame as objects, we can manipulate them any number of ways. Please remember in this that at least one Frame at play is the Science Frame, in which the Shadow Self is actively pretends that it is unaffected by such manipulation. This manipulation usually involved disrupting the immediate biological system of their Gift of Embodiment, though many other things are Enacted as well. We have entire institutions and systems designed to do this. We prioritize efficiency in this Enactment. Sometimes as much as half of the value measure for a Social Contract would be spent on the potential to enact institutionalized violence on human beings, as objects of an other (and usually considered Evil) Social Contract. I understand how confusing this must be. Please believe me when I say that somehow it not only makes sense to us, but seems a perfectly normal condition of Life. We have complex Framed Streams for all of this, each one self validating in its own way. Hopefully, as we go, I can surround and contextualize some of this more fully.
Though I myself find the Colloquial Linear Historic account of the further development of Science quite fascinating, I am sure you have more insight from your Lived Node than I, so I will not go into it at any great length. Needless to say the Science Frame is developed, because it is so useful to itself. Remember that this development is occurring within a state of war with the world we perceive as separate and call Nature, war among individual and collective Shadow Selves, organized into Social Collectives, who we perceive as separate to different degrees and call Enemy or Friend accordingly, and increasingly with respect to our seemingly internal fragmentation and state of war within the created bounds of the Shadow Self that we have by this time begun to call Individual. Science becomes our greatest weapon (a tool of war) and tool in this state of war and we produce many horrific and amazing results and findings within our instantiated Frame, Thought Stream and Subject-Object Enactment of Separation.
I find I must step aside for a moment from my narrative of apology and explanation and offer the first of several confessions, though no absolution is necessary or expected. I am sure you can already see and feel with some horror the pollution of my own Framing and Thought Stream in my Enactment of this letter of apology. I am every bit a product of what I am attempting to write and apologize for, even in that same act of apology. I write to you as if you were some other and cannot help myself from doing so. I am lived as if separate. I am fully a product of this warring Frame, even in my failed attempts at clarity and freedom. The world occurs for me as separate and made up of separate objects. I occur for myself as a separate subject most of the time and sometimes even self occur as an object. I cannot even begin to imagine what an anathema this is to you. I live in a hope that your Realization does not hold me as separate in a separate world and time and so read this more clearly than I can ever hope to write it. I confess that my attention is an Enactment that is fully bound and imprisoned within the Subject-Object Enactment. The nature of reality is not to me self occurring and self evident. I do not actively live as a structural coupling with the Web of Life and Being. The Self-Occurring manifestation of such a web itself seems over there to me in all, but the most exceptional moments and those moments usually occur for me as being granted or even caused by some force or presence that I also view as external when not being as those nodal moments. I apologize for this, though I know this was already evident to you. I am fluent with and a full participant in the Subject-Object Enactment in all its horror, even as I write this to you. I am far more disturbed by the moments of the Web shining through and interrupting my Enactment than I am by the Enactment itself. I can even experience these in my Shadow Self as a great threat to my survival, now matter how self-evident, blissful or otherwise they may be in any nodal moment. This seems to me very important to understand. From within the Enactment itself, there are only two possibilities, both geared toward a reinforcement of the Enactment itself. The structural dynamic of the Enacted Frame is itself a fragmenting one, so these two possibilities seem to manifest as an entrancing, prismatic spray of enticement and possibility. I choose perhaps the most attractive or what seems to me the least painful of these possibilities and then create identification, necessity and morality all around it, even in the motions toward unification and interconnectedness. I develop apparent appetites with regard to this. Even these motive forces are predicated in and on the Subject-Object Enactment and so only further fragment and positionalize. Such is my state as I write this to you.
It feels to me necessary to say something more about this. I am sad to say that I can only say it from within the Frame of a Subject-Object Enactment and hope you can meaningfully translate. From the point of view of Colloquial Linear History there are and have been those some among us that have lived as a Realization of the Web of Life and Being, even as self-occurring. I am sure you see the difficulty of this language act. Even my language of the moment is deeply Framed as a Subject-Object Enactment. There are ways out of this such as expressions that illuminate and dissolve the Shadow Self: “I am”; “I am That”; “I am the Way”; “The Tao that is Tao-able is not the Tao”; or the utterance “Is. Is Happens.” You see, the difficulty carries down into our fundamental Framing of a re-presented reality as separate. We split the Enactment into nouning, verbing and objects. This is common in almost all our languaged forms of re-presentation, though there are exceptions. Even in our best attempt to sing as the Web of Life and Being we separate ourselves from it. Generally speaking, we have reflected on this a lot, but all fundamentally from within the same Subject-Object Enactment. Being(s) in the Gift of Embodiment perceived as Poets, Mystics, Ecstatics, Saints, Fools, Prophets and Realizers of the self-occurring nature of the Web of Life and Being have spoken to us and we usually hear them as other. They soon become other as object and other as enemy. I have not said that well and wish I could say it better. I am sorry. We hear them from within the Fear Based Survival Enactment of Subject-Object. We hear them as threats to the survival of our Shadow Self. I am guilty of this, even as I write to you. We take their words and we make objects of them to better manipulate them in a way that is consistent with our own Enactment, even while pretending we are not participants in that Enactment. We objectify, enslave, imprison and even kill what occur for us as their separate selves, even as they are lived by these utterances. We make objects of them. In lesser cases we distant ourselves and create impermeable defenses. In the objectification of the utterance itself we create more codified and institutionalized systems of morality and otherness consistent with our Subject-Object Frame and Enactment. If you were alive today we would seek to enslave, imprison or kill your bodily form. It is highly predictable. We would seek to do so in an efficient way that strengthens our Subject-Object Enactment. We place a high value on violent efficiency even to the point of global institutions. I know that you do not in all likelihood view some self as separate from all this in time and space, at least in the same way that I view you as separate. So for you this violence done now is always being done and I apologize for that, though no apology can be sufficient.