Part #9
Dimensions of Causation
After a few minutes had passed. Terrestrious pulled up a chair, and too a moment. He sat back closed his eyes. Took a few deep breathes and began to meditate. I was familiar with meditation and so I joined him. After about 5 minutes of this, Terrestrious opened his eyes and expressed his apologies for that moment between us at the apartment. He had interacted with a few different Terrestrial types that held unreconciled emotions and experiences. He explained that he was assisting them to adapt, and this had caused him to internalize the transference affect. He described it as a necessary sacrifice.
I acknowledge his apology and felt that this was a time to talk about what had just happened. “The doctor…,” I said.
“The doctor’s passing”, tears filled his eyes, “the loss of a special mind” Terrestrious expressed, before composing himself.
Terrestrious began talking about the doctor, his times together, his work, his charm. I took this moment to listen. “The doctor cared very much about humanity, and some…some…were able to hear him; really listen without their ism-state giving way to dogma and boxification.”
“Pre-existing dogmas? Boxification?” I said.
“The term “dogmas” typically refers to established principles or beliefs that are accepted as authoritative and unquestionable within a particular ideology, philosophy, or field of study. Dogmas are often characterized by their rigidity and resistance to change or questioning. They serve as core tenets that guide the beliefs and practices of an individual, group or community and are considered foundational to their identity or worldview.”
Terrestrious took a moment, “Boxification simply means to relegate a person to pre-existing information deemed acceptable, and think of them there, in that category of acceptable terms and ideas, or through prior experience. To boxify another as fitting into those terms and ideas. This stops us from hearing their words, as they are now considered a taboo personality. We do this without thinking. That is the problem, we must think, we must become aware of just how far the well of our isms go, and what state or condition they are in.”
Terrestrious placed his hands in a thoughtful pose, “In that sense boxification is automatic, and from there we produce an absolute sense of the other, as this or that personality. We no longer listen, neither think critically, we become poised to defeat, and destroy. We estimate them, measure them, evaluate them. This person is the competitor of values. Then we become reactive and adversarial.” Terrestrious sighed and frowned, “Questioning beliefs or values linked to the ism-state can be a risk, or a reward. Understand. If the individual possesses an overtly fixed ism, then discussion becomes pointless, everything is filtered through mindless adversarial responses and reactivity often linked to absolutes. Their conditioning is too embedded in dogma.”
“Interesting,” I said with an intrigued tone but I countered, “is what we are talking about now not a dogma?”
Terrestrious continued with an air of annoyance, “No.”, he said sternly, “two sides of the argument is no longer valid when the other devalues life. When the other expresses dogma, they inevitably hold prejudice, and these two things destroy life, devalue life, and entertain barbarity”, Terrestrious passion increased, “the idea of Dogma, as understood by myself and the later doctor, refer to an inflexible area of one’s impression network. Impressions form during maturation of the mechanism and the vitalism.”, he sighed, and took a moment to sense his patience, “These ideas are relative and adaptive, they do not fix the terrestrial as an absolute type, rather, this approach considers degrees of appropriate conditioning. For example, violence or racial hatred, hatred for the opposite gender or sex, hatred toward other cultures are low grade types, they serve no purpose in thought or function. These are the extremes. The less extreme is more sub-conscious, and implicit, these require education, and adaptation. Each type possesses degrees of adaptation potential relative to their ism-state. So you see, what we talk about here, what I express to you, is an approach that see’s the value of each life as having potential to grow out of the war-like type, always at odds with others”
I nodded, “I understand now, the approach treats the individual as having the potential to improve their ism state as having compassion toward life, and the value of life as important and linked to our most appropriate expression, which gives rise to functionality.”
Terrestrious appeared gladdened. I then asked for clarification, “Mechanism? Vitalism?” I said as I had not read about this in his journal, perhaps if Terrestrious had made it out, he might have produced more of his reflections.
“The mechanist view is a reductionist perspective that asserts that all natural phenomena, including living organisms, can be explained through the fundamental principles of physics and chemistry. Mechanists reject the idea of a non-material life force and instead seek to understand the workings of organisms as intricate mechanisms governed by physical and chemical laws. Think of it as the Electrical/chemical paradigm.”
“Ah I understand. The vitalist?” I questioned.
“The Vitalist view, a philosophical and scientific perspective that posits that living organisms possess a unique, non-material “vital force” or “life force” that distinguishes them from inanimate matter. Proponents of vitalism believed that this vital force was responsible for the characteristic properties of living organisms, such as growth, reproduction, and responsiveness to stimuli, and could not be explained by the principles of mechanistic science. Think of it as the spiritual or mental or psychological paradigm.”
“Please continue,” I said.
“Yes. From here simply listen. Ask questions at the end. The doctor’s work was different and although not new or novel his attempt presents a perspective that taught unification and interdependence.”
“I will listen carefully,” I assured.
“The mechanism or physiology possesses a cellular memory, a genetic imprint which is transmitted via electrical responses between neurons, and chemical excretions. That transmission, along with the expressions of genes, and the interactivity of the nervous system, stores experience within the mechanism. The vitalism or psychology is the internalization of that maturity, the sense of association with referential material linked to an attachment for the synthesized dimension that agitates the impetus, no longer neutral, and now conditionally linked to that synthetic dimension and its isms.”
Terrestrious stood, paced a bit, and found some energy bars. Handed me one and threw me a bottle of water. “Drink and eat, you cannot concentrate if the impetus is unsatiated.” We consumed and drank the water. Then Terrestrious continued.
“After the link is made a terrestrial type is formed, linked to that era, its existing knowledge, its regressive and progressive ratio of ideas, its values and so on. I should briefly mention the existential, and the dual, unless that was in my notes?” I indicated that I was already familiar with that and yes it was in his notes. Terrestrious continued, “Duality, time and space, dimensions of cause and effect, materialization, and dematerialization, are all in a state of oscillation; they are shifting, fluctuating, moving, they cannot be stopped. This produces the neutral dimension, the realm of non-human animals, planets, and degrees of habitability and homeostasis…familiar with this?” I expressed that the doctor had mentioned it in his talk many hours ago, prior to his…well you know”.
“Talking about death can be cathartic and helpful but perhaps another time,” Terrestrious sounded empathic and considerate of my tone and shock. Right now, the philosophical information was a welcomed distraction and soother.
“Without habitability there is no life. Habitability is what allows the link between impetus and stimulus to occur. If habitability and homeostasis is interfered with, primarily through the increase in variety or stimuli variation, their significance and quality, then one interferes with the dynamic between impetus and stimulus, then this places pressure on the synthetic conditions. Then what comes after are synthetic values and behaviours learned from that synthetically produced system.” Terrestrious took a look at the time and continued, “Synthetic does not imply negative; it is a question of degrees of appropriateness and approximation. How does man organize his reality, relate with others, and make sense of his function and purpose. This conjures appropriateness. In the past some considered certain races less appropriate and brutalized them; women, lower classes, and many more ‘others’ were thrust into disarray and suffering because of one dogma after another.”
Terrestrious became a little angry, “A dogma, however justified, however well supported by science, philosophy or ideology, is nothing more than well veiled sophistry cemented into consensus reality to comfort the masters of slaves.”
I nodded and provided a non-verbal “mm,” indicating I had understood. The term slave did grab me, and I wondered what he meant, but I felt I had understood him, and thus did not interrupt his flow of thought.
“The doctor would say that man is not inherently anything. He possesses sufficient material to allow him to internalize and respond. Man can become many things. He draws into himself the core tenets of his surroundings to ensure his impetus is secure: perpetuation and social integration. The impetus is an undeniable instinct. Stimulus can be anything, light, colour, sound, smell, sensation, a mental sense, the recall of a memory, the attributed and classified mechanistic sensations given some term or number to value the degree of the experience, although often it is just a sense…man, woman, or anyone, any moving and non-moving, or semi-moving subject or object can be considered stimuli. Therefore, it is not possible to exceed the synthetic parameters to which your impetus depends. You can only become more aware of the causal link.”
“So…the…the…the”, I stutter sometimes, “the causal link to our current system causes a skewed personality who knows only scarcity, competition, and inequality,” I said looking for confirmation of my thoughts.
“Yes.”, Terrestrious gleamed, “These synthetic dimensions diminish the quality of another life in preference for this or that life because it has more income and thus more status, and thus more systemic value, more means to perpetuate the system. This system does not do what we think it does and we may think that that the system is doing fine because the social demographic, the strata we exist within, reflects how well humanity as a species is doing, it does not. The terrestrial type we are is contending with consistent feelings of suspicion, doubt, fear, anger, paranoia, trauma, stress, and lacks any refinement of criticality, reflexivity, responsiveness, and listening skills to adequately cope with the barrage of suggestions, adverts, and the swathes of unreconciled pain within the terrestrial types that many of us are.”
Terrestrious sounded very concerned. “With all that strain, the masters of civilisation convince people that the dimensions work, that they, the terrestrials, simply need to alter their mentality, from poor to rich, give large sums of money for a charismatic personality to infuse them with euphoria, and then they might be ready to understand the secrets through a master class of stock and trade. The affluent always ignore their nepotism, their affluent heritage, they ignore to mention that advantage for one is disadvantage for another…augh…anyway that is obvious stuff, the doctor would call this system the ‘wanton, and whimsical dimension’”, Terrestrious chuckled as a fond memory glazed his eyes.
“Thoughts?”, Terrestrious said.
“You mention philosophy in your journals, more precisely, you mentioned conviction and reason, and the ism state. As you have mentioned this a little, can you speak more about it now” I inquired.
“Yes. The core debates emerging from degrees of approximation and appropriateness that produce an ism state are:
Empiricism vs. Rationalism: Philosophers have long debated the relative importance of empirical observation and rational thought in the acquisition of knowledge. Empiricists argue that sensory experience is the primary source of knowledge, while rationalists emphasize the role of reason and innate ideas.
Materialism vs. Idealism: Materialists contend that the physical world is the only reality and that mental phenomena can be reduced to physical processes. Idealists, on the other hand, assert that reality is fundamentally mental or spiritual in nature, and the physical world is a manifestation of mental or spiritual principles.
Determinism vs. Autonomism: The debate over determinism and Autonomism centres on whether human actions are determined by prior causes and conditions (determinism) or if individuals have the capacity for free, morally responsible choices (autonomism).
Reductionism vs. Holism: Reductionists advocate for the reduction of complex phenomena to simpler, more fundamental components, while holists argue that some systems or phenomena are best understood as wholes with emergent properties that cannot be reduced to their individual parts.
“…and well vitalism and mechanism I have mentioned. These are the some of the main philosophical isms that a person mixes, variates, diversifies within their own conviction and reason. However, this in part is what forms the ism-state or one’s values. These are intellectual existentialism. There are other existential expressions and values:
Personalism and impersonalism:
The personalist posits that humanity has value; in this sense it is a humanistic perspective but not exclusively so. Personalism is the way we interact with others, how we treat ourselves, and the world, are we conscious considerate, compassionate, and so on. The personalist approaches human potential through the refinement of awareness, values, and communication.
The impersonalist posits that individuality has no value, that real value is found in the merging on life. The ultimate reality being without inherent purpose or value, everything just is, an is-ness of things. In this sense the impersonalist values everything through the relinquishment of his ego as a separated personality from everything around him. Both have their merits.
Mutualism and Differentialism:
Mutualism. A philosophical concept that emphasizes cooperation, interdependence, and mutual benefit between individuals, groups, or entities. It suggests that collaboration and positive interactions can lead to favourable outcomes for all parties involved. Mutualism emphasizes the idea that working together can result in shared successes and benefits.
Differentialism. A philosophical perspective that emphasizes the fundamental role of differences or disparities between individuals, groups, or entities. It posits that these distinctions play a significant role in shaping culture, interactions, outcomes, and adaptation. It underscores the uniqueness and individuality of entities and the importance of recognizing and acknowledging these differences.
“Let us take a break. I need a break,” Terrestrious just gets up and leaves through the rear door of the bunker. All I could think about was the doctor, his death, and the huge mess I am in now. I felt both regret and despair, sadness, a deep sadness. I could not help but feel responsible, however inevitable the doctor’s death was. I managed to find some more food, and began eating a few protein bars, and drank some water. Terrestrious returned after about 15 minutes. “Careful,” he said, “These rations need to last us.” I felt so foolish, I apologized explaining that I was trying to catch my nerves. He nodded, sat down, and I returned to my seat. He explained that we would have to get moving again in about a week, less. The “jump” leaves behind a subtle signature that the other teams can notice, a resonance if you like, and that is how they will try to locate us.
“Us,” I said hoping for a moment I had just dosed off in my apartment and was dreaming.
“Yes. It is you and me now. Accept it.,” Terrestrious had this way about him, he was steady and focused, aware of himself, his emotions, and displayed a strong congruence. Back to the talk then he said.
“Yea.,” I said feeling a weight in my chest, I breathed deeply and exhaled as he spoke.
“The mutualist can be competitive or cooperative, as can the differentialist. In this sense mutual competition is differential, and differential competition is not mutual, both seek an edge over some other group, and that leads to conflict, although within their group they are mutually linked. Cooperation can be differential but only in areas of how to optimize social health, or how to better design this or that technology but not in efforts to defeat another, destroy another for hegemony. Thus, cooperative mutual differentialism is preferred. This is the more appropriate and approximate terrestrial type. Hard to swallow I am sure, as the entirety of your impetus knowns only differential competition. Yet, that is the fact…”
He paused to gauge my response, as if scrutinizing and determining my type.
“. In general, each person will think that their type is valid, without consciously traversing the depths of why think the way they think, value what they value, believe what they believe, feel, and respond the way they do, and many other nuances. They simply react automatically. Cycling through acceptable and unacceptable boxes to which their criticality and self are relegated.”
I was already familiar with some of these ideas but being with him, his sternness, conviction, and presentation stirred so much within me, more than his journal ever could!
“Some see all these things through relativism, absolutism, or absurdism. Each has its merits. Are you familiar?
“I am,” I said, but I knew that this required further detail.
“I shall briefly explain:
Relativism is a philosophical stance that asserts that truth, morality, or meaning is not absolute or universal but is instead context-dependent and varies from one culture, perspective, or individual to another. In other words, what is considered true or moral can be relative to specific circumstances, cultural contexts, or individual viewpoints.
Absolutism is the philosophical belief in the existence of objective and unchanging truths, values, or principles. It holds that certain things are universally true, valid, or morally right, regardless of individual opinions or cultural variations.
Absurdism is a philosophical perspective associated with existentialism, particularly the writings of philosophers like Albert Camus. It deals with the idea that human existence is inherently absurd and lacks inherent meaning or purpose. According to absurdism, humans desire meaning and purpose in an indifferent and often irrational universe.
“…or they can be thought of as flexibility, rigidity, and indifference. Each perspective holds true from a relativist point of view, as some things are equally absurd, and can be absolute, however, relativism is preferable as this allows for adaptation, and evolution of values, ideas, and systems. Aiding degrees of congruence. Individuals who take a purely empirical route lens reality through an Atheistic and or Agnostic perspective. Those who take the route of rationalism lens reality through Theism (mono or pan), or Gnosticism but this is a generalization, as variation and combination of all I have mentioned produces the ism-state, and that is a relative state.” He stared at me and nodded, and gestured with his hand as if to indicate he had finished and that I should give my response.
I paused and replied, “If I understand you correctly. The ism-state then is the total state of conviction and reason about synthesized dimensions. Internalized through the mechanism or body and the vitalism or psychology as subjective and objective experiences; experiences between impetus and stimulus, which during maturity are relatively linked to synthetic parameters — condition and context — producing an internal state of impressional material; memories; thoughts; emotions etc. and this forms a terrestrial type?..”
He smiled slightly. “There is hope for you yet.”
“…And that the current type; the type of humanity is, is no longer adequate?”
“Yes. adaptation and evolution of values must occur to secure our mutual interdependent and yet individualized perpetuation,” Terrestrious seemed lighter and happier that someone else had understood the doctors, now his, now our mission. “Put another way, man has sensed and observed, he has inquired and acquired, he has evidenced and intuitively reflected, he has determined and individuated, he has simplified, separated, and now must make whole the new era of his type as both mechanism and vitalism, as interconnected, yet different. His sense of the world must be renewed, transformed through affability and convalescence. A unification, an alliance of sapiens”, he paused before uttering a profound sentence, “we must relinquish all terrestrial dogma, all prejudice, to allow criticality to become unbound, otherwise destruction is assured”
I smiled, caught up in his charisma, “What now?”
“Now we eat, drink, sleep and maintain ourselves until we must move again. Jumping can be taxing, so this next journey, in about 5–7 days’ time will require our legs, and our wits”, Terrestrious said with a serious tone.
The evening fell and I found myself conflicted. This was all certainly very real, but I hoped that tomorrow I would not be here. Yet, I felt a sense of duty to push this forward, to change the post atomic horror. Then it hit me, I had saved my own life by altering the future. I died in the war, or when bombed was killed, or something happened, and my life was extinguished. At least I am alive, and I can do something of value.
