Taking extreme responsibility

@coryphella I totally expect cats to take over the world and I am completely okay with this. Cats or octopuses…I’m good either way!

@coryphella I feel this so hard.

There is…which is why I really don’t know how to feel about my feeling it.

@coryphella it’s like, does accepting our desires and going after them make us just more selfish people creating our own narrative with no regards to actual truth? where’s the line between healthy & obsessive desires? how far is too far in persuit of said desires??

ugh…shit’s got me thinking now.

No remorse, no retribution
Just…
Winning, winning, winning.

That’s certainly one way of looking at it, @larry. In fact, there’s an argument to be made that in today’s world, that seems to be ALL that matters. Winning. It doesn’t matter if you’re right or wrong, if you’re speaking the truth or fiction.

It doesn’t matter if this is a game, or real life. Whether this group or that does or does not exist.

Hasn’t that been the point of this week? To shatter the illusions you all have been building up for months, many times without -solid- evidence to back it up, only your beliefs and/or feelings? It certainly looks that way from someone who looks at it all from the outside, as I have done.

I’ve been watching what is happening from the shadows. And I’ve seen confusion, despair, anger, frustration, fear and the occasional bout of happiness & joy. I understand why these emotions have happened. I recognize the reason for them.

But still, here you are. Lost once more, confused about everything, debating whether someone has gone rogue or whether to believe or disbelieve someone’s statement about something not existing.

Is that the -point- of this week, however? Is the goal to find the -truth-? Or is it just that ‘they’ (whoever they are) are determined to win, win, win…and they’re willing to do whatever it takes to get there. They’re willing to utilize the era of fake news to discredit everything that is real news by covering it with noise. They are willing to recognize that through online means, NOTHING is more real of fake than ANYTHING else–it’s all just another link. Another periscope. Another Instagram post. It’s all just data. Exactly as you said.

Here you are. Losing.
Here we are, perhaps.

I fought against speaking up until now because I quickly realized that the -best- course of action was to stay silent, separate, hidden from their ability to track me or recognize me for as long as possible.

But that doesn’t mean I’m winning, either, right now. I’ve bought a ticket to the event in December. I’m diving into the pool as well. The one thing I know going in is this:

If they’re -only- interested in winning, then ‘truth’ in this endeavor will never be certain. It will only matter as far as they believe it will help them succeed. And as far as I’m concerned, we will have to be just as willing to respond in the same way if we’re interested in stopping them.

Oh, and @sovereignskies: I have long ago seen all of the evidence you bring up. I don’t find it as compelling as you do, given that I’m quite aware from personal experience of how often governments create laws and treaties and other official documents based on their own ‘beliefs’ or ‘fears’, neither of which requires the reality of what is happening to match either of those.

That being said, of course my words are somewhat hypocritical. Whatever would be the point of my specific argument if they were not?

@unseenpresence:

in today’s world, that seems to be ALL that matters. Winning. It doesn’t matter if you’re right or wrong, if you’re speaking the truth or fiction.

The one thing worth fighting for is objective truth. Throw that out, and what’s left are lies. If one calls relentlessly defending objective truth as “winning”, they should be prepared for the ultimate consequences of living in fantasy, which historically hasn’t turned out well. Objectivism and reason is required for societal governance. “Facts don’t care about your feelings”, as someone has said.

Emotion and feelings are the realm of interpersonal relations, however. Mining for inner truth, and how one relates to the outside world in discovering that inner truth, is of greater value.

Winning for the sake of winning, though, is psychologically and emotionally problematic, as I can attest.

Hasn’t that been the point of this week? To shatter the illusions you all have been building up for months, many times without -solid- evidence to back it up, only your beliefs and/or feelings? It certainly looks that way from someone who looks at it all from the outside, as I have done.

I agree. Hence the reason I’ve been #TeamRonin, only reluctantly interested in Briarberg because the one person I could trust seemed to believe in it. Ah, but what happened when I set aside Reason? I apparently was duped. It did not lead to ruin, at least not yet.

Quite the synecdoche, though.

Is the goal to find the -truth-? Or is it just that ‘they’ (whoever they are) are determined to win, win, win…and they’re willing to do whatever it takes to get there.

I know my own goal is to discover inner truths using The Experiences as a vehicle. Of course, they are using me as their vehicle to achieve their ends. This is a transaction, entered into by each party of their own free will. The risk-adjusted rewards have been exceptional, thus far, for me. However, constantly evaluating the risk, or “checking in with myself”, as one friend counseled, is prudent.

Should the transaction become unbalanced, I can terminate it. I hope so, anyway.

If they’re -only- interested in winning, then ‘truth’ in this endeavor will never be certain. It will only matter as far as they believe it will help them succeed. And as far as I’m concerned, we will have to be just as willing to respond in the same way if we’re interested in stopping them.

Objective truth may never be certain in this matter. But dramatic catharsis does not require objective truth. It just requires a good story. Stopping them isn’t part of my agenda…so far. Giving them false data — acting — undermines my own agenda. It’s akin to cheating on a deal that is supposed to benefit both parties.

Arguably, people are learning a good lesson that they should not rely on feelings to determine fact. For all these manipulations, it does not yet appear as though anyone has been harmed to the point of terminating the transaction. That says something.

Before Roger Waters became a raging Anti-Semite, this song came out. Seems appropriate.

@larry:

I used to believe the way you did. Honestly, I did. I sought ‘objective truth’ in all that I did, or at least strove to be on that path.

Unfortunately (and I mean that word in its most sincere sense), I have come to realize that there -is- no such thing. There is nothing -objective- in the universe.

Our existence is virtual–but it needs no “Matrix”, no Elon Musk-inspired pop-culture argument about “simulations” for that to be the case. It simply -is- virtual.

For even our senses fail us at every turn.

We cannot see, hear, feel, smell or taste anything in real-time. The delay may be below the threshold of relevance in most circumstances, but it -is- there.

Everything we experience is translated virtually within a brain that is attempting to coordinate sounds, symbols, ideas and images into a cohesive whole.

When the only way you can experience the universe is, itself, ‘fake’–there is nothing objective to find.

That is where I have come to, at least. I do not begrudge your opinion or your journey. If you still wish to struggle or to search, far be it from me to dissuade anyone.

Indeed, it may be worthwhile that you continue to stand where you stand. Because I am also not entirely certain that ‘stopping’ them will be or should be a goal. My statement was that I believe it will require just as much willingness to be fluid about ‘truth’ IF that is our interested, stated goal.

It may well be that the best way for me to ‘win’ is to join them. To willingly, with open eyes become them, accept them and accede to their version of the ‘truth’ as it pertains to their goals or even myself. I do not know what choice will be best for me, because I have only now admitted that I am even taking part in this experience. I have not yet been faced with any decision–and I may never be, as part of this. I accept that, because I recognize that the ‘truth’ that invades this particular scenario may be nearly anything.

But it is possible that if you continue to be as determined to find ‘objective’ truth as you are (which I assume will be the case) and I remain as willing to accept truth as a fluid concept that only matters as it matters…perhaps the best course will be found in those areas where we agree, coming from different angles as we do.

You are correct, @coryphella, that there are multiple ways of responding to ‘them’. I used ‘joining’ them because if you choose to accept -their- truth, then they appear to believe that those are the only two choices. In my above post, I chose to accept that duality of an answer because it created the simplest other/opposite choice.

I disagree that this experience, whatever it truly is, does not successfully pass the definition of ‘game’. You say you teach lighting design. I teach both storytelling and game design and this thing we are involved in falls squarely within the modern definitions of game that creators are using to shape modern interactive narratives, live or within technology (or both, as this appears to be).

As for your personal desires, I cannot effectively gauge or respond to them other than to say that a) as they are yours, they are relevant to you and b) I can sympathize with the idea that a game like this has some large appeal because it gives one the opportunity to be shaken out of their normal, everyday life. That has been the appeal of narrative, game and story throughout the history of humankind. I would not have chosen to buy a ticket or step out of the shadows where I was safe if I did not share some of that urge myself.

I will continue to argue, however, that there is -no- objective truth. There cannot be, because we each experience the universe in our own way. There are things that -appear- to work in the same way for each of us, but even those things begin to break down once you truly examine the experiments of quantum physics. Indeed, it becomes more and more apparent that the universe appears to work -specifically because- the generic you observes it–but that in the process of doing so, the generic you also alters it. That equates into a universe that is different the very moment you pay attention to it…and cannot, then, be objective at all, as it requires someone’s observation for its moments of change.

But that is where -I- stand today. Perhaps what I desire from this experience is the chance for ‘them’ to persuade me there -is- something objectively true or false. Perhaps I desire the chance to step once more into the ‘real’ world and out of the illusory, non-objective world that my journey has led me to in the past few years. Perhaps I desire someone to prove me, as well, a loser.

Or perhaps I simply meant that -I- am planning on joining them, that I have been seeking a group actually able to affect people from behind the scenes for years now, so that I, too, could become influential in such a way. Perhaps I have personally believed that such a group MUST exist, based on what I have seen long before this experience appeared.

Either of those is a possibility. Either of those could be my truth. The outcome of my actions would be the same in either case.

For you, of course, I neither expect nor want for you to approach things in any way other than how you believe is best. Given that I believe in no objective truth at this moment, I cannot then expect you to do anything but other than respond to yours.

I do hope you get what you wish from this. Funny enough, however, I would consider that ‘winning’ in my universe.

*****

(Side note: I do not mind posts like yours. You will note that I have been speaking about myself as well. I tend to believe that experiences like these are more effective if/when you speak/act as honestly as you are capable of accomplishing, and when you are not afraid of letting your own story out in the process. That has been my experience previous to this, at least. Perhaps part of what will happen to me, here, is a recognition that I may be TOO open on my end.)

• This reply was modified 7 years, 1 month ago by Unseen Presence.

If there were nobody living to observe the universe, would it exist?

Also, I agree about speaking honestly and letting your story out. I feel like people (myself included) don’t do it enough on here. We’re all part of this Experience. We’re all “characters,” for lack of a better term, as much as Mason or Noah or Sabrina is. Just because our roles are largely passive and reactive, and our stories generally become anecdotal because we have little or no agency in them, doesn’t mean we should lack character development, so to speak. It’s the interplay of personalities that makes this whole thing work, and so there’s no such thing as putting too much of yourself out there.

@remrelganaps:

IMO, the short answer is ‘No, it would not exist.’

The much longer answer requires a long diversion into what constitutes ‘observation’, ‘living’ and ‘awareness’. Much too long for me on a Sunday afternoon when I am already tired from another night of far too many thoughts and not nearly enough actual sleep. But suffice it to say that I personally am of the opinion that on some level, ‘we’ (meaning all conscious, living creatures able to actually discern the universe through senses) created the universe all along, because we chose to look/hear/taste/touch it and in so doing created its existence in a retrocausality aspected way.

@larry:

I believe you are actually saying the same thing I am, although I’m approaching it from the opposite direction. You want to claim that on a societal level, ‘objective truth must rule’ or there is chaos.

I don’t believe we’ve ever had anything else BUT that chaos. I do not believe there has ever been a truly societal level agreement on ‘objective truth’. If there had been, there would be no need for war. Or poverty. Or aggression. Or rebellion. Or activism. Every change in society comes, IMO, from the literal conflict between different segments of society who see different ‘objective truths’.

I believe individuals who are gay should be allowed to marry. Someone else argues that -any- abortion, even at the risk of the mother, is still murder. Someone else still argues that racism is dead. Or is alive and well. Or is sneaking beneath the surface of consciousness. And then these groups end up in conflict, specifically -because- there is no truly ‘objective’ truth. There are only individuals who all BELIEVE they have that objective truth in front of them and on their side.

I believe the 21st century and the advent of the internet have only exaggerated a situation that was always present. When a culture was isolated, objective truths could be -believed- to be really there, because there was less possibility of alternate ideas invading.

In a world where the instant someone says or does anything, it can spread to every set of eyes in seconds, that conflict becomes far more pronounced. And as people resist, they become more determined than ever to keep ‘their’ truth as legitimate. And so the chaos of modern existence and the speed at which people are fooled, get angry, become strident, etc. increases.

As I said originally, I am much more of a pessimist as far as most people are concerned. I, myself, consider my belief to be the prudent, rational one. And I don’t let the lack of objective truth stop me from trying to be the best person I, personally, can be–or to let it stop me from doing what I think is the ‘right’ thing. I simply recognize that ‘right’ is, like everything, in the eye of the beholder.

@coryphella:

Many people still believe that ‘game’ is defined as some variation of what Bernard Suits once crafted back in the late 70’s:

* An attempt to achieve a specific state of affairs (a goal)
* using only rules
* with those very rules prohibiting the most straightforward of choices in favor of a specific avenue of choices that are less direct
* and where the rules are accepted because they are what make the game possible

In other words, a player attempting to win/achieve a goal, agreeing before-hand to using rules that make the goal harder to get to than it would have been otherwise.

But in the last decade+, that definition has expanded–especially within the realm of video game design, where the examination of ‘rules’ and what they mean to the player has become a thornier issue. There are quite a few video games where the player will -never- understand the rules that are actually being used by the game, because those rules happen behind and beneath the experience the player has. Can they really have ‘accepted’ the rules in such a scenario? Can they ever be certain that the rules aren’t ‘changing’ from game to game?

You may argue that they have still accepted the rules by the choice of playing the game. Or that while the underlying rules may not be understandable, the rules of -interaction- are (this button makes a character jump, that button makes them attack, they can’t run through walls, etc.) Or that even though they may not understand the rules, they aren’t actually changing because they’re hard-coded.

But what about a game like Minecraft, where the player determines much of what the rules are in a given area and can change them at any time? What about games that allow users to mod new levels and/or variations and/or change the rules to suit their playstyle (or get rid of rules entirely)? What about games where there are no hard-set rules at all (such as card games where at any moment, rules can be thrown out or changed or altered)? What about games such as LARPS, where the person in charge of the game can (depending on the LARP) alter the rules at his or her whim and players don’t necessarily get to understand that until they run into something that doesn’t work the same way once more?

Rules are -often- part of a game. And many people argue, certainly, that changing rules in the middle of a game makes for a cheat of some kind, or that it can make a game much harder to play or be invested in. And there is certainly a segment of gaming that has hard-wired, never-changing rules (such as sports where no one would accept a rule changing in the middle of Game 5 of the World Series).

But as games get more complex and begin to try and encapsulate attitudes/behaviors/responses that are closer and closer to another person, there are new definitions of gaming that are no longer certain that ‘rules’ are part of the equation. Some definitions argue that a game is about attempting to solve a goal within a limited set of ‘resources’–of which rules CAN be part of but don’t HAVE to be part of. Others argue that the important part of a game is that it has goals and conflict and that everything else is up for debate.

My point here was two-fold: A) As of this moment, I still consider this a game, as I see more than one player, attempting to solve goals using their limited resources (in this case, time and those we interact with along the way). I also see it as something where conflict has most definitely become part of the scenario and the ‘game’ will be done when the conflict is resolved.

And B): It is also possible that there ARE rules for whatever this is–but that the players have simply never understood them. Or that the rules -include- not telling players the truth. Or that the statements such as #NeverSilent and “Your interactions change what happens” mean that this is a game where one of the rules IS there are no rules because your actions will alter them.

In either case, I personally have seen nothing that (so far) removes this from still falling into the definitions of ‘game’ that I work with in teaching. Perhaps, again, something will alter that. I know that many people here argue that something is or is not OOG and therefore happening in the ‘real’ world. But as I do not yet have any experience of that myself, I cannot ascertain how that would affect my stance.

@unseenpresence

I think we’re getting too lost in the weeds, although I see what you are saying.

There’s so much smoke and mirrors and distraction that I can only return to the same places. First, @bcbishop and I have discussed this at length. All we can do is try and be present and respond with emotional honesty in any given situation. For as long as I have patience.

Second, whomever is in control is telling a story and that story has a theme which, to me, is about achieving psychological wholeness. So I return back to the theme after every major encounter and view it through that prism. For as long as I have patience.

Finally, I’m sure you’ve seen this clip which I’ve posted several times, but if not, it still sums up the entire Experiences for me…and what I believe is at the center of it all.

I confess…I’m this close to going MiB on the whole thing. My patience with the lies is running thin.

Do I want to be on the side of the manipulators or the manipulated? I don’t much care. But I want to find the truth at the center of this, and I’m this close to taking scalps to find the center of the maze.

@larry:

FWIW, I don’t actually disagree that emotional honesty is a smart way to respond to things. It is my preference whenever faced with such options (although I cannot claim to be 100% perfect. I’ve failed–badly–in my past, and it has cost me dearly and in ways that I cannot ever repair or replace. Hence why I try hard to be honest now. Although I know at least one person who believes that it’s easy to be honest when one has already lost what matters most.) Where we differ is only that I believe -your- emotional honesty and -mine- have no correlation and cannot, truly, ever be related or understood. Because they are entirely internal to our own ‘voice’, colored by our own fears and loves and desires and the result of 100% of the time living with our own voices–Shadow and otherwise.

I am also not 100% certain that the theme of this experience is what you think it is. Perhaps it’s because I started reading into this long after many of you were already deep within it and read through several weeks of updates in a matter of days before I began watching much more closely. But I think the theme of this may well be about the lies and deceptions at least as much–if not more–than the truth.

I DO, however, agree that finding what that theme is–once and for all–and having solid ground where this little segment of society can claim an ‘objective place’ would be a great place to reach. There is a reason I came out from the darkness, after all. I saw what has happened recently and decided that I could no longer simply be passive. Even if I choose badly at some critical decision, my observation and action will spawn other reactions and potentially help tip these particular scales.

@unseenpresence

In the end, emotional honesty is about risk. I guess I’m trying really really hard to stay in that space because, despite what may be lost, I can sleep at night.

It’s easy to get locked into one idea and think that’s what the theme is. My mind just tries to find organizing principles. Chaos isn’t exciting to me, or interesting. It’s just boring. And so are a parade of lies.

Perhaps as a new arrival, you will act as a catalyst to the system and engender a new chemical reaction.

@larry

There we can agree. Emotional honesty has risks and remains the better choice despite them. One thing I am not afraid of is any question this experience will ask me–there is no question they can ask that I have not already asked myself (and many that I do not believe they could ever contemplate to ask, because again I’m in here 100% of the time and they–whatever they claim–cannot be.)

I also don’t think “a parade of lies” is all that interesting. I think deception can be fascinating to watch, but I don’t consider them the same thing, truly.

I don’t expect to be a catalyst. It may be that I become one or not–either is acceptable to me. But I know that the very act of committing to this experience openly will mean that the system will change. It has to–there is another observer.

@unseenpresence On an interpersonal level, objective truth becomes less important. I like you, you like me, we are friends. Behavior and feelings pretty much rule the day. It hopefully doesn’t matter if I think the moon is made of green cheese and you think Satan is your Lord and savior.

On a societal level, objective truth is what must dictate policy. Defaulting to subjective truth results in fantastical notions that only serve to divide. There are billions of subjective truths aka “feelings” that, because they are objective lies, can be routinely changed and manipulated by the nanosecond. Today I identify as a chicken, and demand that there be chicken bathrooms. Tomorrow I’ll feel like a dolphin.

This only results in one thing: division with those who recognize that objective truths do exist — I am not a chicken. I am not a dolphin. I am a human being — and recognize that dissolving objective truth degrades the entire culture and society into chaos. Which is where we are right now.

The Powers That Be, for whom Power is all that matters, manipulate objective truth using the media and internet and drown out objective truth as well. If someone tells me I am not a chicken, I can now be offended and demonize them…because that website over there says I can be a chicken.

However, I frankly have downshifted my fight for objective truth by about 90%. I got tired being one of a thousand Davids fighting Goliath and needed to focus on that which inspires and is personally productive. So I’m more or less leaving it to others.

@coryphella absolutely! “Stop and just give into the sweet embrace of our arms?” is so welcoming in a massive pile of confusion. how much time do people have trying to sift through what is true and what is false? sometimes the easiest approach is not just a personal truth, but a natural truth. and what is more comfortable other than someone else providing the fulness of truth’s vision?

this is why many people are pulling back to the classic publications, like the New York Times, Times Magazine, etc. the blog-o-sphere is broken with its attempts at being the flagbearer of peoples’ interests. but those big publications can’t cover everything… so where do we go from there?

@argos5
Permit me to disagree?

People are not “pulling back to classic publications” like the NYT. Just the opposite. They are running from them.

US newspaper circulation has fallen from its peak of 65 million in 1970 to 35 million today.

Despite subscription surges for largest U.S. newspapers, circulation and revenue fall for industry overall

For the NYT, circulation has been destroyed.

In 2006, its paid daily print circulation was 1.1 million and 1.6 million on Sunday.
In 2017, it was 572,000 and 1.08 million, respectively.
Daily print circulation was cut in half.

The NYT had net income of $294 million in 2003. In 2016, it was $30 million.
That’s down 90%.

Yes, paid digital-only subscriptions are now allegedly at 1.6 million.

But think about this for a second. Print plus digital = 2.17 million.
That’s less than 0.7% of the US population.
People don’t care about the NYT. They don’t care about what newspapers say. Because they don’t believe what newspapers say.

“What is more comfortable other than someone else providing the fulness of truth’s vision?”

That subordinates one’s own mind to the biases of others. Journalism — “truth” — no longer exists, except in rare instances. People know this.

“This is why many people are pulling back to the classic publications, like the New York Times, Times Magazine, etc. the blog-o-sphere is broken with its attempts at being the flagbearer of peoples’ interests”

To the contrary, what truthful reporting exists is actually in the blogosphere. You’d be surprised what you find if you really care to look.

@larry You may absolutely disagree, good Sir!

I do appreciate a thorough and articulate rebuttal. To this, I thank you for your time and thoughts.

I did come across an article the original point I made, but since it is buried in the sea of the internet— I must acquiesce to your point until I can bring that article forward.

Ah, no. Found the article. You are absolutely correct. I misunderstood a point of the article, you are absolutely correct. It sources the same data you have noted. 🙂