Importantly

Each of Us is Responsible for Liberating Ourselves ...

From Our Forms of Self-Induced Bondage. 

The World Could Be Better ...

But Only if Each of Us is Moving in the Same Direction ...

Simultaneously Would Be Good.

Billions

Occasionally it is forgotten that genetics are environmentally created. Within a lifetime, genetics may very well be static in terms of structural construction (never mind genetic change or deterioration within cells within a lifetime, for the moment), but on an evolutionary scale, it's obvious genetics are environmentally-induced.

Thus, the nature versus nurture debate is absurd. Nurturance is nature's purview just as much as destruction is. That's forgotten in contemporary understandings of the notion of self-interest. Yes, self-interest as a concept is expanding in scope and meaning as, say, biological knowledge illuminating how the intricacies of communality allow a species to grow becomes more and more refined. A simple sneeze can alarm us in some circumstances, even deadly:

One is driving a car, the wheel of the driver jerks as a passenger lets out an explosive sneeze causing alarm and shock, the slight jerking just enough to cause the car to veer into traffic, with every person in each vehicle dead. An accident with a cause no one may ever detect except for those who were in that car. No one is to blame. 

I could go on about how this relates to genetics, but I'm more interested in the moment in how deaths of such a sort are not tragic. Stories of tragedy, seems to me, often involve fateful acts that occurred years, decades, lifetimes in the past, acts that were, whether intentional or not, motivated by malice or some other word describing ill-will. 

In the case of the accident, without blame except for instincts, I suppose, but why would anyone want to assign "blame" to a natural act? Then again, what does that say about an act of malice? Is it, too, a "natural" act? Yes, it is. 

Blame, applied in this sense, is a myopic lens through which to discover truth. If we look at the law, we say that all civil and criminal matters come down to blameworthiness as the lens through which responsibility and accountability are decided. 

Accusation is always associated with blame. An accusation does not typically suit this statement: "How dare you do a nice thing for me without expecting anything in return!" But, within a certain moral framework, that is a violation, a betrayal of trust.

How does one go about developing such a moral framework? Well, not that differently than many other ways of developing a moral framework, but the moral framework that results in "How dare you give me a gift," is possibly best portrayed through Damian Lewis's Bobby Axelrod, one of the most intriguing geniuses ever portrayed in movies, television, and streaming series. 

In a sense, he's playing an archetype, but not a Jungian archetype. More of a Greek god archetype. But with a moral framework entirely human, because as fluid as it is, we never get to see him triumph over his internal corruption of organizing himself internally as a being who craves power and domination above all else. Dominion is mine, sayeth Bobby Axelrod.

And, yet, this is natural in the sense that choice exists, agency exists. Some wonder if there is no such thing as agency, believing we're all caught in a matrix, but that's only one type of framework that could exist within an infinite potentiality of possible frameworks. 

The question, from an evolutionary perspective, is whether the domination/submission matrix is a sustainable framework for ongoing existence in human form. Between consenting adults, couples, groups, and communities, domination/submission, BDSM, and all else of that sort provides a definitive good in society. It is an agreed upon place and time to engage in that way with one another. Forcing others into such roles against their wills is another matter entirely.

Fear, more than anything else, seems to be the driving force motivating such a moral framework, though. Guilt, blame, accusation, externally defining the other, always because we need to protect ourselves from the other instead of actually seeing within others the opportunity for expansion of themselves as well as oneself (themselves) through engagement, sometimes merely a genuine smile as an expression. 

Nevertheless, to put forth anything, even a smile, can be interpreted as an invitation for further engagement depending on a person's normative organization and orientation. But, if one and all of us understood that each person we encountered was unique, we would not be so quick to negatively judge what we perceive through the actions of another over a short time. In only a few minutes or even a few moments, we judge the other. Not everyone, not always. Commonly, though. In the United States. We positively or negatively or neutrally place others in categories to construct an approach of engagement, nonengagement, or disengagement, all in a flash. 

But if we withheld that judgment, we could be trusted to acknowledge the other internally as a profound being deserving of respect even if we pass by while walking in opposite directions without communication. But, that suggestion is a normative orientation as well. We can't escape normativity so why try? 

How does all of this play into our genetics? Because how we decide to be with one another over millennia will determine how we evolve as a species over hundreds of thousands or millions of years; it will determine the type of beings we will be able to become and how we will relate to one another and all else. 

Genetic sequencing and technology alone may not be enough or, at least, not the only way to assist humans in adaptive ways in the future. Without a profound shift in the way civilization forces human relations to be, there won't be time for civilization to adapt and survive (let alone thrive) even if the human species does. All of this is on the leaders and power brokers in the world. They alone determine how the world is constructed materially, governmentally, economically, legally, educationally, and all else. 

They really are just moving us around as pieces on a chess board. Of course, internally, we are boundless with potentiality. Environment determines how well a given genetic construction of a human will meet various potentialities. Having access to only half the caloric content a particular person's body may need to grow will determine their height, build, muscularity, etc., with the genetic range of their possibilities for growth. It's not that everyone becomes a genius in a "perfect" environment. But whatever a particular person's potentials may be, they won't be realized without a supportive environment that accounts for health. 

It's also true of aesthetic experience. Raise a child in an entirely gray environment the first 18 years of his life versus raising the same child in a rainbow full of colors those 18 years? There's no way to know how they would be different, not in totality, but what could we say about that the creative potentials within the mind that might have been sparked by radical color differentiations versus a constant gray of existence? 

Whatever could be said would be speculation, but imaginations exist so why not use them from time to time.

What is Real without Being True?

What is real without being true? 

A lie. 

How?

Tell a lie and the story of the lie exists. "I did not eat the cookie" is a lie because the truth was that I did eat the cookie. The statement, "I did not eat the cookie," is real because it exists as an expression for me and, for anyone who heard it and processed it, it exists in their mind as what I said. 

Those who heard the statement may or may not assign it a truth claim, whether as true or false. But if they do, it doesn't matter whether they assigned true or false to the statement in relation to the reality of the statement. They can either prolong and grow the statement's reality or they can forget about it as unimportant and the reality of the statement will have existed only for those moments for them. I also can either allow the reality of that statement being uttered to continue living within me after its utterance or I can allow it to dissipate from my consciousness. While the other parties and I may not allow our awareness of that reality to persist, the statement may continue its existence within the underlying frameworks (possibly related to what is called subconscious) defining how the world was, is, and may become.

So, the reality may persist and have an impact in more than one way within each person engaged with that statement. At issue, to some extent, is whether the truth value of that statement matters within the underlying framework of one's internal reality. It's commonly believed that "white lies" are "innocent" lies (racial overtones, anyone? A white lie is a lesser evil than a black lie? Ah, the script is flipped: for white supremacists, Black Lies Matter; for the woke, All Lies Matter). And it may be true that one lie about an issue of seemingly minor importance will not seriously diminish one's integrity, but it may also be false. Internal integrity or public-facing integrity? They are in relation, but not the one-and-the-same. 

What about a volume of small lies, perhaps daily over months, years, decades? The damage is always measured in relation to the harmful impacts to others and the world. But the sheer volume of lies, if substantial, is as dangerous for the person uttering them as anyone else, because that person is in the continuous practice of disordering their internal processing mechanisms. 

Why is that dangerous, though? Because those mechanisms turn input into knowledge, knowledge that becomes the basis for understanding oneself, others, and the world. If most of this knowledge has been translated from the original wording of the lies told (or even harbored), then the world is seen through fractured glass. The other and the world look distorted, but self both looks and is distorted. A sincere offering of help looks like a manipulation while hyperbole or underselling by others are translated into internal truths, one type of kernel of knowledge, and such a knowledge, constructed from lies, misperceptions, half-truths, omissions, and so on, does not match the merit of the world. Thus, the actions such persons take seem irrational and unpredictable.

A basic propositional logic may be used by someone with a fractured truth network, meaning that the source of logical error exists within the proposition rather than the logical processing mechanism itself. Persons experiencing delusions may be exceptionally logical through process and, oddly, discover that sometimes acting illogically results in the desired outcome more reliably than solid logical processing, but only because a flawless processing mechanism will always produce an inadequate result if propositions are false. 

Unfortunately, delusions are sometimes interpreted by professional third parties (therapists, counselors) as resulting from processing errors rather than propositional errors. Therapists want clients to expose the inner workings of their minds so that they can help clients reassemble themselves in ways in which they'll be able to perceive the world through a clear, unbroken glass that will allow them to radically improve the quality of their experiences. In theory, a wonderful idea. In practice? A discussion for another day.

Until others perceive the one who lied as a significant victim in the aftermath of the lie, the world will never be able to adequately call for truth and realistically expect to receive it. If the punishment for telling one lie is too severe, a volume of lies will ensue to cover the original lie. The federal and state criminal justice systems of the United States, for example, do not necessarily care about whether one lie was told in a designated crime or a thousand lies were told if the end result related to the act of the crime is perceived to be the same. In sentencing or the assessment of fines, the number of lies may be a factor. Usually, though, it's the nature of the lie(s) in a specific context that factor(s) most heavily. 

Is there a ratio for measuring the damage done through a thousand "minor" lies in relation to one super-lie? Doubtful, certainly not legally. Justice, in practice, is always subjective. Laws and rules may provide a respect for factuality, but not for proportionality. Even in the most clear cut legal cases, too few variables would be available for broad and deep understanding even if the prosecutors and defendants collaborated to find the truth together. They attempt to do so, particularly within sentencing: the defendant was abused as a child, they had recently gone through a divorce while losing a job at the same time, their only son just died, and they'd spent their life in service to those in need before the out-of-character heinous act versus the defendant had spent the past decade embezzling, committing fraud, and lying to investors which led to a hospital closing, eliminating an important health care resource for tens of thousands of area residents.

As you can see through all of this, what is not true has a multitude of significant realities in the world. 

David Byrne channeling Matt Foley

If David Byrne Drank Matt Foley as a Candied Syrup within His Own Mind Space ...

He may ask Himself:

Why am I a Motivational Speaker Who Lives in a Van Down by the River?

or He may ask Himself:

Why do I keep Falling onto Coffee Tables and Breaking Them?

and He may ask Himself:

Why do I Need such a Large Automobile?

Then He may find Himself doing too much Cocaine and Dying

He may also find Himself Feeling the Shame of Genius

while Ruining a Body

many do not Recognize as His Own

a Body Gifted in ways Others find Unfathomable 

because

too few understand that each person's life matters

too few understand we have to get past blame

too few understand that civilization is in error

only in comparison to itself

and that all of the world's recorded thought is accessible

to everyone

and anyone willing to think it ...