[rektide]

> Yet, I am at peace. Can you say the same?

Absolutely not. :) Thank you for your candor in your reply, this has been far more interesting than I expected. I appreciate your willingness to saddle forth & meet a lot.

I for one don't think we should be at peace. I don't think history has been at peace, I don't think stasis or peace has held much domain, and it's not a becoming position for humans or humanity. Accepting & integrating change is vital. This is my primary contention really, between our views, that I see: I'd characterize your view (primarily your previous, rather than this most recently reply) with where we are now as fait-acompli, saying that society has arrived at it's final destiny, where we will reside, and that this place of residing is representative of the final choice of the free hand. It's convenient to give up personal involvement, to accept existence as it is or as it goes, but in an active, changing universe, I think it behooves us to pay attention, to consider, to reflect, to imagine & shape & hone our personal truths & desires amid the churn of greater existence, rather than to take tranquility & passivity as a pinnacle of personal being.

I'm not as young and open as I used to be, and we're in a time that is much stickier, much more stuck & slow than the fast-moving, exciting, evolving pace I grew up in. In particular, constraints are much higher, surplus is lower, the stakes seem more serious than ever. But I still see the current world as extremely young, I still see this newly dawned information society as more happenstance than destiny, and still believe there's a lot of shifting & settling & figuring out to do.

My particular beliefs about our current stance, position, & potential are not that important, but currently are as so. I think there's a lot of routes available to us all, individually and en masse, that will lead to a more tranquil, more reasonable, more agreeable information society. And that when we do encounter strife & impetus towards "spiritual violence" (or impetus towards change), we'll better be able to see & understand a much wider set of the parallax, not feel so alone in our protests against ill/the unfit, be able to tap into & explore & comprehend views that are more intermediary & tempered. We'll have better assessment of a much larger lay of the land than we get at the moment. Our use of words & replies leads to polarization & contestation, but I tend to think a more hyperlinked, better referenced, better annotated society can hint a lot more of the nuance & character & context than the immediate, unbuffered, direct-reply existence that today's connected society can muster.

But this is just one particular perspective, one particular evolutionary path, one embodied in some of my current hopes. What's more distinct, more clear to me is that we are changing. Society is changing & evolving. Where we are is not a great destination, and where we go will be shaped & changed by many, and many of those steps will be small, humble, personal steps, that are echoes and amplified. Humanity learns, society learns, the connected society grows, taking advantage of more advanced signal processing. From this lies much hope, that we can gain much wider perspective, much more appreciation for complexity & dynamics, appreciate the openness about us, & quest forth with stronger convictions, more weakly held.

I don't personally think happiness & tranquility & letting go is a very noble or interesting objective, convenient though it may be. Your notes on "spiritual violence", or trying to "influence" indeed sound rightly a counter to much of the malady we experience now, but I still feel like your remedy is drinking the poison, accepting minddeath, giving up. You talk about touching others souls, but to me, this is primarily a belief that we can better touch our own souls, better find ourselves. And a belief that that matters. When we find our own light, when we can better identify other's light, that adds. There's a duality, for we risk great harm if we take ourselves too seriously, if we weigh ourselves on influence. I believe strongly in many of the same harms you write against. But we also live in a malleable time, & how we calibrate & steer ourselves is relevant. Where we are is not settled, and this time, more than ever, is in need of those attuning to the fainter signals, those seeking to make ripples in their own lives & broadly especially with those sympathetic others also seeking finer attunement. Humanity's great antenna needs the seekers, needs those listening for better, for wider, those with a will to mete out & share clearly their evolving views & perspectives. Real feeling, real caring, real involvement is dangerous today, because it is a hard & bigger than ever world we face. But I feel encouraged that wiser than ever, more nuanced & wider seeing than ever, more self-empowering, self-organizing, self-evident/sharing than ever humans can keep arising, that consciousness & truthseeking can keep evolving. We are not stuck upon a rock. It is self-evident to me that information society has changed massively in the past half-decade, that it is changing, and will change further; some of those signs are bad, polarized, attached, seeking influence & obsessed. But to me- in my personal paradigm- the cure is not peace, is not tranquility, is not acceptance; we are still in change and in flux, that is clear, and I believe in those who would push for clearer purchases, those who would try to build more robust & clear information networks, those who would pull in more context & history to fill in the scene, to illuminate better real perspective, real possibility, that finds real & genuine hope & possibility. I believe the change & evolution we surely face can still bring us good.