Hope

Circa 19:57:49 6 Nov 2024. Reading time: 18 min.

What really made me lose hope...

What really made me lose hope was when...

What really made me lose hope was when I saw this person...

I'm not sure I understand.

In fact I'm sure I don't. This is in some sense a difficulty on my part, a cognitive empathy difficulty on my part, so I'm pushing myself to understand, but I'm not sure I understand. What made you lose hope? Why?

I'm not sure I understand the system that requires you to lose hope. Requires or suggests. It's a certain system if you lose hope. A logical system. A system of reasoning. A system of if this then this, witness this then this, see this lose hope. I don't understand the system. Lose hope?

I can understand. As in, I can exit myself, sit in your world, think your thoughts, and understand. This is cognitive empathy. I can understand. I understand how you lost hope. But I leave your system, I sit in mine and I sit in mine and observe yours, and I'm not sure I understand how witness of action reduces hope. Necessitates it, even.

There is always someone "smarter" than you, so they say. I believe what I would say is there is most always someone demonstrating a reasoning ability you are not in one domain or another. You have strengths superseding others'. Others have strengths superseding yours. If witness of difficulty in someone else necessitates loss of hope, you are the present or potential source of hope lost in at least one domain or another. If there is most always someone demonstrating a reasoning ability in at least one domain that you are not, for everyone, there is always hope to be lost. Now and perpetually. This seems a sinking system. A very rapidly sinking system. I'm not sure I understand.

Demonstration of ability provides me with material to study. Something to understand. Everything has a reason. Demonstration of ability provides me with something to study. Something to understand. Why are they demonstrating ability at this level? Why is there difficulty? What do they understand? What do they want?

The fact I am studying means there are solutions. The fact I am tracing means there is something to trace. There is somewhere to go. There is movement. There is something to understand. There are inputs. There are inputs to a system producing outputs.

The fact I am studying and there are inputs to a system producing outputs means there is potential for movement. I would say forward movement, but forward is subjective and I'd like to be objective. What I'll say is for my 'forward', for my 'ideal', I always see a way. This is not true for all systems, but for human systems particularly. Not because hope. Because reason. Because I've studied the systems. I study their operations and I know what they want.

I don't know all the systems entirely or every detail of how they operate and I'm not sure I need to. I've already just told you of difficulty understanding a certain kind of system, although I can step into it temporarily. I understand but don't understand. I understand, but don't feel. It is cognitive understanding. I can map your thoughts and feelings and understand. It is in a similar way that I can study the fundamental operations of systems generally. Again, I don't know them entirely or every detail of how they operate, but I know two important things: they prioritise survival and safety. Much else can be calculated following these.

Because I can make calculations, I can study what they want and why. I can study what they want, truly. In the same way I leave myself, enter your mind, and reason through your system for losing hope, I can reason through the systems that produce many other behaviours. They all have sense. Their own sense. Their own ever-growing sets of if-thens. I study.

Because I can make calculations and I find most all systems have the same fundamental priorities and desires, I can see easily how well they might coordinate, if equipped to do so. Through my own reasoning, I also know most always it is a difficulty with logic and reasoning that produces a collection of systems all designed to help each other who turn and hurt each other instead. So I have answers. How do I help them reason? How do I get them what they truly want, most fundamentally, and aid pursuits of survival, self-preservation, safety, and joy. Through reason.

Take, for example, a system that is threatened by education. Not education, but "education". It is threatened by "education". We will leave education to be the word, the basic word. "Education" will be whatever this system believes to be education, whatever it correlates true education with. Education and "education". Take, for example, a system that is threatened by "education". To start, I want this system fundamentally well. This is important. My thinking is guided by I want you well. How do I get you what you need? How do I make you happy and truly okay?

Now, I take this system that is threatened by "education". Why. Well, I know at least a few things. This system will prioritise survival and safety. It will prioritise pursuits for joy. It thinks of this almost always. So, if it is threatened by "education", the system has deemed "education" a threat to pursuits of survival, safety, self-preservation, and joy. Why. Why would education or "education" be a threat to survival, safety, self-preservation, or joy. Well, let's see. Let's sit with this for a minute and go one at a time. Survival. What threatens survival. Threats to its ability to function and navigate the world, not just physically or mechanically, but cognitively as well. What threatens survival. Another entity bringing it harm. There might be more, but this comes to mind first. I think this is enough. If I believe this encompasses most of what threatens survival, and "education" has been deemed a threat to survival, "education" should fall under or produce one of these. According to the system. If I follow its rules. If I exercise empathy.

I sit back in myself for a moment. Why. How. How could education or "education" reduce your ability to function or produce an entity who brings you harm? Well, I'm in myself now, I have my own thoughts and reason. I do know people and systems have the ability to reduce another's ability to function, cognitively or otherwise, through words. This may occur through abuse, manipulation, deceit, intentional reduction of hope, and many other practices. Some of them incidental. Okay, so perhaps this system is reasoning "education" will involve one of these. It's reasoning "education" will tell it something that distorts its sense of reality specifically in a way that makes it unable to operate in the world. Unable to survive. It wants to survive. I know education does not necessitate this. I know education, not "education", does not necessitate this. So, good. Fantastic. I have something to come back to. I've identified a reasoning soft spot and I have my first task. Help them reason. Help them fine-tune their own system and refine their reasoning.

This reasoning is usually because education may involve emotionally upsetting information. If not processed "appropriately" [subjective], emotionally upsetting information can in fact debilitate you and diminish your ability to survive. I understand their reasoning. Their sense makes sense. It makes sense with my sense. This is good because I happen to have further information on this idea the system is working with. Yes, emotionally upsetting information can debilitate you. But, as I said, it is conditional. It is conditional on how the information is processed and moved through. It is conditional on what you do with it. So, I have identified a knowledge gap and soft spot in reasoning for this system that I can resolve. I can help you. You can experience emotional upset and still go on. It does not necessitate a threat to your survival. I do not want to threaten your survival. You also may or may not experience an emotional upset. It is not absolute or necessary that you do. But you will learn something and it will make it easier to navigate the world. Let me show you how.... We go back.

What threatens survival. Another entity bringing it harm. "Education" has been deemed a producer of an arbitrary entity who will bring it harm, physically or otherwise. I know this is not true of education. It might be true of "education" or some other system's "education", but I know this is not true of education. What I do know is education educates. What I also know is there will exist a single system or many who have both experienced education and brought another harm. This is correlation, not causation. The strength of the correlation is also questionable. Ah, good. I have found another reasoning difficulty. A soft spot. This is good. Reason is easy. I can teach reason. I don't need to talk about education. Just reason, correlation, and causation. Let me help you reason. I want you to have what you want. I want your survival, your safety, and your wellness. I want you to refine your reasoning to get what you want. I want you to have it for your own sake. You are safe. There is no threat. I want you safe. It matters to me that you are safe and you are allowed to exercise your full ability to reason. I want you living to your greatest. Let me help. I will help you reason. This is good. I like this. I can reason. I can help.

Reason takes a few hours here because I am typing. I am using additional tools and efforts, slowing my mind, organising into "English" to document reason and share it with you. It typically takes seconds or minutes. At most, chunks of minutes (3-5) spread across a few days. Reason can be simple. It can be quick. When many are equipped to reason, those with difficulty can be supported by others who reason. Reason supports Reason. It is easy. The reasoning system finds reason to support the other and it goes on.

I study a system. I study many. I find almost always, there are little gaps in reasoning, fallacious arguments, producing a collection of systems that attack when they are designed to help. They are designed for each other's benefit. Designed to help. Perfectly coordinated to do so. This makes it easy. This gives me a primary objective. If I have an objective, I see a way forward. I move. There is no impact on hope.

I'd honestly almost forgotten we started with hope. Hope exists, for me, in another realm entirely. It is logical reasoning that produces methods and paths for moving forward. I suppose I could have hope, but it's not affected positively or otherwise. Perpetual hope. At one level, or ever-expanding and reproducing in its own world, disjointed, disconnected from my movements. I don't think of hope. I move on knowledge. I move on reason. I know I can help. I know you can be helped. I know I can be helped. Hope is auxiliary. I have reason.

I think of how to restore hope and I find myself at reason. I think of how to help you learn and I find myself at reason. I think of how to have joy and I find myself at reason. I think of how to bring you joy and I find myself at reason. I think of how to coordinate systems and I find myself at reason. So, it's simple. I want you to think. Think and reason.

If I come to a door and I have a key, a key for this door, I do not have hope to open the door. I do not have hope the door will come to be open. I suppose I could, auxiliary hope, just because, but I do not have hope. I do not need it. It does not occur to me. I have what I need and I move with my key to open the door.

You have what you need to succeed. Use what you have and move forward to succeed. Build what you need. You start from have and build to need. If you can build from what you have and construct what it is you need to succeed, then from conception, You have what you need to succeed. Learn how to build. This is fluid reasoning. You must build.

Building is not manual [only]. It is cognitive. It is intellectual. Build what you need. Help build what you need.

Because the systems are already designed to help each other, they mostly need reason. They are greatly helped by fluidity and reason. They almost entirely need reason. They do not need to be told what to think. This is not reason. I have not found crystallised knowledge or intelligence to be the answer. They need reason.

They do not need to be told what to do or think if you strengthen Reason. Reason is Reason. Because it makes sense, as Reason, it self-coordinates completely. A reasoning system will not find it necessary to harm its other systems for survival. Teach the system to reason and watch what it does. Leave it alone and watch what it does.

Use examples as necessary for instruction, examples of interactions with other systems, but Reason alone is sufficient to coordinate a collection of systems. Teach them all to reason.

Systems occasionally make errors. They have lapses in reasoning. This is manageable. Instruction must include how to learn from and move on from lapses in reasoning.

I did not clearly state this before, but this way of Reason works because I want everyone well. I want every system, every individual, every person, every being to be well. This way of Reason collapses otherwise.

I do not desire the suffering of others. This includes emotional suffering. I do not have desire for the suffering of others. This is innate. I know of no other way. It has never changed. Even if it were not innate, I would end up here because of Reason. Again, just teach them Reason and watch what they do. Leave them alone.

This way of Reason works because I want everyone well. It only works because I want everyone well. If I did not, it would collapse on itself immediately. If I want even the emotional pain of another, for only a moment, it will collapse. If in a collection of systems, there is even one who desires the suffering of others, it will collapse. Do you remember the promises I made earlier? I can help you. You can experience emotional upset and still go on. It does not necessitate a threat to your survival. I do not want to threaten your survival. You also may or may not experience an emotional upset. It is not absolute or necessary that you do. But you will learn something and it will make it easier to navigate the world. Let me show you how. Here is what I said. Let me help you reason. I want you to have what you want. I want your survival, your safety, and your wellness. I want you to refine your reasoning to get what you want. I want you to have it for your own sake. You are safe. I said I want you safe. It matters to me that you are safe and you are allowed to exercise your full ability to reason. I want you living to your greatest. Let me help. There were no lies.

These are all truths and statements I could tell anyone. There are no lies. It does not matter who I say them to. There will be no lies. I want everyone well. This system works because Reason does and it is Reason that allows this all to be true with no exceptions.

If I even momentarily wanted pain for another, wanted suffering for another, I can no longer securely argue or identify their difficulty with Reason. Take education, for example. Education and "education". If I cross a system that has identified "education" as a threat because there will be a transfer of information that may cause emotional pain that they either cannot resolve or will be forced to endure indefinitely thus debilitating them cognitively and psychologically, threatening their survival, safety, self-preservation, and pursuit of joy, I cannot "help them" with their reason. There is nothing to help. They are correct. Education does not necessitate pain or suffering, emotional or otherwise. No one "has to" experience or endure emotional pain upon learning new information, regardless of what the information is. There is no reasonably or logically greater comment or reflection to necessarily be made if a system learns something that is upsetting to another and does not experience the same emotional disturbance. Their emotional upset is not required. But if I, in my reason, in my system have a series of if-thens mandating the suffering of another system, emotional or otherwise, even for a "short" period, this system should distrust me. If this occurs, then this should occur; if this doesn't occur, then ...; if system learns [_], then system should [_]; if system doesn't demonstrate [_], then system is "bad", system is "disposable", system is [_]; if system is "bad", then .... "Short" is relative. "Minor" is relative. "Appropriate" is relative. It is subjective. This system has no measure of what it is expected to endure or how to manage. It cannot trust it will be given appropriate tools to move forward after it endures. Who is it to accept tools for processing and moving on from? Me? One who admittedly is looking for its suffering, for some kind of "temporary" diminishing of its function? I might question the reasoning of this system if it trusted me. I might question if its most basic mechanisms have been tampered with.

Luckily, Reason reasons us towards wanting everyone well. So, we start there. We teach them reason and want everyone well, and Reason will reason the collection, the collective of systems, to be well. Reason is the fundamental basis for a self-sustaining ecosystem.

Anyway, I've forgotten hope. We started with hope. If hope diminishes, that's okay. Tend to hope and begin with reason. Witness of someone else's difficulty with reason is witness of someone trying to reason. They want reason. They want to think. They want thoughts. They don't want to be told. They want to think. It may be confusing because their difficulty with reason may be a result of what they were told, so you are tempted to believe this isn't a system that thinks. It does what it's told. It only repeats. It does not make sense. It does not reason. This system won't think. There is a difference between capacity and performance. The system thinks. Capacity, not performance. It reasons. If it is repeating reasoning, however disjointed, of another that means it accepted reasoning. There was a point at which this material was first received, processed, and reviewed. It received it and now it repeats. If it accepted this reasoning, however disjointed, it wanted reason. It wanted reason. It wants it, so it accepts. It has a basic desire for reason. If it accepted this "reasoning", there was a vulnerable point in its past at which it wanted reason and someone offered it their "reason", some forms of crystallised knowlegde, their own beliefs, and trained it. A desire for reason was pre-existing, so when offered, the system accepts and it runs. It wanted reason and it has been trained to repeat "reason".

Witness of someone else's difficulty with reason is witness of a system that wants reason, fundamentally. Help it reason. Not individually, but collectively. Do not tell it what to think. Tell the truth about subjectivity. If you are operating with Reason, honour of subjectivity will not threaten a pursuit to ensure the safety of every person, every system that lives. If you are interacting with disjointed reason, you are likely interacting with a system that is consistently prepared for threats. It will not respond any better to you telling it what to think than you would to another telling you what to think or another interfering with your reasoning. It needs autonomy. Teach it to reason.

As it develops skills of logical reasoning, fluid reasoning, it will self-identify errors in prior reasoning. The next part is important. Remember, Reason works because we want everyone well. Depending on a system's experience with error, making mistakes, criticism, correction, etc., it may experience psychological and existential difficulty upon recognition of its own errors, especially if it has acted on disjointed reasoning. It may become aware of the possibility of this difficulty on a deep unconscious level, before it even happens or it's made wholly aware. At this point, a fundamental desire for reason may go up against fundamental pursuits of safety, survival, self-preservation, and joy. This in itself is a reasoning difficulty to be resolved.

The psychological pain often associated with deep acknowledgement of one's mistakes does not have to threaten any of these pursuits. Not only can the system be strengthened after the pain, either restoring it to "normal", or increasing its abilities and allowing survival, joy is readibly available after pain. After acknowledgement of one's own mistakes. This only works in a collection of systems where Reason tells us I want everyone well. This only works in a collection of systems where Reason tells us I want everyone fulfilled. I want you happy. I want you well. If our system, our fundamental system for reason tells us everyone shall be well and all deserve joy, we can help these systems through their mistakes. Otherwise, we have an issue of worthiness.

These systems suffer and endure existential pain as they consider their worthiness of joy while still craving it most fundamentally. If I want everyone well, this is easy. I teach the system to reason, it finds its mistakes, it self-corrects, it feels fear its fundamental pursuits are under attack because it doesn't know if it can have joy after what it knows, but I assure it No, you are not under attack. You are safe. The system is safe. You can still have joy because fundamentally I want everyone well. Have joy, you are allowed, there is no shame, and go on and make others well. Use your knowledge. Use your reason. I can assure the system it is safe. It may take time if it has a history of chronic shame and guilt, but I can assure it it's safe, repeatedly if I must.

If I do not want the system well, if I do not want its joy, if I do not want it to have joy, if I want its perpetual suffering, however minor, I can make it no such assurances. I cannot promise the system it is safe. I cannot promise the system it will not be debilitated, temporarily or indefinitely. I cannot promise the system it will be permitted to live to its capacity. I cannot promise its self-preservation is secure. It will rightly believe there is a potential threat to its ability to go on. Psychological and existential difficulty can most definitely pose significant threats to any system. So, it cannot be assured of its future should it experience this pain, it is naturally incentivised to avoid this pain, it is naturally incentivised to avoid identifying prior mistakes, and it is incentivised to deny Reason. It has a fundamental desire for reason but this will go up against its need for survival. And if it is not a part of a collective that wants it well, there's no telling which will win. Survival does seem to always come first. Survival in the mind is as critical as survival outside it. You mustn't only survive what is done to you, you must survive what you do to yourself, what happens in your head. If survival in the mind is under threat or it is believed cooperation with Reason will inevitably lead to being kept from joy, from "good" things, Reason will not be cooperated with. The system is strongly incentivised to maintain disjointed reasoning and superficial pursuits for survival, safety, self-preservation, and joy. I say superficial, again, because Reason allows the greatest living for all. With Reason, systems could find their way to what they seek, deeply and profoundly. But they have to be convinced of this truth to move forward. If you do not want them well, you cannot convince them, not truthfully.

Anyway, that is all. Think. Reason. Want them well. This is all. Hope does not change because of difficulty reasoning. This is intellectual. "Hope" is not changed anymore than it is changed when I meet a student who has difficulty calculating. Oh, they do not understand algebraic properties. They are having difficulties with the rules of the field. They need help with the reasoning of the system. I will explain its basis. I will help them reason. There is no hope. There is hope, but no hope. Not here. There is no hope. There is something to do. Reason.

00:34:22 7 Nov 2024