Essence of ‘Arising’ and coming down 27/8/08
(5:30PM Woke up an hour ago from sleep)
Yesterday topic was crossing of the ‘Land’ where people in this world
define it is finite space ie limited. Is it? Remember on the
Problematic "Fin" where it takes so much time and effort conveying
information because of the different objects in aspects. Objects that
have missing information would convey things differently in terms of
light?
Most of us treat land as static; something that does not "Move". For buildings as well, something that does not "Move". I think people like to say there is a prefer sense we do not want land to be "Move" or moving to different land because of the so-called use-to-it.
Problematic "Abstract": It is the human who is really experiencing on their senses of their surrounding objects as they "Move". A human senses is very, very limited because there is an expectancy ratio in their own mathematical world of collected data of how things should be according to their own information.
Imagine: Stereotypical concepts of similar theme, similar plot, similar experiences fed into big systems itself again and again throughout time.
It questions the original purpose of the stereotypical concept the creator/s and where does it really want the society to lead into which is a just testing environment to lead a betterment for future society itself.
Problematic "Creators and Maintainers":
For example: A constructor builds a high storey building that uses the current concepts of the architect in the way they are built. As time goes on, the maintainence fee of these structure goes high because there would be a more improve, better object exist; such as cheaper cost, etc and the people who does the maintainer needed more work to do to upkeep the current concept which has become old - otherwords unefficient. Problem with high storey buildings is, it is very static when built.
Imagine: If moving people in is already hard enough. Moving people out could be caotic until asking every people and asking them what causes them to "Move". Ie: cost is respectively in accordance of how their cost in moving them "In" in the first place and the concepts that has been use to move them "In".
If systems can be built in transistional ways such as a flowing of objects and retaining a generic platform then the cost of "Maintainence" would be more efficient, otherwords pre-sent more on the present "Now" than before because the information has change already.
Imagine: Designing a high storey build that can be detach per unit leaving only concrete as the platform; with high mobility rate. Each smaller unit is a building block that has different type; maybe something like high storey building that is residential, commericial and industrial independence of the current wants of that building in time to time.
Imagine: Implying this to big static systems where concept design will reach to a stage of maturity and more concept arises to stretch from the origins.
Imagine: Humans as artist and actors morphing into onto different platforms everyday of their life which is natural.
In reference on Problematic "Abstract". It arises on
Problematic "Ownership":
Definiton: A person owns something such as the clock I see (on the left of the computer which I bought it for more than 50 bucks). Once I leave this room, I only know in essence that I own a clock but the clock is not in my experience for a certain period of time. So I would not know if the clock has been "Move".
It questions on how much humans are "Move" onto something that they did not own for a certain period of time biasing with something humans did own for the period of time.
This is the so-called "attachments" of worldly objects including the own self but may give the answer for Problematic "Creators and Maintainers" when there is a many-to-many in terms of creators and maintainers relationship and trying to bottleneck these two factors when one arises faster than the other; giving continual strains to both sides of the story when the creators continue create better ones and the maintainers training to upkeep to maturity.
Problematic "Maturity": Creators and Maintainers being "attach" to maturity in ownership of the creation itself, leaving little room for "Move" to adapt to the present "light" of information really exists. "Detach" from the "Attachment" and moving back to the origin clause of why did creators and maintainers exist in the first place.
So what is this "Why?" or so-called "Karma"(causes and conditions)?
Exploring a betterment for future human habituation which we ourselves continually changing without really knowing why or appreciate where should this world be really heading.
Appreciation of a own choice that needs to be made. When couldn’t do that, it would be crossing the barriers of what is the betterment for human habituation.
For example:
We all know vegetables is one of the easiest way for the digestive system work then why are we eating so much meat and so little vegetables? My dinner table has at least two-thirds with meat in them.
Some claim a mix of diet. Other claims it is their culture, nationality, language barriers. Other claims it is their own freedom. Others wants to convey something to their own bodies and others directly and indirectly. It is all valid. They can do what they want.
A more reasonable answer would be so long they know themselves it is right for their bodies to function in future according to their own preferences of the information that they know. As we all know past affects the present, present affects the future.
This is the same answer with people smoking with biasing of a past that there is no "Ownership" to but rather just a continual loop from some objects in our brains that causing to "Move" into certain patterns of thought and consciousness from our previous experience, education, upbringing or the so-called "definition" should-be from the Creator/s itself.
(8:51PM Time to sleep. Next topic: Choice from the "Mix Bag")
