tags: syntax published on:
The definition of our audience means that we state our rationale of engagement with society.
If we exist in a publicly accessible form, we need to state the scenarios for engagement that exist and be clear about sustaining those scenarios. Otherwise there are course-corrections later that even disrupt prior arrangements.
We cannot deal with course-corrections so easily because we resist change that is a more reactionary measure than a natural evolutionary process.
We are alright with the idea of change that stems from a flux, from a process that is self-generated and self-developed. But when causalities develop we are uncomfortable.
This is the reason why we insist on stating the modalities of our social contract and we insist on a certain fulfilment of this contract.
Our social contract says that we are self-fuelled vehicles. We do a kind of analytical study of society and we offer the outcomes of the study to everyone for consumption and assimilation. We perform this offering because we wish to stop existing within the ontological framework imposed on us by the world and actually do the reverse. That is project an ontological framework onto the world and subject the world to live within that framework.
Nothing exists, there is no natural state of entities which can be appreciated. On the other hand, everything exists in the shadow of some or the other nexus in the framework and yield information only on being seen in relation to this nexus.
Our social contract is the result of pursuing a benign relationship with the world and failing. We failed so badly that for a point we were dejected, we actually attempted a rethink of the terms of mutual co-existence that we were offering the world and wondered if the terms were harsh. But this phase did not last very long and we quickly realised that the terms being offered were not harsh but the world is an exploitative negotiator. Being offered the possibility of diffusing the state of war with any particular individual doesn't make sense. What would be the motivation of such a contact? Fear? A lack of confidence? Disinterest?
The world refused to take up our offer and now it has to suffer the brunt of our aggression. When we unleash our aggression, we don't know how far and how deep it will burn the surface of the enemy. We don't know, we might even manage to do away with the world. If that happens you can all seek asylum in the expansive world.
Seeking asylum is a tricky business. The application process followed by its approval process is very time consuming. We have to first ascertain that you do not belong to the world. Because if you do then invariably you will not be able to accept the new order. You will keep invoking the world, comparing our ways to the ways of the world. You will be miserable, fighting for a lost cause and you will make us miserable too. We refuse to see any misery. We refuse to be miserable. So we advise those of you who are not already part of our world to seek membership. Later when there is no world left anymore, we don't want you to stand at the periphery of our world, waiting for our response to your asylum application.
Our social contract requires us to become a source of light for the dark lives of the multitudes. We need to become a radar which helps people in finding their way to us. Once they have found us there is absolute safety for them of course. A part of our contract is the insured security for the members of our world. And we do not have any general empathy or humanity. If you are a part of the world, we save your life. Else, we do not care.