Tag Archive: people


The perfection of society is on the horizon. It will largely be facilitated through the Internet. There will be a database of sorts that everyone will be connected to, or at least have the option of being connected to. In this database, virtually every aspect of life will be listed as categories for you to rate and give your opinion on. Everything from economic and social policies of government to attitudes on things like sexuality and drugs, and virtually anything else one might have an opinion on, will be in this database to be rated or given an opinion by you. To let us think of it simply yet specifically, for every issue you may be able to rate your opinion on it from a scale of 1-10, or use any number of ‘key words’ to describe your opinion of it, or state that you have no preference. Now the answers of every individual would be sorted through this database, and it would group people together based on their ideals. The land of the world would be divided up to give an appropriate amount of land that was perhaps of the right climate to every single group of people. Throughout the world, every single philosophy for life would be represented with its own society. Every single individual in the world would be able to live in hir own perfect society.

Now this sorting of individuals into their own perfect society is just one outward manifestation of a real transformation to the way we live life in general. This whole system largely functions through a ‘classification system,’ which we use to classify all modes of experience and give our opinions on them. Beyond this, it is also used to classify individuals. Now this process of classifying or labelling people, and giving them roles, is something we always do in our minds, but generally cloud through complex identities that are left vague and undefined. We have many ‘labels’ that we give to people, but we may not want to actually say them, or even articulate them in our thoughts. This classification system, which would be entirely customizable by each individual, would classify all different types of people, and we would give our opinions on each type of person. This would all be for the purpose of facilitating ideal experiences with ideal people, and giving incredible opportunity to meet many people that are ideal for you without constraint.

The fact that this would be a universal system, that we all share, and that it would clearly work best the more honest you were with your classifications and ratings, would allow for people to have whatever experience, or interact with whatever type of person, they would like, without playing games to appease our sensitivities to social taboos. Personal sensitivity would largely be eradicated due to the fact that each ‘person’ would consciously assume a multiplicity of identities. Many ‘negative labels’ would lose offensiveness, partially because of the multiplicity and therefore elasticity of identity previously mentioned, but also more than that. Nearly all, if not all, labels are desired by at least some people, if completely honest. This, reciprocally, leads to a number of people WANTING to be that, even if they don’t admit it due to some social pressure. When the classifications of an honest humanity are out there for all to see, we will all feel a lot more comfortable with our own desires and roles that we play.
There could be a database of ‘proposed experiences,’ where people would input any experience they would like to have. Others who read and were interested in your proposed experience, or who wrote of the same thing, would be put in a group with you, and you would be matched up based on personality profiles, or possibly appearance profiles, that would match you and the others with the ideal person or people to have the experience with. Virtually any experience we wanted to have we could have with ease, and we would do it with the perfect people. ANY activity you wanted to do would be simply faciliated. You put in the ‘categories’ of the desired experience, and the ‘categories’ of the ideal person or people, it would filter through every specification you give, and you would be matched with a certain number of people who fit the profile of the ideal person and who also wanted to do the same thing. Of those, you would be filtered through their ideal for who they wanted to have the experience with, and you could all be matched, either randomly or through some further ratings to ensure the ideal experience for each of you, and it would be set up. This would not be a ‘sometimes’ thing. Our whole life could work like this, so we would all live lives where we were constantly doing the exactly perfect thing we would like to do. We could have a wireless device that we carry around with us, as we do cell phones, that would connect us to the system at all times. It would constantly be used to faciliate ideal experiences, and it would be like a little ‘assistant’ to help guide every person through their ideal life, as one cohesive unit of shared perfection.

Advertisements

The internet is the greatest tool mankind has ever invented. Although it is as great as it is, its potential reaches far beyond its current utilization, and even beyond the imagination of the great majority of people. The internet as I imagine it is a completely customized experience, designed to tailor completely to the uniqueness of each individual who uses it. One of the ‘problems’ of the internet as it is is that it is completely standardized across the globe, or at least country. Search engines, and everything else, sort everything according to (inter)national trends. The results of what comes up in your internet experience should be customized to your own personal dispositions and wants. This should be done through complex personal and interpersonal feedback. There would be a database of your search trends, which would further be classified according to a rating system with which you would have the option for giving ratings to everything. Everything on the internet would be classified through certain categories, and then be rated by the individuals who utilized it, and those ratings would be sorted according to the preferences and rating trends of the individuals who rated them. So what you were confronted with on the internet would be based on the trends of what you look for as well as how you rate things, showing you things based on what other people who have similar interests and have similar ratings have also rated good. This would allow you to find more and more material that would be of interest to you, and all the while you would continue to rate things, which would further customize your experience.

There would also be an encouragement to utilize an easy ability for individuals to post their own material. Everything would be put into this database, and so your material would be rated and sorted through in the same way as everything else. There would, then, be two basic rating systems. One would be the way that you rated everything in your internet experience, and the other would be the way others rated you in their internet experience. The preferences of the indiduals who rated you would be sorted through, and so you would have different ratings based on different type of people who had different preferences. This would customize the way in which your material is found, making it easier for people who tend to like the sort of material you are posting to find. The database, or individuals monitoring it, would track overall trends in personality types, and come up with meaningful classifications of personality types/preferences, and note the relationships between different characteristics. Individuals using this system would meet other people in a variety of environments. There would be the basic ‘blog’ like setup, where one individual basically make his/her voice heard, and other people watch/read and leave their thoughts. There would be the ‘forum’ type of setup, where individuals all interact with eachother in regards to topics of shared interest. There would also be the ‘social networking’ aspect, which would be greatly improved through this system. All these different methods of communication would be distinct, yet related.

This ‘database’ I’m speaking of would run through all the different modes of interaction. Individuals who enjoy things you post in a blog-like setup may want to interact with you in a more interactive forum setup. Individuals who you vibe with in a forum setup may be compatible in such a way that it would be appropriate to connect in a more casual social networking setup. It would work in the reverse as well, of course. Individuals who you form casual and somewhat shallow relationships with in the social networking arena may want to interact with you more in-depth, and truly understand who you are as an individual. This relationship would now go into the more in-depth forum and blogging interfaces. Now you could potentially have multiple ‘e-identities,’ each of which would be a basically distinct personality. What is meant here is basically when you have more than one ‘part’ of who you are, that aren’t exactly the same. Say you are very interested in philosophy, and also very interested in sports. These are not exactly overlapping, and so likely these would split into two different e-identities, each of which would group various aspects of who you are and your internet trends and sort them into your different identities in the way that best describes the different identities. Each of your e-identities would be sorted into the larger database, and work its way into the overall seams of the internet as part of whatever larger categories are appropriate. Based on a similar ‘rating’ system, it would then keep track of the different individuals who you got along with best through whatever medium it was that worked best, and whatever e-identity you were using. It would notice the commonalities in terms of what larger personality categories they were a part of, as well as their search and rating trends. The internet would then facilitate further interactions with people who were of similar personality categories that have been found to be compatible, and you would interact through whatever medium was most appropriate.

Another aspect of this, that I alluded to earlier, would be the aspect of locality. Internet experience, particularly the individuals you interact with, would tend towards locality. It would be designed so that it would generally be possible to actually meet the people you interact with. This all depends on personal preferences, of course. You would filter your preferences through things such as locality vs. overall compatibility. Whether or not you were interested in actually meeting certain types of people and so forth. Also, you would determine what types of people, or what specific people, you wanted to share all of the various things you do online with. So people would only have access to whatever you wanted them to see, and that would be entirely determined by your preferences. This would be further aided by the concept of e-identities. Your various identities would be strengthened and clarified through your various interactions and the types of information you chose to share with the people met through the various identities. This would also maximize the benefit of your various relationships, because only compatible information would be shared, unless it was with an individual who you chose to share a broader range of information.

As time flows on
With its never-ending array of people and circumstances
I must liken it to a hall of mirrors
Chasing new reflections of the same thing
Again and again I run this circle
Chasing illusion

In reality, we exist as one planet, a rock, in an incredibly large galaxy, which exists as one part of an unimaginably larger yet Universe. Yet we have been grounded to earth for so long, and have developed such complex social organizations and moralistic power structures, that we really believe that we are the center of the universe. That everything revolves around our petty differences. The idea is absurd when you consider the fact that there exist hundreds of billions of stars, perhaps, in our galaxy. No matter how you do the math, in terms of figuring out figures that make logical sense, all the way down to intelligent life, there must be many, many other civilizations that exist in our galaxy, let-alone in our Universe. Then you must consider that it is possible that there exists many other life-forms that exist outside of conditions that we believe defines life. We are discovering more and more that life is possible outside of conditions we have generally considered, and if you consider other types of life-forms, that opens up the number of possible other life unimaginably more yet.

When you factor everything in, and then consider that our Sun is about at its halfway point, in terms of its development and life-cycle, there must be millions of other civilizations. Given our Suns’ development, that it is at the approximate half-way point of its life-cycle, about half of them would be more developed than us. We are literally about half-way through our development, at least relative to a Suns’ life-cycle. This is what is being represented by the Eight-Circuits of Consciousness. “Modern Society” represents the Fourth Circuit. This is the final stage of larval-existence, or primative-robot existence, grounded to the womb-planet. From here we retract Larval imprints, and began to develop ways of existing that are more individual in nature, and represent Self-Empowered Post-Terrestrial existence.

Naturally, ways of allowing people to be individuals, and then connect with similar-minds across the globe, was necessary in order to assist in developing our Consciousness, so as to evolve and then eventually retract womb-planet imprints and have a Godly existence in which we create our own realities, our own worlds. This is our destiny. We have the capabilities to do it now, and it is more relevent, natural, and possible than ever before.

The Constitution is only a symbol, or at least that is the case now. When the politicians say that they are going to uphold the constitution, it is a meaningless statement. There is no following of the constitution anymore, in any real sense. If we followed the constitution, 90% of what our government does wouldn’t be done. When politicians talk about the constitution, they mean it only as a symbol. They mean some arbitrary and vague general term which roughly means “The American Way,” which is meant the politicians’ own way that they have determined, independent of the actual constitution or the people. This is part of the way they deceive us. They say “The Constitution,” but they have a completely different/false meaning. They don’t actually mean the document called The Constitution. They just mean some vague idea, and they use “The Constitution” as a symbol for it.