The language of autonomy, the language of heteronomy; language as a tool, language as a weapon. This, for those that may be interested, is why I bother with ‘semantics'; without a form by which ideas can be expressed and explored, without a construct of feedback there is no possibility of enriching and evolving the signal of the Whole. The constant bum rap that verbal expression gets is undeserved in my perspective, because it isn’t the verbal expression that is the problem, it is the unconscious embedded signals of programmed purpose and intention within the verbal expression and words that is the problem.

Verbal/written expression is one of the choices within a rich palette of feedback mechanisms that are built into all expressions of manifestation within everything *outside* Source; within Source the beginning of this feedback mechanism is choice- before choice there is simply infinite possibility existing simultaneously, there is no feedback available and thus no evolution is possible. An infinite sea of endless possibilities and none taken until choice happens. Choice is the plucking of that particular string out of the infinite strings that *could* have been plucked. This particular string vibrates its note through the All, which includes the manifested realms, and this vibration creates an interaction with the Whole, feedback within the system that *wasn’t there before the string was plucked*.

All feedback mechanisms are language that is specific to that organism or group of organisms. It arises from the function, the purpose and intention of the organism or system and the degree of complexity of the purpose and intention of the organism or system is the degree of complexity within the language/feedback system these develop. The mechanism involved in sending a message to one other individual is far different from the kind of complex infrastructure necessary to co-ordinate a global postage system; the connected language and communication systems that arise from this function, purpose and intention are going to contain specific words and concepts that are relevant to that environment and those elements that are connected to it but will find few that understand these *outside* that system. All specific systems are the same- the language/feedback system of the orchid that is dependent on one particular wasp breed for its survival is a very, very specialised and specific language- it won’t work on other wasps, and the language the wasp speaks is also specific because the orchid is the only plant the wasp interacts with. Without this finely tuned and extremely specialised language, both organisms die. This is a very tightly closed system and from the perspective of the evolution Consciousness it’s not going to be a long lived one because the parameters are far too narrow- one thing out of place and both organisms fail.

Chaos- also known as randomness- exists within all systems as a function of testing, refining and evolving the system. (This is why I personally do not experience the virus as something ‘wrong’, I experience it as something to observe, learn by and evolve beyond). The degree of complexity that arises within a system requires a corresponding degree of ability and scope within the language/feedback mechanisms it uses; part of the challenge of evolving systems is to parallel the evolution of the communication mechanisms with the increasing complexity within the system itself. An example of this can be found in the progression of communication systems on the planet: small tribes only occasionally encountering one another and thus having little reason to develop a common platform (often resulting in territorial conflicts or passing each other by with little more than a nod and keeping a wary eye on one another; more frequent contact resulting in the development of such things as the intertribal sign language used by certain Native American communities, or the smoke signal language that allowed members of a tribe to communicate in a unique language with one another over long distances (and resulted in some members of other tribes, with their own purpose and intention, to learn the language of another tribe’s smoke signals); increased intertribal contact requiring the creation of treaties or boundaries and a system of agreements around particular territorial arrangements- which requires the skills of bi-lingual or polyglot members of each tribe; expansion into new territories with a desire to keep in touch with family left behind results in things like the pony express, which is problematic and results in the telegraph and the development of a new language- Morse code- based in part on older languages such as drum language and smoke signals; more complex systems develop that require more complex responses and languages, until we arrive at the current global system of interglobal and instant communications in a variety of interfaces, all with their own specific and situational subcontexts and languages. To ignore this natural development process- as an entirely different element from the consideration of the *purpose and intention* that such systems might be turned to- is akin to ignoring the body’s need to sustain its own processes; in both cases, unwanted outcomes eventually arise.

As I see it, the world is currently in a mess in part because it hasn’t learned how to effectively communicate across a wide range of platforms- there hasn’t been an effective base platform created in an open source kind of way. What do I mean by open source? In the computer world there are two major streams of programming development: one is the closed system, proprietary approach taken by Microsoft and Apple (although interestingly Microsoft has begun to shift this because the company has essentially realised it’s lost the war)- the proprietary approach to their source code has meant that their products have been locked down and cannot be tweaked- or ‘hacked’, which is NOT ‘cracking’, the black hat, mayhem causing activities designed to create chaos and disorder- the creators of major viruses, trojans and worms are crackers, not hackers, which is a much more ubiquitous term; so the proprietary software cannot be altered or changed in any way. This means hackers cannot get in and fix any bugs- and in the case of Microsoft, there are MANY bugs- and thus the platform was only useful for those who didn’t want a more fluid and responsive system that could be tweaked to suit the specific requirements of the user. Proprietary software is an expression of the heteronomy- it provides a ‘one size fits all badly’ service that restricts the user to a narrow band of experience and interface- you get what you get and you either like it or lump it, because there is no room for change.

Open source is a platform that has been created worldwide in a giant co-operative co-creation that has efficiency, elegance and usability as some of the baseline parameters. What open source does is keep all the code out in the open and able to be changed as suits the individual- it is a dynamic system that can respond to the degree of competence of *the individual*, rather than being rigidly locked into the parameters and thinking of someone else, which is what proprietary anything does: proprietary religions, systems, thinking, social constructs- all are *external authorities* attempting to exert their particular brand of heteronomy onto the individual. Software hackers just happen to be a particularly non-compliant bunch, who don’t see why something needs to be done stupidly just because someone with less vision and ability says so, and so they just go and create more robust and fluid systems which eventually bring monopolies- like Microsoft- to their knees. Microsoft dominated while the masses were mostly unfamiliar with the language and protocols, individuals who were content to point and click; now there are many many more individuals who, having grown up with the systems, are far more selective and discriminating in the freedom with which they wish to engage their technology. More and more users are turning to the open source freedom of Linux based operating systems, Dell- the previous bastion of Microsoft’s proprietary control of operating systems- has recently indicated that it is installing Linux based systems on their machines in the developing markets of India and Russia. Education of the individual and an evolution of understanding has resulted in the looming extinction of the software monopoly that Microsoft enjoyed. I see this as a reflection of the demise that all heteronomies are doomed to- as the individual becomes familiar with the new language and feedback, the system is changed and either evolution happens or the particular platform dies .

In part, what I am doing is exploring the open source approach to social systems hacking- *hacking* as it refers to improving, making more functional, robust and capable of being a stable platform that can support a wide framework of individual requirements- I am interested in creating something that works for the widest range of expressions. I am fully aware that there will be many who want nothing more than ‘point and click’ in most functions, either physically or otherwise- point and click philosophies, thinking and behaviour are the way the majority wish to live. I’m aware of that. So is the evolution. What I am discussing is something that is not the point and click anything, but rather a willingness to consciously co-create the experience of the physical reality I engage in, and discovering those that wish to do the same.

For those who are interested in a more robust consideration of the principles I’m talking of here, this is an excellent place to start- http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/cathedral-bazaar/

So perhaps now there can be more of an understanding of what I’m discussing and less of the personal attacks regarding my language and perspective.

I’m engaged in open sourcing social constructs and their connected platforms. Where the signal now appears to be at is a process of distillation of the best of these systems into a new base platform, because all complex systems regularly undergo this defragging process- it’s the way that the evolution Consciousness engages in its own energy efficiency auditing. It’s observed on the planetary level in the regular cycles of extinction and emergence of new and more complex life forms- part of the current auditing is an interest in avoiding a complete reboot of the sentient Beings and their systems. This is in connection with some complex interweaving of a whole raft of interconnected elements, the consideration of which I’m writing about in other places. In this particular post I’m concentrating on the communication systems , in particular the development of a high level of awareness around language and the way it’s used; what I observe in the general population is that they’re running about with the power of creation at their fingertips and they mostly use it to fling poo at one another, or to feed the heteronomy. There are very relevant connections in why so many spiritual and religious traditions say that the word brought all the physical realms into Being- and here ‘word’ does not have to be restricted to spoken because that’s just *one* way to do it. Given the way I think and what I have researched, immersed my Self in as a result of this, it seems to me that taking language and feedback systems as part of the whole system, not as the dirty bathwater that needs to be thrown out, is part of the increasing of the complex signal. All complex systems are going to develop correspondingly complex and nuanced communication systems as part of their feedback mechanisms; what I am aiming for is one that is more harmonious with my personal preferences and pleasure in communication, which in part involves telepathic and energetic engagement.

I utterly constrict my telepathic receiving here at this point in time and have done so since early childhood. So many individuals ask ‘why can’t we activate our abilities?’ and I find the answer totally obvious- there’s enough noise generated out there as it is to cause real harm to natural receivers, telepaths and sensitives- it would become almost impossible for any such Beings to live here were those who cannot think cohesively to suddenly be able to broadcast their mental chaos on all bandwidths; even as restricted as what it is, I still have to run major shields against the white noise while being in any group of size. I for one am grateful that the abilities are not yet evident en masse: it would not result in a less chaotic world, as I see it. And I think about things in a fairly interconnected way, so I’m not being uninformed when I say this.

~*~