Notes From David My Son

Hi there,

I heard from Jane you two were in another auto accident similar in circumstances to the previous.Wow! Lucky you two are OK but I heard your back is bothering you. Is there anything I can do.

Love,

DE

I revised that last mumbo-jumbo writing so here I plague you again with it. Maybe this writing's brain pain will surpass your back's pain. I am ultimately interested in promoting peace and

harmony amongst humans, since I clearly see what is potentially in store for the anthropomorphic world we live in. Today's mind pondering is as follows:

I find it fascinating that all great civilizations had a shelf life.

Civilizations, were (indirectly) built to mimic a cradle to grave life cycle, and the idealism of immortality by the hosting enclave. This mindset has held together throughout the citizens, slaves, and outsiders primarily through perception / conventional wisdom that deemed life as harsh / competitive / vulnerable / cradle to grave scenario. Humans engaged in fortifying, protecting, conquering, coveting, fight-flight, scorning the outsiders. While many rulers, like Herod, a Pharaoh or Emperor, described life beyond death and were the icons, living in comfort with pleasures.

Fascinating that the Roman's anthropomorphism required the identity of "the outsiders", Barbarians, to proclaim, enhance, and validate human life as a struggle to survive amongst (and above) the many enclaves of humans. Furthermore, I speculate, in war, a reciprocal (closely related) definition of survival equates to victory for survival amongst the Barbarian and Roman alike. Ironically, both sides desire to survival yet taking life as the ultimate destruction and sacrifice as the symbolism and terms for warfare. The ultimate rewards for successful warfare, out-competing for resources amongst the greater populations of humans. Order amongst the varying groupings, under this perception, requires in peace to trust yet never trusting completely. War is always just around the corner or the plausible outcome for the growth and progress of the dominant and victorious civilization.

Ultimately, the aforementioned historical perception of human progress requires victories to control resources (including but not limited to natural, economic, intellectual, technological). Going forward, to understand the aforementioned perceptional mindset reveals and scrutinizes human history, leveraging to validate a newer perspective. We are no longer limited to define the world from behind our forts. The Internet is a powerful tool, seeing and walking in the same shoes as any person outside our “safe barricades”. The Internet is a common meeting place amongst the various enclaves [163 +/- countries] of average humans, engaging in “the meeting of the minds, fairness and healthy competition. We do this without the vulnerability our bodies present, without the object that makes us vulnerable to assault. In cyberspace, humans are no longer the destroyers of life itself. Open communication on the Internet will continue to expose the similarities amongst the greater array of persons living in their special and unique geographic and cultural enclaves. This is without governments, political or military forces of influence.

I believe human sustainability (thinking outside the cradle to grave mentality) is not about victory to control resources. Humans are too successful as a species to fall prey to not thinking outside the box or adapting to many different circumstances and perceptions. Additionally, in war there are the losers whom still have to survive without access to the cherished resources. Hitler wanted total annihilation of vast enclaves of humans, otherwise remaining to contradict living outside perceptional dictum for a superior race.

I think most human beings desire fairness without conflict but vulnerable to persuasion to accept conflict for access to resources if they can be victorious (greed or desperation). It is the tiniest of circumstances that can shroud truth, persuading the greater array of fair- minded people to engage into destruction (Example: Hitler shaping perception for the entire Austrian-Prussian Empire). I believe human order is an individual's desire to access information and knowledge, not just possessing material goods or natural resources (through victory, industry or circumstance). With this true, then the aforementioned empire realizes a truth, which exposes internal struggle and subsequent delinquent behavior for past actions. They can live with a wrongful gain through a sense of illogical repudiation. As human beings, we should be questing to understand how we perceive rewards for the self and amongst our populations (just as much or more so than punishments).

In today’s highly-technological and accelerating environment the numerous enclaves are thinking outside the box when it comes to the traditional rules of warfare. This alone changes world order. It is a direct result and consequence of the Internet’s power and speed to gain coherent and factual information by those otherwise limited or restricted to the power of information (Oh boy, Pandora’s box, censoring information like China or misinterpreting and misrepresenting documentation, taken as fact).

Hi There,

As per other discussions, I am ultimately interested in promoting peace and harmony amongst humans. Today's mind pondering is as follows:

I find it fascinating that all great civilizations had a shelf life.

They were built not to last, primarily due to perception that deemed life as harsh / competitive / vulnerable. In terms of human interaction (let alone the larger biosphere) this meant,

fortifying, protecting, conquering, coveting, fight-flight, scorning the outsiders (e.g. barbarian's termed by the Roman's to identify anyone outside the order of Roman civilization).

Fascinating that the Roman's anthropomorphism required the identity of "the outsiders" to proclaim, enhance, and validate human life as a struggle to survive amongst (and above)

the many enclaves of humans. Furthermore, I speculate, in war, a reciprocal (closely related) definition of survival equates to victory for survival. Taking life as the ultimate destruction

and sacrifice is understood by all factions as the mechanism to ultimately survive, out-competing for resources amongst the greater populations of humans. Order amongst the varying groupings,under this perception, requires trust yet never trusting.

Ultimately, all human progress can be perceived upon victories for control over resources

(including intellectual). The ultimate key to living is not solely understanding history but to step outside the norm and simulate the "what ifs" from an altogether different perception.

Where can this be accomplished, at very little social, economic, political or environmental expenditure (in every sense of the word expenditure).

I believe human sustainability is not about victory to control resources and has been falsely realized and accepted when conflicts result in victors gaining control over resources and acknowledged through retribution by the defeated. The ultimate act of taking life and giving life in war further enhances the validity that victory and dominance control human world order. I think most human beings desire fairness

without conflict yet can be persuaded to accept conflict for access to resources if they can bevictorious (greed or desperation). Furthermore, I believe human order is based upon the individual's desire (and fairness) to be rewarded (with access to information, knowledge, material goods or natural resources)

Amazing that world order is askew through a common belief that the human world is based on victory and sustaining victory (primarily for access and control over resources or future resources through conflicts).This really solidifies the fight or be destroyed mentality (even found in modern story telling, example, Star Trek episode s (fight, flight, trade but rarely trust other intelligent life forms) meaning the perpetuation and

belief that the universe is based upon (anthropomorphic) survival.

So, back to my question, where are the "what if's"

simulated and by whom? It is found in a place not

knowing any borders and a place outside the influences of enclaves. It is open to all empowered with a computer.

Both questions and answers are flourishing in this environment (although not meaning timely or correct solutions will be applied to reduce, divert or eliminate conflicts). The Internet. Cyberspace. Combine this tech with other techs and the human world is absolutely available to react from a new perspective, other than the long standing conflict / survival model just defined. It is a place where humans can approach others, on equal terms or freely expressing (except in China) ideas without censorship. Not forgetting to mention the lightening fast pace information is disseminated. Perhaps world order will be reshaped / redefined from a more balanced perspective of human nature, where personal opinions register

a consensus, as powerful as any country or political faction.