Existential Kink

In order to get sufficiently detailed about the OKIC revorelational simplicities, whereby we can examine in the first part of Everyman’s Collection the internal compass in complex enough detail, we have to compartmentalize the outer kaleidoscope. Playing on the “k” in kaleidoscope, let’s do that by noting a relevant bit of existential kink.

As soon as humans are not under life and death pressures, culture has us projecting all kinds of unknowns, uncertainties and hypotheticals on to the universe. These range from “big picture”, deeply thoughtful questions to the most trivial of matters. What is in common among them? We don’t have a ready answer. And an internet search will likely make it worse.

Of course triviality is as often as not a matter of perspective. Fascinating kaleidoscopic reflection or hall of mirrors distortion game. Depends on whether you are the one trying to justify your views with one or the other. It’s not hard to conclude that culture — as well as the existential verion of no answer for “what matters?” — is on striking display in the kaleidoscopic macrocosms of media, business, politics, music, art etc.

“I,” as in direct experience, is by its very definition the only truly, fundamentally unanswerable mystery in existence. “Answerable” just means can be responded to in one way or another. “I” cannot be responded to in my whole complete form. “I” is a lived experience and can only be related to.

At the level of psycho-social complexity, there are two basic reality delusions. That existence in real time must at base be reducible to uncertainty and meaningless flux. Or a determined though ultimately indiscernible plan is under way and we are witless participants. Evidence that they are delusions is simple: we encounter orderiless at every turn, even in the most distressed areas or moments.

According to OKIC, the universe isn’t mysterious to respond to. Even if the response is, I don’t care to understand the inner workings etc, the perception of context, the ability to adapt to patterned or novel context, means there’s always a universe to respond to.

To make religious parallel, the nature of God is not fundamentally a mystery at all. God mysteries are simply reflections of the experiences of the collective experiences of devotees. This begs the deep question of what participation not just involves, but what it entails and implies. What it means, collectively, as far as the nature of shared reality.

In practical terms, in Part 1 we deal with vibe, in Part 2 constraint. What is special about vibe in Part 1 is that it is concerned only with time-constraint. This is sufficient to make all needed representations, but it is not sufficient to completely model experience and shared reality.

Many find “I” am a central mystery quite compelling already. It’s the stuff of the New Age movement and self-help genre. Scratch the surface of the required self-absorption and you quickly notice that everybody else is an “I” too. With this, the kink takes on the ominous. I’m Okay You’re Okay, but what about everybody and everything else? Are the distortions of others really truth, or are they their mysteries to wrestle with? Please just keep your bad vibe away from my good one. I challenge anyone who suggests OKIC is just another New Age movement. I suppose if you only read Part 1 and ignore Part 2, you may find yourself justified. For now, I ask you to trust that the existential kink is actually a hidden kaleidoscope and we have to first examine in detail the puzzle of grace and participation in order to reveal its true nature.

In short, the dynamic version of participation, where “I” am mysterious, can be characterized as a shared morphic experience. We are in a dance with others. Our participation is both mysterious and an integral part of the whole. We can’t, after all, not participate. It’s a kind of effortless integrity. Timeless context being presented, and then re-presented in various contexts with a variety of time-constraints, relatable insofar as they become part of timelines. More on that to come.

Culture-wise, conscientiousness can be defined as self-conscious and/or aware of one’s own participation. If I’m participating, I won’t be subject to the lawlessness and mayhem of others. But what does it mean “if I am participating”? How can one not participate?

But of course, us humans are so very clever at finding loopholes. If “I” am the central mystery and I employ a reality strategy in which self-control is central. This is the same undercurrent as we met in the Introduction with I’m Okay You’re Okay. “Pick yourself up by your bootstraps” mentality might protect us from the unseemly parts of mystery. But it reduces effective participation to the ability set and keep constraints. With this, in essence, our constraints serve as context. This requires ourselves and others to “behave”, the topic of the next section.

Unfortunately, putting this loophole in our kink, which is necessary only to remind us we are hiding a kaleidoscope, reeks of self-deception. In an information-rich world, when context is interchangeable with constraintedness of participation, participation soon takes on the unpleasant and disorienting semblances of The Matrix film. Take a participant, put them in a representational void (constraints minus mystery), program it, or otherwise limit it to self-control, and you get deterministic paradigms, simulation hypotheses, and solipsistic reality strictures. The better angels version is stoicism, which results when participation is constrained but also subject to mystery. (If you don’t know what any of the last paragraph means, don’t worry! I included it to succinctly address dissent among philosophy-minded readers.)

OKIC fills the self-deceptive logic gaps created by such solutions, proving once again life is engaged and engaging. When seen timelessly, free will does not threaten anarchy but rather builds potential. Organic life functions distinctly but is not separate from in silica life. Participation matters, in ways that are quite real, though they tend to be invisible to us as individuals.